SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
78–960PS
2002
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS AT
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
THE FY 2003 BUDGET REQUEST
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
APRIL 23, 2002
Serial No. 107–53
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
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
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
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
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
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL M. 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
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
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
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
PETER ROONEY Subcommittee Staff Director
MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member
ERIC WEBSTER Professional Staff Member
CAMERON WILSON Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member
MARK ABDY Professional Staff Member
MARY DERR Majority Staff Assistant
MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
April 23, 2002
Witness List
Hearing Charter
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Prepared Statement by Representative Constance Morella, Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Panel
Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Dr. Genevieve M. Matanoski, Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University; Member, Science Advisory Board, and Research Strategies Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Dr. Eli M. Pearce, President, American Chemical Society
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Discussion
STAR Transfer to NSF
Attracting Scientists to EPA
Peer Review at EPA
EPA Homeland Security Initiative
Budgetary Concerns
EPA's Regulatory Development Process and Staffing
Impact of Budget Cuts
Basic Science at EPA
Nanotechnology
State of the Environment Report
Appendix 1: Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Biography
Answers to Post-Hearing Majority Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Democratic Questions
Dr. Genevieve M. Matanoski, Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University; Member, Science Advisory Board, and Research Strategies Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Biography
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Eli M. Pearce, President, American Chemical Society
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted Testimony in Support of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Fellowship
Agenda for the EPA Science Forum 2002: Meeting the Challenges
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUEST
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:35 p.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
78960a.eps
HEARING CHARTER
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Science and Technology Programs at the
Environmental Protection Agency: The
Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002
2:30 P.M.–4:30 P.M.
2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
Purpose
On Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at 2:30 p.m., the House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards will hold a hearing to examine the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) FY 2003 budget request for Science and Technology programs. The Subcommittee plans to examine the strategic directions identified in EPA's budget, and whether the funding for Science and Technology and the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the research arm of EPA, is adequate to produce the science needed to protect public health and the environment.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Subcommittee plans to explore the following questions:
1. Does EPA's budget request appropriately balance investments in basic research with applied research, and in activities that support regulatory decision-making with those that identify future environmental threats? Is EPA's science and technology budget keeping pace with environmental research needs?
2. Why is EPA eliminating the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) graduate fellowships program? How does the Agency plan to fill the gaps left by this program?
3. What research is EPA carrying out to address terrorism? Is all such research identifiable as terrorism research in the FY 03 proposed budget? What are ORD's plans (including goals, timeframe, and process) for implementing the proposal to use $75 million from the Superfund Trust Fund for research to detect contamination and clean buildings exposed to biological or chemical agents? Is there or will there be a written plan? Is this a one-year or a multi-year initiative?
4. What is EPA doing to carry out Administrator Whitman's commitment to produce the Nation's first national ''State of the Environment Report?'' How do ORD's programs support this effort?
Background
The Office of Research and Development is the science and technology arm of EPA. It has primary, but not exclusive, responsibility for providing research to inform the scientific basis of regulations and rules required under statute to protect human health and the environment.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ORD is organized into two staff offices, two national centers, and three national laboratories focusing on risk identification, assessment, and management. The Staff offices—Resource Management and Science Policy—provide direct support to the Assistant Administrator. The National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory focuses on risk identification and has divisions in Research Triangle Park, NC; Gulf Breeze, FL; Duluth, MN; Corvallis, OR; and Naragansett, RI. The National Exposure Research Laboratory focuses on risk assessment and has divisions located in Research Triangle Park, NC; Cincinnati, OH; Athens, GA; and Las Vegas, NV. The National Risk Management Research Laboratory focuses on managing and reducing risks from pollution and is located in Cincinnati, OH; Ada, OK; and Research Triangle Park, NC.
Linking appropriated funds to specific programs at EPA is extremely difficult. Several years ago, in response to requirements for greater accountability under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), EPA organized its strategic planning and budgeting functions around strategic goals (e.g., clean air, clean water, sound science, etc.) As a result, Congressional budget accounts cross many EPA offices and 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.''
Understanding the budget for research on science and technology at EPA requires the subcommittee to examine two aspects of EPA's budget: the appropriations for the Agency's Science and Technology (S&T) account and the budget for ORD. ORD carries out most, but not all, of the science work at EPA. ORD also receives nearly all of its funds from the S&T account. However, 20 percent of S&T funds go to other offices, including the Office of Air & Radiation to fund work at several laboratories on indoor environments, air monitoring and regulatory support for mobile sources (Chart 1).
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, EPA typically transfers funds to ORD and the S&T account from the Superfund Trust Account to carry out Superfund-related research. Although the transfer has been approximately $37 million in recent years, this year's budget proposes transferring $111 million, an increase of $75 million, to support research to detect contaminants and clean buildings exposed to biological or chemical agents, such as anthrax.
78960b.eps
Overview of the FY 2003 Budget Request
The Administration's FY 03 request for S&T funds for EPA is $670 million, or 4 percent less than the current fiscal year's level of $698 million. (The FY 02 figure does not include the FY 02 supplemental of $90 million for the S&T account). If transfers from Superfund to S&T are included, however, the request of $781 million is 6 percent higher than the current fiscal year's level of $735 million. (In each of the last few years, the Administration has transferred $37 million from the Superfund Account to the S&T Account; for FY 03, the Administration is seeking to transfer $111 million, $75 million more than last year.)
The Administration's request for ORD is $514 million, or 5.5 percent less than the current fiscal year's level of $544 million. (The FY 02 figure does not include the FY 02 supplemental appropriations received by ORD.) If Superfund transfers to ORD (via the S&T account) are included, the Administration's request of $627 million is 7.5 percent higher than the current year's level of $581 million. Because $75 million in this year's S&T request is new money from Superfund, ORD's base program for FY 03 is really closer to $552 million, 5 percent less than the current fiscal year of $581.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Administration's request excludes all previous Congressional earmarks. A number of earmarks are likely to be repeated this year, raising the concern that offsets are likely to be needed if EPA's bottom line remains the same. In recent years, however, Congress has increased the budget to cover the earmarks.
Historical Funding for EPA Science Programs
Like much of the funding for research and development outside of biomedicine, the budget for environmental research at EPA has been relatively flat. In constant dollars (i.e, adjusted for inflation), ORD's funding is 10 percent above 1980 levels but roughly equivalent to 1990 levels (see Chart 2). Funding for S&T follows a similar trend.
78960c.eps
Chart 3 presents trends in the S&T account. It begins in 1996 because Congress created the S&T account in that year.
78960d.eps
Elimination of the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Fellowship Program
EPA created the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) graduate fellowship in 1995 to encourage promising students across many scientific disciplines to obtain advanced degrees and pursue careers in environmentally-related scientific fields. It is a widely respected program. Since the program began, over 800 graduate and doctoral level multi-year fellowships have been awarded at 168 colleges and universities. STAR fellowships are highly desirable and competitive, with only 10 percent of applicants receiving funding. STAR is a unique program in environmental sciences that allows fellows to study questions that are of importance to the environment and to develop an understanding of EPA's mission. Awardees conduct research on such topics as watershed health and management and the effects of small particulate emissions on human health. In light of the expected wave of retirements among many government agencies' scientific ranks, including those of EPA, the STAR fellowship program has been viewed as particularly important in helping to create the next generation of well-trained scientists.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EPA's proposed FY 03 budget eliminates the $9.7 million fellowship program. In its budget rationale, EPA states that ''funding for the. . .program was eliminated as part of a larger effort to increase environmental science education at the National Science Foundation'' (NSF). However, no funding for the program appears in NSF's budget.
Over 500 graduate students, faculty and professional researchers have contacted the committee, to raise their concerns about the program's elimination.
ORD's Contribution to Homeland Security
ORD plays a significant role in helping EPA meet its commitments to homeland security in water security research and in detecting and removing biological or chemical contaminants in buildings.
EPA's Office of Water is coordinating the Agency's water security planning through a special task force set up for that purpose. The task force, which includes ORD, is developing a research plan for water security. The plan will identify the roles and responsibilities among government and non-government organizations in carrying out research. For ORD, the expectation for the remainder of FY 02 is to finish the plan, to begin verifying the performance of new technologies, and possibly to begin implementing new research priorities. Full implementation of the plan will take place in FY 03. However, the specific details of research will not be available until the Agency completes the research plan.
Two Science Committee bills would give EPA additional tasks related to terrorism. The Committee's Water Infrastructure Security and Research Development bill (H.R. 3178), under consideration in the bioterrorism bill conference, would authorize $12 million annually to provide grants, contracts and cooperative agreements for assessing potential physical, chemical and cyber threats, developing techniques for real-time monitoring, conducting research on response and recovery methods, and developing mechanisms for widely disseminating and sharing information. If the bill is signed into law, it will authorize water security research that ORD will presumably have a hand in conducting. H.R. 3996, introduced by Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall, would authorize funding of $100 million per year, increasing to $120 million per year over 5 years, for research, development and demonstration projects for clean water.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The most significant new initiative in ORD's proposed budget is the $75 million to research, demonstrate and disseminate techniques for detecting, containing, removing and disposing of biological and chemical contaminants in buildings and other structures. The Agency's experience cleaning the Hart Senate Office Building highlighted the need for methods to quickly identify contaminants, techniques to limit their spread, and a ready stock of treatments for a variety of contaminants on a diverse array of materials, such as building structures, ventilation systems, carpeting, and books and furniture.
ORD is the lead for the initiative and is developing an implementation plan, which it is coordinating with EPA's larger homeland security planning process and, also, to some extent, with the Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health. It expects to begin full implementation in FY 03 and complete implementation in FY 04. As currently conceived, the program will end in FY 04.
While EPA is moving quickly to implement this proposed program, many questions remain, such as how will the agency staff the program, which biological or chemical agents will receive highest priority, and whether the program should really end in FY 04.
EPA's State of the Environment Report
EPA Administrator Whitman called last November for EPA to publish the nation's first ''State of the Environment Report'' by November of 2002. The goal of the effort is to produce a scorecard to measure environmental progress. Her announcement responds to many who have suggested that high quality environmental information is needed if we are to move to a system that measures progress according to environmental outcomes instead of the number of permits written or enforcement actions taken.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ORD and the Office of Environmental Information are jointly leading the initiative. ORD's substantive contribution is its long history of assessing and measuring the conditions and quality of environmental and ecological resources, such as wetlands, watersheds, coastal areas, and airsheds. ORD's primary contribution to the effort will be the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) run out of its National Center for Environmental Research. To expand the EMAP program, the Agency has proposed a $4.88 million increase for a Mississippi River (Central Basin) Initiative.
In launching the ''State of the Environment'' initiative last fall, the Administrator also announced that the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) had agreed to convene a federal interagency work group to support the Agency's efforts. Much of the data needed for the report is collected by other federal agencies.
In creating the report, the Agency is confronting many issues, including whether the report will include public health and ecological indicators, whether it will report on existing data or create new reporting metrics, and whether this report will have the backing of other critical federal agencies. Other issues include whether this will be a one-time exercise or the first in a series of reports, and whether CEQ and the Office of Science and Technology Policy will fully support the effort.
Science in the Regulatory Development Process
In recent years, EPA has faced criticism for not employing the best science in designing its regulations.(see footnote 1) In response to this criticism, Administrator Whitman called for an internal Agency review to reevaluate how the Agency develops it regulations. EPA published the results of the review last fall and made many recommendations, including several for improving how science should support the regulatory development process.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Specifically, EPA committed to appointing a Science Advisor and to establishing explicit mechanisms for infusing scientific information into the regulatory development process at the appropriate times. The Agency has not yet appointed a Science Advisor, although the Administrator has given some indication that she would appoint the Assistant Administrator of ORD, who was only recently confirmed in that position. To meet the second commitment, the Agency chose to focus on involving ORD more fully and effectively in developing the analytic blueprint (or the roadmap that the Agency uses to develop new rules) and in the regulatory development process for the Agency's higher priority rules.
The first step the Agency took in FY 02 to meet this pledge was to designate eight additional staff who will participate directly in the rulemaking process. In the FY 03 proposed budget, EPA plans to add five more staff and $1 million, bringing the total additional commitment of staff since the release of the review to 13, over and above the many Agency staff who already participate in rulemaking. Some of the new staff are assigned to ORD laboratories as liaisons between the laboratories and the Agency's program offices that actually write the rules. How much progress these additional staff represent is difficult to know because there is not an accurate baseline to compare it with, nor was an analysis done to assess how many staff would be needed to serve this function.
Witnesses:
Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, former Chair, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB); member, Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the SAB
Dr. Eli Pearce, President, American Chemical Society.
Science and Technology Programs at the Environmental Protection Agency: The Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request
Chairman EHLERS. I now call the Subcommittee of Environment, Technology, and Standards to order. I am pleased to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed fiscal year 2003 budget for science and technology.
The role of science and technology at EPA is more important than ever before. Every day we read about the many environmental challenges facing the Nation. Science gives us tools to understand the threats facing the environment, compare their risks, and develop technically sound solutions. And even when scientific information isn't perfect, it offers policy makers the surest footing to make the right risk management decisions about protecting public health and the environment.
That is one reason I introduced, and the Science Committee passed, H.R. 64, a bill that would create a Deputy Administrator for Science at EPA. In my view, the bill would ensure that science at EPA is better coordinated and more fully infused throughout the Agency's decision making. I also believe that a Deputy Administrator would help ensure that science receives adequate funding as it competes with other needs within EPA's budget. Even as we await final action on H.R. 64, a review of EPA's budget today will be based on these very same principles.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Understanding the budget for research and science and technology at EPA requires the Subcommittee to examine two aspects of EPA's budget—the budget for the Office of Research and Development and the appropriations for the Agency's science and technology account. ORD carries out most, but not all, of the science work at EPA and ORD receives nearly all of its funds from the S&T account. However, some S&T accounts go to other offices, including the Office of Air and Radiation, which is somewhat of a puzzle. I presume there is a history to that particular arrangement.
My preliminary review of the President's proposed budget raises several issues of concern to the Subcommittee. First, the budget eliminates the Science To Achieve Results, or STAR, graduate fellowship program. This highly regarded program encourages promising students across many scientific disciplines to obtain advanced degrees and pursue careers in environmentally related scientific fields. The rationale for this cut is unclear and we would appreciate it if it were to be made clear.
Second, we must assess the President's proposal to dramatically increase investments in homeland security and what impact this may have on ORD's existing programs. While the Committee generally supports the Administration's priority to address homeland security, the proposed budget sets aside 75 million out of ORD's 627 million total budget for detecting and cleaning buildings contaminated with chemical or biological agents. This 75 million is 12 percent of ORD's budget and I am concerned with such a large percentage of the budget going into one area of research. The reprogramming of the 75 million also has the effect of reducing funds for ORD's base R&D programs by five percent below current levels.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, let me raise one additional concern, which I have raised many times before, and that relates to science funding more generally. Is the Federal Government properly balancing its investments in the physical and life sciences? Increasingly, I believe the answer is no. I am particularly concerned that EPA's budget for science and technology in inflation-adjusted terms is only 10 percent greater than it was in 1980 and is equal to 1990 levels, while budgets in the life sciences have risen dramatically. Given the significant increases in responsibilities that Congress and the American people have placed on EPA in recent years, can we really expect EPA to supply the best scientific information under these circumstances, particularly with so many new developments in science during the past 20 years?
In addition to welcoming all of our witnesses, which I will do in a moment, I wanted to especially recognize Dr. Paul Gilman in his first testimony before this Committee since being confirmed as the Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Research and Development. Dr. Gilman has experience in both the public and private sectors and served most recently at Celera Genomics directing research integration and policy planning, and previously was in senior positions at the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Energy, and the U.S. Senate.
Dr. Gilman, you have a distinguished career and we look forward to working with you to help build the finest possible research organization at EPA. And I might add that we will occasionally, as a Committee and a Subcommittee, hassle you, argue with you, be assured that our real purpose is to have a strong EPA with a strong research component. That is what I will be working for and, I believe, the entire Committee will.
I am very pleased to recognize, in the absence of James Barcia, the Ranking Minority Member on this Subcommittee—I am pleased to recognize Congressman Brian Baird, who has been a stalwart member of this Committee and also brings a scientific and technical background to us. I am pleased to recognize him.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS
Welcome to today's hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Fiscal Year 2003 budget for Science and Technology.
The role of science and technology at EPA is more important than ever before. Every day we read about the many environmental challenges facing the nation. Science gives us the tools to understand the threats facing the environment, compare their risks and develop technically sound solutions. And, even when scientific information isn't perfect, it offers policy makers the surest footing to make the right risk-management decisions about protecting public health and the environment.
That is why I introduced, and the Science Committee passed, H.R. 64, a bill that would create a Deputy Administrator for Science at EPA. In my view, the bill would ensure that science at EPA is better coordinated and more fully infused throughout the Agency's decision making. I also believe that a Deputy Administrator would help ensure that science receives adequate funding as it competes with other needs within EPA's budget. Even as we await final action on H.R. 64, our review of EPA's budget today will be based on these very same principles.
Understanding the budget for research on science and technology at EPA requires the Subcommittee to examine two aspects of EPA's budget: the budget for the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the appropriations for the Agency's Science and Technology (S&T) account. ORD carries out most, but not all, of the science work at EPA. And, ORD receives nearly all of its funds from the S&T account. However, some S&T funds go to other offices, including the Office of Air & Radiation.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My preliminary review of the President's proposed budget raises several issues of concern to the Subcommittee. First, the budget eliminates the Science to Achieve Results (or STAR) graduate fellowship program. This highly regarded program encourages promising students across many scientific disciplines to obtain advanced degrees and pursue careers in environmentally-related scientific fields. The rationale for this cut is unclear. Second, we must assess the President's proposal to dramatically increase investments in homeland security and what impact this may have on ORD's existing programs. While the committee generally supports the Administration's priority to address homeland security, the proposed budget sets aside $75 million (out of ORD's $627 million total budget) for detecting and cleaning buildings contaminated with chemical or biological agents. This $75 million is 12 percent of ORD's budget, and I am concerned with such a large percentage of the budget going into one area of research. The reprogramming of the $75 million also has the effect of reducing funds for ORD's base R&D programs by five percent below current levels.
Finally, let me raise one additional concern, which I have raised many times before, that relates to science funding more generally. Is the federal government properly balancing its investments in the physical and life sciences? Increasingly, I believe the answer is no. I am particularly concerned that EPA's budget for Science and Technology, in inflation-adjusted terms—is only 10 percent greater than it was in 1980 and is equal to 1990 levels, while budgets in the life sciences have risen dramatically. Given the significant increases in responsibilities that Congress and the American people have placed on EPA in recent years, can we really expect EPA to supply the best scientific information under these circumstances, particularly with so many new developments in science during the past twenty years?
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to welcoming all of our witnesses, I want to especially recognize Dr. Paul Gilman in his first testimony before this committee since being confirmed as the Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Research and Development. Dr. Gilman has experience in both the public and private sectors and served most recently at Celera Genomics directing research integration and policy planning, and previously was in senior positions at the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Energy and the U.S. Senate. Dr. Gilman, I look forward to working with you to help build the finest possible research organization at EPA.
Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join you in welcoming our witnesses, and I will keep my comments very brief. We hear a lot about the importance of basing environmental and regulatory decisions on sound science. And, hence, I think it is absolutely critical that we adequately fund that science so that we have the base of information we need.
I would like to join the Chair in his concerns about the cuts to the STAR program. It seems to me important, if we are going to have an adequate scientific basis for environmental decisions, that we have adequate training in our graduate institutions for people to conduct the research and get the training they need. As a former educator myself, as the Chairman is, and with a background in science, I think that is critically important. So I urge you to evaluate that carefully and see if there are ways we cannot adequately fund those programs.
I think we want to have balanced research in the Agency. And I would, again, echo the Chairman's concerns about whether or not we are getting a little out of balance in terms of how research dollars are being expended. I want to thank you all for being here and look forward to your testimony and thank you for your service.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you, Congressman Baird. If there is no objection, all additional opening statements submitted by the Subcommittee members will be added to the record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Morella follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CONSTANCE MORELLA
Mr. Chairman, our duty to oversee the budgets of the various agencies under our jurisdiction can be fairly described as a labor of love. Sifting through these documents year after year to unearth the particulars of each agency is a difficult, but important and highly rewarding task. Securing our future with sound investments in science and technology is perhaps the most important work of our committee. Your leadership in securing robust funding for science is well known and I commend you for your efforts.
Today we will be reviewing the S&T portfolio at the Environmental Protection Agency. For far too long, science at the EPA has been fighting a rear guard action, besieged from all sides. Its budgets have been flat and its chain-of-command unclear. Its programs are reviewed piecemeal and independent review agencies such at the National Research Council have frequently stressed the need for a more top-down approach.
The catch phrase at the EPA is ''sound science'' and like all good catch phrases, I couldn't agree more. We need sound science in our research, in our regulations, and in every one of our policy decisions. But getting ''sound science'' is more difficult than just saying ''sound science'' and we must find ways to strengthen the effort at the EPA.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''Sound Science'' means having strong leadership. I know Administrator Whitman is committed to improving oversight of the S&T account at EPA and I applaud her efforts to appoint a Science Advisor and conduct a thorough review for her historic ''State of the Environment Report'' due out in November. However, there are things the Congress can do to help. The Chairman of this committee has sponsored H.R. 64, which would create a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology at the EPA. I realize that I am preaching to the choir on this issue as many members of this committee have joined me in co-sponsoring this legislation, but I feel it is still important to go on record in support of Chairman Ehler's bill.
''Sound Science'' also means secure budgets. The Office of Research and Development has had a dwindling share of the overall EPA allocation. This is not appropriate. I realize that the recent economic downturn and the war on terrorism have had a draining effect, but we seem to be draining the science account faster than the others. I believe this is shortsighted. Investments in science repay themselves many times over and we need to keep our support robust. In particular, we need to make sure we are adequately training the next generation of researchers. I was very disappointed to see that the EPA had cancelled the STAR graduate fellowships program. Given the President's support of environmental research, this seems inconsistent and I believe it is a mistake. I have been in close contact with Chairman Boehlert on this issue and I know he and Ranking Member Barcia will be circulating a letter to appropriators to restore funding to this important program. I hope all of my colleagues on the committee will join me in signing on.
Finally, ''Sound Science'' means ''sound science.'' Work at the EPA must be above board. The EPA regulates our most important natural research and has primary oversight of the nation's environment. There will always be debates over the necessary trade-offs between physical and economic prosperity, between fair-use and exploitation. We cannot afford to have debates about the science. We only have to look to the disasters befalling science at the Interior Department after the Klamath Basin and Canadian Lynx scandals. Statements by well-meaning individuals to the effect of ''you can't trust the science because you can't trust the scientists'' should grab our attention. We need to do all we can to make sure science at the EPA is at the highest level possible. The NRC report, Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was critical of the lack of independence of the peer review process as EPA. These deficiencies need to be corrected.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I don't want to seem disparaging of the EPA or of the men and women who dedicate their lives to the protection of our environment. They should be applauded and their efforts supported. I believe that this means casting a critical eye on the EPA to assure the agency has the resources it needs to fulfill its mission and the leadership to get it done. I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses on what we can do to strengthen science at the EPA.
Chairman EHLERS. At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses. I have already mentioned Dr. Gilman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
He is joined in the Panel by two other outstanding witnesses. Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Professor, in the Department of Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, who is also a Member of the Science Advisory Board and the Research Strategies Advisory Committee at the Environmental Protection Agency. We are also joined by Dr. Eli Pearce, President of the American Chemical Society. And I have to commend the Chemical Society. They always are at the forefront in many of the legislative issues we deal with, and we appreciate your willingness to come here and testify on behalf of that association.
As our witnesses, I presume, have been told, we have five minutes of spoken testimony. We ask you with great urgency to try to remain under the five minute limit. After that time, the members of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions of you, and then you can add to your testimony or embellish it in response to those questions. We will start with Dr. Gilman.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL GILMAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your kind introduction. Let me start by extending an invitation to you and other members of the Committee and Subcommittee. We will be having what we call the EPA Science Forum on May 1 and 2nd, here in D.C., bringing in literally hundreds of scientists from around the EPA complex and from our extramural researchers, as well, to focus in on clean air, pure water, special sub-populations who may or may not be especially affected by things in our environment and also environmental indicators. We have a number of sessions planned and a number of posters to really go through the science at EPA and how it is integrating into the program. I think you and your staff might find that of some use.
I am here to testify on our budget request. Yes, sir.
Chairman EHLERS. For the record, where will that be held?
Dr. GILMAN. That will be held at the Ronald Reagan Building on 14th Street.
Chairman EHLERS. I ask everyone to take note of that. Thank you.
Dr. GILMAN. Thank you. I am here to testify today on our request for budget at the Office of Research and Development of $627 million. I am going to start by thanking Henry Longest, who was the Acting Assistant Administrator before I came in. He is responsible for a number of the processes that really help the Office of Research and Development run. And maybe we will have an opportunity to talk about some of those.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to focus on some recent accomplishments of that office and some of the new initiatives that are proposed in the '03 budget. I guess I get to do that as the new guy on the block for just one time. So I thought I would do that today.
Some new technologies—things that may not be associated with your thinking about EPA—microarrays, so-called gene chips, like the one have here in my hand. Today at EPA, tests to verify water supply safety are being incorporated into such technology. Indicators of male infertility, the effects of toxic substances on genetic function in organisms, and even applications that might be used to measure ecosystem health are being explored in such technology. We hear the phrase nanotechnology. EPA is engaged in research on nanotechnology in collaboration with places like the University of Kentucky, looking at better ways to sequester heavy metals.
We are developing non-invasive techniques for the early detection of lung cancer. Screening methods for pesticides that are particularly harmful to children. The Food Quality Protection Act requires us to focus on exposure to children and other special populations. While it might not be as exciting as a gene chip, things like this little garment that have been developed to help us really understand how children are exposed to pesticides in the environment that they operate in, are making a difference for us, understanding the biology that is special to children and we need to take account of.
Our EMAP program, our Environmental Monitoring Program, has recently released a report on the health of our coastal ecosystems and is being—and the methodology developed there is being adopted by a number of states around the country, really with almost no modification, because they feel very confident that the system is a good one.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the area of computation, we have created a virtual fish so we can understand in silico, if you will, the distribution of toxic substances in the tissues of that—those fish. We are developing models to better understand how chemical structures and the activities that are related to those structures can be analyzed and extended to compounds we don't know very much about.
Building on those kinds of accomplishments, we are proposing, in fiscal year '03, an initiative called Computational Toxicology, bringing together those advances in computation and genomics to better understand the effects of toxic substances.
We are developing a National Environmental Technology Competition to try and encourage and incentivize the development of new, more cost-effective technologies for reducing environmental pollution.
We are extending the EMAP program into the river systems of this country and our Central Basin Initiative. We have, as you have mentioned, a Homeland Security Initiative that I hope we can talk about today, and a new initiative, trying to understand the health and ecological consequences of biotechnology.
Mr. Chairman, there is no other Federal agency with as comprehensive a program in environmental public health and in ecological health, as well. I am committed to seeing that we in the Office of Research and Development and the scientists throughout EPA deliver to those in the regulatory side of the EPA and elsewhere at the state, tribal levels, the very finest science for the use in the various missions that we will be discussing today. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gilman follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL GILMAN
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD), and to share with you some of what I have found regarding the uniqueness and success of ORD's research program as I have recently taken over as Assistant Administrator for ORD.
ORD conducts leading-edge research and fosters the sound use of science and technology in environmental decisions in support of EPA's mission to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment. ORD research tackles problems to which resolutions will have immediate public health and environmental benefits. The advancement of the science and the development of answers to questions posed by environmental issues make EPA unique among federal agencies. No other federal agency has a comprehensive program in environmental public health and ecological impacts. No other agency is researching these issues in an integrated fashion. In addition, no other agency, despite large research budgets, can claim an impact on EPA's decision-making. EPA has clearly followed the NAS recommendations on research in support of risk-based decision-making—doing the right science and doing the science right.
INTRODUCTION
ORD's total budget request for FY 2003 is $627 million and 1945 work years. Of this amount, $514M is in the Science and Technology (S&T) Appropriation representing 75 percent of the Agency's S&T account. With this request, we expect to maintain our momentum in critical environmental programs such as Children's Health Research, Drinking Water Research, and Particulate Matter Research. In addition, ORD will launch new research initiatives in areas such as Homeland Security, Computational Toxicology, Biotechnology, and the Central Basin Integrated Assessment. The FY 2003 Request positions ORD to address the Agency's most pressing research and development needs while remaining on the cutting edge of scientific and technological developments.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STRENGTHENING SCIENCE
The credibility of EPA's decisions on the protection of human health and the environment depends on the strength of the science underpinning them. In fact, the quality of the science used by the Agency largely determines how well our environmental programs actually work, i.e., whether they achieve our health and environmental goals. Only a strong commitment to science can define the environmental challenges of the future and the best methods to address these challenges. I would like to thank my predecessor, Henry Longest, Acting AA for ORD, for the progress made in strengthening science at EPA through a number of successful ORD organizational improvements. His efforts helped to ensure that ORD research results provided credible, relevant, and timely support designed to inform EPA policy decisions.
I believe that scientific analysis should drive policy, and just as importantly, that neither policy nor politics drive scientific results. I know Governor Whitman is committed to ensuring that science informs policymaking at EPA now more than it ever has before. She has told me, loudly and clearly, that she is looking to me to exercise strong leadership to make sure that it does. I look forward to meeting this challenge. I will ensure that strong science plays a prominent role in all EPA decisions—regulatory and non-regulatory. During my tenure at ORD, I want the quality of EPA's science to be recognized and to be higher than it ever has been.
Making environmental decisions based on sound science requires relevant, high quality, integrated, cutting-edge research in human health, ecology, pollution prevention and control, and in socio-economics. To maintain both short and long-term relevance to EPA's mission, ORD's scientific research activities must reflect a balance across both problem-driven research and core research, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. To ensure the quality of our research program, ORD uses a coordinated, cooperative research planning process; rigorous, independent peer review; and inter-agency partnerships and extramural grants to academia that complement EPA's own scientific expertise. Lastly, ORD keeps a leading edge in research by focusing our efforts and resources on those areas where EPA can add the most value towards reducing uncertainty in risk assessments and towards enhancing environmental management.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Making environmental decisions built on sound science also includes ensuring that scientific findings are properly characterized and that science is used appropriately in the decision making process. To properly characterize scientific findings, the knowledge, assumptions, uncertainties, and disagreements regarding the science must be clearly stated. EPA's Risk Characterization Handbook guides the Agency in this area by providing criteria regarding transparency, clarity, consistency, and reasonableness in EPA risk assessments. The appropriate use of science in EPA decision-making is critical to the Agency's credibility. Addressing this concern was a central theme in Governor's Whitman's Task Force which reviewed the Agency's regulatory development process last summer.
While the Task Force found that the existing regulatory development process was sound, it did offer some recommendations to improve the involvement of scientists. For example, the Task Force recommended that an EPA Science Advisor be appointed and provide the leadership needed to assure that strong science play an increasingly prominent role in Agency decision-making. The Task Force also recommended that EPA scientists be involved throughout the decision-making process and help determine additional research and analyses needed to support sound decision-making. The Administrator has embraced the Task Force recommendations and has indicated her intent to appoint an EPA Science Advisor in near future.
The recommendations of the Administrator's Task Force pose significant challenges for ORD. Since more complex environmental science will now be included in the Agency's regulatory and non-regulatory decision-making process, ORD will be participating in more science policy decisions than ever before. The level of our participation will also increase as we assist the Program Offices in identifying the research and scientific analyses needed to support their policy-making. In short, our participation is not just desired, it is expected to ensure that EPA's policies are based on the strongest possible science.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Therefore, the President's FY 2003 budget request includes additional resources ($1M and 5 FTE) to enhance ORD's program support efforts. These additional resources will enable ORD researchers to increase their efforts to: (a) help other Agency scientists scope proposed regulations and decisions towards determining what types of research and scientific assessments will be needed, (b) review plans to properly identify data needs towards supporting a regulation, (c) assist in the development of scientifically defensible regulatory options, (d) ensure that technical products underpinning Agency decisions meet the Agency's guidelines for information quality, including rigorous peer review; and, lastly (e) ensure that the science underpinning our decisions is characterized appropriately, understandable, and that EPA managers have the best possible scientific information when making policy decisions.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the requested additional resources, in and of themselves, are only part of the solution. Rather, I intend to charge my ORD Office, Laboratory, and Center Directors to redouble their efforts devoted to program support. To fully meet the recommendations of the Administrator's Task Force and the Administrator's expectations of me, I must increase ORD's role in Agency decision-making and focus our research efforts—at the bench, in the field, and in our assessments—in those areas that will provide the strongest science towards informing environmental decisions.
EXAMPLES OF RECENT ORD SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The following highlights showcase ORD's leadership in meeting the scientific challenges of environmental and human health protection as well as the striving for leading-edge science and engineering in support of environmental decision-making.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PM—Ten years ago our major concern related to particulate matter in air (PM) was on pulmonary disease, but there was little understanding of biological mechanisms of effect. Since then, as the result of moving away from an exclusive focus on the lung, we have seen invaluable results from studies on: the correlation of PM with cardiovascular mortality; the link between PM and asthma aggravation in children; the demonstration of an association between cardiac regulation and PM; effects on the cardiovascular system; new insights on possible mechanisms of action; and the association of PM with lung cancer. Much of this work was reported by university researchers funded by ORD, other work was completed by EPA scientists.
Microarrays—Gene chips, or DNA ''microarrays,'' which combine biological with computerized capabilities, are being developed and used as diagnostic tools in numerous applications.
To evaluate a water supply's safety, the U.S. EPA and others currently rely on indirect methods which either measure indicator bio-organisms or on methods which use animal testing. A microarray approach under development will allow rapid testing of drinking water for harmful pathogens and chemical pollutants. This test will measure recently identified cellular messenger RNA (mRNA) shifts provoked by chemical or microbiological contaminants.
In a study on genetic landmarks of male fertility, in collaboration with academia, a microarray method to identify male infertility has been developed. This analytical tool may aid in the detection and study of environmentally- or chemically-induced male infertility.
In the new field of ecotoxicogenomics, microarray technology will allow unprecedented analytical speed in the understanding of how pollution levels affect an ecosystem. A critical need in watershed monitoring is the simultaneous diagnosis of field organisms' exposure to individual chemicals within mixtures of environmental stressors. Because there is very little gene sequence information available for target field organisms, an approach involving several different molecular biological methods has been developed to identify stressor-specific microarray reactions. Linkage of the earliest indicators of exposure to adverse effects in organisms and populations is sought. ORD expects to nurture research, through a STAR grant, with the goal of a test for water conditions and diagnostics using a single microarray slide.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Lung Cancer Biomarker—A recent study determined the feasibility of a sensitive assay to detect a biomarker in sputum identified as useful for assessing lung cancer risk in humans. Since sputum samples are easy and non-invasive to collect, this assay can be used for large scale epidemiological studies in the assessment of lung cancer risks.
Computational Sciences—The Agency often needs data about chemicals that is very expensive and time-consuming to collect. In order to save time, resources, and to minimize the amount of animal and other laboratory testing required, computerized alternatives have been explored.
Using magnetic resonance technology and pharmacological models, ORD has created a virtual fish that allows us to simulate exposure to chemicals and to accurately describe the uptake and distribution of chemicals in fish tissues. This in silico (computer-based) test method has been evaluated for chemicals which have vastly different bioaccumulation potentials, a major indicator of environmental hazard. The virtual fish is now being fitted with a virtual liver capable of simulating major metabolic pathways of pesticides and toxic chemicals.
ORD's SPARC (SPARC Performs Automated Reasoning in Chemistry) computer program is designed to calculate many characteristics of chemicals based on molecular structure. This program represents the next generation in knowledge-based, structure/activity relationships (SAR).
New Technology—ORD scientists are developing technologies to better measure the distribution and control the impact of contaminants on people and the environment.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In collaboration with the University of Kentucky, a novel adsorptive membrane system has been developed that can efficiently remove toxic heavy metal impurities from flowing water. ORD and Kentucky researchers have obtained three joint patents in this promising new ''nanotechnology.'' In it, molecules with the ability to selectively adsorb metals are attached to the surface of membranes with microscopic-sized pores. These molecules, ''polyfunctional ligands,'' capture metals with molecular recognition precision to yield capture capacities that are at least ten times larger than current practice. Lead, barium, and chromium have been studied and the current focus is on removing metallic mercury from power plant flue gases.
In support of the Food Quality Protection Act, ORD is collaborating with EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, other government agencies, and academia to develop methods, data, and models for evaluating children's aggregate exposure to pesticides by all relevant pathways. ORD developed a children's body suit (a ''cotton dosimeter'') to collect exposure data during a child's ''normal'' day. This will lead to specific information on how children are exposed to pesticides and other pollutants while in their own unique settings.
A small biosensor was recently developed for use by EPA's Office of Water to screen drinking water for the presence of organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. This technology is likely to find far reaching applications in the protection of our water supplies.
Transport of mercury across continental boundaries and oceans is a significant environmental problem. ORD recently identified a form of mercury that deposits much more readily and closer to its origin than does the traditionally measured form of mercury vapor. ORD developed a new instrument for measuring this form of mercury—reactive gaseous mercury (RGM). Working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and others, ORD is measuring RGM in hopes of understanding the local impacts of mercury as well as the patchy nature and cycling of the global distribution of mercury in the environment.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A new, rapid, in vitro screening test may identify organophosphorus pesticides that are more acutely toxic to the young. Human genetics and physical attributes both play a role in the ability of a chemical to cause effects in people. Research has shown that an enzyme that breaks down the pesticide chlorpyrifos is present only in some adults and not in children from 0–12 months old. This is an important step in understanding why and how some people may be more susceptible to the adverse effects of exposures to pollutants in the environment. These types of tests could also be used to assess the detoxification of chemicals by human tissues in order to compare the detoxifying capability between humans of the same age (intrahuman variability) and between age groups (age-related variability).
EMAP—After a period of learning, ORD's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is now providing scientifically defensible determinations of the condition of all of the Nation's stream and estuarine waters. Application of EMAP tools is being done in collaboration with States and other federal agencies to enable the detection of the changes and trends in ecological conditions that are needed to make effective management and policy decisions. Many States are now using EMAP-designed monitoring methodologies as a cost-effective means of routine monitoring in addition to their participation in ORD assessment surveys. The National Coastal Condition Report is a primarily ORD-authored prototype for ORD's national report card on the health of the Nation's estuaries, due in 2003.
These results have come about through a coordinated program of intramural research coupled with a focused extramural grants program. They will have direct impacts on Agency decisions in areas such as water quality, pesticide risks, regional ecological vulnerability and particulate matter in the air.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EPA'S FY 2003 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET
The President's FY 2003 request reflects the Administration's 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 demanding 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 2003 request for EPA include:
Computational Toxicology ($3M)—One of the highest priorities to numerous EPA programs is enhancing the scientific basis and diagnostic/predictive validity of existing and proposed chemical testing programs. The computational toxicology program seeks to use the modern tools of molecular biology (e.g., genomics and bioinformatics) along with computational science (e.g., quantitative structure activity relationships—QSARs) in order to make the testing programs of EPA more predictive, reliable, and less reliant on the use of animals. The Agency is employing techniques of molecular profiling as the foundation for determining genes responsible for specific mechanisms of endocrine disruptor toxicity; bioinformatics tools for pattern recognition are being applied to diagnose patterns of genes associated with chemicals to known mechanisms of toxicity; and lastly, QSARs are being developed to characterize and model chemical structures associated with known mechanisms of toxicity and to compare them against other chemicals.
National Environmental Technology Competition (NETC) ($10M)—EPA will facilitate the adoption of innovative environmental technologies by the public and private sectors through the National Environmental Technology Competition (NETC). This new effort for FY 2003 addresses both the need for innovative technologies with proven performance to solve high priority problems and the reluctance of the environmental technology sector to invest in a regulatory driven market until the investment opportunities are more clearly defined. Through NETC, EPA and its stakeholders will identify and prioritize high priority problems that can benefit from targeted, cost-effective technological solutions. EPA will develop competitive solicitations for technologies in a specified problem area (e.g., arsenic removal) and an external peer review panel will select the most-promising technologies. In an effort to enhance the marketability and use of these innovative technologies, EPA will offer the selected technologies honorary awards and recognition and other support to assist in commercialization.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Central Basin Integrated Assessment ($5M)—This initiative refines and extends the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) approach to the large rivers of the Central Basin. Through cooperative programs with the Regions, states, Tribes and other Federal agencies in the Central Basin, EPA proposes to fill remaining scientific gaps currently limiting our ability to measure the condition of large rivers. In FY 2003, EPA will expand research on indicators, monitoring designs, and sampling techniques for the upper Missouri river to include the lower Missouri and upper Mississippi rivers. The approaches and technologies developed will be transferred to the many stakeholders within the Central Basin to enable coordinated, scientifically defensible, long-term monitoring. Data from such monitoring can provide support to managers in the establishment of total maximum daily loads and in meeting water quality standards. These approaches and technologies build on successful efforts in the Mid-Atlantic, western U.S., and coastal regions, and will also have widespread applicability to all of the Nation's large rivers.
Homeland Security ($75M)—The recent events in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 demonstrate the need for a coordinated federal, state and local response to a wide variety of biological and chemical threats. EPA will provide guidance, technical expertise and support to federal, state and local governments and other institutions on building contamination (chemical and biological) prevention, treatment and cleanup activities. In FY 2003, research will focus on five major areas of Homeland Security: detection of contaminants, containment of contaminants, decontamination of indoor materials, disposal of contaminated supplies/equipment, and technology transfer. Activities will include: testing and verification of existing contaminant detection devices as well as methods for preventing the spread of contaminants, the decontamination of indoor materials, and incineration of contaminated clean-up equipment. Development of new methods and devices will also be undertaken. In the area of technology transfer, provisional guidance will be developed on improved detection, containment, and decontamination methods.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Biotechnology ($5M)—Biotechnology presents a wealth of opportunities to improve productivity, provide resistance to pests and other stressors, and increase nutritional value through genetic modification of crop plants. This research initiative will provide information needed to evaluate three significant concerns: 1) potential allergenicity of proteins introduced into the food supply by engineered crops; 2) potential adverse ecological effects on non-target species; and 3) potential development of pest resistance to the genetically modified crops. This research will result in improved capability to assess the risks of allergenicity from genetically altered food, improved capability to assess the ecological risks associated with genetically modified organisms, and tools to manage gene transfer and resistance.
Our FY 2003 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.
Goal 1—Clean Air
EPA's Air Research Program is broadly divided into two main parts: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)-related research, and Air Toxics research. NAAQS-related research supports the Agency's Clean Air Goal to meet national clean air standards for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), lead, tropospheric ozone, and particulate matter (PM). Tropospheric ozone research will evaluate and refine emissions and air quality models to support efforts by the Agency, state, Tribal and local regulators, as well as industry, to improve State Implementation Plans for tropospheric ozone. The Agency's particulate matter research portfolio is aligned with the ten priority topics recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS recommendations describe a research program that would resolve issues of scientific uncertainty regarding (a) the science underlying the 1996 Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter, (b) our scientific knowledge regarding susceptible subpopulations and hazardous PM components, and (c) the implementation of the current PM standards. EPA's PM research plan addresses several critical research issues which are included in multiple NAS topics. Research on air toxics investigates the root causes of the environmental and human health problems in urban areas related to these pollutants. This research also supports atmospheric and emission modeling in order to estimate fate, ambient concentrations, and mobile source emissions of air toxics at a more refined scale. Air toxics research will focus on completing health assessments for some of the highest priority hazardous air pollutants, and providing the health effects data, measurements, methods, models, information, assessments and technical support to Agency, state, Tribal and local regulators to estimate health effects and exposures to hazardous air pollutants both indoors and outdoors and to reduce risks.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Goal 2—Clean & Safe Water
To support the research provisions of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments, the Agency's drinking water research will develop dose-response information on disinfection by-products (DBPs), waterborne pathogens, arsenic, and other drinking water contaminants for characterization of potential health risks from consuming tap water. The focus will be on filling key data gaps and developing analytical detection methods for measuring the occurrence of chemical and microbial contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). The Agency will develop and evaluate cost-effective treatment technologies for removing pathogens from water supplies while minimizing DBP formation, maintaining the quality of treated water in the distribution system, and preventing the intrusion of microbial contamination. Research efforts will also continue to support arsenic-specific research and development of more cost-effective treatment technologies for the removal of arsenic from small community drinking water systems. This work will include strategies for the acceptable control of water treatment residuals enriched with arsenic.
Research in this goal will also include work on suspended solids and sediments. Although suspended solids and sediments are a natural part of aquatic ecosystems, excess levels have been identified as one of the leading causes of water quality impairment for streams and rivers. This research will develop tools to establish natural background levels of sediments and suspended solids inherent to a region as a first step in determining what levels of sediment are harmful to aquatic life. Research in this goal will also include continuing efforts to determine the risk associated with nutrient loadings leading to eutrophic condition, hypoxia, and increased frequency of harmful algal blooms. Another area of research will focus on the risk of infectious diseases resulting from exposure to microbes in recreational waters. EPA will perform a suite of epidemiological studies needed to establish a stronger, more defensible link between water quality indicators and disease. These epidemiological studies will provide more reliable information about the relationship between recreational water quality and swimming-associated health effects. This will enable EPA to provide states with consistent monitoring methods, standardized indicators of contamination, and standardized definitions of what constitutes a risk to public health.
Page 42 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.
Current approaches to human health risk assessment focus on single pesticides via single exposure routes (via food, drinking water, etc.) and do not adequately account for cumulative risks arising from complex exposure patterns and human variability due to age, gender, pre-existing disease, health and nutritional status, and genetic predisposition. Existing tools for controlling and preventing exposure are limited to certain processes and materials. In FY 2003, research will help improve exposure information, distributions of key exposure factors (especially across age groups for children and exposures for other susceptible subpopulations), and help address the complex exposure assessment requirements for FQPA. Health effects research will contribute to evaluating the effects of cumulative exposures to pesticides and toxic chemicals, including both long-term exposures and multiple acute exposures. The Agency will continue the scientific efforts to develop a systematic approach for determining the cumulative risk as directed by the FQPA. Further understanding of the cumulative and aggregate risks associated with exposure to pesticides and toxic chemicals will provide the foundation for improved regulatory decisions.
Goal 4—Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk
Currently, there are some information gaps with regard to the understanding of actual human and ecological exposures to pesticides and toxic substances. To address those data gaps, this research will provide a strategic framework for developing an integrated suite of tools and models that will enhance EPA's procedures for assessing the risks to human health and ecological systems associated with commercial chemicals, microorganisms, and genetically modified organisms. In FY 2003, health effects research under this goal will continue to focus on development of mechanistically-based predictive models for human health risk assessment, such as structure-activity-relationship models. This work will help determine testing needs under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which addresses the introduction of new chemicals into commerce. Research will address the need for methods to evaluate effects associated with a variety of exposure conditions and the special sensitivities of certain subpopulations (including children) based on age, genetic factors, and health status. These methods will be used to evaluate endpoints of toxicity that are qualitatively different from those of concern for the general population. EPA will continue to participate in the Agriculture Health Study (AHS). The primary objective of the EPA exposure study is to collect high quality exposure data that can be used to evaluate how accurately the AHS questionnaire classifies pesticide application activities and enables the prediction of applicator exposure and dose.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Goal 5—Better Waste Management
Contaminated sites research focuses on improving scientific understanding of the potential human health and ecological risks that may be posed by contaminated groundwater, soils, and sediments, including: 1) the presence of highly toxic site contaminants, such as heavy metals, persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs), and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs); 2) the potential for multiple routes of exposure; and 3) the large number of contaminated sites, many of which cover large areas, resulting in high exposure (particularly to ecosystems). In FY 2003, research will be conducted to: 1) reduce uncertainties associated with soil/groundwater sampling and analysis; 2) reduce the time and cost associated with site characterization and site remediation activities; 3) evaluate the magnitude of the risks posed by contaminants to human health and the ecosystem as well as the contributions of multiple exposure pathways, the bioavailability of adsorbed contaminants and treatment residuals, and the toxicological properties of contaminant mixtures; and 4) develop and demonstrate more effective and less costly remediation technologies involving complex sites and hard-to-treat wastes (e.g., via the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation program).
Waste identification, waste management, and combustion constitute the three major areas of research under RCRA in FY 2003, as the Agency works towards preventing releases through proper facility management. Waste identification research will focus on multimedia, multi-pathway exposure modeling and environmental fate and transport; physical estimation in support of risk-based exemption levels for wastes; development of targeted exemptions of waste streams that do not pose unacceptable risks; and efforts to streamline the waste de-listing process (i.e., Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)). These efforts could significantly reduce compliance costs while still supporting EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. Waste management research will focus on developing more cost-effective ways to manage/recycle non-hazardous wastes and will examine other remediation technologies, while combustion research will continue to focus on characterizing and controlling emissions from waste combustion.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Goal 6—Reducing of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks
EPA's Global Change Research Program contributes to the Agency's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by providing the knowledge to allow policy makers to find the most appropriate, science-based solutions to reduce risks to human health and ecosystems posed by climate change (e.g., the impacts climate change could have on the spread of vector-borne and water-borne disease, as well as on air and water quality). The Agency is working to assess the vulnerability of human health and ecosystems to various environmental stressors (e.g., climate change, land-use change, UV radiation) at the regional scale, and to assess adaptation strategies.
Global change research will place particular emphasis on continuing its support for the assessment of the consequences of global change within regions and sectors, the ongoing U.S. National Assessment activities, and other related U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) assessment activities. The Program will emphasize assessing the potential effects of climate change on weather-related morbidity and will continue to support the maintenance of the UV monitoring network and data collection using the network. Additional areas of focus will be continuing the assessment of potential consequences of global change for air quality (which will inform air quality managers and other decision makers about how climate change might affect regional concentrations of criteria air pollutants), and water quality (which will inform managers of public water systems of how climate change might affect water quality in states and localities) as well as the assessment on aquatic ecosystem health.
Goal 7—Quality Environmental Information
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research efforts supporting this goal include the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the Risk Assessment Forum (RAF). IRIS is an EPA database of Agency consensus human health assessment information on environmental contaminants. The database is used extensively by EPA, the states, and the general public to access consistent, reliable toxicity information needed for credible risk assessments. In FY 2003, the Agency will develop new and updated Agency consensus human health assessments of environmental substances of high priority to EPA and make them publicly available on IRIS. The RAF promotes Agency-wide consensus on difficult and controversial risk assessment issues and ensures that this consensus is incorporated into appropriate Agency risk assessment guidance. To achieve this goal, the Agency's Risk Assessment Forum will focus in three areas: risk assessments for children, cumulative risk assessment, and ecological risk assessment. Efforts will result in technical guidance on the identification of appropriate age groupings for exposure assessments for children, technical issue papers, and a framework for preparing cumulative risk assessments.
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. In the area of ecosystem protection research, EPA will strive to establish baseline conditions from which changes, and ultimately trends, in the ecological condition of the Nation's aquatic ecosystems can be confidently documented, and from which the results of environmental management policies can be evaluated at regional scales. Currently, there is a patchwork of monitoring underway in the aquatic systems of the U.S. Due to differences in objectives, methods, monitoring designs, and needs, these data cannot be combined to estimate, with known confidence, the magnitude or extent of improvement or degradation regionally or nationally in this economically critical resource. Therefore, the ability to demonstrate success or failure of increasingly flexible watershed management policies, regionally and nationally, is also not possible. EPA's ecosystem protection research program is providing the methods and designs to address these weaknesses. In FY 2003, EPA will produce a report on the condition of the Nation's estuaries. This report will provide the first integrated, comprehensive, and statistically valid national report card on the health of a specific aquatic resource. This work is an important step toward providing the scientific understanding to measure, model, maintain, and restore the integrity and sustainability of ecosystems.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 subpopulations. In FY 2003, the Agency will continue to support a Children's Health Research Program specifically targeted at addressing major areas of uncertainty and susceptibility. The Program will focus on issues such as age-related exposures, physiology, and biological responses that may result in increased risks, and research in risk reduction methods. This research provides the scientific underpinnings that will result in better EPA risk assessments for children and ultimately reduced risks from potential environmental health threats. The Agency will continue to address the causes of environmentally-induced childhood disease via the Children's Environmental Research Centers with the goal of eventually decreasing the prevalence of childhood disease. Efforts will focus on childhood asthma and other respiratory diseases, growth and development, and children's exposure and susceptibility to pesticides. EPA will also conduct research on the influence of genetic factors on responsiveness to environmental chemicals. The main scientific question for this research is whether genetic differences are sufficient to influence risk assessment.
Enhance Capabilities to Respond to Future Environmental Developments. EPA's leadership role in protecting both human and ecosystem health requires that the Agency continue to be vigilant in identifying and addressing emerging issues. EPA will continue to enhance its capabilities to anticipate, understand, and respond to future environmental developments. EPA will address these uncertainties by conducting research in areas that combine human health and ecological considerations. In FY 2003, research will focus on improving our understanding of the impacts of potential exposure to environmental pollutants, particularly endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and mercury, on human health and the environment, and on developing approaches to reduce human health and ecological risks. This research will result in accessible and seamless methodologies for combined human health and ecological risk assessments. Additional research results will include an improved framework for decision-making, increased ability to anticipate and perhaps prevent potentially serious environmental risks, improved methods for assessing socio-economic factors, and enhanced communication with the public and other stakeholders. EPA will also continue the Exploratory Grants research program and will publish its annual general solicitation to promote research in areas where significant gaps in scientific knowledge and understanding exist. This program provides opportunities for individual investigators from the academic research community to conceive, define, and propose research projects.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Improve Environmental Systems Management. In FY 2003, the Agency will continue its systems-based approach to pollution prevention, which will lead to a more thorough assessment of human health and environmental risks and a more comprehensive management of those risks.
Research on clean technologies will be focused on designing, developing and verifying alternative materials, products, and processes that minimize use, emission, and discharge of toxic chemicals in mining, metal finishing, building/construction, and chemical sectors. EPA will develop tools and methodologies to prevent pollution at its source and will evaluate environmental technologies through the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. ETV is a voluntary, market-grounded verification program for commercial-ready technologies, with over 1,000 stakeholders who represent all points of view within environmental areas. The goal of ETV is to verify the performance characteristics of private-sector-developed technologies so that purchasers, users, and permit writers have the information they need to make environmentally-beneficial decisions. By the end of FY 2003, the ETV program will have delivered more than 150 test plans and protocols, making them available to the entire research and testing community, and will have verified over 200 technologies, making data on their performance available for public use.
MEASURING PROGRESS IN ACCOMPLISHING EPA'S GPRA GOALS
ORD volunteered to participate in a pilot program evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General. The purpose of the pilot was to determine whether program evaluation techniques are appropriate for measuring progress in accomplishing EPA's GPRA goals; and whether program evaluation techniques are appropriate for evaluating environmental research in the GPRA framework. The pilot findings show an increased focus on research outcomes, a more transparent planning system, and a consistent program design can enhance ORD's ability to meet clients' needs. The Logic Model is a useful tool for visualizing design of a program to identify long-, intermediate-, and short-term outcomes, customers, resources, activities, and outputs.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
78960e.eps
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, let me stress that the goal of research at ORD is to inform risk assessment decisions and to minimize the uncertainties that lead to the need for less than ideal assumptions. ORD's research leads to the science and the tools needed to soundly support decisions on the prevention, regulation, and remediation of environmental degradation and its public health impacts. No other federal agency has a comprehensive program in environmental public health and ecological impacts. I believe that ORD's research program is responsive to the mission needs of the Agency and that we are doing that research in a first rate manner. Working in partnership with EPA's program and regional offices, I am committed to developing the highest quality science to serve as the basis for sound decision-making. I expect ORD's researchers to continue to be on the leading edge of scientific inquiry—expanding our nation's scientific knowledge about the environment, developing guidance for assessing both human and ecological risks, devising new technologies and risk management approaches to both prevent and mitigate pollution, and providing technical assistance to those working, both within the Agency and externally, to protect our environment. Thank you for your time.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Dr. Matanoski.
STATEMENT OF DR. GENEVIEVE M. MATANOSKI, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY; MEMBER, SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD, AND RESEARCH STRATEGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. MATANOSKI. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and, members of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards. My name is Genevieve Matanoski. I am a Professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health. I am honored to appear before you today to present the conclusions of the EPA Science Advisory Board regarding EPA's fiscal year 2003 Science and Technology budget.
What I will do is summarize the recommendations that were the consensus views of the so-called RSAC Committee, Research Strategies Advisory Committee; the results have been sent, actually, to the Honorable Christine Whitman, as well as to this Committee so you can refer back to those.
Today, I just want to present a brief summary of what I think are the most important findings from that report. The first is the Agency's progress in improving its ability to relate its spending on research and on other science and technology efforts to the Agency's strategic plans; the need to maintain core competencies within the Agency; the importance of training new environmental scientists for the future; EPA's vital role in developing non-regulatory approaches to high importance environmental issues; and, finally, the need for the Agency to maintain and increase research and development in newly emerging and underfunded areas.
In the first area, I don't need to tell you, I am sure, that EPA is an extremely complex organization where science is conducted at many levels and addresses many different problems, including both risk assessment, risk characterization, and our risk mitigation, which is quite different than other scientific groups'. However, the Agency has made remarkable progress in trying to create links between all of these and what their science is, even though it is conducted in many places within the Agency. This activity should continue and must be fostered still further by the Agency.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But there are major improvements in this that we have noted in our report. Identification of major programmatic needs have been listed. Identification of the strategic plans to guide their research have been laid out. There is improved coordination between ORD and the program offices, which is a big step forward. And they have made initial progress in identifying short-term and intermediate outcomes for evaluation of research.
RSAC recommended that the Agency also help us try to see whether their mix of research would be classified as risk mitigation, which often is engineering types of activities, to mitigate a risk and risk characterization. Since, as a regulatory agency, the mitigation step is also more important often than the characterization of the risk. These activities will continue to improve the ability of RSAC, Congress, and the Agency to evaluate the appropriateness of the balance of the use of science and technology funds in the future.
Core competencies in the Agency—the Agency has proposed a strategy for recruiting both junior and established investigators to address the problem of an aging ORD staff. The proposed plan includes the post-doctoral program which has already proven to be very successful in providing the Agency with young bright talent who have remained within the Agency. The new proposed plan would model a career path and recruitment program similar to that at NIH and would bring both new and senior investigators into ORD. And this, I think, is an excellent plan and should continue to be funded.
Training of new scientists to address environmental problems—RSAC expressed serious concerns about the transfer of the Agency's STAR Fellowship Program to an organization other than EPA. The original implementation of this program was driven by recommendations from the EPA Science Advisory Board, which recognized that fellowship support from other agencies does not produce scientists who are responsive to future Agency needs for research in environmental risk characterization, mitigation, and decision-making.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This discontinuance of this program is actually inconsistent with their objective to recruit and retain highly qualified and diverse workforce. And so we would strongly recommend that the funds be reinstated for this program without reducing other funds in support of S&T activities.
EPA's vital role in non-regulatory issues of high importance—included in this are many environmental impacts on the human health and the environment which do not fall under their usual mandates. And we have recommended that the EPA set forward some of these areas and ask for funding in them and we hope that the Committee would hear that request.
Finally, we think that the budget, as it currently exists, is relatively stable over the years, or actually has been reduced, so that for research in science, which is needed at EPA, their budget may be woefully inadequate. And we would recommend, or at least, I, in looking at this budget, suggest that perhaps a doubling of the S&T budget would be in place so that EPA could come forward and be responsive to some of the newer technologies that are out there, as well as meet their current needs, which, unfortunately, never go away.
So as a closing remark, I am appreciative that you all have listened to my—our recommendations as part of RSAC and perhaps my own recommendation that science needs more funding at EPA, which may be a story you have often heard.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Matanoski follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE M. MATANOSKI
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards. My name is Genevieve Matanoski. I am honored to appear before you today to present the conclusions of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) regarding the EPA's FY 2003 Science and Technology Budget Request.
I will summarize recommendations that were the consensus views of the SAB's Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) resulting from RSAC's examination of the President's FY 2003 request for EPA's Science and Technology budget. RSAC's findings are contained in a Science Advisory Board report that has been sent to the Honorable Christine Whitman as well as to this Committee.
Today, I will present a brief summary of the most important findings related to:
1. The Agency's progress in improving its ability to relate its spending on research and spending on other science and technology efforts to the Agency's Strategic Plans.
2. The need to maintain core competencies within the Agency.
3. The importance of training the new environmental scientists for the future.
4. EPA's vital role in developing non-regulatory approaches to high importance environmental issues.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
5. The need for the Agency to maintain and increase research and development in newly emerging and underfunded areas.
Planning and Evaluation in Relation to Science and Technology Spending—The EPA is a complex organization where science is conducted under many different parts of the Agency, addressing many different problems, making the clear identification of exact budget amounts to strategic goals very difficult. However, the Agency has made remarkable progress in trying to create these links, especially through the use of the Science Inventory. This activity should continue to progress.
RSAC has noted many improvements related to planning and using science and technology at EPA, including:
1. Identification of major programmatic needs.
2. Identification of Strategic Plans to guide research.
3. Improved coordination between ORD and the Program Offices.
4. Initial progress in identifying short-term and intermediate outcomes for evaluation of research.
RSAC recommended that the Agency evaluate the mix of the research that would be classified as risk mitigation and risk characterization, since as a regulatory Agency the mitigation step may be even more important than the characterization of risk. These activities will continue to improve the ability of RSAC, Congress, and the Agency to evaluate the appropriateness of the balance in the use of Science and Technology funds in the future.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Core competencies in the Agency—The Agency has proposed a strategy for recruiting both junior and established investigators to address the problem of an aging ORD staff. The proposed plan includes the post-doctoral program that has already proven successful in providing the Agency with young bright talent who have remained at EPA. The new proposed staffing plan models a career path and recruitment program similar to that of NIH that would bring both new and senior investigators into ORD.
Training new scientists to address environmental problem—RSAC expressed serious concerns about the transfer of the Agency's STAR Fellowship Program to an organization other than EPA. The original implementation of this program was driven by recommendations from the EPA Science Advisory Board which recognized that fellowship support from other agencies does not produce scientists who are responsive to future Agency needs for research in environmental risk characterization, risk mitigation, and even decision-making and policy planning.
Discontinuance of this program is inconsistent with ORD's Strategic Plan under Goal 2, which states the objective to ''recruit, retain and develop a high qualified and diverse workforce.'' This program would create the young scientists from which ORD would be recruiting at least some of that workforce. RSAC strongly recommends that funds be reinstated for this program without reducing funds in support of other S&T activities at EPA.
EPA's vital role in non-regulatory issues of high importance—Many of the important environmental impacts in the protection of human health, the environment, and ecosystems do not fall under the Agency's Congressional mandates that drive the regulatory and research efforts of the Agency. An example is indoor air pollution, which poses a serious threat to human health but is not regulated.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RSAC recommends that EPA identify these important currently non-regulated areas and add budgetary requests for adequate Science and Technology funding to develop non-regulatory approaches to characterize and mitigate these risks. RSAC further urges that Congress seriously consider these budget requests and provide both for budget, personnel, and (if needed) legislation to address these risks.
Maintain and increase research and development in new areas—RSAC noted that the Agency's Science and Technology budget has been essentially a constant percent of the total funding over many years, including the proposed FY 2003 Science and Technology budget, after removal of funds for terrorism. This limits the ability of the Agency to respond to important findings, such as the non-regulatory issues noted above, or to seriously expand research and development into important emerging areas, such as genomics, proteomics, and bioinformatics. Since no on-going research and development is likely to completely resolve a scientific issue in the near future, the Agency is forced to maintain research and evaluation in current problem areas while trying to add important new areas to their science planning. It is difficult to seriously approach scientific advancement in an area without an influx of new funding.
For these reasons, RSAC recommends that EPA identify the important emerging areas and propose the appropriate budget for a serious scientific activity in the area. RSAC further recommends that the President and Congress recognize the need for new budgetary funds to address new vital areas of research and development. While RSAC did not discuss the magnitude of funding needed to begin to address this need, in my opinion a doubling of the S&T budget, consistent with the recent doubling of funds for NIH over the past few years would be a good beginning to meet this need.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Closing Remarks—RSAC intends to continue their review of the multi-year strategic planning process and to peer review science planning within the Agency. Based on discussions between Dr. Raymond Loehr, the RSAC chair, and Ms. Linda Fisher, the Agency's Deputy Administrator, RSAC will be pursuing the following three key questions over the next few years:
1. How does EPA capture and use scientific knowledge generated by other organizations (federal agencies, state agencies, industry, universities, private organizations) in its multi-year planning efforts for the EPA research and development?
2. To what extent is there adequate peer review of the science available for policy and regulatory decisions at EPA, particularly peer review of the planning for the R&D program and of the products from the R&D program?
3. What is the assessment of the committee (RSAC) of the quality of the science being done at EPA, particularly that supported by the S&T budget.
RSAC suspects that these issues are of interest to you. If we can be of use to you and your Subcommittee Mr. Chairman, we would like to work with you to refine these questions and to brief the subcommittee on our findings and recommendations. I want to express my gratitude to the Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to report on the findings of the RSAC and SAB of the EPA. I would be happy to expand on any comments and respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Every day, several times.
Dr. MATANOSKI. Probably.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Dr. Pearce.
STATEMENT OF DR. ELI M. PEARCE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Dr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, and Congresswoman Morella, I am Eli Pearce, President of the American Chemical Society. And let me begin by thanking your for the opportunity to testify.
I would like to make three points this afternoon. First, this year's budget request for the EPA Science and Technology account continues a disturbing trend of flat or shrinking support for science programs that underpin sound regulatory decisions. Second, important programs that build the talent pipeline for the environmental sciences, such as the Science to Achieve Results, STAR, and fellowships are being lost. Finally, the need to reform the management structure for science at EPA is becoming more urgent.
We look to science to help us understand environmental challenges and to inform more intelligent, less burdensome solutions. In order for EPA to set science-based national environmental standards, conduct research and environmental monitoring, and provide technical assistance to states, local governments, and businesses, the S&T account needs to increase as a percentage of the Agency's total budget, ultimately to a stable 10-percent level. ACS recognizes the tight fiscal situation the country faces, but strongly believes that for fiscal year 2003 Congress should increase the EPA S&T account by 8 percent to $772 million.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Administration's proposal to eliminate the STAR Fellowship Program is a good example of why such an increase in necessary. STAR is the only Federal program dedicated to graduate study in environmental science. The STAR fellowships are part of a cohesive effort to characterize critical or emerging environmental problems and create solutions to address them. Today's STAR fellows will become tomorrow's environmental experts in industry, government agencies like EPA, and academic institutions.
Another example of declining support is the budget request for the Office of Research and Development. On the surface, the $627 million request would increase ORD support by $35 million. However, $75 million, or 12 percent of the budget, would be directed toward research to clean up buildings contaminated by biological and chemical agents. While this short-term funding is critical to our homeland security, programs that existed prior to 9/11 will have less money with which to operate. We are concerned that these programs probably will not receive commensurate increases once the focus on terrorism is no longer a high national priority.
Let me now turn to broader management issues. I would like to quote from a 1992 EPA report that detailed the findings of an expert panel about the role of science at EPA. ''EPA science is of uneven quality, and the Agency's policies and regulations are frequently perceived as lacking strong scientific foundation.''
That perception likely reflects the confrontational nature of the regulatory process. However, EPA's organizational structure reinforces the tension by housing the Agency's main scientific functions in an office that is inadequately funded, not typically a focus of the annual authorizing and appropriations process, and forced to compete with EPA's other offices, its principal customers, for attention and resources.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
An NRC report released in 2000 proposed several strategies to address these problems. ACS endorsed many of the Academies' recommendations including those addressed in legislation passed by this Committee, H.R. 64.
The issues that the legislation addressed have become even more important and urgent. EPA's ability to marshal scientific expertise and resources in the wake of the terrorist attacks has been tested severely. New issues also have arisen. Agencies need to assure that access to government information does not inadvertently help terrorists. The agencies also must apply stronger data quality standards. A Deputy Administrator for Science could add considerably to an effective and efficient EPA response to these challenges.
Mr. Chairman, ACS has been advocating the need for increased attention to research programs at EPA for several years. I am pleased that the House Committee on Science also has shown long-term interest in this important subject. Thank you for the opportunity to offer our support for EPA's science programs, and I would be delighted to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pearce follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELI M. PEARCE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Eli Pearce, President of the American Chemical Society, representing more than 163,000 chemists, chemical engineers, and allied professionals in academia, industry, and government. Let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to testify on the status of science at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the implications of this year's budget request.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to make three main points this afternoon. First, this year's budget request for the EPA Science & Technology account continues a disturbing trend of shrinking support for science programs that underpin sound regulatory decisions. Scientific research supported by the agency, particularly through the Office of Research and Development (or ORD), is not being given sufficient priority within EPA. Second, important programs that build the talent pipeline for the environmental sciences, such as the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) fellowships, are being lost. Finally, the need to reform the management structure for science at EPA is becoming even more urgent.
We look to science to understand environmental challenges and to inform more intelligent, less burdensome solutions. Over the past two decades, demand for more scientific evidence—whether it's to set or improve regulations—has grown substantially. The amount of research envisioned in EPA-related authorizations also has increased. Nevertheless, appropriations for EPA science programs have not kept pace with the need for more and better science.
Over the last 20 years, the EPA S&T account, which includes the ORD and research programs in other EPA Offices, has fluctuated between seven and ten percent of the agency's total budget. In the last five years, it's been closer to the seven percent mark. In order for EPA set science-based national environmental standards, conduct research and environmental monitoring, and provide technical assistance to states, local governments, and businesses, the S&T account needs to increase as a percentage of the agency's total budget, ultimately to a stable ten percent level. ACS recognizes the tight fiscal situation the country faces, but strongly believes that substantial constant-dollar decreases in funding for the S&T account will only hinder the ability of EPA to achieve its mission.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Administration's proposal to eliminate the STAR fellowship program is an good case in point. This program is the only federal program dedicated to graduate study in environmental sciences at colleges and universities across the country. The STAR fellowships are part of a cohesive effort to characterize critical or emerging environmental problems and create solutions to address them. EPA designed this extramural research grant program to work in cooperation with a fellowship program. Together, they provide ideas, information, new discoveries, and new researchers. Today's STAR fellows will become tomorrow's environmental experts working for industry, government agencies like EPA, and academic institutions. The loss of this program will further erode the agency's capability to attract an excellent workforce and will reduce the amount of scientific information available to inform agency decisions.
Another example of declining support for science at EPA is the budget request for the Office of Research & Development, which is the largest part of the S&T account. The Administration requested $627 million for ORD in FY 2003. On the surface, this request would increase support for ORD by $35 million over FY 2002. However, $75 million, or 12 percent of ORD's proposed budget, would be a new expense directed toward research to cleanup buildings contaminated by biological and chemical agents, which will probably be a one-time or a short-term effort. While this short-term funding is critical to our homeland security, we are concerned that programs that existed prior to 9/11 will have less money with which to operate. We are also concerned, based on budgetary trends at ORD, that the other programs probably would not receive commensurate increases once the focus on terrorism was no longer a national priority.
These decreases in ongoing science funding are particularly disturbing because the budget request would bring EPA's operating budget to an all-time high. ACS strongly supports increasing the EPA's Science and Technology account to 10 percent of the Agency's total budget. For FY 2003, EPA should provide the S&T account $772 million, an increase of eight percent relative to FY 2002 funding levels. ACS recommends that the additional funds be applied to the following priority areas:
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Provide $10 million for the STAR fellowships.
Increase funding of green chemistry and engineering to advance the development and use of innovative, environmentally benign products and processes.
Invest in EPA's ability to recruit, develop, and retain an effective scientific workforce.
Continue investing in federal research and technology development to reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions and address the potential impacts of global climate change.
Support innovative and high-risk research that may help identify and explore future environmental problems and develop new sets of technologies to solve existing problems.
I've discussed the impacts of the budget proposal on some programs that are particularly important to ACS. Let me now turn to the broader management issues that are raised by the long-term decline in support for EPA science and technology programs. I'd like to quote from a 1992 EPA report that detailed the findings of an expert panel about the role of science at EPA called, Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions:
''EPA science is of uneven quality, and the Agency's policies and regulations are frequently perceived as lacking a strong scientific foundation.''
That perception likely reflects the confrontational nature of the regulatory process. However, EPA's organizational structure reinforces this tension by housing the Agency's main scientific functions in an office that is:
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Inadequately funded (as I've mentioned);
Not budgeted independently or clearly in the annual appropriations process;
Not often given specific authorizing legislation;
Forced to compete with its own internal offices—its principal customers—for attention and resources; and
Often criticized for the quality of its science and its inability to apply this science to environmental decisions.
A National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies report released in 2000, Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, proposes several strategies to address these problems. ACS endorsed several of the Academies' recommendations, including those addressed in H.R. 64—The Strengthening Science at the Environmental Protection Agency Act, sponsored by Chairman Ehlers and 27 others, including Mr. Barcia and several other members of this subcommittee. Consistent with H.R. 64, EPA needs a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology with authority and responsibility for agency-wide scientific performance and integration into regulatory decisions. The Assistant Administrator for Research and Development should be a statutory appointment for six years. I applaud this committee's approval of H.R. 64 and your continuing efforts to pass it into law. The Society has worked to bring attention to this legislation and other underlying issues in the National Academies report, including proposals to improve, ORD's multi-year planning approach, the graduate fellowship and postdoctoral programs within ORD, and the Agency's peer-review policy.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since the Science Committee passed this bill, the issues that the legislation addresses have become even more important and urgent. The ability of the government to marshal scientific expertise and resources in the wake of the terrorist attacks has been tested severely. EPA has applied its expertise and workforce to the anthrax cleanup, testing and assessment at the World Trade Center site, and other efforts. New issues also have arisen, such as the need to assure that access to government information does not provide tools to terrorists and the need for stronger data quality standards within government agencies. A Deputy Administrator for Science and a Science Adviser to the Administrator could add considerably to an effective and efficient EPA response to these challenges.
Mr. Chairman, ACS has been advocating the need for increased attention to research programs at EPA, both in budgetary and in management terms, for several years. I am pleased that the House Committee on Science has also shown long-term interest in this important subject. Thank you for the opportunity to offer our support for EPA's science programs. I would be delighted to answer any questions the committee has.
The Environmental Protection Agency supports the fundamental research that underpins the Agency's efforts to protect public health and the environment.
Most dry cleaners use perchloroethylene to clean clothes. An effective solvent, it nevertheless can pose health and environmental risks and is expensive to dispose properly. EPA-funded research led to the successful commercialization of a new dry-cleaning process. The new technology uses carbon dioxide to provide the same cleaning quality as the traditional method without the adverse impacts and long-term disposal costs. Researchers are searching for new ways to use carbon dioxide as a solvent in other industrial cleaning applications, as well.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Microbial pathogens can jeopardize public health if drinking water is not adequately treated. The 1993 outbreak of Cryptosporidium, a waterborne pathogen, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, resulted in 400,000 cases of acute gastroenteritis and about 100 deaths. The event highlighted the need for having sensitive and rapid methods to detect microbial pathogens. In response, EPA supported research that led to the development of a more sensitive and quicker method to detect Cryptosporidium.
EPA supported research on a software tool that businesses can use to analyze the pollution impacts of proposed manufacturing processes. The software lets businesses weigh trade-offs and choose the process with the lowest environmental impact. Businesses use this tool to avoid waste disposal costs, reduce emissions, and ensure the processes they choose are energy efficient.
Discussion
STAR Transfer to NSF
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for your testimony. We will now turn to questions. And Congressman Baird gives his apologies. He has been called back to his office. We always like to have a member of the minority and, perhaps, another one will show up soon. But we will proceed with the questions.
There is a host of things I could ask about, but since the STARs program has been mentioned several times, I think that is a very important place to start. Your budget, Dr. Gilman, suggests that this will be shifted to the NSF, but we didn't see any indication in the OMB that they were planning to shift money over to NSF for this purpose, and we don't have any indication that NSF wants the STAR program. I wouldn't object if it were shifted to NSF, although that unfortunately would distance it from the EPA.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But the way it looks to me, it is just going to die. And this is exactly the wrong time, while we are trying to beef up the environmental science backbone of this Nation, not only in your Agency, but throughout the country. It seems to me exactly the wrong time to terminate the STARs program. What comments would you like to make on that?
Dr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Administration believes that by improving the competitiveness of the Fellowship's Program within the National Science Foundation in a sort of centralized location, they would do overall good for the life sciences and other sciences as well. So while the program, per se, of the STAR Fellowship Program did not transfer, resources were increased at the National Science Foundation.
We believe that attracting young people into the field isn't just the Fellowship Program. We are still doing a number of things that we think are very important for making it an attractive future for young people. First of all, we are continuing our extramural grant program on the order of $100 million for researchers outside of the EPA, in academia largely. And, in fact, a number of pre-doctoral students are supported through those very grants, as well as in the past through the Fellowship Program.
We also believe a very strong effort at keeping our own intramural programs strong, supplementing them with things like our postdoctoral program, as well as seeking the kinds of authorities that we have been talking to you about, and hope to be talking to you about in the future, similar to those that the NIH has for the hiring of scientists and people in technological fields, are all key to providing incentives for people to pursue their graduate education in the direction of the environmental sciences.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we don't view the Fellowship Program in isolation. We think there are a number of elements that are there to help encourage young people to move in our direction.
Chairman EHLERS. How many fellows do you normally have in the STAR program?
Dr. GILMAN. There is approximately 100 per year. There have been a total of about 870 since the program began in 1995.
Chairman EHLERS. And I appreciate all the other things you have outlined, but I don't see that those would pick up the STAR program, certainly not to the tune of 100 fellows per year. And it is just not going to be there. It is not going to happen. What about your postdoctoral program? Do you have a specific program in postdoctoral——
Dr. GILMAN. We do.
Chairman EHLERS [continuing]. Apprentice——
Dr. GILMAN. We do. It has been in place for about 3 years now. Our target is to bring approximately 50 post-docs in a year for sort of a running total of about 150. That really is a wonderful opportunity for us to get people who have been trained in the most up-to-date techniques and in the most up-to-date issues that face us.
We have, to this point in time, hired something over 35 of those postdoctoral fellows as employees in our intramural program. So it also gives us an opportunity to see how these folks would perform and fit in and give us an opportunity to really show them that they have a good research career for them and really one that is not just great science, but a good mission too.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Well, I am afraid if the STAR program is not continued you are likely to have far fewer really qualified postdoctoral appointees available to you. And I think it is really going to hurt the field.
As I said earlier, I am willing to accept it going over to NSF if that is done as part of the clearly structured program. But simply having an OMB official at whatever level say we are going to move that over to NSF and not send the money over there and not provide the guidelines, is not going to work. It is just going to disappear. And I can assure you of that. So that is something that we will continue to work on and see whether we can reconstitute it or continue it.
My time has expired. And I turn to Congresswoman Morella, the outstanding star from Maryland.
Attracting Scientists to EPA
Ms. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate you on this oversight hearing and also picking some great people to testify. Dr. Gilman, congratulations to us on having you appointed as the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development. You can certainly see that this is the Subcommittee that cares about the STAR program and is concerned about what is meant by trying to shuffle it off to NSF and whether it would even happen there.
Dr. Matanoski, I am delighted you are at Johns Hopkins and I thank you very much for giving us the synopsis of the recommendations of the Board. I am particularly interested in the facet of recruiting some of the younger people, because personnel are going to make all the difference, the need for funding.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Pearce, thank you very much for not only being here today, but I want to commend you and the American Chemical Society for your active efforts to promote science here on Capitol Hill. You are all very well-known. And I particularly want to applaud your recently increased activity in Green chemistry.
Dr. PEARCE. Uh-huh.
Ms. MORELLA. I mean, and, you know, and this is——
Dr. PEARCE. Thank you.
Ms. MORELLA. This is Earth Week and all of that. Aside from an increased budget, what do you think is the most important thing that Congress can do to strengthen science at the EPA? Should we focus on creating leadership offices as we have with H.R. 64, or is there a more effective vehicle? And any of the rest of you who would like to comment at all on that, but I——
Dr. PEARCE. Well, I think H.R. 64 is a very fine approach. I think, as important, is attracting young people to EPA itself. And apparently there is a problem from the point of view of age distribution, potential retirements, etcetera. And I just go by my own personal experience in regard to the issue of where does the STAR fellowship reside or if at all. I was a recipient of the Dupont Fellowship as a graduate student, and my first job was with Dupont. I think connected to something like EPA as a fellowship program gives you a certain bias in regard to joining such an agency afterwards. But I think the STAR program is extremely important.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. MORELLA. That is a very good point. When you are there you learn, you become part of that family. You enhance your ambitions to move ahead.
Dr. PEARCE. Uh-huh.
Ms. MORELLA. Would you like to comment on that, Dr. Matanoski?
Dr. MATANOSKI. We, as the RSAC Committee, we actually follow very closely what Mr. Ehlers had pointed out, that——
Ms. MORELLA. Uh-huh.
Dr. MATANOSKI [continuing]. It is not likely that the program is going to be well-implemented or funded through another organization. EPA has very specific needs and the Science Advisory Board fought very hard to get that program into EPA so we could train scientists that looked at EPA and did the things that EPA needed. From that standpoint, I think that is an important piece.
In regard to your other question, the recognition of science from the top level down is extremely important. The other piece, however, that is very important that I would like to point out to you is that not only do you need the young, but if you are implementing new programs, like Genome ''X'' and all of these that EPA has taken off on, you need a very substantial budget to go with it.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
They don't bring a professor with any kind of stature into a new university just on the basis of a salary and a position. They bring them in with a package that is a lot better than the sports packages, as a matter of fact. Usually it is in additional staff. It is money to do research. It is laboratories they are going to build. And so if you want new areas, which we desperately need to upgrade some of the activities within EPA, you need that kind of a basis to bring in both established people and young interested people in areas that are new and in the developing areas, particularly in biotechnology, where we have got to move forward, because it is out there and it is there to be used. And EPA certainly could use it.
Peer Review at EPA
Ms. MORELLA. Could I just—could I ask first another question before my time is up? In the report, ''Strengthening Science at the EPA,'' there was some adverse criticism of the peer review system. Would you like to comment on that if anything has been done to improve of it?
Dr. MATANOSKI. I think EPA has taken massive steps forward to improve their peer review, and the Science Advisory Board is not the only place. We are very hard on EPA, and that is one of the places they get their peer review, but they get it on the outside, as well, from groups. And most of it is quite well peer-reviewed.
And really, within the EPA, there is not bad science. The problem is that there is a limited amount of science and they have to use whatever they can get from the outside as well as from within the university to try to create the rules and the basis of science that is needed for those rules. That is not an easy task to do.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. MORELLA. So that criticism would not hold up if it were done again now.
Dr. MATANOSKI. I think it would hold up very—you know, you can't trust everybody. But from what we have looked at in the EPA, they have done an extremely good job at getting almost everything that they look at now peer reviewed.
Ms. MORELLA. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EPA Homeland Security Initiative
Chairman EHLERS. In the absence of minority members, we will go to a second round and I will continue with some questions. I will direct these to Dr. Gilman, and the others may comment if they wish. This has to do with the homeland security question. And I don't think any of us question the need for the initiative, the entire homeland security initiative, although I have questions about certain categories of funding. But I am concerned about the impact on the EPA of being asked to do something and not being given all the money to do it.
As I stated in my opening statement, the amount you would have to devote to the homeland security question is roughly 12 percent of the total amount available, but it is a net 5-percent decrease in the normal activity of the EPA. We would carry that out. In other words, the White House gave you the responsibility, but not all the money—or OMB, I should say. That, in itself, is troubling.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to that, is that the $75 million, as I understand, comes out of the Superfund. And I don't know if a chemist here would have some comment on that, because I know most of the chemical companies in the USA paid a special tax to put that money in the Superfund. And I am not sure that they would be very pleased to see that money used to investigate building decontamination.
A third question is that we have some expertise in the United States Government in building decontamination, and that is at Fort Detrick in the U.S. Army, where they had to decontaminate one of their own buildings. I have no problem with the assignment being given to EPA, but I am wondering how that will relate to what the Army knows about it. Will you be using their expertise? Will you get some funding for them to work on this as well or not? So, three main questions that I would appreciate your response to.
Dr. GILMAN. Sure. Let me see if I can answer them by just simply starting to describe how we are approaching our assignment, if you will, that is embodied in that budget request. We recognize that it is a short-term activity. We are anticipating for us it will be no longer than 2 years. We view it really not as a new mission, but really an extension of our existing mission. When I spoke about the gene chip that was being used to look at water supply quality, when we talk about understanding contamination, we are talking about fundamentally similar scientific questions.
So we, in effect, view this initiative as a dual-use initiative, if you will, drawing upon existing capabilities inside the EPA, inside the Office of Research and Development. We are approaching it then as a short-term, but building on our existing capabilities. And we are very much viewing it as a program that needs to be put together in collaboration with our different program offices, our air office, our water office, our waste office, and other Federal agencies, and principally focused on working with the private sector to ultimately deliver the deliverables of the project.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, when I say that, our initial focus will be on trying to put together something very much like the program we do today in environmental technologies, an Environmental Technology Verification Program. We are looking to set up a verification program that would then, if you will, verify and validate technologies that already exist for their application to decontamination and for their modification for uses that might not currently be in the portfolio for the product in question.
By way of that integration that you are worried about with other agencies, we have already had our initial meeting just in this focused aspect of it—those other Federal agencies that do technology verification, including the Department of Defense. And so we are trying to find the appropriate bounds for our work where work hasn't gone on before and is needed still, where we can take even the protocols that might have been put together by a Department of Defense or a Department of Energy, and adopt those and adapt them to the civilian sector and its application in the civilian sector.
So we are trying very hard to create a short-term, not really focused on using our own internal FTEs, to anything more than that short-term need, so we don't terribly divert our activities; trying to make it a dual-use kind of a program, and do so without duplicating activities in other Federal agencies.
Budgetary Concerns
Chairman EHLERS. And what about the Superfund issue and the budget impact upon your other activities——
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. GILMAN. Right.
Chairman EHLERS [continuing]. Since you are not given the total amount of money you need?
Dr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, often times when the budget is submitted to you, and it is the case this year, the reason you would probably—your math would add up to us being short a few dollars is that when you think about the amount of work we do you include in that a number of the Congressional add-ons that have been put into the budget during the course of the budget process. That number for fiscal year '02 is something over $50 million. When we submit our budget to you, we remove those Congressional add-ons from the base. So we are building from a budget that minus that work of the add-ons is actually an increase of about $14 million from the proposed budget for fiscal year '02 to the proposed budget of '03.
Now, granted, I give you that if the Congress chooses to put back in those $50 million in add-ons, there is a crunch that comes in to the work that needs to be done. But we have started to build the budget without those add-ons in the base. And that is why, as presented to you, we don't think that the crunch that you fear will take place. And, again, I give you if those add-ons are put in, there is something of a crunch that takes place.
The Superfund question, as I know you know, we already receive between 30 and $40 million a year from the Superfund for research related to Superfund-like activities, and those dollars are converted from the Superfund account to the S&T account. It was with a similar thought in mind that these are largely activities related to chemical contamination and the like that the Superfund mechanism was utilized in this case.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. That may well be the reason, but it is not a valid reason, because the money was assessed the companies for clean-up purposes of waste that have been in some way generated by those companies. And I don't think they had anything to do with the anthrax contamination or any of the other contaminations that we are expecting.
That will certainly receive further study and discussion as it goes through the process. And I appreciate your concern about the Congressional add-ons. I don't take full responsibility for all the earmarks my colleagues put on. At the same time, they are a reality. They are likely to be there. And I don't want the EPA budget to get scrunched as a result because, as I said, I am a friend of EPA and I want the research to be done and to be done well.
EPA's Regulatory Development Process and Staffing
Question on the regulatory development. Last year, Administrator Whitman, or Governor Whitman, directed EPA to carry out an internal review of the Agency's regulatory development process. And the Agency has agreed to creating a new position of Science Advisor and five additional staff, etcetera. When do you expect this to happen? When will the Science Advisor be named? What will the new staff do? When will they be put in place, etcetera?
Dr. GILMAN. I would expect the announcement on the Science Advisor to happen within the next 30 days or so. I don't think it is any secret to you that the Administrator has said she intends to name me as a Science Advisor for the Agency. What is being worked on now really is not just that designation, but the tasking that will go along with that designation that will, in many respects, embody a number of elements of the Administrator and the Administration's desired initiatives in the area of the use of science within EPA and the doing of research within EPA.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As for the staffing related to the regulatory process—and just to put a little more on the recommendations of that task force—in effect, if you were to try and boil down what that task force recommended, it recommended that science be involved early in the regulatory process, in the thinking through of how that is to be done, and it be involved often.
And while the budget request for fiscal year '03 is for five additional staff, we are working with an additional eight staff in this current fiscal year that were added on for this fiscal year. But I should point out that is building on top of a number of just over 50 individuals throughout the Office of Research and Development in our lab system who are engaged in tracking the regulatory process and providing input to the regulatory process. So that process, while it has been in place for some time, the Administrator has committed herself to a reinvigorated effort to inject the Office of Research and Development and Science into that process.
And while we are certainly not waiting on the next five full-time equivalents to do that, in my very first week of official duty, I got intimately involved in the data quality guidelines, proposed announcement for the May 1 Federal Register, and that was just my own personal involvement. Our staff has been really seeing a very increased pace of activity in the regulatory process.
Chairman EHLERS. I would like to ask our other witnesses if they have any comments on either this last question or on the previous one about——
Dr. PEARCE. I would just like to make the——
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Pearce.
Impact of Budget Cuts
Dr. PEARCE. I would like to comment that the ORD budget shows that OMB had to make some very hard choices. The issues you raise about homeland security and Superfund would be increased—would be addressed by increasing the ORD budget itself.
The other thing that concerns me is in regard to the new technologies that have been mentioned—nanotechnology, biotechnology. And that means really that you will have to have additional types of people on your staff to appreciate this and interact with other agencies as developments are made. It is not that EPA necessarily will make all these developments, but the appreciation of how to use these developments coming from all over, depends on having people involved in those areas of research itself. By cutting back the budget, you are essentially keeping things at the point where they can just about keep things going rather than really venturing into newer fields.
Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Matanoski, any comments?
Dr. MATANOSKI. I can only say yea to what Dr. Pearce has just said. There is no way of really looking into the future and utilizing what is there to be adapted for EPA's use without a very serious commitment of new monies, not what has been there constantly over time. There is no way they can stop a program. That is the unfortunate thing. You may think that the—you know, you take care of air and you can forget it; you take care of water, you can forget it. There is virtually nothing they can forget. They have to monitor from then on. They have to look at new technologies. They have to look at new changes that go on.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We chlorinated water to make it clean and now they have got to worry about chlorination byproducts. So there is always something that comes back afterwards. Everything has to remain the same from that standpoint and yet there is a major increase in what is available to them that they could use.
Basic Science at EPA
Just one side comment. EPA, to me, is a very unusual organization, not that I am part of it—I am from the outside looking in. NIH is almost purely science. They don't do very much public health. Once in a while they have a piece of public health, but their big focus is on good basic science, and they do it well.
But EPA has to focus on good basic science. Then they have to focus on applied science. And so their science is really widespread. And then they have to take that science and try to make some commonsense out of it, work together with a decision-maker of some kind, and come up with a policy. And there are very few agencies that have to do that kind of work. And it is like three-step process, all of which involve science and scientists. And I don't think we have ever funded them sufficiently to be able to carry out that kind of scientific endeavor that they really need to do. And they know it. It is just a matter of having enough people and funds to be able to do it.
Nanotechnology
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Dr. Gilman, a few more questions. First of all, I am just curious—what nanotechnology projects do you envision at EPA?
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. GILMAN. Well, the current one I gave an example of is one where it is really investigator-initiated, almost, because it is run through our STAR Grant Program and so it is a collaboration really with the University of Kentucky. The STAR Grant Program gives us a number of opportunities like that where we can simply not so much put out a call for nanotechnology, but put out a call for solutions to problems. And what may come back in is an application in the realm of nanotechnology.
So we are not planning a nanotechnology research initiative like you might see at the Department of Energy or in an engineering program at the National Science Foundation. What we are trying to encourage is researchers who are interested in nanotechnology to look at the problems that we are trying to solve that are related to the missions of our Agency and step up and take advantage of our research funding to make that application.
Chairman EHLERS. I see. Another—I hope this will be the last one, unless this raises new questions. That is, Administrator Whitman committed last year to publishing the State of the Environment Report. What is the status of that? When can we anticipate seeing that report?
State of the Environment Report
Dr. GILMAN. Our target for completion is the November time frame. And by completion I have to say, we are viewing this first version of the document really as one that we will seek a lot of comment on. It won't be a first draft; it won't be a final draft. But we are looking to have it out on the street in the November time frame. We are currently trying to assess a number of questions that we believe the public-at-large is interested in answers to. So we are approaching our environmental indicator's report from the point of view of what is it that people want to know and what environmental indicators do we have that provide and inform answers on those questions.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we are in the stage now of trying to boil down literally hundreds of questions that we have derived by talking to people who have been in the business of polling the American public on the issues of concern to them in the environment on through to what researchers view as important questions on the environment. And then the Office of Research and Development will be involved in trying to identify the indicators that best answer those questions, figuring out which indicators truly are high-quality data and ones that provide us with something of a longer-term view of the state of that indicator.
And we hope to be into our first draft by the end of the summer, getting some external review, input from some of the states and tribal leaders who provide input in these, in the area of indicators, with our final draft, if you will, on the street in November.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. And I hope through that process somehow you can lend some intelligence to the discussion of risk analysis, which I happen to think is the most difficult area in terms of public understanding. They basically want zero risk for everything, and it is simply unachievable in many cases and economically unachievable in many others. And there is sore need for public understanding of how you make your decisions and what risk analysis you must do. I have to say, at times it boggles my mind the way we, as a Nation, spend millions, in some cases, billions, of dollars in one area when for a tenth of that we could save more lives and reduce disease more in another area which hasn't caught the popular imagination.
So that is my response to your projected report. I hope you can say a few words of wisdom about that, and in the process educate the American public about the need for making those very tough decisions.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are there any other comments that any member of the Panel wishes to make? I thank you very much. You have been a very thoughtful, intelligent, and helpful Panel. I appreciate you being here and appreciate your comments. And with that, we will adjourn the meeting.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
BIOGRAPHY FOR PAUL GILMAN
In April 2002, Dr. Gilman was sworn-in to serve as the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development which is the scientific and technological arm of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Before his confirmation, he was Director, Policy Planning for Celera Genomics in Rockville, Maryland. Celera Genomics, a bioinformation and drug discovery company, is known for having decoded the human genome. In his position Dr. Gilman was responsible for strategic planning for corporate development and communications.
Prior to joining Celera, Dr. Gilman was the Executive Director of the life sciences and agriculture divisions of the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering. The National Research Council is the operating arm of the National Academies which were chartered to provide independent advice to the government in matters of science and engineering. Dr. Gilman's divisions focused on risks to health and the environment, protection and management of biotic resources, and practical applications of biology including biotechnology and agriculture.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Before joining the National Research Council, Gilman was the Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science. There he coordinated budget formulation, regulatory, and legislative activities between agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Agriculture, and Energy with the Executive Office of the President.
Dr. Gilman served as Executive Assistant to the Secretary of Energy for technical matters before joining the OMB. His responsibilities included participating in policy deliberations and tracking implementation of a variety of programs including the Department's environmental remediation and basic science research.
Gilman has 13 years of experience working on the staff of the United States Senate. He began that time as a Congressional Science Fellow sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in the office of Senator Pete V. Domenici. Later, as the Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development, he was involved in the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and oversight of energy technology and environmental research. Later he served as the chief-of-staff for Senator Domenici.
Dr. Gilman matriculated at Kenyon College in Ohio and received his A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in ecology and evolutionary biology from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Responses by Dr. Paul Gilman
MAJORITY QUESTIONS:
Question 1:
The National Academy of Science's report, ''Strengthening Science at the EPA.'' made many recommendations, such as continuing to place a high priority on ORD graduate fellowships and postdoctoral programs, maintaining an even balance between problem-driven research and core research, and improving peer review.
Which recommendations have the agency made the most progress implementing?
Which recommendations still require additional attention?
Which recommendations are highest on your priority list?
Has EPA rejected any recommendation?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, or ''the Agency'') has made significant progress in implementing the recommendations made in the National Research Council's (NRC) June 2000 report, ''Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research Management and Peer Review Practices.'' The report, prepared in response to a request from Congress for an independent assessment of the overall structure and management of EPA's research and peer review programs, has been a very useful guide for enhancing EPA's already strong science program.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The NRC made recommendations for strengthening EPA science in five areas: scientific leadership and talent, research continuity and balance, research partnerships and outreach, research accountability, and scientific peer review. In the past two years, the Agency has made significant progress in all five areas, each of which we deem to be of high priority for the Agency. We have not rejected any of the NRC's recommendations. We note that in order to fully address the NRC's recommendations in the area of scientific leadership and talent, we intend to involve other federal agencies in graduate fellowships and explore new mechanisms for competitive, renewable term appointments for world-class engineers and scientists.
Scientific Leadership and Talent
The NRC recommended establishing a new position of Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology, as well as converting the position of Assistant Administrator for Research and Development into a six-year statutory term appointment. The Administrator has addressed the NRC's concerns for coordinated Agency-wide scientific leadership by naming Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development (ORD), as the EPA Science Advisor. As the Science Advisor, Dr. Gilman is positioned to ensure that EPA has the best science to support Agency policies and decisions and to advise the Administrator on science and technology issues and their relationship to EPA's policies, procedures, and decisions.
A key recommendation in the NRC's ''Strengthening Science'' was that ORD continue to place a high priority on its graduate fellowship and post-doctoral programs. ORD continues to maintain this high priority and presently supports approximately 200 Science to Achieve Results (STAR) graduate fellows. ORD also supports approximately 500 active STAR grants. As part of ORD's ongoing program to evaluate and improve the quality of its scientific research, EPA has contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the scientific effectiveness of aspects of the STAR grants research and to recommend measures for evaluating the success of the STAR grants program on a continuing basis. In addition the EPA OIG is evaluating whether or not the STAR extramural research program is integrated with the intramural research plans and programs, so that it is in fact effectively complementing the in-house research as intended. In addition, ORD will continue its fellowship program for undergraduate and graduate students called the Minority Academic Institution (MAI) fellowship program. The MAI graduate and undergraduate funding levels remain the same as previous fiscal years. ORD has made a major effort to increase outreach to minority institutions to ensure that African-American, Hispanic, Native American, and Pacific-Island students have access to the program.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In FY 1999, ORD deployed a long-range program of hiring postdoctoral scientists and engineers for three-year term appointments. Our post-docs provide a dynamic infusion of intellectual energy and state-of-the science expertise to ensure that EPA continues to produce outstanding scientists and engineers in the field of environmental protection. Examples of post-doctoral research contributions include: participation as members of the ground zero monitoring team at the World Trade Center site, development of a method to identify Hepatitis E in watersheds, and the development of a population model to predict children's exposure and dose resulting from contact with pesticides applied in homes and on lawns. The post-doc program was funded in FY02 and will be funded again in FY03.
The NRC report also concluded that, to strengthen its research program and maintain the flexibility to inform regulatory decisions on emerging environmental issues, the EPA needs legislative authority that permits the establishment of competitive, renewable term appointments for outstanding research scientists and engineers. As I discussed with you, EPA is exploring the NRC recommendations which may make EPA:
More flexible in its ability to respond to emerging environmental problems with state-of-the-art science that meets the needs of its internal and external customers,
More competitive in recruiting and retaining outstanding scientists, engineers, and science managers, and
More proactive in establishing performance-based career paths to develop junior scientists and engineers, and to encourage and reward high-quality, relevant science focused on high-priority research needs.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research Continuity and Balance
The NRC's principal recommendation for research continuity and balance were that ORD continue and expand its multi-year research planning effort, and maintain a balance between core and problem-driven research. We have done both. ORD has initiated a multi-year planning effort to set the direction of our research program in selected topic areas over five or more years. This approach will promote ORD's focus on the highest priority issues and will provide a coordinated means of achieving our long-term research goals. To date, we have completed 15 multi-year plans, and have coordinated external review by the Science Advisory Board of our Water Quality and Pollution Prevention multi-year plans.
ORD's allocation between problem-driven and core research is approximately 60 and 40 percent, respectively. This distribution has remained constant in recent years, and we believe it is an appropriate allocation for a research program designed to support EPA's missions.
Research Partnerships and Outreach
The focus of the NRC's recommendations for research partnerships and outreach was two-fold: greater EPA awareness of research being conducted outside the Agency, and better communication of EPA research to outside parties. The Agency is achieving significant progress in creating partnerships with other entities both public and private in research activities. For example, EPA and the American Chemistry Council recently signed an agreement to coordinate on two multi-year Cooperative Research and Development Agreements to better understand the potential effects of chemicals on fetal and childhood immune system development, and the potential impacts of endocrine-active chemicals on wildlife populations. EPA is also active in many interagency task forces and workgroups in such areas as safe food and transboundary pollution.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ORD has increased partnerships with other federal agencies under the STAR program since the program was initiated in 1995. STAR leverages its resources through joint solicitations with 12 federal and private sector research partners enhancing the National Center for Environmental Research research portfolio by about 30 to 50 additional grants.
We have made great strides in our outreach efforts. In May 2002, EPA held its first annual Science Forum, a well-attended, two-day public event that showcased Agency science across the spectrum of environmental science activities. Based on feedback from our stakeholders, we have also improved communication of ORD's extramural research program by providing public access, via the Internet and news releases, to our extensive database of research produced under the STAR grants. ORD also holds several workshops each year to highlight the research being conducted by STAR grantees that are open to the public.
Research Accountability
Under accountability, the NRC emphasized two areas: enhanced transparency in setting ORD's research agenda, and expanding EPA's new inventory of science activities. We are making progress in both areas. ORD's multi-year research plans provide a transparent and forward-looking view of the Agency's research agenda for the next several years, by identifying long-term goals and presenting annual performance goals and associated annual performance measures for a planning window of approximately 5–10 years. These plans are based on the EPA and ORD Strategic Plans with input from EPA's program and regional offices, as well as outside peer advice. The multi-year plans foster the integration of strategic, risk-based environmental protection and anticipation of future environmental issues by communicating our research approach and timing for responding to environmental issues. ORD's multi-year plans are living documents and are updated annually to reflect changes in Agency strategic thinking, available resources, and the current state-of-the science.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EPA is also experiencing success in expanding its inventory of science activities. In 2001, offices from across EPA provided more than 2,500 submissions of current science activities and recently completed scientific/technical work products. The Inventory is currently being updated for 2002. This year, the Science Inventory is being made available across EPA via an Intranet portal. Experience with Agency staff using the Inventory will prove valuable in determining the most useful and usable format for making our Science Inventory available to the public via the Internet.
Scientific Peer Review
The Agency has completed its revision of the Peer Review Handbook. The revised Handbook, among other things, clarifies the importance of strictly separating the management of scientific work products from the peer review of those work products. By consistent and rigorous monitoring of the use of peer review across the Agency, led by ORD's annual evaluation of offices' peer review plans, the value of scientific peer review in ensuring the quality of EPA's scientific and technical products is now widely understood and accepted across the Agency. The Office of Environmental Information also plays an important role in conducting a periodic review of the implementation of the Agency's peer review policy.
Question 2:
The President's budget request seeks $75 million for ORD from the Superfund Trust Account to support research on detecting and remediating biological and chemical contamination in structures. In your testimony you said that these activities will supplement existing work of the Agency, take place over two years, and focus more on improving technologies developed by others than by EPA. Please provide more detail on how the Agency is organizing this effort and the types of research that will be initiated.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
a) What are ORD's plans (including the goals, time frame and process) for implementing this new initiative?
In FY 2002, ORD began preparing for the implementation of proposed Homeland Security research in 2003. This preparation will allow for more efficient use of the FY 2003 funds. In FY 2003, before initiating any research efforts, ORD will survey the private sector and other agencies and organizations to assess existing capabilities and where possible work to bring that technology, information or process to those who need it. Where others have already established a lead in a given area, EPA can defer to that organization. In other cases, a collaborative working relationship may be best suited. A leadership role may also be appropriate for EPA.
b) Is there, or will there be, a written plan? Who are you consulting with in developing the plan? Are you engaging state and local governments?
EPA has developed a draft Homeland Security Strategic Plan. This strategy was developed through input from across EPA and in part through an ongoing dialogue with other federal agencies. EPA intends to use this draft strategy to more fully engage other federal agencies, State and local governments to more clearly define our respective roles and responsibilities, identify areas for collaboration and to prevent duplication of effort.
c) When would you be able to make the plan available to the committee?
The Agency's Homeland Security Strategic Plan has yet to be reviewed by the Administrator. Once it has been thoroughly reviewed, we will make it available to you.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
d) Have you made a final decision on whether this will be a two-year initiative?
The Science and Technology appropriation is a two-year appropriation. Because of this, ORD has developed a two year program that will be completed at the end of FY 2004.
e) What types of research will be initiated?
Research will focus on five main areas: detection of contaminants, containment of contaminants, decontamination of indoor materials, disposal of contaminated clean-up equipment and supplies, and risk communication including the transfer of improved methods to users. Work will include the testing and verification of existing technologies and methods for detection, containment, disposal, and decontamination as well as the development of guidance for facility managers, emergency responders, and others on improved detection, containment and decontamination methods.
f) What can be done with existing buildings to reduce their vulnerability to contamination or to simplify the cleaning of contaminated buildings?
Some of ORD's effort will focus on how to better design and manage buildings to reduce vulnerabilities. Redesigned HVAC systems, restricting access to air intakes, early warning air filters, and safe areas are examples of areas we intend to explore. Considerable effort will also focus on more efficient methods for building cleanup.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
g) What activities under Superfund will not be carried out because of this shift in funding?
The $75 million appropriated to Superfund, then transferred to Science and Technology (S&T) is ''new money.'' There is no reduction in the Superfund program. The shifting of the Brownfields program in FY 2003 to the State and Tribal Grant (STAG) Appropriation Account and the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) Appropriation Account creates the appearance of a slight reduction.
EPA is specifically requesting $75 million in Superfund to conduct research on better technologies and assessments to cleanup buildings contaminated by biological and chemical agents. This initiative is an important part of the Administration's overall Homeland Security efforts. Resources for this initiative are over the normal request level of the Agency's research portion of the Superfund request, see below.
78960q.eps
Question 3:
Drinking water security is another area in which ORD plays an important role. Because of various Presidential Directives and the FY02 supplemental, a great deal of work is already underway.
What priorities have you identified (e.g., monitoring, early detection of contaminants)?
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ORD has developed a comprehensive Homeland Security Research plan that identifies water security research priorities for both drinking water and waste water. Research priorities in the plan include monitoring and early detection of contaminants as well as development of analytical methods, treatability studies and new design for system ''hardening.''
Is there, or will there be, a written plan?
If there is a plan of any kind, what organizations are providing input? Are you engaging State and local governments?
ORD's comprehensive Homeland Security Research plan will be consistent with the priorities identified by EPA's Water Protection Task Force (WPTF) in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Defense, and Food and Drug Administration.
The WPTF has developed an ongoing dialogue on water security needs with the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, Association of Metropolitan Water Authorities, American Water Works Association, American Water Works Association Research Foundation, the National Rural Water Association, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the Water Environment Federation, the Water Environment Research Foundation, and the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Question 4:
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In your testimony you mentioned that ORD will add five staff to better connect EPA's science programs with the line regulatory offices that write the rules. These five staff complement eight staff added last year and the 50 you mentioned in your testimony.
— How did you determine how many additional staff would be needed to serve these functions?
— Did EPA conduct a work-load analysis?
— If not, how will you know what staffing level is adequate?
— Could you provide more specific information about what the additional staff will do?
— Are they new staff or simply reprogrammed from other areas?
The new FTEs, combined with the eight staff added last year, will significantly expand ORD's efforts to participate in the regulatory and non-regulatory decision-making process to ensure that EPA's policies are based on the best available science. The FTEs will ensure ORD scientists are involved in the policy making process, helping to both determine additional research and analyses needed and review the science underpinning the Agency's decisions. More specifically, these additional resources will enable ORD researchers to increase their efforts to:
help other Agency scientists scope proposed regulations to determine what types of research and scientific assessments will be needed
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
review plans to properly identify data needs towards supporting a regulation
assist in the development of scientifically defensible regulatory options
ensure that technical products underpinning Agency decisions meet the Agency's guidelines for information quality, including rigorous peer review, and
ensure that the science underpinning our decisions is characterized appropriately, is understandable, and that EPA managers have the best possible scientific information when making policy decisions.
The additional FTEs are only part of the solution. The ORD Office, Laboratory, and Center Directors will also increase their efforts devoted to program support, focusing research—at the bench, in the field, and in assessments—in those areas that will provide the strongest science towards informing environmental decisions.
While the Agency did not conduct an in-depth workload analysis, the agency believes that these additional FTEs, coupled with increasing the focus of our research on environmental decisions, will strengthen ORD's capability to provide the leadership needed to assure that strong science plays an increasingly prominent role in Agency decision-making. ORD, in consultation with others in the Agency, will evaluate the contributions it has made in Agency decision-making and assess if fewer or additional FTE are needed for this task.
Question 5:
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You described EPA's effort to produce the nation's first ''State of the Environment Report'' later this year. The goal of the report, as we understand it, is to produce a national scorecard to measure environmental progress. You also mentioned that this report should be considered a work in progress on which you will ask for stakeholder input.
What specific steps has EPA taken so far to produce a State of the Environment Report?
EPA has developed a detailed outline for the report and the accompanying technical support document that highlights issues, questions and indicators. A process has been developed to review internally the quality of the data underlying each indicator, and the suitability of the indicator for answering a specific question. Currently, we are in the middle of this review effort for more than 100 proposed indicators. In addition, we have consulted extensively with outside experts who have been involved with recent indicator efforts by the:
EPA Science Advisory Board
National Research Council
Heinz Center
Pew Commission
The draft report, prior to being finalized, will undergo both a thorough peer and interagency review and public comment period.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To what extent are ORD's programs supporting this effort?
As a part of this overall effort we have created five ''theme teams'' composed of scientists and program people from ORD, the EPA Program Offices and the Regions. Three of the five teams are chaired by scientists from ORD, and many of the teams have multiple ORD participants. All parts of ORD are strongly supporting this effort.
What is the proposed scope of the report?
The report will cover five major theme areas:
Air
Water
Land
Health, and
Ecology
Under each theme a series of questions has been developed so that they can be dealt with in depth.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Will the report use existing data or create new measures to report progress?
We envision this report as the first in a series. For this first report we have decided to use existing data and existing indicators to talk about national themes, questions and indicators. In addition, we plan to discuss data gaps and needs that could serve as a roadmap for future research, monitoring and analysis.
To what extent has EPA engaged the other key federal agencies in the report process? What kind of support are you receiving from the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy?
With the assistance of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, we have met with other federal agencies to review the report, its scope, and the potential indicators that might be used. We have asked for their help in identifying other indicators that might be useful in answering the questions, and for examples from their work that might be used to illustrate topics in the report. CEQ and OSTP will also review the report as it undergoes interagency review.
What steps is the Agency taking to ensure public input after the report's release?
We envision this report to be a draft for discussion. We anticipate that many people and organizations will want to comment, and will make sure that their comments are listened to and heard. The process to release the draft report will include a notice of availability for public comment. However, even before the report is published as a draft this fall, EPA is reaching out to a large number of public and private organizations to make them aware of their upcoming opportunity to either contribute to or comment on the ''State of the Environment Report'' and work with EPA on the Indicators Initiative in the future. The Agency through the Indicators Initiative is developing a set of environmental indicators that will be used in evaluating the state of the environment. The Initiative is an agency-wide workgroup comprised of representatives from the program and regional offices as well as special interest groups. The organizations to which EPA is reaching out on the ''State of the Environment Report'' include:
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
States and state organizations (EPA has a cooperative agreement in place with the Environmental Commission of the States—ECOS to assist in this effort)
Agricultural groups
Local government groups
Tribes
Congress (e.g., briefing for House Science Committee Members and staff is being scheduled)
Public Interest groups (environmental, community right-to-know groups, think tanks, NGO data providers, et al.)
Business groups (both big and small businesses)
Health groups (e.g., National Environmental Health Association)
Educational organizations (e.g., National Education Association)
Research community
Recreation and tourism industry
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Retirees and senior Americans
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Dr. Paul Gilman
DEMOCRATIC QUESTIONS:
Question 1:
The existence of increased harmful algal blooms, low oxygen zones and increased nutrient loads of our rivers, lakes and estuaries is well documented. The monitoring program EPA is embarking on may be useful in further documenting established trends, but it will not reverse them. What research is being done to develop management guidelines or regulatory approaches to reduce these trends? How is this research being coordinated with USDA, Interior and NOAA?
A portion of ORD's research program addresses restoration of impaired ecosystems as well as management of contaminants, such as nutrients found in urban wet weather flow and nutrients related to confined animal feeding operations. These programs are developing approaches to reduce the level of contaminants entering water bodies, evaluating the effectiveness of best management practices and verifying the performance of technologies aimed at the control of nutrients. ORD has been interacting with the Departments of Agriculture and Interior and others on the research program and cooperative research is being established as appropriate.
Question 2:
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A great deal of the research you have outlined focuses on developing more refined human health risk assessments and expanding monitoring and data collection abilities. While these efforts are important and useful, it is unclear how and when they will lead to better pollution-reduction and risk-reduction strategies. The research agenda of ORD and the statutorily-mandated activities of the program and enforcement offices still seem disconnected.
How are ORD's efforts being targeted to better serve the program and enforcement offices?
ORD's research is planned and coordinated through the Research Coordination Teams (RCT) which includes representatives from all the ORD laboratories and centers, the EPA Program Offices, and the EPA Regions who represent the States. Research needs are identified and compiled from a variety of documents: regulatory and congressional mandates and/or legislation, research strategies, external science reviews (e.g., National Research Council, Science Advisory Board), and specific needs outlined by the Program and Regional Offices. The list of research needs are prioritized by the RCT and integrated ORD research programs are implemented to address these priority needs. ORD also identifies strategic research needs in its Research Strategy Documents (e.g., Asthma Research Strategy, Research Plan for Endocrine Disruptors, draft Human Health Research Strategy). More specific research goals and performance measures are derived from the research strategies and are documented in ORD Multi-Year Plans, which serve as a tool to plan the direction of our research program. Program and Regional Offices actively participate with ORD in the development of research strategy documents and Multi-Year Plans.
Which ORD research programs were identified as priority areas for research by the program and enforcement offices?
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Through the research planning process, the programs (including enforcement) and regional offices identified many priority research areas, and these are reflected in the President's FY 2003 budget request. Perhaps most notable among these is ORD's particulate matter program.
The National Research Council outlined a series of research needs associated with particulate matter, especially exposure and effects research. ORD has conducted research in these areas that has furthered our understanding of PM health risks. This research was coordinated with similar programs implemented by the Health Effects Institute. Research to support the implementation of the particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) has also been identified as a high priority by EPA program enforcement offices. This research directly supports EPA's statutorily-mandated activities by providing data and tools to help EPA and states develop regulatory strategies for reducing exposures to particulate matter. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) strongly supports this research, which includes the development of modeling and monitoring tools that can be used by EPA and the states to effectively target risk management actions to protect human health in the most efficient manner.
ORD also devotes a portion of it research to address cross-cutting Agency science needs that will improve understanding of problem-driven health risk issues encountered by EPA's Program and Regional Offices. Based on needs of EPA's Program and Regional Offices, recommendations made by external advisory groups, and goals established by EPA in response to the Government Performance and Result Act, ORD conducts research to improve the scientific foundation of human health risk assessment, including harmonization of cancer and non-cancer risk assessment, assessing aggregate and cumulative risk, and determining the risk to susceptible subpopulations. ORD is also currently developing the capability to evaluate public health outcomes from environmental risk management decisions. This effort is in accordance with calls for the EPA to stress and demonstrate outcome-oriented goals and measures of success.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Which priority areas for research identified by the program and enforcement offices are not included in the ORD budget?
Through the RCT research planning process, ORD employs its resources to address the priority research needs of EPA's Program and Regional Offices.
Question 3:
You mention EPA's intention to release a report on the Nation's estuaries this year? When can we expect to see the report? Did EPA work with Interior or NOAA on the report? What aspects of the Nation's estuaries will be reported on?
EPA released the National Coastal Condition Report in April of this year. This Report was jointly prepared by EPA, NOAA, Department of Interior, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Report compiles available data from different agencies and areas of the country and summarizes them to present a broad baseline picture of the condition of coastal waters. Indicators of coastal condition included water clarity, dissolved oxygen, coastal wetland loss, eutrophic condition, sediment contamination, an index of benthic communities, and fish tissue contaminants. Overall national condition for coastal waters was reported as well as for the West Coast, Gulf of Mexico Coast, Southeast Coast, Northeast Coast, and Great Lakes Coast. The Report also discusses available assessment and advisory data such as Clean Water Act 305(b) and 303(d) assessments, state fish consumption advisories, classified shellfish-growing waters, and beach closures.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BIOGRAPHY FOR GENEVIEVE M. MATANOSKI
Dr. Matanoski is a Professor of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health in Baltimore, MD. She received a BA degree in chemistry at Radcliffe College and a MD at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and for a time after medical school she pursued a career in pediatrics and general preventive medicine. She earned a Doctor of Public Health Degree from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, was appointed to the faculty and has been a professor since 1976. In addition to teaching and research, Dr. Matanoski has had appointments in a number of teaching and training programs in the U.S. and abroad and is a frequent advisor to legislative and policy-making groups. She is a member of several scientific advisory bodies both for governmental agencies and for industry scientific meetings. She is a member of the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board and the board's past chair and the author or co-author of over 80 publications.
Dr. Matanoski's work has focused on the epidemiology of cancer, including bladder, lung, skin and endometrial cancers, leukemia, and an interdisciplinary community outreach study of cervical cancer in the Baltimore population. Other research studies have examined the risks associated with occupational and environmental exposures to such agents as radiation, electromagnetic fields, and chemical substances as styrene, butadiene, arsenic and environmental tobacco smoke. Recent research has emphasized reproductive effects and congenital malformations from environmental exposures. Her early work involved infectious diseases and illnesses in infants and children. She currently is involved in research related to cancer risks based on local Cancer Registry data.
BIOGRAPHY FOR ELI M. PEARCE
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
President, American Chemical Society, 2002; University Research Professor, Herman F. Mark Polymer Research Institute, Polytechnic University, 6 Metrotech Center, Brooklyn, NY 11201–2907; epearce@poly.edu
Dr. Eli M. Pearce was born in Brooklyn on May 1, 1929, received his B.S. in 1949 from Brooklyn College, an M.S. in 1951 from NYU and his Ph.D. at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in 1958. His thesis advisor was Professor Charles G. Overberger, concerned with cationic and anionic polymerization. During this early period he was a biochemist at NYU Medical School and served two years in the Army (1953–55).
In 1958, Eli Pearce joined DuPont's Carothers Laboratory; he became section manager at J.T. Baker in 1962 and manager at Allied Chemical Corp. in 1968. In 1974, he was appointed Director of the Dreyfus Laboratory at the Research Triangle Institute and was also invited to join the Polytechnic University of New York as Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering.
During his career at the Polytechnic University, he was Department Head (1976–82), Dean of Arts and Science (1982–90), Director of the Polymer Research Institute (1981–96), and is presently University Research Professor. Polymers at the Polytechnic University (''Brooklyn Poly'') have continued to be a visible force in the polymer world-wide community. A significant part of the continued preeminence of the Polymer Research Institute is related to the arrival of Eli Pearce at the Polytechnic in 1974, his research and professional activities, and his ability to interact and work with the faculty.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The scientific work of Eli Pearce is recorded in over 250 papers and five patents. His polymer research has primarily been in synthesis, degradation, blends, and flammability.
For 25 years, Eli Pearce was the editor of the preeminent Journal of Polymer Science, Chemistry Edition, and he was and is on the Editorial Board of a number of polymer-related journals. He has also been co-editor of six books dealing with flammability, fibers, the future of polymers, and lab manuals.
Eli Pearce has served in prominent positions in a number of professional societies. He is a fellow of the AAAS, AIC, NYAS, SPE, and NATAS. He has been very active in the American Chemical Society (ACS) and currently serves as its President. and has served on the Board of Directors as Director-at-Large from 1999–2000. Dr. Pearce chaired the ACS Committee on Science and the Committee on Nominations and Elections, and has been a member of the committees dealing with professional training, committee appointments and policy and on the Petroleum Research Fund Board. He also has been Chair of the Division of Polymer chemistry in 1981 and of PolyEd—the joint committee on polymer education.
Eli Pearce was also active in National and International Committees: e.g., National Materials Advisory Board, 1975–77; National Materials Advisory Board Committees: Materials Advisory Committee, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Advisory Committee on Polymers for Advanced Technology of IUPAC, National Institute of Standards and Technology Advisory Panel on Fire Research, 1981–90; the Naval Research Board Panel on Polymers as chair from 1993–95; several NSF committees; NATO Scientific Consultants from 1992–98. He is presently a member of the Chemical Science Roundtable of the National Research Council (NRC).
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the Gordon Research Conferences, he was a member of the council in 1984, the co-chair of the Conference on Polymer Combustion and Flammability in 1975 and the chair of the Conference on Polymers in 1983. Her served as the chair of the U.S.-Japan Symposium on Polymer Synthesis in 1987. He has been the co-chair of several international meeting advisory committees and has been a frequent invited plenary lecturer.
Eli Pearce received a number of honors: The Distinguished Service Award, Division of Polymer Chemistry, ACS, in 1991; and the P.J. Flory Polymer Education Award in 1992. He was recognized by Polytechnic University as Distinguished Alumnus in 1997, he received recognition by the New York Institute of Chemists in 1992 and Polymer Education Awards from the Society of Plastics Engineers, the International Award on Education in 1988, and from the Plastics Institute of America in 1980. He also gave the Kaufman Lecture at Ramapo College in 1992 and was the Reed-Lignin Lecturer in 1987. He is recipient of the Chemistry Teachers Club of New York Oscar Riker Foster Award in 2000.
In 1980, Eli Pearce married Judith and he has two married children by a previous marriage, Russell and Debra. Eli has also two married stepchildren, Michael and Liz. Between them, they have ten grandchildren. Judith has been his companion, friend, and culture counselor and has helped establish hobbies related to theater, art, music, and politics.
78960f.eps
Appendix 2:
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additional Material for the Record
SUBMITTED TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S SCIENCE TO
ACHIEVE RESULTS (STAR) GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP
The following testimony has been submitted by a consortium of graduate students and faculty from leading academic institutions across the United States.
I. Summary
We are dismayed that the President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2003 eliminates funding for the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship program in the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). STAR Fellowships have supported graduate education at 168 colleges and universities in 45 states. We join the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology & Standards of the House Science Committee in calling for restored funding to the STAR Fellowships, and we urge the Appropriations Committee to fund the program at $30 million. This modest budget would enable EPA to award fellowships to about 20 percent of applicants per year, a rate comparable to other competitive research programs.
Our nation needs a diverse group of well-trained, innovative individuals to lead the next generation of environmental problem-solvers in private industry, education, and government. The EPA STAR Fellowship is the only Federal program that specifically supports graduate research on environmental issues. It meets the national need for a corps of managers, economists, engineers, and scientists dedicated to protecting human health and environmental quality. Future leaders will maintain the United States' position as an international leader in environmental science and management. More immediately, the work performed by STAR fellows today advances the Nation's capacity to anticipate, identify, and solve environmental problems. In these ways, the STAR Fellowship program improves homeland security and economic prosperity for all Americans. The Nation would reap numerous benefits by restoring and even expanding this high value, low-cost program.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
II. A Unique Program in Education and Applied Research
Since 1995, EPA STAR Fellowships have been awarded to more than 800 students in 45 states. STAR fellows have been supported at 168 colleges and universities, leveraging these schools' capacities to provide high-quality undergraduate and graduate education to all their students.
The aim of the STAR Fellowship program is to solve socially relevant environmental problems and train the next generation of leaders in integrated and innovative research. STAR Fellowships are merit-based and highly competitive, providing critical support for talented, motivated graduate students. It is the only source of Federal funding available to graduate students from a wide variety of fields, all dedicated to applied environmental research.
STAR fellows have made important contributions to toxicology, decision-making and risk analysis, agricultural engineering, aquatic and terrestrial ecology, economics, public health, epidemiology, and resource economics. For example, STAR fellows have:
Determined whether exposure to pesticides in a border agricultural community resulted from on-the-job hazards or more indirect routes that also affect children and families.
Identified best management practices for agriculture to reduce phosphorus loading to the Cannonsville Reservoir, a major source of drinking water for New York City.
Evaluated the capacity of forests and grasslands to sequester carbon and mitigate climate change.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Investigated how legal and administrative decisions that limit developers' site cleanup liability encourage or discourage redevelopment in polluted urban areas.
Identified how citizens' perceptions of environmental risks influence their beliefs about the credibility of speakers at public meetings.
Developed a new process to remove iron from acid mine drainage and acidic industrial wastewater without producing harmful by-products.
Each year, STAR Fellows from across the Nation and representing many different fields convene at a multidisciplinary conference to share ideas and approaches. In an age when researchers have become isolated in their specialized fields, the STAR Fellowship program facilitates interactions that lead to multi-disciplinary, integrated solutions to complicated environmental problems.
III. Innovative Leadership for Real-World Problem-Solving
The EPA's mission is to provide leadership in the Nation's environmental science, research, education, assessment, restoration, and preservation efforts. The 2003 mission statement emphasizes that EPA will develop and apply the best available science; provide quality information to the public and decision-makers at all levels; and maintain ''the highest quality standards for environmental leadership.'' To achieve these goals and meet the environmental challenges of the future, both the public and private sectors require a steady stream of well-trained environmental experts.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The STAR Fellowship program advances this mission by providing key support, training, and motivation for the graduate students who will become future leaders in all sectors of society: private industry, education, government, and not-for-profit organizations. The STAR program fosters innovation as fellows both develop independent ideas and join a multidisciplinary community of researchers. It encourages students to address the challenge of integrating basic and applied science in targeted, meaningful ways that will contribute to society.
In addition to advancing graduate education, EPA STAR Fellowships support cutting edge research on today's most pressing environmental issues. This work can be immediately useful as a foundation upon which sound policy decisions can be made. The STAR Fellowship program provides the Nation with knowledgeable, visionary professionals who apply their expertise to address practical concerns while maintaining the health and safety of our environment.
IV. EPA STAR Fellowships are Integral to Maintaining National Security
Last year, the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security/21st Century noted: ''. . .the inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine (italics ours).'' We agree with the suggestion of the House Science Committee that this situation demands greater investment in research on basic and emerging scientific issues (Views and Recommendations on the Annual Budget, 2002, Democratic Views and Views from Biggert/Grucci).
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The EPA STAR Fellowship program contributes to homeland security by: (1) supporting cutting-edge science; (2) training the next generation of leaders in numerous fields; and (3) solving real-world problems that threaten the health of the American people and environment. STAR Fellowships constitute an inexpensive and highly effective investment in our national security. Allowing the program to die, or funding it at an inadequate level, would simply aggravate the situation described by the Hart-Rudman Commission.
By fostering leadership and innovation, the STAR Fellowship program also enhances the United States' position as a world leader in environmental research. In this role, the U.S. catalyzes investigation of emerging questions and influences the evolution of ongoing programs. The Nation needs to maintain its position of international leadership in environmental science and policy if we are to continue reaping the associated economic and national security benefits.
V. Funding Rate and Program Needs
STAR Fellowships have been so competitive in recent years that under 10 percent of the 1000+ applicants each year have received funding. Many extremely qualified applicants did not receive fellowships because the EPA STAR budget was not sufficient to fund all of the best applicants. In fact, the National Council on Science and Education reports that in 2000, one of the fellowship review panels ''submitted a letter to the EPA, asking that the agency double the amount of funding for fellowships so that it would not have to turn down so many qualified students.'' In 2002, 1,400 students applied for STAR Fellowship. Under the Bush Administration's proposed budget, none will receive funding.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The STAR Fellowship provides a high return to the Nation in terms of immediate and long-term benefits that far exceed the small investment required from public funds. The 2002 STAR Fellowship budget was about 0.4 percent of the total EPA budget, which itself is small compared to many government programs. We appreciate the support Congress has demonstrated for the STAR Fellowship since its creation in 1995. We are hopeful that the enthusiasm that has been expressed for this program will lead to restored, and even increased, funding for FY 2003.
The House Science Committee, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology & Standards recently recommended: ''restoring funding for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowships, which have supported hundreds of graduate and undergraduate students in the environmental sciences.'' With funding equivalent to FY 2002, 100 students—roughly 7 percent of those who applied for fellowships to begin this year—could be funded. We urge Congress to provide the STAR Fellowship program with $30 million, a budget sufficient to fund 20 percent of applicants while maintaining the high standards of excellence that have characterized it to date.
Respectfully Submitted,
78960g.eps
78960h.eps
78960i.eps
78960j.eps
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
78960k.eps
78960l.eps
78960m.eps
78960n.eps
78960o.eps
78960p.eps
(Footnote 1 return)
Strengthening Science at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Research Council (2000).