U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–576PS 2006

EPA’S FISCAL YEAR 2007 SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET PROPOSAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,

AND STANDARDS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 16, 2006

Serial No. 109–41

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

VACANCY

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

JIM COSTA, California

AL GREEN, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

VACANCY

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

MARK UDALL, Colorado

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

BART GORDON, Tennessee

AMY CARROLL Subcommittee Staff Director

MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member

JEAN FRUCI Democratic Professional Staff Member

OLWEN HUXLEY Professional Staff Member

MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member

SUSANNAH FOSTER Professional Staff Member

CHAD ENGLISH Professional Staff Member

JAMIE BROWN Majority Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

March 16, 2006

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Statement by Representative David Wu, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on

Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................. 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Witnesses:

Dr. George M. Gray, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development

and EPA Science Advisor, United States Environmental Protection Agency

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14

Biography .......................................................................................................... 17

Dr. M. Granger Morgan, Chairman, Science Advisory Board, United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19

Biography .......................................................................................................... 23

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 24

Dr. Donald N. Langenberg, Vice Chairman, National Council for Science

and the Environment

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26

Biography .......................................................................................................... 30

Mr. Jeffrey P. Ruch, Executive Director, Public Employees for Environmental

Responsibility

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 32

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 34

Biography .......................................................................................................... 40

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 40

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 41

Paying for Homeland Security Research ........................................................ 43

Water Sentinel .................................................................................................. 44

Scientific Integrity ............................................................................................ 45

IRIS Reform ...................................................................................................... 47

Impact of Budget Cuts ..................................................................................... 49

Scientific Integrity ............................................................................................ 50

Environmental Technology Verification Program .......................................... 51

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. George M. Gray, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development

and EPA Science Advisor, United States Environmental Protection Agency . 58

Page

IV

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Statement of the American Chemical Society ....................................................... 74

Science and Research Budgets for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

for Fiscal Year 2007; An Advisory Report by the Science Advisory Board,

March 2006, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) ................................................ 76

(1)

EPA’S FISCAL YEAR 2007 SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY BUDGET PROPOSAL

THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STANDARDS,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STANDARDS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EPA’s Fiscal Year 2007 Science

and Technology Budget Proposal

THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2006

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Thursday, March 16, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards will hold a hearing to examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fiscal year 2007 (FY07) budget request for Science and Technology (S&T).

2. Witnesses

Dr. George Gray, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development and Science Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Dr. M. Granger Morgan, Chair, EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB); Lord Chair

Professor in Engineering and Professor and Department Head, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University.

Dr. Don Langenberg, Vice-Chair, the National Council for Science and the Environment; Chancellor Emeritus of the University System of Maryland; Professor of

Physics and Electrical Engineering, University of Maryland; former President,

American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Mr. Jeff Ruch, Executive Director, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

3. Overarching Questions

1. Is the overall level of Science and Technology (S&T) funding appropriate and

are the priorities balanced among core research, mission-driven research,

emerging issues, and homeland security?

2. In particular, what are the consequences of the past and proposed reductions

to ecological research, sustainability research, climate change research, graduate fellowships, and technology verification programs?

4. Background

EPA’s overall FY07 budget request is $7.3 billion. The S&T portion of the budget request is $788 million or a bit more than 10 percent of the total. The remainder

of the budget is divided into several accounts. One account funds the agency’s air,

water, waste, toxics and pesticides programs, one supports clean up of hazardous

waste sites under the Superfund program, and another provides grants to states to

support EPA’s Clean Water Act programs. Nearly $528 million (72 percent) of S&T funding is for EPA’s Office of Research

and Development (ORD), which is the primary research arm of the agency. ORD

also receives a small amount of funding from the agency’s Superfund program for

research on hazardous waste remediation. Typically, most of the remaining S&T

funds go to the Office of Air and Radiation, and a smaller amount to the Office of

Water. The agency’s FY07 budget request proposes a larger share of S&T funds

than in past years for the Office of Water’s homeland security activities.

ORD conducts and sponsors both fundamental research in environmental science

and more targeted research that informs EPA’s regulatory programs. For example,

ORD develops the scientific risk information for the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a database about human health effects from chemicals in the

environment. It is used by EPA programs and states to help determine hazardous

4

waste site clean up levels and drinking water standards. In air quality, ORD develops the scientific underpinning for EPA’s air quality standards in areas such as particulate matter and ozone. And ORD also investigates newer environmental questions such as the environmental implications and applications of nanotechnology.

To carry out these responsibilities, ORD both conducts intramural research at

EPA’s laboratories and supports fellowships and research at colleges and universities through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant program.

5. Budget Highlights

• The FY07 budget requests $788 million for S&T at EPA, a $58 million (eight

percent) increase from the FY06 enacted level of $730 million. However, that

figure includes an accounting change, which transfers $62 million from the

Environment Programs and Management account to the S&T account. The

accounting change is intended to more accurately allocate facility rents to the

appropriate account and does not allow for any increased spending on programs. Excluding the accounting change, the S&T budget request is $726 million, slightly less than a one percent decrease from FY06 enacted level, and

$71 million (12 percent) below the peak funding in FY04.

• The FY07 request would decrease the budget to $557 million; $38 million (six

percent) less than the FY06 enacted level. About $20 million of that reduction

is the result of the Administration removing Congressional earmarks from the

FY06 base.

• If enacted, the FY07 request for ORD would be its lowest funding level since

FY00 and $90 million (14 percent) less than its peak funding level of $646.5

million in FY04.

• The FY07 S&T request includes nearly $9 million for research on the environmental implications of nanotechnology, an 80 percent increase over the FY06

enacted level. At a recent Committee hearing on nanotechnology, industry

and environmental community witnesses called for a substantial increase in

the federal R&D investment in environmental implications of nanotechnology.

• The FY07 S&T request includes $92 million for research related to homeland

security, an 83 percent increase over the FY06 enacted level. This represents

12 percent of the S&T account. Almost 50 percent of the request ($45 million)

is for the Office of Water’s Water Sentinel pilot program, which would receive

an increase of more than 500 percent above the FY06 enacted level of $8.1

million. The program (described in more detail below) is designed to help protect the Nation’s drinking water from intentional contamination.

• The FY07 S&T request includes $79 million for Ecosystem Research, $7 million (or eight percent) below the FY06 enacted level, and $28 million (26 percent) below the FY04 enacted level. Almost all of the FY07 reduction ($5 million) would be taken from the Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program, (EMAP), which supports states’ measurements of water quality conditions and ecosystem health.

• ORD’s Sustainability Research program (formerly called the Pollution Prevention Research program) would receive $21 million in FY07, $8 million (or 23

percent) less than the FY06 enacted level, and $16 million (or 43 percent) less

than FY05.

• The budget request would reduce funding for the Science to Achieve Results

(STAR) Graduate Fellowships from the FY06 level of $9.3 million to $5.9 millions, a $3.4 million (or 37 percent) decrease.

• The FY07 budget proposes two reductions in research related to climate

change. The largest is a $6 million (33 percent) reduction in S&T funding for

the Clean Automotive Technology program in the Office of Air and Radiation.

This follows a 10 percent reduction between FY06 and FY05. The FY07 budget also proposes a reduction in ORD’s global change research program of $1.2

million from the FY06 enacted level of $19 million. This program focuses on

understanding the consequences of global change, particularly climate variability and change, for human health and ecosystems. The proposed reduction

follows a previous reduction of $1 million between FY06 and FY05.

• The FY07 budget proposes the elimination of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program ($3.7 million) and the near elimination of

funding for the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program ($2.9

million). Both programs support the development and implementation of innovative environmental technologies. The SITE program was created in the

Superfund statute.

5

6. Key Issues

The overall spending by EPA’s research programs has been declining for several

years. The Administration argues that the agency’s research is adequately funded

given overall constraints on the federal budget and that EPA S&T funds have been

focused on emerging priorities, while programs that are not as pressing or effective

have been scaled back. Critics of the budget, including EPA’s Science Advisory

Board, have argued that EPA’s core research programs are being eroded in ways

that will limit understanding of the environment and hamper the agency’s ability

to formulate sound policies. Both viewpoints will be represented at the hearing.

The information below describes programs that have received some of the most

significant cuts or increases.

Ecological Research. ORD’s ecological research aims to assess ecosystem conditions and trends, diagnose impairments, forecast ecosystem vulnerability and, ultimately, restore degraded ecosystems. The proposed FY07 budget represents an eight

percent reduction from the FY06 enacted level and a 26 percent reduction since

FY04. The proposed FY07 cut would be taken primarily in the Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program (EMAP), which would be reduced by $5 million, a cut

that would leave the program with about half of what it had received in FY04. The

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) gave the program a low rating, concluding

that it had shown a ‘‘lack of progress in developing adequate performance measures.’’ Others have come to different conclusions. EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors rated the program highly, and its supporters argue that the program has

helped develop ways to measure water and ecosystem quality along the Nation’s

coastal areas and in the mid-Atlantic region.

Sustainability research. ORD’s Sustainability Research program (formerly called the Pollution Prevention Research program) would receive an $8 million or 23 percent decrease in FY07 from the FY06 enacted level of $29 million, and would result

in a 43 percent decline since FY05. Included in the FY07 proposed reductions is a

cut to the agency’s green chemistry research by 23 percent to $5.1 million from the

FY06 enacted level of $6.6 million. The Science Committee approved a bill last

March, sponsored by Rep. Gingrey, seeking to increase the focus on green chemistry

research across the government.

Another proposed reduction in sustainability is for research on pollution prevention tools, including life cycle assessment, that is, research on how to reduce pollution throughout the life cycle of a product from manufacturing through use and disposal. It is unclear whether the cut would have an affect on life cycle assessments

related to nanotechnology, which both industry and environmental groups have

sought.

The sustainability programs have not performed well in OMB reviews, which try

to determine if programs have clear quantitative goals and whether those goals are

being met.

Climate change research. The FY07 budget proposes a cut of $6 million (33 percent) in FY07 for the Clean Automatic Technology program. EPA says the budget

reflects the phase out of a multi-year federal investment in hydraulic hybrid technology development as the private sector picks up the technologies.

The FY07 budget also proposes a reduction in ORD’s global change research pro- gram of $1.2 million from the FY06 enacted level of $19 million. The proposed reduction would reduce investment in computer modeling of climate change impacts

on watersheds, coral reefs, and sewer systems in this program that is closely aligned

with the government-wide Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). EPA’s global

change budget was stable for a number of years until a $1 million reduction in

FY06. EPA’s budget documents do not provide a rationale for the cut. Governmentwide climate research is flat-funded in the FY07 budget at about $1.7 billion.

Homeland security. EPA’s homeland security responsibilities include setting cleanup standards for remediation after an attack, protecting the Nation’s water infrastructure and ensuring that the Nation has adequate laboratory capacity. Homeland

security research competes for funding with the more traditional research responsibilities of the agency. The Administration argues this is a necessary setting of priorities in an era of constrained funding. Others, including the EPA Science Advisory

Board, are concerned that homeland security research is eroding the agency’s ability

to conduct research in other important areas, and argue that the homeland research

should be funded at least in part with ‘‘new money.’’

Water Sentinel. Run by the agency’s Office of Water, with some support from

ORD, Water Sentinel is a pilot program to develop a drinking water monitoring and

surveillance system to protect against, and respond more quickly to an attack on

the Nation’s water supply. EPA’s FY07 request of $45 million from the S&T account

is a 500 percent increase over the FY06 enacted level of $8.1 million and would expand the pilot program to five more cities.

6

While the knowledge gained from Water Sentinel could be critical in the event of

a chemical or biological attack on the Nation’s drinking water systems, a number

of questions remain unanswered. For example, has the pilot program been subject

to peer review to ensure that it is properly focused? Is EPA appropriately involving

State and local governments in carrying out the pilot program? Does EPA have adequate plans for turning Water Sentinel into an operational program?

Moreover, there are also questions related to funding. Water Sentinel is entirely

funded out of the S&T account, although aspects of it are more like an operational

program than like traditional research. Operations cost significantly more than research and therefore cut into the funding available for other, more typical research

programs.

STAR Grants. EPA created the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant program in 1995 and program was funded at just over $100 million per year between the

late 1990s and 2002. The program was recommended by an outside advisory panel

convened in 1992 and that recommendation has been reaffirmed in National Academy of Sciences reports in 2000 and 2003. The point in all these reports was that

EPA should increase its funding of students and research in academia to draw on

a wider range of research. The bulk of STAR funds have been allocated to competitive research grants in targeted mission-critical areas, with a smaller portion reserved for graduate fellowships and for exploratory research on the next generation

of environmental challenges.

The STAR program provides both research grants and graduate student fellowships. Since its peak funding level of just over $102 million in FY02, the grants program has declined every year. The $65 million FY07 proposal is five percent below

FY06 levels and 36 percent reduction below peak funding levels. The agency has

proposed eliminating or cutting the fellowships every year for the last five years.

The FY07 budget proposes reducing the fellowships by $3.4 million or 37 percent

below the FY06 enacted level of $9.3 million.

EPA apparently just views the cuts as a question of priorities as it continues to

cite extramural research as an important aspect of its research portfolio. For example, EPA references the value of the STAR program in its testimony for this hearing.

Nanotechnology. The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act

(P.L. 108–153), which originated in the Science Committee, created an interagency

nanotechnology research program that includes EPA, which focuses particularly on

the environmental and safety implications of nanotechnology. As it has done in

other emerging areas of science, the agency turned to its STAR extramural grants

program to jump-start its research in FY04–FY06. In FY07, ORD proposes nearly

doubling its funding from $5 million to $9 million, a response to calls from industry

and environmental groups for increased research on potential environmental consequences of nanotechnology.

Technology programs. Section 311 of the Superfund Act establishes the SITE program and directs EPA ‘‘to carry out a program of research, evaluation, testing, development and demonstration. . .of innovative treatment technologies.’’ (Sec 311

(b)(1) ). After significantly downsizing the program in FY06, EPA proposes eliminating it in FY07. By all accounts, including EPA’s own, the SITE program has conducted high-quality field demonstrations of remediation technologies, and there are

many SITE evaluated technologies now on the market that have saved money and

led to more effective remediation efforts. The rationale offered in the budget justification for terminating program is that the ‘‘Superfund program has matured.’’

The budget also proposes to eliminate the ETV program. ETV was created in the

mid-1990s to help technology developers verify the performance of their products in

areas other than remediation technologies. It was developed using SITE as a model.

The FY07 request would eliminate the remaining $3 million in funding that the

agency has used to partner with technology vendors to test the performance of their

products. The budget would retain a minimal level of internal agency funding (less

than $.1 million) and staff time for ORD staff to do quality control work with companies that wanted to support their own performance testing.

7. Witness Questions

Dr. Gray, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development and

Science Advisor, Environmental Protection Agency

Please briefly summarize EPA’s proposed fiscal year 2007 (FY07) Science and

Technology (S&T) budget, including those programmatic areas that would receive

significant increases or decreases from FY06 and the rationale for these proposed

changes. In addition, please answer the following questions:

1. Given that the funding levels in the FY07 proposed budget for the Office of

Research and Development (ORD) are 14 percent below FY04 appropriations,

7

what specific steps has EPA taken oven the past few years and what specific

steps will it take in FY07 to ensure that these budget cuts do not affect

ORD’s ability to:

a. keep up with and use the newest scientific methods;

b. provide the most up to date scientific information for the agency’s regulatory decisions; and

c. build strong ties with the external research community and foster graduate student work in the environmental sciences.

2. What are the agency’s scientific priorities in homeland security? How have

those priorities been determined? Given the increasing share of the S&T

budget allocated to homeland security, how are you ensuring that the agency’s more traditional research programs are receiving adequate funding?

3. Why is the proposed 500 percent expansion of the Water Sentinel pilot program relying solely on S&T funding? What specific portions of the Water

Sentinel program are operational and which are than research? How does

the Agency plan to transition Water Sentinel to an operational program?

Dr. Morgan, Chair, Science Advisory Board (SAB), Environmental Protection Agency;

Lord Chair Professor in Engineering and Professor and Department Head, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University

Please describe the results of the Science Advisory Board’s review of EPA’s fiscal

year 2007 (FY07) budget request for science and technology (S&T). In addition,

please address the following questions:

1. Is the proposed overall level of S&T funding appropriate and are the priorities balanced adequately among core research, mission-driven research,

emerging issues, and homeland security?

2. What impact are the recent and proposed reductions having on the ORD’s

ability to:

a. keep up with and use the newest scientific methods;

b. provide the most up-to-date scientific information for the agency’s regulatory decisions; and

c. build strong ties with the external research community and foster graduate student work in the environmental sciences?

3. Has the agency set the appropriate priorities for meeting the science needs

of its homeland security responsibilities? Is the proposed allocation of 12 percent of the S&T budget to homeland security an appropriate amount? What

are the consequences of this level of investment for more traditional R&D activities?

4. Should the proposed expansion of the Water Sentinel pilot program rely solely on S&T funding? Does EPA have adequate plans for transitioning Water

Sentinel to an operational program?

Dr. Langenberg. Vice-Chair, the National Council for Science and the Environment.

Chancellor Emeritus of the University of Maryland System; past Chancellor,

University of Illinois-Chicago, former President, American Association for the

Advancement of Science

Please address the following questions:

1. From a research university perspective, what are the most important

strengths and weaknesses of EPA’s proposed S&T budget?

2. What impact are the recent and proposed reductions having on the ORD’s

ability to:

a. keep up with and use the newest scientific methods;

b. provide the most up-to-date scientific information for the agency’s regulatory decisions; and

c. build strong ties with the external research community and foster graduate student work in the environmental sciences?

Mr. Jeff Ruch, Executive Director, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

Please answer the following questions:

8

1. What are the most important strengths and weaknesses of EPA’s proposed

Science and Technology budget?

2. What impact are the recent and proposed reductions having on the ORD’s

ability to:

a. keep up with and use the newest scientific methods;

b. provide the most up-to-date scientific information for the agency’s regulatory decisions; and

c. build strong ties with the external research community and foster graduate student work in the environmental sciences?

9

Chairman EHLERS. I am pleased to call this hearing to order.

Normally, we wait for a Member of the Minority to show up as

well, but since we are battling deadline, presumably some time between now and 10:30, we will be called to vote. I am anxious to get

this hearing started, and try and receive all of your testimony before the vote barrage hits. We will probably then be voting until

noon, and we will have to come back and renew our efforts at that

point. So, let me begin with my opening statement, and I will try

to condense it a bit, so we can speed things along.

I am very pleased today to have a hearing on the Environmental

Protection Agency’s Fiscal Year 2007 science and technology budget. I suspect this is a little more important than most of the hearings we have had in the past, because of the financial difficulties

faced by the Agency. At the outset of the hearing, I want to recognize Dr. George Gray, the EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, who is making his first appearance before

the Subcommittee. So welcome. We will try not to chew you up too

badly this time. And we will try to—whatever chewing we do will

be accompanied with a great deal of sympathy.

I had the opportunity with Dr. Gray several months ago, and

was very pleased to learn about his interest and expertise in the

subject of risk assessment. I am looking forward to learning more

about what you are trying to improve—do—pardon me, trying to do

to improve risk assessment at the Agency, which is very badly

needed.

Every year at our EPA science budget hearing, I have pointed

out the importance of science and technology at EPA, and no one

can disagree. EPA’s Office of Research and Development has been

at the forefront of every one of the Agency’s major regulatory actions. It conducts the research on what we know about the health

and ecological effects of mercury and other contaminants. It prepares the scientific underpinnings of all of the Agency’s clean air

rules on particulate matter and ozone. It has helped develop and

commercialize better environmental technologies to clean up hazardous, and it is always looking for the next scientific advance that

may help us better understand the environment or threats to it,

and how to counter those threats.

That is why I come to this hearing very concerned about what

I see happening to EPA’s science budget. The six percent proposed

reduction in the ORD’s budget for fiscal year 2007 is troubling, but

not as much as the trend in the budget over the last few years,

which would be down 14 percent since 2004. This trend, together

with the rapid growth in spending on Homeland Security research,

which alone accounts for almost 12 percent of the science budget,

seems to be making it harder for ORD to continue producing the

valuable scientific knowledge I just mentioned. I say all of this,

mindful of the significant constraints we face in the discretionary

budget, but just as we can’t afford to spend too much, we can’t afford to spend too little.

EPA’s Science Advisory Board takes a close look at the EPA’s

science budget every year, and has in the past sounded the alarm

bells when it thought it was necessary. I am looking forward to the

Board’s thoughts and comments on the current budget request.

10

Finally, I am interested in learning more about how the budget

treats particular areas of research, such as nanotechnology, ecological research, university grants and fellowships, green chemistry,

and climate change.

We have an excellent panel of witnesses today, and I expect that

we will learn a great deal. I certainly look forward to receiving

your testimony.

And now, I apologize to Mr. Wu for starting without him. Normally, we would never do this, but I explained we are in a great

rush today because of the votes. We are trying to conclude their

testimony before the votes, and pick up questions afterwards.

I am pleased now to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Wu, for

his opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON J. EHLERS

Good Morning. Welcome to today’s hearing on the Environmental Protection

Agency’s fiscal year 2007 Science and Technology budget.

At the outset of the hearing, I would like to recognize Dr. George Gray, EPA’s

Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, who is making his first appearance before this subcommittee. Welcome!

I had the opportunity to meet briefly with Dr. Gray several months ago, and I

was very pleased to learn about his interest and expertise in the subject of risk assessment. I am looking forward to learning more about what you are doing to improve risk assessment at the agency.

Every year at our EPA Science budget hearing, I have pointed out the importance

of science and technology at EPA. And, who could disagree. EPA’s Office of Research

and Development has been at the forefront of every one of the agency’s major regulatory actions. It conducts the research on what we know about the health and ecological effects of mercury and other contaminants. It prepares the scientific

underpinnings of all of the agency’s clean air rules on particulate matter and ozone.

It has helped develop and commercialize better environmental technologies to clean

up hazardous wastes. And, it is always looking for the next scientific advance or revolution that may help us better understand the environment or threats to it, and

how to counter those threats.

That is why I come to this hearing very concerned about what I see happening

to EPA’s science budget. The six percent proposed reduction in the ORD’s budget

for fiscal year 2007 is troubling, but not as much as the trend in the budget over

the last few years—which would be down 14 percent since 2004. This trend, together with the rapid growth in spending on homeland security research, which

alone accounts for almost 12 percent of the science budget, seems to be making it

harder for ORD to continue producing the valuable scientific knowledge I just mentioned. I say all of this mindful of the significant constraints we face in the discretionary budget. But just as we can’t afford to spend too much, we can’t afford to

spend too little.

EPA’s Science Advisory Board takes a close look at the EPA’s science budget

every year, and has in the past sounded the alarm bells when it thought it was necessary. I am looking forward to the Board’s thoughts on the current budget request.

Finally, I am interested in learning more about how the budget treats particular

areas of research, such as nanotechnology, ecological research, university grants and

fellowships, green chemistry and climate change.

We have an excellent panel of witness today and I expect that we will learn a

great deal. I look forward to your testimony.

Mr. WU. Terrific. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and

thank you for holding this important hearing today.

Environmental issues present increasing challenges for us. We

all want a robust economy and access to products and services that

sustain and improve our quality of life. Through our investments

and research and development, we have been able to promote both

environmental protection and economic growth. Done right, these

interests are not in conflict, rather, they go hand in hand.

11

A clean, healthy environment is not a luxury. It is a necessity.

Unfortunately, this Administration has failed, for the third consecutive year, to offer a budget that will enable us to achieve further successes in environmental protection. Three years ago, the

EPA science and technology budget was cut five percent. In fiscal

year 2006, it was reduced again by two percent, and this year’s proposal further reduces the budget by one percent, under the heading

‘‘Advancing Science and Innovation.’’ This is clearly false advertising. EPA cannot advance environmental research if its budget is

retreating.

Targets for cuts include programs in mercury contamination, pesticides, ecosystem research, global change and sustainability, and

the STAR grants program.

I am particularly concerned about proposed cuts to ecosystem research. Research at EPA’s Western Ecology Division in Corvallis

addresses ecological processes and environmental change, in order

to best protect and manage ecological resources. We need more of

this kind of research, not less.

In addition to the budget, I continue to be deeply troubled about

another issue important to science at EPA and across the country

and the Federal Government, and that issue is scientific integrity.

I am very disturbed by the continuing reports of manipulation of

science advisory committees, suppression of information, and censorship of federal scientists. These reports are not restricted to one

agency or department, and they encompass a wide range of topic

areas. Although the Administration dismisses these events as random, the sheer number and distribution of complaints across the

Federal Government suggests an overall political agenda to twist

science to suit ideological goals.

I am pleased that we have a witness today who will offer some

insights into these claims, Mr. Ruch from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER.

I want to welcome our entire distinguished panel for this morning’s hearing, and I look forward to your recommendations and

comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID WU

Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Ehlers for holding this hearing today.

Environmental issues present increasing challenges for us. We all want a robust

economy and access to products and services that sustain and improve our quality

of life. Through our investments in research and development, we have been able

to strike a balance between environmental protection and economic growth.

A clean, healthy environment is not a luxury. It is a necessity. Unfortunately, the

Administration has failed for the third consecutive year to offer a budget that will

enable us to achieve further successes in environmental protection.

Three years ago, the EPA S&T budget sustained a five percent cut. In FY06, it

was reduced again by two percent, and this year’s proposal further reduces the

budget by one percent under the heading: ‘‘Advancing Science and Innovation.’’ This

is false advertising.

EPA cannot advance environmental research if their budget is retreating.

Targets for cuts include programs in mercury contamination, pesticides, ecosystem

research, global change and sustainability and the STAR grants program.

I am particularly concerned about proposed cuts to ecosystem research. Research

at EPA’s Western Ecology Division in Corvallis addresses ecological processes and

environmental change in order to best protect and manage ecological resources. We

need more of this type of research, not less.

12

In addition to the budget, I continue to be concerned about another issue important to science at EPA and across the Federal Government. That issue is broadly

defined by the term scientific integrity.

I am very disturbed by the continuing reports of manipulation of science advisory

committees, suppression of information, and censorship of federal scientists. These

reports are not restricted to one agency or department and they encompass a widerange of topic areas. Although the Administration claims these events are random,

the sheer number and distribution of complaints across the Federal Government

suggests an overall political agenda to science.

I am pleased that we have a witness today who will offer some insights into these

claims, Mr. Jeff Ruch from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility—

PEER.

I want to welcome our entire distinguished panel to this morning’s hearing. I look

forward to your testimony and to your recommendations for improving EPA’s scientific enterprise.

Chairman EHLERS. And thank you, Mr. Wu.

If there are other Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, all such statements will be automatically added to

the record without objection.

At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses. Dr. George

Gray is the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, and the Science Advisor at the United States EPA. This is

Dr. Gray’s first appearance before the Committee, and we are

pleased to have him here with us today. I ask everyone to treat

him well, so that it will not be his only appearance before this committee.

Next, we have Dr. M. Granger Morgan, who is the Chairman of

the EPA Science Advisory Board, and the Lord Chair Professor in

Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. That is interesting, to

have the Lord here. I was thinking last night, I was reading all

this material about ORD, and said maybe we should call it the laboratory.

Dr. MORGAN. It is a very well endowed professorship.

Chairman EHLERS. Yes. We might get more money if you were

the Lord rather than the ORD.

Dr. Don Langenberg is the Vice Chairman of the National Council for Science and the Environment, and the Chancellor Emeritus

of the University System of Maryland. In addition, I have the distinction of having worked in the laboratory next door to him at the

University of Berkeley some years ago as graduate students, and

I continue to bask in the reflected glory from Mr. Langenberg.

Next, we have Mr. Jeffrey Ruch. He is the Executive Director of

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, better known

as PEER, P–E–E–R. As I am sure our witnesses know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each, and I will enforce that, simply because we are trying to get all of your testimony completed

before the votes begin. After that time, we will have plenty of time

to question you.

And I do have to make one comment just in case I am not here

during the question period. It seems very strange to me that EPA

is being forced to swallow the cost of the research that is being

done at the request and on behalf of the Department of Homeland

Security, which has continued to receive very large increases in

their budget every year, and while EPA’s budget is going down, I

think we should do our best to reverse that. I wanted to get that

statement on the record.

At this point, we will turn to Dr. Gray for his testimony.

13

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE M. GRAY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND EPA

SCIENCE ADVISOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Dr. GRAY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wu. I appreciate

the opportunity to be here before you today to discuss the fiscal

year 2007 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency.

I also—I appreciate your kind words, and as a fellow Michigander,

I would like to wish you a happy Great Lakes Day, and recognize

your leadership and efforts in supporting and restoring the Great

Lakes.

The President request $788.3 million for EPA’s science and technology. This demonstrates the President’s continued commitment

to providing the resources needed to address our nation’s highest

priorities, while including continued support for homeland security,

protecting our environment, and ensuring economic growth. The request includes $557 million for the Office of Research and Development to continue the work of providing the sound science that informs Agency decisions.

The budget reflects a continued focus on emerging issues, as well

as our body of base work. We are confronted with new opportunities and new challenges all the time, such as computational toxicology or the impact of manufactured nanomaterials on human

health, and in those areas, we will make increased or renewed investments. In areas where the major science and technology questions have been answered, and where additional spending would

not be cost effective, there we scale back or even cease work. EPA

is mindful of our responsibility to consider nanotechnology’s environmental and health implications, so that the American economy

can safely realize the nanotechnology revolution.

To meet this responsibility better, the President includes an increase of $4 million, including an additional $1 million for exploratory grants, for ORD to study the impacts of manufactured

nanomaterials on human health and the environment, and the potential environmental uses of this technology.

One of the goals of the Administration is to enhance the transparency and inclusiveness of the chemical risk assessment process,

especially that utilizing the Integrated Risk Information System.

IRIS is an Internet database containing information on human

health effects that may result from exposure to various chemicals

in the environment. IRIS was initially developed for EPA staff in

response to a growing demand for consistent information on chemical substances for use in risk assessment, decision-making, and

regulatory activities. It has since grown into the premier national,

and indeed international database for qualitative and quantitative

risk information. The information in IRIS is intended for those

without extensive training in toxicology, but with some knowledge

of health sciences.

Since fiscal year 2002, EPA has been involved in a forward-looking, results-oriented, targeted research effort to address the questions of when and how to test chemicals for hazard identification

and dose response information. One objective of this research is to

develop approaches, new approaches for prioritizing chemicals for

subsequent screening and testing, and we would do this novel techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:45 Nov 12, 2006 Jkt 026576 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ETS06\031606\26576 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
14

nologies that are derived from computational chemistry, and molecular biology, and systems biology. All of this would, in fact, decrease our use of—reliance on tests on animals. These three scientific disciplines form the core of our computational toxicology research program.

Our computational toxicology, or we call it comptox program, has

begun to show promise to reduce the reliance on animal testing.

For example, this past year, with the successful development of in

vitro assay for the evaluation of the effects of chemicals on

steroidogenesis, the committee that advises the Agency on the Endocrine Disruptors Screening Program recommended that validation work on the rat assay be halted, and that we pay full attention

to this in vitro assay. This represents for the first time the substitution of an in vitro assay for one that uses animals by the Endocrine Disruptors Screening Program. The President’s budget also includes $7 million for a water infrastructure research initiative. This effort will identify new and innovative approaches for managing the water, the Nation’s water infrastructure, especially for upgrading and improving the performance of deteriorating wastewater collection systems and drinking

water distribution systems. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, in its

2005 National City Water Survey, rated aging water resource infrastructure as a top priority. This is a widespread national problem

small and large communities alike. A diverse set of innovative,

technologically advanced, engineered solutions will build the Agency’s multi-tiered effort to address the Nation’s aging water infrastructure.

EPA shares the responsibility to support the President’s top priority, the safety and security of the American people. ORD science

plays a vital role in developing the means to mitigate the effects

on human health and the environment in the aftermath of attacks

using chemical, biological, or radiological weapons. Specific priorities include providing tools and training to help communities protect their water infrastructure, through the detection, containment,

and decontamination of their water systems, the development and

evaluation of decontamination and disposal methods for contaminated and decontaminated materials from the insides of buildings

and from outdoors, the development and refinement of sampling

and analytical methods for chemical, biological, and radiological

contaminants in both air and water, and the preparation of risk assessment methods for both short-term and medium-term exposures

from chemical, biological, or radiological contaminants.

The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request for ORD continues this tradition of excellence by emphasizing the best available

cutting edge science and technology, collaboration and innovation,

with an orientation on results.

Thank you for this opportunity to tell you about the exciting

work that we carry out at ORD, and I will be happy to answer your

questions about these or any other program areas.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gray follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. GRAY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to

discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 budget request for the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA). The President’s FY 2007 budget request of $788.3 million for EPA

15

science and technology reflects the Administration’s strong commitment to carrying

out EPA’s mission to protect human health and the natural environment. The request demonstrates the President’s continued commitment to providing the resources needed to address our nation’s highest priorities, which include continued

support for homeland security and protecting our environment while sustaining our

economy’s growth. This request includes $557.2 million for the Office of Research

and Development (ORD) to continue the work of providing the sound science that

informs the Agency’s decisions.

EPA shares in the responsibility for being good stewards of tax dollars. In keeping with the principles of good stewardship, the President has included $7.3 billion dollars to support the work of the Environmental Protection Agency and our partners

in his budget. This budget fulfills presidential environmental commitments and

maintains the goals laid out in EPA’s strategic plan, while spending tax dollars

more effectively.

This budget reflects a continued focus on emerging issues, as well as on our body

of base work. As we are confronted with new opportunities and new challenges, such

as computational toxicology or the impacts of manufactured nanomaterials on

human health, we make new or increased investments. In areas where the major

science and technology questions have been answered and where additional spending would not be cost effective, we scale back or even cease work. The work at ORD

laboratories, research centers, and offices across the country helps improve the quality of air, water, soil, and the way we use resources. Applied science at ORD builds

our understanding of how to protect and enhance the relationship between humans

and the Earth’s ecosystems.

As we prepare for tomorrow’s environmental challenges, EPA will meet the President’s charge by focusing on three principles. The first is results and accountability.

The second principle is innovation and collaboration. The third principle is using the

best available science to accelerate environmental protection. These three principles

are consistent with the President’s mandate to create a government that is citizencentered, results-oriented, and market-based. The best available science principle is

the one that I am focusing on today. The President and Administrator Johnson

share my commitment to sound science.

This focus on science is evident in additional funds in this year’s budget for researching the impacts on human health of manufactured nanomaterials, enhancements to health hazard assessment, and expansion of the effective computational

toxicology program. Two additional areas on which I’d like to focus on in my testimony are water infrastructure and EPA’s homeland security responsibilities.

But before I do, I would like to address how the President’s FY 2007 budget request continues to enable ORD to both develop and apply the latest scientific methods and provide the best available science to inform the Agency’s, and others’, environmental decision-making. One important way is by working with our partners

within the Agency—the Program and Regional Offices—to ensure our research program is responsive to their policy needs. Another is to coordinate and thereby leverage our research efforts with other federal agencies through the Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources. Lastly, through our Science to Achieve Results

(STAR) research, ORD draws upon the expertise in our colleges and universities in

the environmental sciences, and through our fellowship programs, continues to develop that expertise.

An example that combines all of these approaches is our computational toxicology

program, which I will address in more detail later. By developing new methods to

test the environmental performance of chemicals, this research effort draws upon

the recent developments in the fields of genomics, to which our federal and private

sector partners—academia and industry—contribute greatly, to address the policy

needs of EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. Clearly, by

taking advantage of all of the approaches above, ORD continues to make a significant contribution to our understanding of the environment, and the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request will enable us to continue to make such important contributions.

I believe that the fiscal year 2007 request is adequate to continue providing the

sound science needed to address the Nation’s critical environmental problems and

risks.

FY 2007 President’s Budget

Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology, the manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular scales

where unique phenomena enable novel applications, is likely to have profound effects on the world economy and on our quality of life. EPA is optimistic about

nanotechnology’s potential to improve environmental monitoring, pollution control

16

and remediation techniques. However, EPA is also mindful of our responsibility to

consider nanotechnology’s environmental and health implications, so that the American economy can safely realize the nanotechnology revolution.

To meet this responsibility better, the President’s Budget includes an increase of

$4 million, which includes an additional $1 million from exploratory grants, for ORD

to study the impacts of manufactured nanomaterials on human health and the environment and nanotechnology’s potential beneficial environmental uses. Our research

will be guided by an EPA white paper on nanotechnology currently undergoing external peer review and an interagency environmental and health research needs

document being prepared under the National Nanotechnology Initiative. EPA’s

nanotechnology research has, to date, primarily been conducted through the Science

to Achieve Results grants program. The President’s FY 2007 investment in

nanotechnology research at EPA will allow us to establish an in-house effort to complement our existing grants program. Together, these programs can help lay the scientific foundation for EPA’s understanding of nanotechnology.

Enhancing Health Hazard Assessment

One of the goals of the Administration is to enhance the transparency and inclusiveness of the chemical risk assessment process utilizing the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS is an Internet database containing information on

human health effects that may result from exposure to various chemicals in the environment. IRIS was initially developed for EPA staff in response to a growing demand for consistent information on chemical substances for use in risk assessments,

decision-making and regulatory activities. It has since grown into the premier national and international source for such qualitative and quantitative risk information. The information in IRIS is intended for those without extensive training in

toxicology, but with some knowledge of health sciences.

The heart of IRIS is its collection of health hazard assessments covering individual chemicals. These chemical assessments contain descriptive and quantitative

information on hazard identification and dose-response information for both cancer

and non-cancer effects. The benefits of the IRIS database lie principally in the quality of its health hazard assessments, the provision of quantitative risk information,

and the consistency provided by a single database among the various clients for this

information.

Computational Toxicology

Since FY 2002, EPA has been involved in a forward looking, results-oriented, targeted research effort to address the question of ‘‘when and how’’ to test chemicals

for hazard identification and improve quantitative dose-response assessment. One

objective of this research is to develop approaches for prioritizing chemicals for subsequent screening and testing using novel technologies derived from computational

chemistry, molecular biology and systems biology, all while decreasing our use of

tests on animals. Those three scientific disciplines form the core of our computational toxicology research program.

In 2005, ORD established a National Center for Computational Toxicology

(NCCT). Utilizing cutting-edge research techniques, NCCT scientists are providing

leadership in efforts to improve understanding of the fate and transport of pollutants and of the toxicity and risks posed by environmental contaminants.

Our computational toxicology (comptox) work has begun to show promise to reduce the reliance on animal toxicity testing. For example, this past year, with successful development of an in vitro assay for the evaluation of the effects of chemicals

on steroidogenesis, the committee advising the Agency on the Endocrine Disruptors

Screening Program (EDSP) recommended that validation work on the rat assay be

halted, and that full attention be paid to the new in vitro assay. This represents

the first substitution of an in vitro assay in place of an in vivo assay by the EDSP.

Water Infrastructure

The President’s budget request includes $7 million for a water infrastructure research initiative. This effort will identify new and innovative approaches for managing the Nation’s water infrastructure, especially for upgrading and improving the

performance of deteriorating wastewater collection systems and drinking water distribution systems. The U.S. Conference of Mayors in its 2005 National City Water

Survey rated ‘‘aging water resources infrastructure’’ as the top priority. This is a

widespread, national problem facing large and small communities alike. A diverse

set of innovative, technologically advanced engineered solutions will build on the

Agency’s multi-tiered effort to address the Nation’s aging water infrastructure.

17

Homeland Security

EPA shares the responsibility to support the President’s top priority: the safety

and security of the American people. ORD science plays a vital role in developing

the means to mitigate the effects on human health and the environment in the

aftermath of attacks using chemical, biological, and radiological agents. Specific priorities include providing tools and training to help communities protect their water

infrastructure through detection, containment, and decontamination in water systems; the development and evaluation of decontamination and disposal methods for

contaminated and decontaminated materials from the inside of buildings and outdoors; development and refinement of sampling and analytical methods for chemical,

biological, and radiological contaminants both in air and water; and the preparation

of risk assessment methods for both short-term and medium-term exposures from

chemical, biological, and radiological contaminants.

These priorities were developed using threat scenarios and informed scientific and

technical judgment. A threat scenario includes a specific type of attack targeted

against a situation or setting. As a result, EPA works with the Department of

Homeland Security to evaluate thousands of possible combinations of facility types

and methods and means of attack. Priority scenarios identified through this process

are those that are considered more likely to happen than others or that are more

likely to cause widespread or significant harm. EPA also uses informed scientific

and technical judgment to help identify priorities. EPA solicits input from scientific

and technical experts such as the National Academy of Sciences, and the Science

Advisory Board, Agency decision-makers, and stakeholders such as the Department

of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and information users—such as

first responders—directly affected by a threat or attack. The results of both approaches are used to identify priorities and refine them as necessary over time.

Conclusion

By uniquely combining human health and ecological research in one federal agency employing world-class research scientists, ORD has made, and will continue to

make, significant contributions to developing a better understanding of environmental risks to both human health and ecosystems. The results of this research

have consistently and effectively informed EPA’s environmental decision-making as

well as that of others, leading to environmental policies based on sound science at

the federal, State, tribal and local levels.

The President’s FY 2007 budget request for ORD continues this tradition of excellence, by emphasizing the best available cutting-edge science and technology, collaboration and innovation, with an orientation on results.

Thank you for this opportunity to tell you about the exciting work we conduct in

ORD, especially in the areas of nanotechnology, the IRIS database, computational

toxicology, water infrastructure and homeland security. These are but a few highlights from our portfolio of science and technology work. I am happy to answer your

questions about these or any ORD matters.

BIOGRAPHY FOR GEORGE M. GRAY

On November 1, 2005, Dr. George Gray was sworn in to serve as the Assistant

Administrator for the Office of Research and Development (ORD) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ORD is the 1,900-person, $600 million science and

technology arm of EPA. Dr. Gray was appointed to this position by President George

W. Bush and confirmed—by unanimous consent—by the U.S. Senate. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson appointed Dr. Gray to serve as EPA Science Advisor on

January 24, 2006.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency relies on sound science to safeguard

both human health and the environment. ORD’s leading-edge research helps provide

the solid underpinning of science and technology for the Agency. ORD conducts research on ways to prevent pollution, protect human health, and reduce risk. The

work at ORD laboratories, research centers, and offices across the country helps improve the quality of air, water, soil, and the way we use resources. Applied science

at ORD builds our understanding of how to protect and enhance the relationship

between humans and the ecosystems of Earth.

Prior to joining EPA George was a member of the faculty of the Harvard School

of Public Health and Executive Director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.

His research focused on the scientific basis of human health risk assessment, on

methods for characterizing and communicating risks, and on identifying and evaluating risk/risk tradeoffs in public health protection. George professional service has

included membership on the National Advisory Health Sciences Council of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Food and Drug Administration

18

Advisory Committees and a National Academy of Science/Institute of Medicine panel

along with active participation in the Society for Risk Analysis and the Society of

Toxicology. George has a B.S. degree in biology from the University of Michigan and

M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in toxicology from the University of Rochester.

He and his wife, Ann, and their two children make their home in McLean, Virginia.

ORD’s Mission is to perform research and development to identify, understand,

and solve current and future environmental problems; to provide responsive technical support to EPA’s mission; integrate the work of ORD’s scientific partners

(other agencies, nations, private sector organizations, and academia); and to provide

leadership in addressing emerging environmental issues and in advancing the

science and technology of risk assessment and risk management.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much. Dr. Morgan.

STATEMENT OF DR. M. GRANGER MORGAN, CHAIRMAN,

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Dr. MORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Wu. I am

Granger Morgan, and I chair EPA’s Science Advisory Board. I am

joined today by two fellow members of the Board, Dr. James Johnson, who incidentally also chairs the Board of Scientific Counselors,

the BOSC of the Office of Research and Development, and Dr.

Gene Matanoski, who is a former Chair of the Committee.

Between 2004 and the proposed 2007 budget, the inflation adjusted budget for EPA’s Office of Research and Development has

declined by just over 16 percent, and yet, the environmental challenges we face have grown, and EPA will face increasingly complex

and difficult science challenges over the coming decades.

We all want environmental decision-making to be based on sound

science. However, our nation is not investing adequately in producing that science.

Now, I know a number of people who think that this lack of investment reflects a hope that if the science isn’t there, somehow,

additional regulation will not follow. A much more likely outcome

is that if we don’t do the needed research, we will simply get poorer

regulation, which could end up costing the Nation a great deal

more in the long run.

In my view, we all need to work harder on explaining the importance of investing in R&D at EPA if we want to assure that America will enjoy a clean, safe, healthy and sustainable environment

in the years to come.

Now, you have specifically asked if the Agency’s overall level of

science and technology funding is appropriate, and whether its research priorities are adequately balanced. I have elaborated in the

written testimony that I have submitted, but the short answer is

no.

You have also asked what impacts the proposed budget reductions may have on ORD’s ability to use the latest scientific methods

and information in its regulatory decisions, and to build strong ties

to the external scientific research community. Again, while I have

elaborated in the written testimony, the short answer is these impacts will be serious, and they will be negative.

In my written remarks, I have addressed three issues. The first

is the need for a government-wide view of environmental research

and development. Before us on the Science Advisory Board, or for

that matter, you and the Congress, can hope to determine if the

19

U.S. has a balanced and comprehensive national strategy for environmental research, we need a clearer picture of what is being

done. I urge the committee to work with the executive and independent agencies to realize the development of such a comprehensive description of all of our nation’s environmental research.

In my written testimony, I then offer comments on proposed

changes in EPA’s research programs in mercury, in ecology and

ecosystems, in human health, and in global change and sustainability. I then respond to your questions about appropriate science

priorities and needs for homeland security. While all of us on the

SAB agree that this is an important area of national need, we are

concerned that it not be met at the cost of serious erosion in the

support of the Agency’s core research needs in health and environmental research.

I also offer two other words of caution. First, there is some risk

that the Agency’s homeland security work will focus too much at

the level of individual devices and subsystems without first understanding at a broad level such key issues as how effective alternative approaches can hope to be in providing needed protection at

an affordable cost. And second, we are concerned that the current

programs are not sufficiently informed by the behavioral and social

sciences.

I end my written remarks with a discussion of the importance of

longer-term, more fundamental research at EPA. In our meetings

with Agency research managers, we were deeply troubled when we

were told that the basic, or core portions of ORD’s research budget

have shrunk from roughly 40 percent to 25 percent of current research investments. It is difficult to know exactly what those numbers are, but the reduction is quite clear. Looking back at the analysis that the SAB has done of EPA’s science and research budgets

over the past several years, the SAB has become convinced that the

Agency is in danger of losing core scientific expertise in both conventional and emerging environmental issues.

I close my written remarks by urging the committee to restore

the proposed cuts in the STAR Doctoral Fellowship program.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify about EPA’s

science and research budget, and my colleagues and I would be

pleased to try to answer your questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Morgan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF M. GRANGER MORGAN

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Environment,

Technology, and Standards. My name is Granger Morgan. I chair EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB or Board). I am a faculty member at Carnegie Mellon University

where I am a University Professor, hold the Lord Chaired Professorship in Engineering, and am Head of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, a department in the Engineering College.

Thank you for this opportunity to present the SAB’s views about the Agency’s

2007 Science and Research Budget Request. The Board is completing approval of

its final report, and with the permission of the Chairman, we will submit that report for the record.

Over the past few years, the Board has been working with EPA to review the

Agency’s science and research programs and budget on a systematic and ongoing

basis. The Agency now presents that information to the Board in ways that correlate with EPA’s Strategic Plan.

20

1 Computed using the NASA Gross Domestic Product Deflator Inflation Calculator, available

at http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflateGDP.html

Between 2004 and the proposal for 2007, the inflation adjusted1 budget for EPA’s

Office of Research and Development has declined by just over 16 percent. Yet, the

environmental challenges that face the Agency have grown and EPA will face increasingly complex and difficult science challenges over the coming decades. It will

also face opportunities to improve our environmental and international competitiveness with new technologies—but, to paraphrase the microbiologist Louis Pasteur,

opportunity favors those who are prepared.

We all want environmental decision-making to be based on sound science. However, our nation is not investing adequately in producing that sound science.

I know a number of people who argue that this lack of investment reflects a hope

that if the science is not there, somehow additional regulation will not follow. A

much more likely outcome is that, if we don’t do the needed research we will simply

get poorer regulation—which could end up costing the Nation a great deal more in

the long run.

In my view we all need to work harder on explaining the importance of investing

in R&D at EPA if we want to ensure that America will enjoy a clean, safe, healthy

and sustainable environment in the years to come.

You have specifically asked if the Agency’s overall level of Science and Technology

funding is appropriate and whether its research priorities are adequately balanced

among core research, mission-driven research, emerging issues, and homeland security. I will elaborate below, but the short answer is no.

You have also asked what impacts the proposed budget reduction may have on

the Office of Research and Development’s ability to use the latest scientific methods

and information in its regulatory decisions, and to build strong ties to the external

scientific research community and foster graduate student work in the environmental sciences. Again, while I’ll elaborate below, the short answer is these impacts

will be serious and negative.

In the discussion below I elaborate on these, and related points, in three contexts:

1. The need for government-wide, systematic tracking of environmental research;

2. Some specific aspects of EPA’s proposed 2007 research budget; and

3. The critical problem of continuing reductions in long-term, more fundamental environmental research at EPA.

1. Need for a Government-wide View of Environmental Research and Development

EPA is not the only federal agency that collects environmental data or performs

environmental research. The Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, and Interior, as well as the CDC, NASA, NIEHS, NIH, NSF, USGS, and a

number of other federal entities all make significant contributions. Some of these

organizations work on topics that may sound similar; in many cases the details turn

out to be different in important ways.

In many specific areas of research, there are examples of excellent coordination

and cooperation between some of these programs.

But today, across the federal system as a whole, it is virtually impossible to develop an informed understanding of what research is being done; where it is being

done; where there are duplications; and where there are critical gaps. A simple list

of topics is not sufficient. Just because the same noun appears in two agency lists

of research topics does not mean that they are doing the same thing, or that there

is duplication.

Before we on the Science Advisory Board, or you in the Congress, can hope to determine if the U.S. has a balanced and comprehensive national strategy for environmental research, we need a clear picture of what is being done in the form of concise

substantive descriptions of all the environmental research programs across the federal system. Conceivably, things could be better than they look from the isolated

EPA’s budgetary perspective. I suspect that they are worse. However, we need a

comprehensive picture.

I urge the Committee to work with the executive and independent agencies to realize the development of such a comprehensive description of all our nation’s environmental research. Such a summary would assist everyone involved in ensuring:

that needed federal environmental research is being done efficiently; that the different federal agencies involved are sharing information; and that the results are

readily accessible to the scientific community, the public, and environmental decision-makers.

21

2. Comments on Several Proposed Changes in Individual EPA Programs

Now I’d like to offer four examples of how the proposed cuts to the EPA 2007 research budget will adversely impact the Agency’s mission to protect human health

and the environment as well as offer some brief comments in response to you question about the expansion of the Agencies program related to Homeland Security.

First, I will address mercury research. While some of the mercury in our food and

water comes from power plants and other human activities, much comes from natural sources or is carried across the Pacific from natural and anthropogenic sources

in Asia. On a global scale, science cannot yet accurately tell us where all the mercury in the U.S. comes from, where it goes, or in what chemical forms it exists. If

we are going to be able to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the costly mercury controls that EPA regulation is imposing on U.S. industry, we need to understand those planetary flows. However, last year’s EPA research budget for mercury

was reduced approximately 35 percent to $3.4 million. This year’s budget proposes

only a slight increase. Funding at these levels is too small to even adequately address the issues that EPA–ORD has been addressing, let alone to allow any work

on the key problem of planetary flows of mercury.

A second important and undervalued area of research, that the Board is especially

concerned about is Ecology and Ecosystems Research which has been systematically

cut for several years. While we all value and marvel at the beauty and complexity

of natural ecosystems, it is easy to forget that every year these systems also provide

us with billions of dollars worth of services that are critical to our way of life.

As an example, the salt-water marshes of the Gulf Coast provide more than wildlife habitat. They also provide protection against erosion, and they buffer the effect

of storms on coastal lands. How are we to protect such vulnerable natural systems

as the salt-water marshes of the Gulf Coast, the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay,

the Mississippi River Basin, and countless other smaller natural systems in every

state in the country, if we don’t adequately invest in understanding them?

The $79.2 million for ecological research in the proposed 2007 amounts to just 15

percent of the overall ORD research budget. For well over a decade the Board has

called on both the Agency and the Congress to revitalize, raise the profile, and increase the funding of ecological research at EPA. Since 2004, the Board has watched

budgetary support for ecological research decline by 26 percent. This is not the route

to a clean and healthy future for either us, or for our air, land and waters.

Third, I will say a word about research in human health. The SAB was delighted

to see a proposed increase of just under $3 million in Computational Toxicology.

This work holds great potential to streamline the process of assessing the safety of

chemicals, speed approval of new products, and in so doing, enhance the productivity and competitiveness of American industry.

However, to make effective use of these powerful new computational tools, researchers also need data to put in the computer models. The Board is deeply troubled by proposed cuts in human health research areas that are needed to provide

the data necessary for computational toxicology to be effective. These cuts include

a proposed 13 percent reduction for work on endocrine disruptors, a proposed 14

percent reduction for pesticides, and an increase of only three percent for other core

programs in human health research.

Finally, the Board is concerned about research in Global Change and Sustainability. For each of the past two years, research support for global change has declined by roughly one million dollars. The current budget proposal of $17.5 million

will only allow the agency to meet its impact assessment obligations under the government-wide Climate Change Science Program. The Agency will be forced to terminate, in midstream, research vital to understanding ongoing changes in temperature, precipitation, flooding, snow pack, and other factors will affect water quality

across the U.S. To our knowledge, no other federal agency is supporting such work

on a national scale.

Following $9.6 million dollar reduction in 2006, sustainability research is slated

for further reduction of $4.4 million in 2007. These reductions are coupled with the

termination of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program and Environmental Technology Validation Program. This means that the Agency will lose

much of its ability to test and verify new environmental technologies. This loss

harms American industry’s competitive position for environmental technology in

world markets, at a time when other nations treat these technologies as opportunities.

I turn now to your questions about appropriate science priorities and needs for

Homeland Security. The proposed 2007 budget calls for an increase of almost 25

percent to $39.5 million for Homeland Security research in ORD, and an increase

of just under 30 percent to $58.1 million for work in other parts of the Agency.

22

2Donald E. Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Brookings Institution Press, 180 pp., 1997.

These increases will support research and other activities related to increased preparedness and better response for water security, analytical methods, decontamination, clean-up goals, radiation monitoring and biodefense. Clearly improving our

ability to deal with terrorist and other threats is a critical national need and the

SAB has been most favorably impressed by the dedication and hard work of the

staff addressing these important national priorities. However, while all of us on the

SAB agree that this is an important area of national need, we are concerned that

it not be met through serious erosion of support for the Agency’s core research needs

in health and environmental research.

I would like to offer two other cautions regarding the Agency’s current research

program in homeland security research. First, there is some risk of focusing too

much at the level of individual devices and sub-systems, without first understanding

at a broad level such key issues as how effective alternative approaches can hope

to be in providing needed protection, and whether the Nation can afford them. Second, we are concerned that current programs are not sufficiently informed by the

behavioral and social sciences, which are crucial to effectively organizing the complex systems needed to manage these technologies and communicating research results and risk to the general public.

You also asked about sole reliance on Science and Technology funding for the

WaterSentinel pilot program expansion, and if EPA has adequate plans for

transitioning WaterSentinel to an operational program. The SAB understands the

need for WaterSentinel, but EPA’s strategy for allocating resources to this program

is unclear. Science and Technology funding is probably appropriate for developing

the scientific aspects of WaterSentinel, but other aspects of the program appear to

be operational. Accordingly, the SAB believes that operational aspects of

WaterSentinel should be funded by appropriate operational funds. The SAB Panel

that reviewed WaterSentinel recommended development of a plan to transition

WaterSentinel from research and development to and operational program. The SAB

is concerned that WaterSentinel funding comes at the expense of the Agency’s other

responsibilities.

3. Longer-term More Fundamental Research

EPA is a mission-oriented agency, charged with assuring that America enjoys,

and will continue to enjoy, a clean and healthy environment. Earlier I paraphrased

Louis Pasteur. Don Stokes, the former dean at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School

wrote a wonderful little book2 that argues that research cannot simply be sorted out

along a line between basic and applied. Some important real world problems, such

as those that lead Pasteur to understand how to preserve milk, can only be addressed by doing fundamental research that is motivated by real-world needs. Many

environmental problems fall into this category—what Stokes termed ‘‘Pasteur’s

quadrant.’’ Much of the knowledge that is needed to assure continued success in

EPA’s mission requires research of this kind—research which is not being done anywhere else across the federal system.

In our meetings with agency research managers, we were deeply troubled when

we were told that the basic or ‘‘core’’ portions of ORD’s research budget have shrunk

from roughly 40 percent to 25 percent of current research investments. Environmental issues are complex, and often subtle. If EPA does not continue to invest in

a significant amount of basic environmental science, we will likely find ourselves

making costly regulatory mistakes in the future. We also run the risk of paralyzing

innovative industries, like nanotechnology, uncertain about the regulatory rules that

they will face.

The SAB is especially troubled by the ongoing difficulty that EPA has had with

the application of the OMB Performance Assessment Review Tool or ‘‘PART’’ process. My own view is that both the agency and the OMB need to work harder to resolve this issue, especially in the context of ecosystem research. On the one hand,

OMB needs to recognize the need for a portion of EPA’s research to be fairly fundamental in nature. As I have argued above, not all EPA research has immediate

short-term applications—nor should it have. Long-term investments in developing

basic understanding of environmental and ecological science are very important if

we are to achieve sensible and efficient environmental protection. At the same time,

EPA needs to do a better job of refining and communicating several of its research

programs, especially those in ecosystem research, a topic whose importance has

been stressed by both the SAB and National Academy of Sciences. Simply continuing to cut the budget is not a viable strategy for achieving future improvement.

23

Looking back at the analyses that the SAB has done of EPA’s science and research budgets over the past several years, the SAB has become convinced that the

Agency is in danger of losing core scientific expertise in both conventional and

emerging environmental issues. A number of the agency’s research programs are in

need of major rejuvenation and modernization, but this is almost impossible in the

face of ever shrinking resources. On top of this, a significant number of retirements

is anticipated over the coming decade. If proposed cuts in the STAR Doctoral Fellowship program are not restored, where will the next generation of U.S. environmental scientists come from?

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify about EPA’s science and research

budget request. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

BIOGRAPHY FOR M. GRANGER MORGAN

Dr. M. Granger Morgan is University Professor and Head of the Department of

Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University where he is also Lord

Chair Professor in Engineering, and is a Professor in the Department of Electrical

and Computer Engineering and in the H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and

Management. He holds a B.A. from Harvard College (1963) where he concentrated

in physics, an M.S. in astronomy and space science from Cornell (1965), and a ah.D.

from the department of applied physics and information sciences at the University

of California at San Diego (1969).

Dr. Morgan’s research addresses problems in science, technology, and public policy. Much of it has involved the development and demonstration of methods to characterize and treat uncertainty in quantitative policy analysis. He works on risk

analysis, management and communication; on problems in the integrated assessment of global change; on energy systems, focused particularly on electric power; on

problems in technology and domestic security; on improving health, safety, and environmental regulation; and on several other topics in technology and public policy.

24

25

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Dr. Langenberg.

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD N. LANGENBERG, VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Dr. LANGENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wu, and thank

you for the opportunity to testify here on behalf of the National

Council for Science and the Environment.

That organization is dedicated to proving the scientific basis for

environmental decision-making, and it does not take positions on

environmental issues, per se. You have my written testimony. I

would like to focus my oral remarks on several broad brush, big

picture topics that help me understand the context for today’s hearing.

It is becoming obvious to most Americans, not just citizens of

Louisiana and Kansas, that environmental issues are becoming increasingly important all societal levels, from local, through state

and national to global. Our leaders are being told do something.

What to do? Well, when we confront that question, we encounter

a reality once described by the biologist E. O. Wilson, who said,

and I quote: ‘‘Men who would rather believe than know.’’ I find that

a rather ominous truth, especially at a time when a recent survey

shows that about a quarter of the American population still believes that the Sun orbits around the Earth.

That being the case, what do decision-makers like you do when

confronted with an environmental issue? And my answer is make

policy, make your decisions based on a thorough understanding of

the best available scientific knowledge that is relevant to the issue.

It is easier said than done for environmental issues, which are extremely systemic, complicated, and multidisciplinary. Although the

scientific knowledgebase is growing, it remains full of gaps and unanswered questions, but that means that we have to do all we can

to support those scientists who can enlarge the knowledgebase, and

that also means that we must attend to the development of the

next generation of scientists, who can continue to do that, which

brings me to EPA.

In my view, EPA is a mission agency, whose primary functions

are policy development and regulation. To accomplish that mission

properly, EPA must base its actions on sound scientific knowledge,

and to do that, it needs to contribute to the scientific

knowledgebase, particularly by supporting research that is directly

and immediately relevant to the policy and regulatory issues that

it confronts.

EPA’s Office of Research and Development can and does make its

contribution to the scientific knowledgebase by supporting both intramural and extramural research, and in that, it parallels the

work of other mission agencies, like Health and Human Services,

Energy, and NASA.

The extramural research effort of EPA’s STAR, Science to

Achieve Results, is particularly important, because it not only

helps expand the relevant scientific knowledgebase, but it gives

EPA direct access to the expertise and advice of some of the leading—Nation’s leading environmental scientists, most of whom work

in research universities. They have another unique and very imporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:45 Nov 12, 2006 Jkt 026576 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ETS06\031606\26576 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
26

tant function. Those universities are also the breeding grounds for

the next generation of environmental scientists, so STAR research

projects and the STAR Fellowship Program, to help ensure that tomorrow’s policy decisions will continue to well informed by the best

available science.

Is STAR any good? Well, the National Academy of Sciences addressed that question in detail, and gave STAR high marks. As far

as I can tell, among federal programs, STAR seems to have accomplished its objectives in a manner that should make it a ‘‘star’’

among federal programs, but yet, its funding has been declining in

recent years, and that is, frankly, not the responsible response this

citizen would have expected from his government when confronted

with a burgeoning set of environmental challenges. And let me remind you that those challenges are not confined to the immediate

present, like Katrina and tornados in Kansas. They include the

possibility of an avian influenza pandemic, and the possibility of

the inundation of my Maryland Eastern shore home if the Greenland ice sheet melts.

Let me answer the specific questions that the staff has asked.

What are the most important strengths and weaknesses of EPA’s

proposed S&T budget? The most important strength, I think, is

that it exists at all, and the most important weakness is that it is

substantially inadequate to support EPA meeting its present and

looming future challenges. What impact are the recent proposed reductions having on the ORD’s ability to—and to provide several

things that are relevant. My answer is, so far as I know, ORD continues to do a creditable job with the resources that it has, but in

my opinion, those resources are substantially inadequate to enable

EPA to respond responsibly to the challenges it faces today, and

the greater challenges it will face in the near future.

I would refer you to the conclusion of my written testimony for

some recommendations from NCSE about restoring some of the declines in various aspects of ORD and STAR. I understand, Mr.

Chairman, Mr. Wu, that you can accomplish only what is financially and politically feasible at this moment, but of all the issues

that our government faces, environmental issues are surely the

longest-term.

I think I can assure you that our children and our grandchildren

will have to deal with them in whatever forms they may take in

the decades and centuries to come, and I think it is our duty and

obligation to do what we can today to make their tasks easier tomorrow.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Langenberg follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD N. LANGENBERG

Summary

In order to fulfill its mission, EPA needs increased investments in both its intramural and extramural science programs. The National Council for Science and the

Environment (NCSE) urges Congress to appropriate a minimum of $700 million for

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (bringing it back to FY 2004 levels), including at least $150 million for EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research

grants program and $20 million for EPA’s STAR graduate fellowship program. We

recommend a total of $900 million for EPA’s Science and Technology account. NCSE

also urges Congress to restore full funding for the Office of Environmental Education at a level of at least $10 million.

27

The National Council for Science and the Environment is dedicated to improving

the scientific basis for environmental decision-making. We are supported by over 500

organizations, including universities, scientific societies, government associations,

businesses and chambers of commerce, and environmental and other civic organizations. NCSE promotes science and its essential role in decision-making but does not

take positions on environmental issues themselves.

Introduction

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing

on science and technology at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). My name

is Don Langenberg. I am testifying in my capacity as Vice Chair of the National

Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE). I am also Chancellor Emeritus

of the University System of Maryland and Professor of Professor of Physics and

Electrical Engineering at the University of Maryland. I bring several perspectives

to this hearing. I have served as Deputy Director and Acting Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), President of the American Physical Society (APS),

and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC).

In my capacity as Chancellor of the University System of Maryland, I was a leader of an institution that receives large amounts of federal funding for research and

education. In my capacity as Deputy Director and Acting Director of the National

Science Foundation, I was a leader of an institution that provides a significant fraction of the total federal investment in research and education at our nation’s universities. I am both a scientist and a science educator. From 2002–2004, I served as

Regents’ Professor of Education at the University of Maryland.

I am a physicist by training, but I am not here to discuss the physical sciences.

Just as Harold Varmus, the eminent biologist and former Director of the National

Institutes of Health, made a strong case for the need for greater investments in the

physical sciences, I am a physicist who is here to discuss the importance of greater

investments in environmental research and education.

Environmental Science and Decision-making

The call for decisions, environmental and otherwise, to be made on the basis of

science is almost a mantra used across the political spectrum. Yet, behind the rhetoric, a simple truth remains. Without investment in science and in scientists, there

can be no science-based decision-making.

Despite this statement of the obvious, many federal departments and agencies

and those in Congress who fund them try to get environmental decision-making on

the cheap. In real dollar terms, EPA’s funding of science is nearly unchanged

since 1990 (Figure 1). During this time, the complexity of the challenges has increased many-fold. Science has helped us to make great advances with the local

issues of point-source pollution. The problems faced by EPA, our nation and our

planet today encompass local, regional, national and even global scales.

EPA’s current list of high priority research areas includes:

• Human Health

• Particulate Matter

• Drinking Water

• Clean Water

• Global Change

• Endocrine Disruptors

• Ecological Risk

• Pollution Prevention

• Homeland Security

Half of these issues were largely unknown 25 years ago, yet the amount of available funding is largely unchanged.

A research budget of less than $600 million for an agency dealing with these challenges is simply unacceptable. In contrast, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

receives nearly $30 billion (50 times more than EPA research). Yet we increasingly

understand the connection between environmental quality and human health. For

example, reducing methane emissions by 20 percent could prevent 370,000 deaths

worldwide between 2010 and 2030, say Princeton University researchers in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last week (March 6, 2007).

EPA’s strategic plan calls for science-based decision-making, but it’s not possible

to achieve this goal if the agency’s capacity to conduct science is continually reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:45 Nov 12, 2006 Jkt 026576 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS06\031606\26576 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
28

duced. EPA’s strategic plan for 2003–2008 says, ‘‘EPA has identified reliance on

sound science and credible data among the guiding principles we will follow to fulfill

our mission to protect human health and the environment.’’ EPA needs to reverse

the decline in its capacity to conduct science in order to fulfill its mission.

EPA’s proposed science budget

Under the President’s FY 2007 budget, EPA’s overall budget would fall $310 million or 4.1 percent to $7.3 billion, after a similar cut in 2006. EPA’s R&D portfolio

of $557 million would suffer a $37.5 million (six percent cut), after a similar cut in

2006. Funding for most EPA research areas would decline, with the exception of

homeland security R&D. EPA’s R&D funding would fall to its lowest level in

almost two decades in real terms (Figure 1). If EPA’s FY 2007 budget proposal

were enacted, the agency’s Science and Technology (S&T) funding will have declined

by $71 million (12 percent) since FY 2004 and the Office of Research and Development budget will have declined by $90 million (14 percent) during the same period.

A healthy research program depends on having sufficient resources to:

a. keep up with and use the newest scientific methods,

b. provide the most up-to-date scientific information for the agency’s regulatory

decisions, and

c. build and maintain strong ties with the external research community and

foster graduate student work in the environmental sciences.

Unfortunately EPA’s research program is in a chronically unhealthy state. Despite major successful reforms in response to criticisms leveled in the 1980s and

early 1990s, EPA’s ability to garner the best science for its decision-making has

been hamstrung by a severe lack of resources. This is particularly vexing given the

desire of many policy-makers to move away from a ‘‘command and control model’’

to a more flexible market-based approach to environmental performance. A marketbased approach will only succeed if all participants have access to high quality

science-based information on which to make their decisions. Additional science is

needed to develop metrics of success and to monitor progress toward desired outcomes.

Funding for EPA’s S&T account is projected to fall in 2008, 2009, and 2010 before

rebounding slightly in 2011. After adjusting for inflation, EPA R&D could fall a further 16 percent over the next five years. Even if Congress adds to the AdministraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:45 Nov 12, 2006 Jkt 026576 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS06\031606\26576 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

tion’s request during the appropriations process, congressional add-ons may end up

going to earmarked projects rather than to boost core EPA research programs, leaving most EPA research on a downward path with further cuts to come. This situation is unsustainable and should be unacceptable to this committee.

EPA’s Extramural Science and Education Programs

EPA created the extramural Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program as part

of a set of reforms to EPA science proposed by the National Academy of Sciences

in the 1990s. STAR provides EPA an opportunity to better take advantage of the

intellectual and scientific resources of the academic community and apply these resources to the challenges faced by EPA.

The STAR program has been widely praised. The National Academies issued a

laudatory report, The Measure of STAR, which concludes that the program supports

excellent science that is directly relevant to the agency’s mission. According to the

report, the STAR program has ‘‘yielded significant new findings and knowledge critical for regulatory decision-making.’’ The report says, ‘‘The program has established

and maintains a high degree of scientific excellence.’’ It also concludes, ‘‘The STAR

program funds important research that is not conducted or funded by other agencies. The STAR program has also made commendable efforts to leverage funds

through establishment of research partnerships with other agencies and organizations.’’

The EPA STAR research program compares favorably with programs at other

science agencies. According to the National Academies report, ‘‘The STAR program

has developed a grant-award process that compares favorably with and in some

ways exceeds that in place at other agencies that have extramural research programs, such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.’’

The STAR research grants program expands the scientific expertise available to

EPA by awarding competitive grants to universities and independent institutions,

to investigate scientific questions of particular relevance to the agency’s mission.

The National Academies report says, ‘‘The STAR program should continue to be an

important part of EPA’s research program.’’

From the standpoint of a university administrator, our ability to set priorities is

greatly influenced by patterns of federal funding. Where resources are made available, academic research will flourish and new discoveries will be made. This is happening in the biomedical sciences and society is reaping the benefits of increased

funding for biomedical research. In areas such as environmental science, even

though there is great interest among student and faculty, it is hard for us to establish new programs and hire new faculty and take on additional students if we know

that funding is not likely to be available. STAR grants that support research centers

and individual scientists allow universities to make their own investments with

some assurance of concurrent federal support.

Research centers funded by the STAR program at universities affiliated with

NCSE are making scientific breakthroughs on topics including:

• remediation of mine waste sites

• microbial risk assessment

• remediation of volatile organic compounds in groundwater and soil

• air quality—reducing the health effects of particulate matter and aerosols

• assessment of aquatic resources

• children’s environmental health and disease prevention (several centers).

Funding for the STAR program has been cut repeatedly over the past several

years. The FY 2007 request for the STAR programs is $63 million, which is 40 percent below the FY 2004 request of $104.7 million. If the proposal is enacted, STAR

will have been cut by $20 million (24 percent) since FY 2004. NCSE proposes that

the STAR research budget be increased to $150 million, which would allow expansion of areas and scientists supported and would send a signal that Congress is serious about science for environmental decision-making.

To ensure a strong supply of future environmental scientists and engineers, EPA

created the STAR Fellowship program. As you know, there is considerable concern

about the retirements of the baby boom generation and the need to replace the scientific and technical skills of the federal, State and private work force. The STAR

fellowship program is the only federal program aimed specifically at students pursuing advanced degrees in environmental sciences. According to the National Academies report, ‘‘The STAR fellowship program is a valuable mechanism for enabling

a continuing supply of graduate students in environmental sciences and engineering

30

to help build a stronger scientific foundation for the Nation’s environmental research and management efforts.’’

The STAR Fellowship program has also been repeatedly proposed for budget cuts

by the Administration, only to be restored each year by Congress. The President’s

budget request has again has proposed deep cuts in the STAR graduate fellowship

program. The budget request would have cut funding for the STAR graduate fellowship program by 50 percent in FY 2004 and by 100 percent in FY 2003. Congress

restored full funding for the EPA STAR graduate fellowship program in both years.

The FY 2007 proposed budget would be a $3.4 million (26 percent) reduction in

funding for graduate fellowships. As you have noted in the Committee’s Views and

Estimates on the budget, this is ‘‘one of the most troubling decreases.’’ You state

that ‘‘the fellowship program should be funded at $10 million, the level restored by

Congress in each year beginning with FY03.’’

The STAR fellowship program is highly competitive, with only seven percent of

applicants being awarded fellowships. The current level of funding is insufficient to

allow all students whose applications are rated as excellent to receive fellowships

and it is insufficient to meet national needs for a scientifically trained workforce.

Based on the experience of NCSE staff as reviewers of the STAR fellowship applications, we recommend doubling the funding for STAR fellowships to $20 million,

which can be accomplished without any decrease in the quality of the awardees.

Office of Environmental Education

The FY 2007 budget request once again proposes no funding for the EPA Office

of Environmental Education. Since 2003, the Administration has tried to zero out

this office, which support the programs mandated by the National Environmental

Education and Training Act, programs administered by this office. NCSE strongly

encourages Congress to restore full funding of at least $10 million. These programs

provide national leadership for environmental education at the local, State, national

and international levels, encourage careers related to the environment, and leverage

non-federal investment in environmental education and training programs.

Conclusion

In order to fulfill its mission, EPA needs increased investments in both its intramural and extramural science programs. The National Council for Science and the

Environment urges Congress to appropriate a minimum of $700 million for EPA’s

Office of Research and Development (bringing it back to FY 2004 levels), including

at least $150 million for EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants

program and $20 million for EPA’s STAR graduate fellowship program. We recommend a total of $900 million for EPA’s Science and Technology account. This

would include the $62 million proposed transfer from the Environmental Programs

and Management Account. NCSE also urges Congress to restore full funding for the

Office of Environmental Education at a level of at least $10 million. Even these levels of funding would, for the most part, bring EPA science back to its level in FY

2004. We hope that in future years, EPA’s science budget will grow to better match

our national needs.

In the case of EPA, there is a strong relationship between input to environmental

research and education and output in terms of environmental protection. If the Nation wants more effective and efficient environmental protection, we need to make

the upfront investment in science. It really is the ounce of prevention that is worth

tons of cure.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DONALD N. LANGENBERG

Donald N. Langenberg was educated at Iowa State University (B.S.), the University of California, Los Angeles (M.S.), and the University of California, Berkeley

(Ph.D.). All his earned degrees are in physics. He also holds honorary degrees from

the University of Pennsylvania (M.A. and D.Sc.) and from the State University of

New York (D.Sc.).

After a postdoctoral year at Oxford University, Dr. Langenberg joined the faculty

of the University of Pennsylvania in 1960, as Assistant Professor of Physics. He held

the rank of Professor of Physics from 1967 to 1983, and had a secondary appointment as Professor of Electrical Engineering and Science from 1976 to 1983. While

at Penn, he served as Director of the Laboratory for Research on the Structure of

Matter (an interdisciplinary materials research laboratory) and as Vice Provost for

Graduate Studies and Research.

In July 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed Dr. Langenberg Deputy Director

of the National Science Foundation. He served in that position through December,

31

1982, and served also as Acting Director of the Foundation during the first six

months of his tenure.

On February 1, 1983, Dr. Langenberg became Chancellor of the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), where he also held the rank of Professor of Physics.

On July 1, 1990, Dr. Langenberg became Chancellor of the University System of

Maryland. The System comprises eleven degree-granting institutions and two research and service units. He retired as Chancellor on April 30, 2002 to become

Chancellor Emeritus and Regents’ Professor of Education K–16. He also continues

as Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering at the University of Maryland,

College Park.

Dr. Langenberg’s research was in experimental condensed matter physics and materials science. His earliest research was concerned with the electronic properties

and Fermi surfaces of metals and degenerate semiconductors. A major part of his

research career was devoted to the study of superconductivity, particularly the Josephson effects and non-equilibrium superconductivity. He is perhaps best known

for his work on the determination of certain fundamental physical constants using

the ac Josephson effect. A practical consequence of this work was the development

of a radically new type of voltage standard which is now in use around the world.

One of the major publications resulting from this work is among the most frequently

cited papers published by the Reviews of Modern Physics during the 1955–86 period, and has been dubbed a ‘‘citation classic.’’ The work has also been recognized

by the award to Dr. Langenberg and his co-workers of the John Price Wetherill

Medal of the Franklin Institute. Dr. Langenberg is the author or co-author of over

one hundred papers and articles, and has edited several books.

Dr. Langenberg has held predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowships from the National Science Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the John Simon

Guggenheim Foundation. He has been a Visiting Professor or Researcher at Oxford

University, the Ecole Normale Supe ́rieure, the California Institute of Technology,

and the Technische Universita ̈t Mu ̈nchen. In addition to the Wetherill Medal, he

has been awarded the Distinguished Contribution to Research Administration

Award of the Society of Research Administrators, the Distinguished Achievement

Citation of the Iowa State University Alumni Association, and the Significant Sig

Award of the Sigma Chi Fraternity.

Dr. Langenberg has served as advisor or consultant to a variety of universities,

industrial firms, and governmental agencies. He is currently Chairman of the Board

of Directors of The Education Trust, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of the

National Council for Science and the Environment, and a member of the Board of

Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia. He has been a member of

the Board of Trustees of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; member of the Board of

Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania; President of the National Association

of System Heads (NASH); Chairman of the Presidents’ Council of the Association

of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB); President and Chairman

of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS);

Chairman of the Board of the National Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges (NASULGC); and President of the American Physical Society (APS).

Dr. Langenberg is a nationally recognized leader in education issues, particularly

K–16 education partnerships and information technology as a revolutionary change

agent in higher education. He was appointed Chairman of the National Reading

Panel (NRP) in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The Panel was charged by Congress

to study the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children how to read

and to report on the best ways of applying its findings in the classroom and the

home. He currently serves as a member of the National Research Council Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States.

Dr. Langenberg was born March 17, 1932, in Devils Lake, North Dakota. Since

1953 he has been married to the former Patricia Warrington, a biostatistician who

is currently Professor of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine in the University of

Maryland School of Medicine. They have four children: Karen, a marketing executive; Julia, a veterinarian; John, a physician; and Amy, a mother. Dr. Langenberg’s

avocational interests include photography, history, and travel; he has visited or resided on all seven continents.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much, Dr. Langenberg. Mr.

Ruch.

32

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. RUCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr. RUCH. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Wu, thank you very much for

the opportunity to be here.

I bring a somewhat different perspective, in that PEER is a service organization for rangers, naturalists, lawyers, scientists, who

find themselves in ethical conflicts with their own agencies. In essence, we act as kind of a giant battered staff shelter for federal

service, with our clients ranging from the Chief of the U.S. Park

Police to the monitors of chemical weapons depots across the country.

So the perspective I bring to you is kind of a cubicle’s eye view

of the Agency’s S&T budget. A budgetary document is really a policy document that includes not only the numerical levels of funding, but also, the terms and conditions under which that funding

is provided, and one major lapse in the S&T budget of the Agency

is the failure to address in any way growing concerns about political intervention that dilutes the value of the science. The work, if

it is compromised, and if the research that is reported is divorced

from reality, the public does not get the benefit of the bargain.

In contract to the open science policies that have recently been

adopted by NOAA and NASA, EPA has actually taken an opposite

tack, and instead, reinforce their policy that scientists are not able

to not make public statements without approval from their political

chain of command. With scientists not being able to understand

what they can clearly share with colleagues or publicly talk about,

or which questions they can answer, it makes it difficult for the scientific process to proceed. We understand the need for an administration to have a one voice policy, but a one voice policy as applied

to science is somewhat problematical.

Secondly, as Mr. Wu had averred to, there are growing reports

of suppression of research from everyplace from the World Trade

Center to the Western oilfields of Colorado, and I can assure you

that the cases that have been reported in the media are only a

very, very small percentage of what is happening in hundreds of

instances in laboratories, in field offices throughout the country. In

the written testimony, I have pointed out that the Agency’s dioxin

reassessment has been held in draft status for more than 12 years.

If the research is never reported, it can never be used by you and

other policymakers in making sure that regulation fits the problem,

and I would urge that the committee recommend that EPA inventory the documents that it has in draft status, and indicate why

they remain in draft status.

And finally, the absence of any kind of policy by the Agency to

protect their scientists who report manipulation of findings. Scientists often do not fit neatly into the whistleblower box, in that

they are not reporting necessarily violations of laws, but that recommendations are dropped, or that methodologies are skewed.

EPA, we would urge the committee to consider, urging EPA to

adopt policies that protect their scientists when they express what

their findings determine, and also, do not reward managers who

suppress those findings.

We also think that it is significant, in addition to what is funded,

what is not funded in the EPA budget, is to what they have chosen

33

to fund. The priorities chosen send a message to the scientists basically on the ground. So, for example, while the Agency is cutting

back on funding for global warming, ecological research, sustainability, they are committed to a multi-year public relations effort

called ‘‘Science for You,’’ that is designed to provide a corporate

branding campaign for EPA’s science, and this multimillion dollar

multiyear effort is coming out of money that would otherwise be

used for research.

Similarly, as we have reported, EPA has decided to cut its library program by 80 percent, and just yesterday, Region 5, representing the six Midwestern states, announced they are going to

close their library. The same research program that has indicated

that it can’t close its library is spending $7.2 million, almost three

times the library budget, on a new information technology system

that staff is finding complicated and as problematical as the recordkeeping system for the FBI. So, we would urge the committee to

consider recommending that research funds not be diverted to peripheral activities, such as public relations campaigns that couldn’t

be fairly called research.

And then finally, I wanted to just note one aspect of the dearth

of funding that has been referred to by the other witnesses is that

it makes the Agency’s priorities and projects much more susceptible to outside influence, and what I am specifically referring to

are offers of funding from corporate interests. We noted the fact

that corporate research agreements, cooperative research agreements with corporations have skyrocketed during the Bush Administration, and the idea that corporations can, by the offer of money,

skew what projects the Agency does, we think is somewhat disturbing.

As you know, this past spring, GAO reported that the Agency

lacks any kind of safeguards against conflicts of interest in these

kind of relationships, and the one that we think is kind of the paradigm is the one that the Agency entered into for the human experiment CHEERS in Florida, the pesticide experiment, in which parents were recruited to apply pesticides in the rooms primarily occupied by their infants under age three. In return for a $3.2 million

contribution by the American Chemistry Council, EPA expanded

the study to include exposure by infants to other chemicals in addition to pesticides. What disturbed scientists about this, among

other things, was the fact that the point of the experiment was to

determine not what health effects it may have, but the extent to

which these chemicals were absorbed in the infant’s system, as

measured by urine tests.

These type of things are the sort of thing that require some outside review, and present, we think, a danger to both the integrity

and to the system of priorities that should govern the Agency’s

budget, so we would urge that the Committee recommend that the

Agency adopt safeguards, and provide some sort of external review

for these cooperative agreements.

Finally, I guess I would like to note that we think that both the

committee and the Agency leadership would be better informed if

they actually asked their scientists what was going on. We noted

that ORD has stopped doing internal surveys of its scientists in

2003, and even when they did those surveys, they were not publicly

34

reported. We actually had to sue to get the results of these surveys.

We would urge the Committee to consider asking the Agency routinely, as a feedback mechanism, to have their scientists independently surveyed, and that the results of those surveys be used by the

Congress as a way to evaluate the management of EPA’s science

and technology program.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruch follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. RUCH

Good morning. My name is Jeff Ruch and I am the Executive Director of Public

Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

PEER is a service organization dedicated to protecting those who protect our environment. PEER provides federal, State, local and tribal employees dedicated to ecologically responsible management with a safe, collective and credible voice for expressing concerns. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., PEER has a network of ten

state and regional offices. Most of our staff and board members are themselves

former public employees who left public service after experiencing ethical conflicts

within their former agencies.

On a daily basis, public employees in crisis contact PEER. In our D.C. office alone,

we average five ‘‘intakes’’ per day. A typical intake involves a scientist or other specialist who is asked to shade or distort the truth in order to reach a pre-determined

result, such as a favorable recommendation on a project or approval of the commercial release of a new chemical. It is in this context that PEER hears from scientists

working within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). My remarks reflect the input we have received from EPA scientists who are not afforded an opportunity to openly voice their concerns.

In this morning’s testimony I have been asked by the Committee to comment on

the relative strengths and weaknesses of EPA’s proposed Science and Technology

Budget. In addressing this topic, I will: 1) spotlight three structural weaknesses in

the budget proposal; 2) analyze the priorities reflected by proposed budgetary cuts

compared with proposed augmentations; and finally 3) focus on several emerging

challenges that are not provided for in the budget plan.

I. Structural Weaknesses: Building on Sand

Regardless of the particular budgetary levels, the paramount measure of a budget

is whether it delivers value for what is expended. Thus, with respect to its expenditures on science, technology and research, the essential question is what the public

is getting for its investment.

A. Politicized Science

The failure of EPA to dispel concerns voiced by its own scientists, as well as outside observers, compromises the perceived value and reliability of agency science.

The past several years have witnessed numerous instances in which EPA scientific

work is altered, manipulated or suppressed (in ‘‘draft’’ status) for non-scientific reasons.

Rather than confront this issue, EPA shrinks from these questions or offers only

bland, non-specific denials. Until EPA offers its scientists some meaningful protections for discussing emerging issues or reporting findings without prior political vetting, the agency’s entire science program will be tainted in the eyes of both the scientific community and the general public.

For example, in contrast with recent ‘‘open science’’ policies announced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), EPA has reiterated its policy of requiring

prior headquarters approval for all communications by its scientists with the media.

In a February 9, 2006 e-mail to all staff, Ann Brown, the News Director for the

agency’s science arm, the Office of Research and Development (ORD), admonished—

‘‘We are asked to remind all employees that EPA’s standard media procedure

is to refer all media queries regarding ORD to Ann Brown, ORD News Director,

prior to agreeing to or conducting any interviews. . ..Support for this policy also

will allow reasonable time for appropriate management response.’’

By contrast, less than a week earlier on February 4, 2006, NASA Administrator

Michael Griffin sent an all-employee e-mail in which he committed the agency to

‘‘open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public.’’ Mr. Griffin statVerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:45 Nov 12, 2006 Jkt 026576 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS06\031606\26576 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
35

ed, ‘‘It is not the job of public affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering

or scientific material produced by NASA’s technical staff.’’

Ten days later, in a Valentine’s Day message to all staff, NOAA Administrator

Conrad Lautenbacher wrote—

‘‘Our media standards also reflect an open policy. We encourage our public affairs staff to keep abreast of media interests. I encourage our scientists to speak

freely and openly. Dozens of you every day are talking to the media and providing the results of peer reviewed science across a wide variety of NOAA topics. We ask only that you specify when you are communicating personal views

and when you are characterizing your work as part of your specific contribution

to NOAA’s mission.’’

Why are scientists at NASA free to answer questions about global warming while

their colleagues at EPA are not? Unless the EPA believes that science comes in Republican or Democratic flavors, agency scientists should be able to discuss findings

without having to check whether facts comport with management policy.

B. Alienating Scientists

In any organization, it is difficult to be successful without the support and cooperation of the staff required to implement the agency’s programs. In EPA, its own

internal surveys signal a growing disconnect between scientists and managers within its research program.

Breakdowns in trust, communication and shared vision are beginning to threaten

the Nation’s largest scientific organization dedicated to studying human health and

the environment.

EPA’s Office of Research and Development consists of three national laboratories,

four national centers, and two offices located in 14 facilities around the country employing approximately 2,000 scientists. Internal surveys were taken in 1999, 2001

and 2003 to gauge ‘‘organizational climate.’’

While overall morale remains high, survey results show increasing doubts about

the ‘‘competence’’ and trustworthiness of ORD leadership. With a 66 percent response rate, the latest survey (2003) found—

• Scientists’ trust in leadership declines markedly at each step higher up in the

chain-of-command, with 38 percent of staff scientists reporting distrust of laboratory managers versus only 23 percent who expressed trust;

• Less than one in three respondents (30 percent) felt that lab managers ‘‘address challenging situations competently;’’ and

• Barely half (56 percent) were optimistic about ORD’s future.

In essays accompanying the survey, one scientist wrote ‘‘Despite e-mail and the

like, there is no real communication in the organization and no consistent mechanism to share knowledge.’’ Another added, ‘‘A complete lack of communication exists

leading to the strong distrust that is present today.’’

While these results may be the early warning signs of a scientific organization

drifting toward dysfunction, ORD has stopped conducting these surveys. Nor does

there appear to be any effort by the current ORD leadership to address trust and

communication breakdowns.

Although these survey results predate the proposed 2007 Science & Technology

Budget, the proposed cutbacks in research funding will only aggravate trust and

credibility concerns by agency scientists.

Significantly, PEER had to file suit under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the surveys after ORD refused to release them. In July 2005, EPA surrendered

the surveys and paid PEER’s attorney fees and costs out of funds that should have

been used for research.

C. Lack of Coherence

In a different context, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently commented that a good bodybuilder could not focus on developing his chest, back and

arms to the neglect of his abdominal muscles and legs. So, too, does EPA have to

effectively address all areas affecting human health and the environment to have

a coherent science program.

In a draft report issued almost exactly one year ago today, EPA’s Science Advisory

Board warned that the agency is no longer funding a credible public health research

program:

‘‘[R]esource constraints. . .preclude EPA from conducting science in all the

areas necessary for supporting effective environmental policy development.’’

36

Among the deficiencies highlighted by SAB were ecosystem research, mercury and

ammonia monitoring, human responses to toxic pollution and an array of emerging

contaminants being introduced into the stream of commerce. Comparing the 2007

proposed budget with the one commented upon by the SAB, this coherence gap has

only grown more profound, hobbling EPA’s research program like the unbalanced

bodybuilder.

II. Perverse Priorities

The overall reduced funding levels in the Science & Technology Budget plan only

magnify the impact of cuts as well as funding augmentations. A review of these

shifts in funding shows increases in areas that appear to benefit corporate regulatory needs and cutbacks in areas affecting human health and basic ecological research.

A. Corporate Contributions Setting the Research Agenda

EPA is increasingly relying on corporate joint ventures in its research program,

according to agency documents obtained by PEER under the Freedom of Information

Act. This trend, coupled with declining research budgets, suggests that EPA is diverting funds from basic public health and environmental research toward applied

research to address regulatory concerns of corporate funders.

The records obtained by PEER show a marked increase in ‘‘cooperative research

and development agreements’’ (or CRADAs) with individual corporations or industry

associations since the advent of the Bush Administration. During the first Bush

term EPA entered into 57 corporate CRADAs, compared with 34 such agreements

during Clinton’s second term. Corporate CRADAs executed during the Bush Administration outnumber those entered into with universities or local governments.

As a result of this trend, the American Chemical Council (ACC) is now EPA’s

leading research partner. In internal agency surveys, EPA scientists maintain that

corporations are influencing the agency’s research agenda through financial inducements. As one EPA scientist wrote, ‘‘Many of us in the labs feel like we work for

contracts.’’

A classic example of recent EPA/corporate joint ventures is the 2004 agreement

reached with the ACC to fund the now-canceled CHEERS experiment in which parents would have received payments and gifts in return for spraying pesticides and

other chemicals in the rooms primarily occupied by their infant children. The object

of this experiment was to test (through urine samples) the extent to which the

chemicals were absorbed in to the infants’ systems. The study protocol contained no

provision for medical monitoring of subject children or any controls against improper

chemical application by parents. In return for its $2 million contribution to CHEERS, the ACC obtained an agreement to expand the scope of the study beyond pesticides to include the exposure of

the subject infants to flame retardants and other household chemicals.

As Members of this committee know, a Government Accountability Office study

released in April 2005 concluded that EPA lacks safeguards to ‘‘evaluate or manage

potential conflicts of interest’’ in corporate research agreements. No such safeguards

are proposed for FY 2007.

Thus, under its current leadership, EPA is signaling its willingness to become an

arm of corporate R&D in which the selection of agency research topics will increasingly be influenced by the availability of corporate underwriting.

B. Winners and Losers in 2007

An examination of the proposed changes in funding levels contained within the

2007 Science & Technology Budget reveals a pattern in which public health-related

research is reduced while research with corporate regulatory applications is enhanced:

• Research on the toxic effects of pesticides on humans and the environment

would be reduced by $4.1 million while the proposed budget for registering

new pesticides and re-registering existing chemical agents would grow by

$643,000;

• The climate protection program would lose approximately one-third ($6.1 million) of its funding and research on air pollution’s contribution to global

warming would be also be cut by more than $1.1 million. Support for corporate clean air trading credits would, by contrast, jump by three-quarters of

a million dollars; and

• Support for work on human health and ecosystems would fall by almost $10

million; research in land protection would lose more than a million dollars;

and agency efforts to promote sustainability (including appliance efficiency)

would be slashed by nearly a fourth ($7.2 million).

37

At the same time, the Science & Technology Budget proposes healthy increases

in a number of Homeland Security-related areas. Regardless of the merits of these

security-related programs, it appears that these new expenditures have come at the

expense of longer-term environmental research.

C. Public Relations Budget Intact

Despite these cutbacks in health and environment-related research, EPA is financing a ‘‘multi-year’’ public relations campaign, including public service announcements, video news releases plus ‘‘major events, tours and advance [work]’’ to ‘‘enhance [its] corporate image,’’ according to agency documents. The campaign began

in 2004 and runs through September 2007.

This ambitious rollout features a media campaign called ‘‘Science for You’’ run out

of ORD. The effort also includes—

• Operating a ‘‘radio and television news director science awareness program;’’

• Placing ‘‘feature’’ media accounts;

• Developing a ‘‘print and virtual press media kit;’’

• Conducting a ‘‘readership/product use survey;’’ and

• Operating a ‘‘Science Writer’s Circle’’ to enlist professional writers to re-write

scientific tracts.

As part of this program, EPA surveyed what it considers to be ‘‘influential’’ news

editors to assess their ‘‘awareness of and opinions about EPA’s scientific research

program,’’ according to a copy of the questionnaire distributed this past November

by JDG Communications, Inc., a public relations firm based in Falls Church, Virginia under contract to EPA. The survey consisted of 15 questions, including—

• ‘‘Do you feel that U.S. environmental policy is influenced more by political interest or research findings?’’

• ‘‘When you receive information from EPA, do you think there is research behind this information?’’ and

• Asking editors to compare the scientific credibility of EPA against other entities, such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of

Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

To the extent that EPA seeks to measure its scientific credibility, one would think

that the agency should be surveying scientists rather than journalists. Of greater

concern, however, is that this public relations effort is being financed out of funds

that could otherwise be used for public health and environmental research.

At our request, the EPA Office of Inspector General has reviewed the legality of

this program and concluded that it does not violate the Congressional prohibition

on the use of appropriated funds to generate ‘‘publicity or propaganda.’’ In a letter

dated January 30, 2006, the EPA/OIG Director of Public Liaison informed PEER

that the program as currently constituted was not illegal. We are seeking the basis

of this conclusion through a pending Freedom of Information Act request.

One area that the EPA/OIG declined to review was the appropriateness of using

research funds for public relations efforts. Since the OIG considers this question beyond its purview, it is incumbent upon Congress to consider whether EPA’s scarce

research dollars ought to be shielded from diversion to public relations efforts.

D. Research Without Libraries

Under EPA’s proposed FY 2007 budget, the agency is slated to shut down its network of libraries that serve its own scientists as well as the public. Approximately

$2 million of a total agency library budget of $2.5 million will be lost.

According to staff documents, the initial plan included shutting down the electronic catalog which tracks tens of thousands of unique documents and research

studies that are available nowhere else. After this plan was revealed last month,

EPA backtracked and pledged to restore the $500,000 budget for the EPA Headquarters library and its electronic catalog, but this reversal will likely mean deeper

cuts elsewhere in the library network.

EPA’s own scientists and enforcement staff are the principal library users. EPA’s

scientists use the libraries to research questions such as the safety of chemicals and

the environmental effects of new technologies. EPA enforcement staff use the libraries to obtain technical information to support pollution prosecutions and to track the

business histories of regulated industries.

EPA currently operates a network of 27 libraries out of its Washington, D.C.

Headquarters and ten regional offices across the country. The size of the cuts will

force most of the libraries to shut their doors and cease operations. Each year, the

EPA libraries—

38

• Handle more than 134,000 research requests from its own scientific and enforcement staff;

• House and catalog an estimated 50,000 ‘‘unique’’ documents that are available

nowhere else; and

• Operate public reading rooms and provide the public with access to EPA databases.

This cutback stands in sharp contrast with President Bush’s plan to significantly

increase ‘‘cutting edge’’ research as part of his ‘‘American Competitive Initiative’’ as

it is not at all clear how EPA scientists are supposed to engage in cutting edge research when they cannot find what the agency has already done and must spend

considerable time reinventing the proverbial wheel.

Access to information is one of the best tools we have for protecting the environment. In considering EPA’s Science & Technology Budget, the Congress should also

take into account the extent to which agency research will remain accessible to

EPA’s own staff, as well as to university scientists and other researchers.

E. High Cost of Going Partially Paperless

While the Science & Technology Budget contains only a modest increase ($95,000)

in Information Technology Management, elsewhere in its budget, EPA is making a

relatively large investment in what appear to be marginally useful and potentially

disruptive information systems. In an effort to reduce paperwork, EPA is paying an

estimated $7.2 million to obtain 18,000 site licenses for something called the Enterprise Content Management System.

In addition to the licenses, EPA has committed itself to approximately $4.3 million per year in ongoing maintenance cost ($234.00 per person/per year × 18,000)

for the system.

ECMS describes itself as ‘‘The official EPA content management program which

includes software, hardware, policies, standards and guidance to manage

unstructured information such as documents, records and web content.’’ According

to its PowerPoint presentation, this elaborate new information regime is supposed

to ‘‘Reduce costs and improve efficiency; Improve institutional memory; Streamline

processes; Manage workflows; [and] Automate records capture.’’

Despite this investment, the new system software will never be applicable to research records. Thus, the agency will have to maintain a wholly separate information system for its research programs—which constitute the bulk of the agency’s

paper holdings.

It is puzzling how an agency that can no longer afford to maintain libraries can

afford to invest in new information systems that appear to be both costly and ineffective. For what the agency is spending on ECMS, EPA could, for example, restore

its global warming research programs to previous levels.

III. Emerging Challenges

The proposed FY07 Science & Technology Budget does not appear to make any

allowances for expenditures to address a series of emerging challenges confronting

EPA.

A. Brave New World of Human Experimentation

Under new rules that are slated to become effective April 7, 2006, EPA will welcome industry experiments using human subjects to test the effects of pesticides and

other commercial toxins. In addition, EPA itself will be able to conduct or finance

a broad range of experiments in which humans are exposed to potentially harmful

chemicals.

According to its industry supporters, the new EPA rules will enable experiments

on humans to replace reliance on animal studies. During the past decade, human

testing has become central to the regulatory plans of the chemical industry. These

companies are challenging the utility of animal studies and demanding that EPA

use human subject tests as the new safety benchmark. Because human tests cannot

use the same high concentrations used in animal tests, companies can argue that

there is no definitive proof of harm from the introduction of chemicals based upon

small-scale human studies of dubious probative value.

The agency’s latest plan is the product of a Congressional ultimatum this past

summer to ban all future human tests until EPA finally adopted ethical safeguards.

Congress acted after mushrooming controversy concerning the ‘‘CHEERS’’ study. In

order to dissolve the Congressional human subject ban, EPA has offered a grudging

plan that imposes few absolute safeguards. For example, EPA’s plan would allow—

39

• Dosing experiments involving infants and pregnant women using any chemical (except pesticides). Thus, companies will be free to test other toxic agents,

such as perchlorate, on nursing mothers;

• A repeat of the infamous (now canceled) CHEERS study because EPA pointedly omits any check against undue economic inducement, i.e., paying poor

people enough to lure them into signing informed consent papers; and

• Studies on orphans, mentally ill children and prisoners without informed consent.

We are not able to find funds reserved for staffing human subject review boards

or for providing ethics training to agency scientists who will be involved in this burgeoning field of human experimentation.

In addition, there is another potential unplanned budgetary impact in the legal

and financial liability of EPA and its contractors for human experiments conducted

or sponsored by the agency in which subjects suffer harm. In a recent Maryland

Court of Appeals case (Grimes v. Krieger, (2001) 362 Md. 623, 766 A.2d 147], Johns

Hopkins University was held to answer for a study involving public health concerns

associated with children and lead paint. The study looked at the lowest cost methods of effective lead abatement.

Aggrieved families of participants sued for damages from the effects of lead exposure. The lower court dismissed the suit but Maryland’s highest court reinstated the

claim, writing—

‘‘We hold that in Maryland a parent, appropriate relative, or other applicable

surrogate, cannot consent to the participation of a child or other person under

legal disability in nontherapeutic research or studies in which there is any risk

of injury or damage to the health of the subject.’’

The experiments in the Grimes case parallel the type of experiments to which

EPA will be throwing open its doors. Neither its researchers nor its Office of General Counsel have formally considered policies and practices to minimize agency

(and thus taxpayer) liability for the hundreds of new human studies expected to be

conducted each year.

B. Waves of New Chemicals

Each year, an estimated 1,700 new chemicals are introduced into the stream of

American commerce. EPA has no mechanism to regulate these new chemicals. Even

more fundamentally, EPA’s research program is not equipped or funded to monitor

these new chemical agents.

The consequences of this huge blind spot are illustrated by the case of

perfluorochemicals, better known as PFCs. Introduced by 3M in products such as

Scotchgard, Teflon, Stainmaster and Gore-Tex, the chemicals are now widely distributed across the globe. This highly toxic and persistent class of chemicals can

now be found in the blood of over 95 percent of Americans. PFCs have been linked

to developmental defects, high cholesterol, and immune disorders.

Without the ability to carefully monitor the chemical and conduct strict oversight

to accompany voluntary phase outs that EPA negotiated earlier this year with 3M,

DuPont and other companies, these toxic chemicals will continue to pollute people,

their food, and their environment with unknown adverse effects.

Each year, a new chemical horror story is unfolding but the agency charged with

protecting the environment is more than a day late and a dollar short. If EPA is

ever to get a handle on the threats posed by what are called ‘‘emerging contaminants’’ there must be both a dedicated commitment of funds and agency leadership.

Unfortunately, a review of the proposed Science & Technology Budget suggests

that neither the funds nor the leadership will be available.

C. Candor Backlog

Even as waves of new chemicals are being introduced, EPA has been mired in assessing known chemicals and their impacts. For example, the EPA Reassessment of

Dioxin and its effects has been kept in draft form since 1994. Thus, agency decisions

on one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants has been held hostage for

12 years by political complicity to corporate pressure.

Similarly, under Defense Department and defense contractor pressure, EPA delayed setting standards for perchlorate, a chemical found to contaminate hundreds

of drinking water aquifers in more than 20 states. The resulting overdue standards

were so weak that affected states, such as California and Massachusetts, are adopting their own, much stricter standards.

So long as the publication of EPA scientific findings (unaltered by politics) remains so vulnerable to corporate and interagency manipulation, the Science & TechVerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:45 Nov 12, 2006 Jkt 026576 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS06\031606\26576 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
40

nology program will be relegated to producing useful work only around the margins,

timidly leaving the major public health and environmental challenges for others.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JEFFREY P. RUCH

Jeff Ruch has been the Executive Director of PEER since 1997. With Jeff DeBonis,

he helped to start PEER and for its first four years served as General Counsel &

Program Director. Prior to that Jeff was the Policy Director and a staff attorney at

the Government Accountability Project representing whistleblowers from both the

public and private sector. Before coming to D.C., Jeff worked in California state government for 17 years, mostly in the State Legislature as counsel to various committees where he drafted literally hundreds of laws on topics ranging from energy conservation to the rights of employed inventors. Jeff served stints as a deputy district

attorney, an appellate court clerk and is a graduate of the California Correctional

Officers Academy.

41

DISCUSSION

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much.

You have probably heard the bells and the whistles and the buzzers. We do have votes on—we have—probably had best not start

the questioning process at this point, but we will resume it when

we return from voting, and I would just like to make a few comments, just as——

The staff has been kind enough to put a chart, which without objection, I will order into the record, of the history of funding for

ORD in current dollars and in constant 1987 dollars, indicating

that ORD’s budget today is well below what it was in 1990, and

in current dollars, it is well below what it was four years ago, to

the tune of almost $90 million drop. So clearly there are some problems here.

[The information follows:]

42

43

PAYING FOR HOMELAND SECURITY RESEARCH

Chairman EHLERS. I will ask Dr. Gray a quick question before

we go, and that is my earlier comment about why in the world

would—should you have to pay for doing Homeland Security research. Normally, the interagency agreements, if some agency

wants another agency to do something, there is a transfer of funding for that.

Has this been discussed with Homeland Security, and if so, what

has their response been?

Dr. GRAY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Our work in homeland security is guided by a number of different directions, including Presidential directives that order, because of our level of expertise in specific areas, to be responsible

for decontamination and water security work. That work was given

to us, because it builds on expertise within ORD and within the

Agency.

What that means is that the work that we do in homeland security often, virtually always, has opportunities to be beneficial in

other parts of Agency activities. As a quick example, some of the

things that we are looking at in the area of decontamination and

risk assessment is microbiological risk assessment. We have recently funded, together with the Department of Homeland Security,

the Center for the Advancement of Microbiological Risk Assessment. The work that comes from that will be helpful in the case

of an attack with some kind of a microorganism. It would also help

us in water—in our water program. It will help us in our land program. It will help us to understand the risks that microorganisms

might pose in a variety of different places.

The work that we have done in rapid risk assessment to help

support homeland security played a role in the response to Katrina.

So I actually believe that the work that we are doing builds on expertise and knowledge we already have in ORD, and it has dual

use, use not only in homeland security, but a variety of other uses

that are very important and useful to the Agency.

Chairman EHLERS. Has anyone in the EPA asked the Homeland

Security Department to cover part of the costs?

Dr. GRAY. I don’t know the answer to that.

Chairman EHLERS. I would appreciate if you would check and let

me know.

Dr. GRAY. Will do.

Chairman EHLERS. It seems to me grossly unfair in this situation, and I recognize the dual role, but the principle still holds,

even when one agency asks another, or when they are working together, they at least share the costs together, and I think in view

of your budget situation, I think that is essential at this point.

I do want to make it clear, I am extremely grateful to the President for the large increase in research funding that he has proposed in his current budget. It is obviously a recognition of the

needs of the country, and he is meeting those needs. I am very encouraged by that. I just want to make sure that you don’t get hurt

in the process, because—simply because you are small and off to

the side.

44

I hear the buzzer again, and we will have to adjourn, and we will

return as soon as we can. The hearing is in recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. I apologize for the interruption,

and a long series of votes on an appropriations bill, and you know,

everyone feels very strongly about appropriations bills. So we will

resume, and I will continue with my questioning.

WATER SENTINEL

Dr. Morgan, this is somewhat along the lines of what I started

with earlier. In your testimony, you state that some aspects of the

Water Sentinel Program appear to be operational. Specifically,

what aspects of Water Sentinel are operational?

Dr. MORGAN. Well, we have had a little difficulty figuring this

out, and you might ask Dr. Gray, but our sense is that there are

elements that go beyond simply developing new technology. Once

you have deployed this in a number of states and regions, presumably at some stage, you need to transition it over to—from an operational arm, as opposed to a research arm of the Agency, and that

is the basis for our concern. But as I say, it has been a little difficult to kind of figure out how this is distributed across the Agency, and Dr. Gray may be in a position to provide you with a better

answer than I.

Chairman EHLERS. Yes, he is next in line on this question. Dr.

Gray, first, yeah, do you basically agree with the comments of Dr.

Morgan in his testimony, and if not, why not? And in particular,

what—why is EPA proposing to fund these operational activities

with science and technology money, if in fact, it is becoming operational?

Dr. GRAY. Well, Mr. Chairman, Water Sentinel is an important

program to help us in protecting our country’s water infrastructure,

and the point it is at now is really still a research and a demonstration project. It has portions that are research, looking at sensors, trying to understand distribution systems, modeling these so

that we can do the best job we can of protecting them.

Another part of it is demonstration, and that is making sure that

our new technologies and our new approaches actually work. In

fact, that is what we are asking for in 2007 is an opportunity to

expand those demonstration projects beyond a single pilot, to some

more water systems, where we can look at whether differences in

water type, water disinfection processes, distribution systems, affect the ability of these systems to work. That is demonstration.

We do imagine that soon, there will be the beginnings of transition, as we take these technologies, these methods, these approaches, from the research and demonstration mode into use in

these water—in water utilities, and we have, we are committed to

making, getting that information into the hands of the water utilities as soon as we can.

Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Morgan.

Dr. MORGAN. Yeah, one of the issues we haven’t really been able

to understand is the extent to which the homeland security research program is thinking about these issues at a sufficiently high

systems level. I mean, you could devise a whole lot of wonderful

sensors and other devices, and still, at an operational level, for exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:45 Nov 12, 2006 Jkt 026576 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ETS06\031606\26576 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
45

ample, not turn out to be able to detect stuff with sufficient lead

time, or produce a system that was sufficiently economical to use

widely.

We are not—we simply can’t understand how much of that kind

of analysis has been done, and when I say we, I am referring to

our Homeland Security Subcommittee, which has talked at some

length with the homeland security folks within the Agency. And we

are simply concerned that one not put a whole lot of money into

instruments that will produce interesting results, but which collectively, don’t provide us all that much protection. We would like to

see arguments for how, in fact, these devices will provide that protection.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for your comments, and we will

pursue that further later on, probably not in this hearing, but with

written questions.

I am pleased to recognize my Ranking Member, Mr. Wu.

SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ruch, I want to follow up on your testimony concerning the

politicization of science, and scientific integrity. As you probably

know, there was a disturbing incident in Oregon in February, late

January, early February, where a graduate student, well, a lot of

not too good news is on the front page of a newspaper, and I have

the front page of the Oregonian here. It is dated February 7, 2006,

and let me just read the first couple of paragraphs, and then, the

last couple of paragraphs of the story.

‘‘The Federal Government has abruptly suspended funding for

Oregon State University research that concluded federally sponsored logging after the 2002 Biscuit fire in southwest Oregon set

back the recovery of forests.’’

‘‘The action came after a team of scientists from OSU and the

U.S. Forest Service published their results last month in Science,

the Nation’s leading scientific journal.’’

‘‘It escalated the controversy surrounding the findings, which undercut Bush administration-backed arguments for logging after

wildfires. The research, led by a 29-year-old graduate student, already had come under attack within OSU’s College of Forestry by

professors who contend that logging and replanting speed the recovery of burned forests.’’

‘‘Those professors tried but failed to persuade Science not to publish the one-page report.’’

‘‘It is totally without precedent as far as I can recollect,’’ said

Jerry Franklin, a Professor at the University of Washington—’’

And I am going to skip to the conclusion of this.

‘‘The editor of Science, Donald Kennedy, in addressing the BLM’s

concerns about whether this paper had public policy implications

and inappropriately crossed the line, said the BLM’s view ‘‘would

cripple anyone from ever working on a science problem with a policy impact.’’

‘‘Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for

Environmental Ethics, said the suspension of funding was a ‘‘shot

across the bows’’ to researchers who produce findings the government does not like.’’

46

‘‘Either way, the Administration, regardless of the outcome of

this incident, has made its message clear. You knuckle under and

give us the results we want, or we don’t fund you.’’

And this is an article dated February 7, by Michael Milstein of

the Oregonian. Even though the BLM, in response to the furor

about the pulling of funding, eventually restored funding this program, I think this sends a chilling signal to researchers everywhere, and as far as I am concerned, this incident is not over until

federal agencies pledge not to take actions like this, and not to

send a chill through the scientific community.

Mr. Ruch, do you know of similar or parallel incidents in agencies other than the BLM, in the EPA or NOAA, or in any other

agencies that fund or do environmental or health-related research?

Mr. RUCH. Yes. I guess I would amend Mr. Stahl’s comment. I

don’t think it is a shot across the bow. I think we are in a shooting

gallery. I don’t think this was the most prominent, and it may only

be the latest incident.

For example, in BLM, we are representing one of their managers, where the agency withdrew $700,000 in funding concerning the

health effects of a mine in Nevada, rather than have inconvenient

information come out, and so, rather than conduct the public research, which may have implications that upset some of the people

in the agency, they withdrew the money altogether.

In the Department of Interior and elsewhere, I mean, even at the

earliest stages of the Bush Administration, one of our clients was,

you may recall, the mapmaker for the U.S. Geological Survey, who

was fired because he put online a map of the Arctic Refuge Exploration Area crosshatched with the migratory path of the caribou,

so even at the earliest stages, it was clear that science, even down

to the level of maps, was going to be politically vetted.

And in agencies like the U.S. Forest Service, if you talk to researchers in their research system, they have about 2,000 scientists

who work in their network of research stations. They can give you

example after example of where the Forest Service has altered

funding on issues like grazing’s effect on the health of lands, the

effect of declining water quality on native fish stocks, et cetera, et

cetera.

In the EPA and, specifically, ORD, the most frequent complaint

we hear is not so much about that kind of aggressive or naked suppression, so much as things like reports being kept in draft form,

or a promising report in one area not being followed up, or preliminary information that is not coupled to other information. In other

words, it is almost like the research is deliberately kept balkanized

so it is marginal, and never can be used in a policy-making setting.

Mr. WU. Well, I have some followup questions for you, Mr. Ruch,

but since my time is expiring, I want to flip over to Dr. Gray.

Dr. Gray, Mr. Ruch has stated that there is an unusual inventory of delayed reports, reports that are in draft form? Is the Agency, is the EPA amenable to doing an inventory of just how many

draft reports are in draft form, how long they have been held in

draft form, and the reasons why, if some of them have been held

for a long time, what the reasons are for having held these reports

in draft form for such a long time?

Dr. GRAY. Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Wu.

47

It is very clear that EPA has reports that are in draft form, and

we do that, because we put our reports, we put our work, we put

all of our products through a very rigorous peer review process.

That peer review means that we are working with scientists outside the Agency, independent scientists in academia, in the private

sector, in NGOs, who make sure that our work is of the highest

quality.

Mr. WU. But we hear a report of a 12-year period that a report

is in draft form. I mean, wouldn’t you think that in 12 years, that

the paper would either be approved or rejected, rather than kind

of living in limbo?

Dr. GRAY. Well, see, that is the wonderful thing about the peer

review process is, we are not going to reject a report that our scientists have put together. We are going to learn from the outside

world. We are going to learn from the experts that are outside of

the Agency, and we are going to make that better. Making it better

takes time.

Mr. WU. Twelve years.

Dr. GRAY. Sometimes, it takes a long time. That is now at the

National Academy of Sciences, and they have had it for two years.

It takes time to get science right, and we are very careful about

getting our science right.

Mr. WU. Would you be willing to subject the Agency to an inventory of just how many reports are in draft form and held in that

form?

Dr. GRAY. Well, sir, I am unable to speak for the whole Agency,

but as the Office of Research and Development, we keep—we have

something called our science inventory, where we keep track of our

scientific products, and it is something that is open and available

to anyone who wants to see where we are in terms of what we have

published in our science.

Mr. WU. Including the documents that you have not published?

Dr. GRAY. No, we—when we release something for draft, for peer

review, it is then available. It is publicly available.

Mr. WU. Okay.

Dr. GRAY. And we are happy to share those with you.

Mr. WU. Mr. Ruch, are there documents that are not released,

but being held by the Agency for a long period of time?

Mr. RUCH. That is my understanding. I am not in a position

right now where I can list them, but if you gave me a couple days,

I could provide you with a list.

Mr. WU. Well, it looks like we have a little factual issue to work

out here.

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman’s time has expired, and we

will wait for both of them to report back to the Committee. Let me

proceed with—if we have no other questioners, I will go into a second round.

IRIS REFORM

Dr. Gray, in your testimony, you mentioned that you are reforming the IRIS program, better known as Integrated Risk Information

System. Please tell us about what problems these reforms are trying to fix, and what changes you are contemplating to the review

process.

48

Dr. GRAY. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, the Chairman,

the IRIS database began in EPA 25 years ago or so, as something

that was there to just make sure everyone in the Agency was using

the same values and singing from the same song sheet. At this

point, IRIS has now become, through the success, the hard work

of the people in ORD, the kind of science that we do, and that we

make available, a worldwide resource.

Right now, fully a third of all of the hits on the IRIS website are

from outside of this country. This is a very important national and

international database. Our goal is to make sure that the process

that we use to develop our IRIS profiles that are then disseminated

to the broader world are open, transparent, and accepting of data

and information and expertise from all parts of the scientific community. And so, the process changes that we are contemplating,

and none of these are official yet. This is something that we are

actively working through, are intended to help make a system that

people understand how we choose the chemicals we choose to review, how we are going to review them, the data that we are going

to use, and the approaches that we are going to take. So that it

is a process that when IRIS is done, IRIS remaining an important

EPA product, but when IRIS files are done, they can be supported

by the entire scientific community.

Chairman EHLERS. I understand for the first time in many years,

the EPA is not proposing any new chemicals to be added to the list.

What is the reason for this?

Dr. GRAY. Really, it is a situation in which we want to clear a

backlog of assessments that we have in the IRIS process, where we

want to make sure that those that we have committed to and we

are actively working on get finished. So it is really a situation in

which we want to address the chemicals that we are addressing

now, make sure we can finish those up, and then, we will move forward and continue to both add new chemicals to IRIS, and revise

those files that are there.

Chairman EHLERS. Do you have a priority process in making

those decisions? You know, I certainly understand the desire to

clean up what you have got, but if some new chemicals come on

the scene that appear to need investigation quickly, don’t you have

a process for just incorporating ones of the higher priority into your

system?

Dr. GRAY. Priority in the IRIS process are—intend to be responsive, and when new, something new, something important comes

along that needs to be addressed immediately, we have ways to address those. We can construct what we call provisional values that

can be used in—that are—go through a less involved process in

IRIS, and we can get those values out more quickly. We have a priority setting process, in which we ask for nominations for chemicals

that people from the entire world, that people would like to see us

evaluate. We look at those, we compare those with Agency priorities, the needs from the programs, the regions, the states that we

work with, and through that process, set our priorities. But we are

always wanting to be responsive, if there are needs.

Chairman EHLERS. Now, with the reforms that you are developing, do you expect that to add time to the process, or are you

hoping to speed things up with your reforms?

49

Dr. GRAY. I share the concern that many people have about the

timeliness of the IRIS process. I think that is—recognizing how important this database is, it is very important for us to come up with

a process that is inclusive, transparent, scientifically sound, but

also is predictable, manageable, and gets things done, and being

timely is an important part of the process that we are looking at.

Chairman EHLERS. I assume you are planning for these additional features in the budget, the 2007 budget, so I would certainly

hope that you can at least request the money you need to get moving faster on this, and you may not get it, but at least try for it.

IMPACT OF BUDGET CUTS

Okay. I have another question here for Dr. Morgan and

Langenberg. Both of you stated that EPA does unique work in fundamental environmental research. I would appreciate it if you

would expand on your comments, and give some specific examples

of unique work, and the long-term implications of decreases in the

EPA science budget.

Dr. MORGAN. Well, let me give you just a couple of examples. As

you well know, many environmental processes are very complicated. So for example, in photochemical air pollution, it is not

the case that if I reduce just volatile organics, or reduce just oxides

of nitrogen, that I always get less smog. Sometimes you get more,

despite the fact that I have made a reduction, because the system

is not linear. That is a well known example, but there are many

areas of environmental science that we don’t know that well, particularly ecosystem processes that are complex and nonlinear, and

so one does need to invest in fairly fundamental work in order to

solve real, applied problems.

And so, it was with that kind of thinking in mind that we argue

that a significant portion of fundamental research in ORD is critical, because if you don’t invest in sort of understanding these complex, dynamic systems, you could end up doing things which, in

terms of regulatory outcome, are not as effectively, and may even

be counterproductive from what you are trying to achieve.

Have I understood correctly your question?

Chairman EHLERS. I believe so. Dr. Langenberg.

Dr. LANGENBERG. I regret, Mr. Chairman, I really can’t give you

an authoritative answer to that question with examples, because I

don’t follow the work of EPA as closely as my colleague here does.

But I would remark that the effects of a deficiency of funding,

it seems to me, may have a large, and I would say nonlinear effect

on the flexibility and the adaptability of EPA to respond to issues

that may come up fairly suddenly. One of the things I learned over

a couple of decades running universities is that very often, things

pop up when you least expect them. You have to make a decision,

you have to choose a wise course, and if you are a data-driven person like an experimental physicist, you want all the information

there is available, and it is always unpleasant when you discover

that critical pieces of information aren’t available. Very often you

don’t have time to go out and get them. So you have to decide the

best possible course, using a combination of information and judgment.

50

Well, given the fallibility of human judgment, I would opt for

more information, and it seems to me that one of the things that

EPA and ORD must do is to anticipate, to have a broad enough

portfolio of scientific research going on, either in the intramural or

the extramural community, so that the chances are at least reasonable that if something new crops up, they will know something

about it.

Chairman EHLERS. Very well put. It would probably be discomforting to you to know that the Congress tends to operate mostly

on the basis of judgment rather than data. But we do the best we

can.

I am tempted to give a little sermon here about the importance

of the fundamental environmental research, because you really

have to do that just to be prepared for the unexpected, and I would

suspect that part of your backlog of IRIS, if you don’t do the fundamental research, and really keep up with it, that contributes to a

backlog of the more mundane research you have to do, because you

are not using the newest and best ideas and methodologies.

So I will certainly be happy to support any requests to improve

your capability in EPA to maintain a high level of competency in

the fundamental research, because those individuals doing that are

likely to be invaluable in the rest of the Agency in advising with

the new problems that come up.

I see two heads here, nodding. Maybe a head over there, too.

Yeah, three heads nodding yes. So I am not alone in this opinion.

I have gone past my time. I am pleased to recognize Mr. Wu if you

have further questions.

SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and just to follow

on your comments. We really count on information from you all

and other experts.

Returning to the issue of scientific integrity, there has been a

back and forth about this issue, and the Administration claims that

this Administration is no different from any prior Administration,

and these are random incidents that just kind of pop up periodically.

Mr. Ruch, having gone through several Administrations in your

organization, and hearing of these incidents from several different

Administrations, is it your impression that things are qualitatively

or quantitatively different in this Administration, with respect to

the twisting of science for ideological purposes?

Mr. RUCH. The short answer is yes. We have done surveys, in

conjunction with the Union of Concerned Scientists, of field biologists and other specialists in agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife

Service and NOAA, and those surveys report, for exampled, in

NOAA, NOAA fishery scientists reported that a solid majority had

instances where they directly experienced scientific findings reversed for nonscientific reasons.

Mr. WU. And that is different from the past?

Mr. RUCH. What they are reporting is that this sort of influence

has increased, and that what used to be an extraordinary circumstance has now become routine. So for example, in the Fish

and Wildlife Service, it was not unheard of for Secretary Babbitt

51

or his staff to intervene in high profile cases in a way that some

would judge inappropriate.

What is different now is that that same type of intervention is

almost a daily matter, so that you have field managers, or in some

cases, field biologists reporting they are getting calls from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior. That is somewhat unheard of.

But I must say that one of the things that we were pointing to

that as a possible avenue is that in response to recent controversies, both the head of NASA and NOAA have issued open science

policies.

Mr. WU. And commendably so. Commendably so.

Mr. RUCH. And we were struck that in the same timeframe, the

Office of Research and Development issued a closed science policy.

Mr. WU. Perhaps we will return to that in a moment. You mentioned the possibility of further protecting scientists and technical

people when they express opinions or, actually, produce scientific

results that are potentially contrary to current or potential policy.

What are some of the suggestions that you or your organization

have for better protection of people who are producing the information?

Mr. RUCH. Well, actually, most of those suggestions are incorporated in a bill I believe you are a cosponsor of, by Mr. Waxman,

that expand the notion of what is protected speech. As I was saying

that—typically, that—at least in the civil service world, in order to

be a ‘‘whistleblower’’ and be protected, somebody must make a disclosure of some sort outside of their normal working chain of command that evidences a violation of law, gross mismanagement, or

an imminent danger to public health and safety.

When you think of a lot of these scientific cases that we are talking about, they don’t fall into those categories, or in many instances, the scientist isn’t making a disclosure. The scientist is basically reporting findings through the chain of command, or in

some instances, is not allowed to report, and it is almost like the

reverse of a whistleblower.

The other aspect of it is that scientific careers are somewhat delicate. They are very easy to derail through things that other people

might consider subtle, being left off of certain routing slips, not

being invited to conferences. In other disciplines, that would be a

welcome simplification of their life. In a scientific context, it could

mean professional death.

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM

Mr. WU. I want to jump to a different arena, and perhaps, either

Dr. Gray or Dr. Morgan could best address this. It is my understanding that the Environmental Technologies Verification Program has been zero funded in the Administration’s budget, and it

is my further understanding that the 1986 amendments to the

Superfund law don’t leave that as discretionary funding. I believe

that the Administrator is authorized and directed to carry out a

program of technology verification.

The reason why I am asking this is I think this is very, very important, that this is one of those arenas where better environmental protection through verification of environmental technologies actually helps build our economy. It is not an economic

52

drag. It is an economic asset, and yet, this Administration has chosen to zero fund this.

Can you explain how this has happened?

Dr. GRAY. Well, the Environmental Technology Verification Program, we call it the ETV, was first put in place in 1995. In fact,

the legislation that authorized it suggested that it would be

privatized within three years, that this was something that was intended to begin to help the private sector to identify and to verify

that their technologies performed as—that they could demonstrate

performance of their technologies, and in fact, these verifications,

which are carried out in six centers around this country, are used

in advertising, for example, by the private sector, when they have

something verified.

But we haven’t been quite as quick as we have been asked to be.

This program has been on a trajectory toward private funding, and

in fact, the plan is, in 2007, to have it entirely as funded by the

private sector, though still supported through in-kind efforts by the

Environmental Protection Agency, by ORD, to provide technical

oversight and quality assurance, to make sure that the protocols in

place for doing this testing are appropriate.

Mr. WU. Dr. Morgan, do you share Dr. Gray’s optimism that this

could be shifted this quickly to the private sector?

Dr. MORGAN. Let me just read you a short paragraph from my

written testimony that addresses this. ‘‘Following $9.6 million dollar reduction in 2006, sustainability research is slated for further reduction of $4.4 million in 2007.

These reductions are coupled with the termination of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program, and the Environmental Technology Validation Program. This means that the Agency will lose much of its ability to test and verify new environmental

technologies. This loss harms American industry’s competitive position for environmental technology in world markets, at a time

when other nations treat these technologies as opportunities.’’

My own view is that there may be ways that these sorts of activities could be made more effective, but if folks in the private sector

are going to develop technologies which we can sell internationally

in competitive global markets, some form of testing, certification,

validation ought to be continued.

Mr. WU. Dr. Morgan, I am delighted. I saw that in your written

testimony. I am delighted that you had an opportunity to bring

that to the oral attention of everyone in this hearing room.

I must share with you some grave reservations I have about an

overall ideology of privatization. We have a private sector economy.

I was active in that economy. I believe in the private sector economy, but when you start pushing embryonic things out without

standards into the economy, you threaten some forms of development. This Administration believes in privatizing everything from

Moon launches to the Marine Corps.

When I went to Iraq, it was a clear instance where there were

not enough ground troops on the ground, and there were a lot of

people being paid $100,000, $120,000 a year as supplemental

troops to the Marine Corps or the U.S. Army, and I had said that

this Administration would privatize everything except for the U.S.

Marine Corps, and I guess that is no exception.

53

I thank the Chairman for his forbearance, and I ask unanimous

consent to enter the February 7 Oregonian article into the record.

Chairman EHLERS. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information follows:]

54

Chairman EHLERS. And yes, you are testing my forbearance, but

since——

Mr. WU. My job.

Chairman EHLERS. Since we are good friends, I let you continue.

But I am concerned about the fact that we have kept our witnesses

here much longer than we normally would, and much longer than

we have a right to expect.

So I would like to conclude the questioning at this point, and

give you an opportunity to be on your way. I would ask that if we

have further questions for you, we would submit them in writing

to you, and appreciate your willingness to respond to those in writing as well, so we can, if anything else occurs to us, we can make

the record complete.

Thank you very much. You have been an excellent panel. It is

outstanding in every way, and we have addressed a lot of tough

issues. But what—toughest issue I believe is not so much the management of the EPA, but the funding of the EPA, and I don’t think

55

we can meet the scientific requirements of this country unless we

recognize that science does cost money, equipment costs money,

and that we will soon be able to get you back on a track where

your funding actually increases, rather than decreases.

So we will work with that, and I am sure my colleague will join

me in that effort, to try to perhaps not this fiscal year, but certainly in future fiscal years, ensure that you have the funding to

do the research adequately.

Thank you again for being here. We appreciate your efforts. And

with that, the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(57)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

58

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by George M. Gray, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development and EPA Science Advisor, United States Environmental Protection Agency

Questions submitted by Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. Has the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cover part of the costs of the EPA’s homeland security

activities? Has EPA discussed with DHS the possibility of an interagency agreement that would provide funds for EPA to carry out its homeland security responsibilities?

A1. EPA’s Office of Homeland Security (OHS) coordinates interactions between EPA

and DHS on matters related to homeland security.

EPA’s homeland security roles and responsibilities are delineated in existing statutory authorities, Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs), and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with other agencies. Planning documents and

deliverables associated with a wide variety of collaborative homeland security-related projects are already under way between EPA and DHS and provide additional

information about these activities. Those homeland security taskings that fall to

EPA do so because of our expertise and experience as well as statutory roles and

responsibilities. The President’s Budget requests funding directly for EPA for these

tasks assigned to EPA.

EPA and DHS coordinate to make sure their respective homeland security roles

remain complementary and coordinated. A Report to Congress was submitted to the

Appropriations Committees last November which details the different roles and responsibilities and various Memorandums of Agreement that have been put in place

to facilitate communication and coordination. EPA and DHS are working together

to implement a number of homeland security-related efforts and personnel at all levels within our respective organizations communicate regularly. EPA and DHS cochair standing committees and work groups regularly review one another’s planning

documents and deliverables and support one another on projects and activities of

interest to both agencies.

We feel the appropriate agreements and communication networks are in place to

ensure a coordinated effort between our two agencies on homeland security collaboration.

Q2. EPA is funding a one-city pilot of Water Sentinel in fiscal year (FY) 2006. Please

identify the total federal funding that has been and will be spent on the pilot

in each of FY06 and FY07. Please describe in detail the activities, equipment,

and services that have or will be purchased with these funds. For each expenditure, please identify it as either intramural or extramural and categorize it in

one or more of the following categories: basic research, applied research, development, or demonstration. If an activity falls into more than one category, please

indicate as much. Please provide similar information for any other Water Sentinel expenditures in FY06 and to the extent possible for expenditures planned

in FY07.

A2. EPA’s Office of Water (OW) is responsible for implementing Water Sentinel.

For FY 2006, EPA received approximately $7.9 million for the Water Sentinel

pilot program, with another $1.0 million appropriated for the Water Alliance for

Threat Reduction. Of the $7.9 million, about $1.4 million funds the installation,

evaluation, and operation of online water quality monitors (extramural: applied research, demonstration); $0.3 million supports routine and triggered sampling of

high-priority contaminants (extramural: demonstration); $1.0 million funds consumer complaint monitoring, public health surveillance, and enhanced physical security (extramural: demonstration); $1.5 million provides laboratory support for

processing samples (extramural: demonstration); $2.6 million supports research and

pilot support activities (extramural: applied research); $500,000 supports staff (intramural); and $600,000 funds pilot evaluation (extramural: demonstration).

For FY 2007, EPA requests $38 million for Water Sentinel, which includes funding for the second year of the FY06 pilot at approximately $2.7 million. Of the $38

million, approximately $7 million would fund the installation, operation, and evaluation of water quality sensors (extramural: applied research, demonstration). About

$5 million would support routine and triggered sampling of high-priority contaminants (extramural: demonstration); $6 million would fund consumer complaint monitoring, public health surveillance, and enhanced physical security (extramural:

demonstration); $7 million would provide laboratory support for processing samples

59

(extramural: demonstration); $10 million would fund key research into evaluating

detection technologies, validating analytical methods, and improving distribution

system models; and about $3 million would support staff and pilot evaluation costs

(50 percent intramural for staff, 50 percent extramural for evaluation: applied research, demonstration).

Q3. Does EPA expect States or local governments to fund or provide in-kind services

during the Water Sentinel pilots? If so, what portions of the costs are they expected to contribute? Does EPA have any plans for deploying Water Sentinel

after the pilots are completed? If so, please provide a copy of those plans. When

are the Water Sentinel pilots expected to be completed, and when does EPA expect deployment to occur? Does the agency have any rough estimates of what it

might cost to deploy Water Sentinel? If so, what are those estimates? What funding sources are being considered for funding deployment?

A3. EPA’s Office of Water (OW) is responsible for implementing Water Sentinel.

In general, the local government will contribute in-kind services in two critical

areas to the pilot. First, the drinking water utility will make its distribution system

available as a test bed for the Water Sentinel pilot program by coordinating with

EPA in the installation of water monitoring stations and the deployment of other

enhancements as appropriate (e.g., hardening remote distribution system facilities).

Second, the local government will make key staff available to participate in the development of implementation and evaluation plans, which would include addressing

consumer complaints, physical monitoring, online water quality monitoring, routine

and triggered sampling, coordination with public health, data management, consequence management, and other activities necessary to initiate and sustain the

pilot. In addition, EPA is developing a formal agreement with a State public health

lab which has access to the resources (e.g., training and reagents) of the CDC’s Laboratory Response Network (LRN). This arrangement will enable the Water Sentinel

pilot to conduct critical analyses of high-priority biological agents.

While FYs 2006 and 2007 involve preparing for and deploying Water Sentinel, the

following years entail calibrating the contaminant warning systems and conducting

extensive and thorough evaluation of each pilot. It is expected that the two years

subsequent to the full deployment of Water Sentinel will focus on program evaluation. In the years following FY 2007, evaluating the utilities’ experience with each

of the five components of the contaminant warning system coupled with ongoing research and modeling activities will serve to improve EPA’s understanding of how

an effective contaminant warning system functions. Each of the five principal components of Water Sentinel (i.e., online water quality monitoring, sampling and analysis, consumer complaints, public health surveillance, enhanced physical monitoring) will have been subjected to field applications and evaluations throughout

FYs 2006 and 2007 so that, likely by FY 2009, EPA and the utilities can determine

the most effective combination of data sources that can provide early indication of

a contamination event.

Q4. In your testimony, you mentioned that you are reforming the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).

Q4a. Please identify the problems that these reforms are trying to fix and what

changes you are contemplating to the review process.

A4a. IRIS began in the mid-1980s, and procedures have changed as needed. As with

any maturing program, the IRIS program could benefit from enhancements and reforms that would make it even better. EPA recognizes that there are improvements

that could be made to its IRIS health assessment process that would increase transparency, thus helping to improve full and open consideration and scientific review

of relevant information. These proposed enhancements would focus on new approaches in risk assessment, new processes and procedures, and a more technically

advanced web site.

In the area of risk assessment approaches, one issue that the Agency is exploring

is a more adequate explanation of uncertainty in IRIS assessments. An expanded

discussion of uncertainty—the evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the

underlying quantitative data and how we analyze, characterize, and communicate

that information—will serve to increase the transparency of EPA’s IRIS assessments. It will also continue to assure high-quality interpretation of scientific information in the development of IRIS products.

In addition, EPA requested an increase of $500K to support IRIS assessments by

providing peer review and consultation by the National Academies of Science (NAS).

Expansion of reviews by the NAS directly improves the quality, objectivity, utility

and integrity of information disseminated by EPA. NAS involvement will contribute

60

to the identification and resolution of scientific issues and increased confidence in

the scientific quality of EPA assessments. Review by the NAS ensures wide acceptance of the scientific conclusions reached in IRIS assessments.

In the area of new processes and procedures, EPA is working to expand the ways

and opportunities for the public and other federal agencies and states to engage in

the development of IRIS assessments. EPA is working on a proposal to include earlier and more extensive interagency and stakeholder review and dialogue on IRIS

assessments. This will also help to improve the assessments by identifying and resolving major scientific issues early in the assessment development process, which

could facilitate high-quality and timely completion of assessments.

As for the IRIS web site (www.epa.gov/IRIS), the current IRIS web site is very

static and is structured like a paper data base, very linear. A more technologically

advanced IRIS Internet site that would utilize the power of the Internet is envisioned for IRIS. This could include a more interactive data base, with links to key

studies, links to relevant dose-response models or pharmacokinetic models, and a

data base that could allow for complicated queries and reports.

Q4b. Will your upcoming reforms add time to the process or require additional resources?

A4b. The IRIS reforms and enhancements that are briefly discussed above may result in added time to the development process as well as requiring additional resources. At this time, it is too early to determine the extent of the time and resources that may be needed. It is also possible that these changes may lead to

quicker acceptance in the peer review stage, thus ultimately decreasing the total

time it takes to finalize an IRIS document.

Q4c. Will the agency seek public comment before finalizing any reforms?

A4c. EPA will hold a public workshop and will invite public comment on the revised

IRIS processes. EPA is committed to an open and transparent process as it moves

forward to enhance and strengthen this important Agency data base.

Q5. During the hearing, you explained that EPA plans to focus IRIS resources on

completing chemical reviews already under-way instead of adding new chemicals to the review list in FY07.

Q5a. Why is there a backlog of IRIS reviews?

A5a. When the IRIS program began in the mid-1980s, it was conceived of as a

cross-agency program for the purpose of developing EPA consensus risk information,

both qualitative and quantitative, on environmental contaminants of interest to

EPA’s Programs and Regions. In the beginning, IRIS was an internal EPA communication method to ensure that the Agency was not producing conflicting risk assessments that generated different risk values. Shortly after the start of IRIS, EPA decided to share the data base with the public to quell the practice of ‘‘number shopping’’ by external groups who would search among existing Agency assessments to

find the number, or risk value, that most suited their purposes.

For 15 years, IRIS was strictly a voluntary program with a staff of two, and less

than a $100K budget. In the early years of IRIS, EPA programs nominated many

chemicals for consideration by IRIS work groups—all voluntary, made up of program office, regional, and research and development scientists. All work group deliberations were internal to the Agency. When consensus was reached (which was not

an easy achievement), the final IRIS summary assessment was posted on IRIS. It

represented solely EPA’s scientific consensus opinion. Because the IRIS program

was voluntary and depended on donated time by already busy scientists, progress

on completing the IRIS chemical nomination list was very slow. As the IRIS program evolved, growing in importance and gaining a higher profile in the environmental health and regulated communities, the chemical list also grew. Older assessments needed renewal and new chemicals were nominated to an already overflowing

list.

As IRIS continued to grow and attract interest, Congress and the President responded by providing additional resources and encouraging independent external

peer review of all draft IRIS assessments before they were posted on IRIS. In addition, interagency review now occurs before each draft IRIS assessment is released

for independent expert external peer review and public review before being publicly

released on IRIS. These steps, while enhancing the quality and credibility of IRIS

assessments, typically increase the time to complete assessments.

It is also useful to note that many of the health assessments already in the IRIS

queue have a large amount of underlying available scientific literature that needs

to be analyzed and characterized, and many have complex scientific issues associVerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:45 Nov 12, 2006 Jkt 026576 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS06\031606\26576 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
61

ated with them. Consideration of all the relevant data and analysis of the scientific

issues takes time.

In addition, as explained previously, the IRIS program is in the process of transition to consider some of the reforms and enhancements discussed earlier, which has

led to some reconsideration of the direction of the assessments under development.

Given the issues discussed above, and the nature and complexities of the review

processes, developing and completing these assessments can take several years.

Thus, EPA decided to concentrate current resources on the development of chemical

assessments to which EPA has already committed.

Q5b. How much more funding is needed per review to eliminate the backlog?

A5b. The FY 2007 President’s Budget request for Human Health Risk Assessment

is sufficient to complete planned assessments and to support proposed enhancements to the risk assessment process.

Q5c. How much of this funding has EPA budgeted for in FY07?

A5c. EPA has requested an additional $500K for FY 2007 in the President’s Budget

for the IRIS program. In addition, over the past years EPA has increased the IRIS

scientific staff from four to over 30 experienced scientists representing a variety of

scientific disciplines pertinent to IRIS health assessments. Available funding for

IRIS has also increased. The total FY 2007 President’s Budget Request for IRIS is

$8.9M.

Q6. In your testimony you explained that EPA’s nanotechnology research to date has

primarily been conducted through extramural research grants under the Science

to Achieve Results program and that the FY07 request proposes to establish an

in-house capability on nanotechnology. Could you explain specifically what the

in-house program would do and how it would complement the proposed FY07

extramural program?

A6. EPA will continue its emphasis on supporting research that enhances understanding of the potential environmental implications of nanotechnology. Of the $8.6

million requested in the FY 2007 President’s Budget, $5.0 million will be devoted

to extramural research funded through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, supporting research in engineered nanomaterials in the areas of ecological

toxicity; fate, transport, and transformation in the ecosystem; monitoring and detection techniques; and environmentally benign (pollution prevention) applications of

nanotechnology.

The $3.6 million in-house research program will focus on those areas where EPA

has particular expertise and can complement the activities of other research organizations, and where Agency decision-support needs are greatest. Although EPA is

currently in the process of planning its research program for 2007 and beyond, potential research areas include assessing potential hazards from the use of

nanomaterials for remediation and pollution control, because some of these uses involve the direct application of free nanoparticles into the environment and therefore

present near-term potential for human or ecological exposure; developing risk assessment approaches; and ecological assessment, including understanding the transformation, fate and transport of nanomaterials in the environment; and developing

technologies for pollution control and prevention. The in-house and extramural programs will be jointly planned and closely coordinated to ensure that they are complementary, as is done currently with other areas of research.

Questions submitted by Representative David Wu

Q1. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation or SITE program was established in response to the 1986 amendments to the Superfund law. Under the

amendments, the Administrator is ‘‘authorized and directed’’ to carry out such

a program. This program is not discretionary. It is mandatory. There is no funding in the 2007 budget proposal for this program. How does the Agency plan

to carry out the activities mandated in the 1986 amendments with no funding

for the program?

A1. The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) recognized

a need for an ‘‘Alternative or Innovative Treatment Technology Research and Demonstration Program.’’ Part of the Agency’s response to that need was the establishment of the SITE program. The purpose of the SITE program, which it carried out,

was to demonstrate full-scale innovative hazardous waste treatment technologies

and site characterization techniques. Since its inception, the SITE program has successfully demonstrated 154 treatment technologies and 47 site characterization/monVerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:45 Nov 12, 2006 Jkt 026576 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS06\031606\26576 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
62

itoring techniques. Through an evaluation of 105 Records of Decision (RODs) in

which innovative technologies were selected and documented, EPA found that SITEdemonstrated technology types provided a cost savings of $2.7 billion compared to

the use of conventional technologies. This is an average savings of 71 percent per

site. The SITE program has matured, and innovative approaches evaluated through

it and other mechanisms have become standard tools for industry. With $1.2M in funding in FY 2006, the SITE program is completing ongoing and

planned demonstrations of innovative remediation, monitoring, and measurement

approaches. The Agency continues to support a rigorous research program that focuses on both the proper management of solid and hazardous wastes and the effective remediation of contaminated waste sites. ORD will continue to participate actively in the DOD–DOE–EPA Environmental Security Technology Certification Program for testing of new technologies applicable to environmental restoration at federal sites.

Q2. In response to Dr. Ehlers’ question on why EPA was not proposing any new

chemicals to be added to the IRIS data base, you indicated EPA intends to

‘‘clear the backlog of assessments’’ that are now in process. Please provide a list

of the assessments now in the process of assessment and a list of the assessments

that will be completed in FY06 and FY07.

Q2a. Please provide a list of the assessments now in the process of assessment.

A2a. There are 72 health assessments under way in the IRIS program (please see

Attachment 1). Attachment 1 is the Federal Register notice published on February

23, 2006, that announced the IRIS agenda for FY 2006. On May 19, 2006, EPA published a corrected Notice that identified four substances that were deleted from the

February 23, 2006, Notice. Bromodichloromethane, bromoform,

dibromochloromethane, and cryptosporidium were included in the Notice in error.

They were removed from the IRIS agenda at the request of EPA’s Office of Water.

Q2b. Please provide a list of the assessments that will be completed in FY06 and

FY07.

A2b. Two chemical assessments for IRIS have already been completed and posted

on the data base in FY 2006. They are n-hexane and phosgene. While it is difficult

to predict with any accuracy the other assessments that may be completed and posted on IRIS in FY 2006, the health assessments that may reach that stage are: 1,2-

dichlorobenzene; 1,3-dichlorobenzene; and 1,4-dichlorobenzene.

It is difficult to provide a list of expected completions in FY 2007 with much precision. EPA’s current estimation is that the IRIS health assessments that may be

completed during FY 2007 are: four polybrominated diphenyl ethers, inorganic arsenic, tetrahydrofuran, nitrobenzene, dibutyl phthalate, trichloroacetic acid, ethylene oxide, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, bromobenzene, methyl tertiary butyl ether, carbon tetrachloride, acrylamide, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and acute assessments for

hexachlorocyclopentadiene, ethylene oxide, hydrogen sulfide, and phosgene. It

should be noted that this list of expected completions does not match the list of expected completions, compiled in 2005, which was included in the FY 2007 Congressional Justification.

Q3. During the hearing, a question arose regarding the time that EPA research reports are maintained in draft form and a question about whether draft reports

are available to the public.

Q3a. At what stage of the report-development process do EPA’s draft reports become

available to the public?

A3a. Scientific and Technical Work Products (non-IRIS)

EPA has a policy of independent, expert review of scientific and technical work

products that are used to inform Agency decisions. The draft reports discussed at

the March 16, 2006, hearing would generally be covered by the EPA peer review

policy.

That policy, which is consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s guidance on peer review, provides for public comment to inform the independent expert

review of influential scientific and technical work products. Therefore, we attempt

to time the public availability of draft reports to coincide with scientific peer review.

Such reports are available for review and comment in the EPA Science Inventory,

as part of the EPA Peer Review Agenda, at www.epa.gov/si. Prior to peer review,

we consider draft reports to be preliminary and generally not to be quoted or cited

outside the Agency. We do not use draft reports as the basis for regulatory or policy

decisions, although in some cases specific studies cited in the reports have been published in the scientific literature and are themselves used to inform decisions.

63

IRIS Assessments

The current IRIS assessment development process generally provides for one opportunity for the public to review and comment on a draft document. When an internal draft is determined of sufficient quality and completeness, an independent external expert peer review is scheduled. The draft document is provided to the peer review panel and, at the same time, the draft document is provided to the public for

a 45- to 60-day comment period. The length of the comment period is dependent on

the size, interest level, and complexities of the assessment. The announcement of

the availability of the draft document, the start of the public comment period, directions on how to submit comments and, often times, the time and place of the peer

review workshop are included in a Federal Register notice and on EPA’s web site.

If the details of the peer review meeting are not available when the draft document

is released for comment, the Agency then follows up with a subsequent Federal Register notice. The public comments received by the end of the public comment period

are then shared with the members of the expert peer review panel to inform them

as they review and critique the EPA’s draft health assessment. In rare cases, however, the peer review results in substantive revisions to a draft document such that

the Agency determines that a second peer review is necessary. In that case, public

comments are solicited on the 2nd external review draft as well.

Q3b. Please provide a list of the reports that moved from draft status to final status

during 2004 and 2005.

A3b. The following chemicals were completed and added to IRIS in FY 2004 and

FY 2005.

2004: boron; lead; 1,2-dibromoethane; 2-methylnaphthalene

2005: perchlorate; barium; zinc; toluene

Q3c. For each of these reports, indicate the period of time the report was in draft

form prior to being finalized.

A3c. The time span below represents the time from availability of the first external

review draft to the posting on IRIS.

2004:

Boron—May 2002–August 2004 (28 months)

Lead—September 2003–July 2004 (11 months)

1,2-Dibromoethane—November 2002–July 2004 (21 months)

2-Methylnaphthalene—April 2003–December 2003 (nine months)

2005:

Perchlorate—December 1998–February 2005 (74 months)

Barium—May 2004–July 2005 (15 months)

Zinc—November 2003–August 2005 (22 months)

Toluene—August 2002–September 2005 (28 months)

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

(73)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

74

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY

The American Chemical Society (ACS) would like to thank Chairman Sherwood

Boehlert and Ranking Member Bart Gordon for the opportunity to submit testimony

for the record on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) science and technology programs for fiscal year 2007.

ACS is a non-profit scientific and educational organization, chartered by Congress,

representing more than 158,000 individual chemical scientists and engineers. The

world’s largest scientific society, ACS advances the chemical enterprise, increases

public understanding of chemistry, and brings its expertise to bear on State, national, and international matters.

As Congress and the Administration consider funding priorities for FY 2007 in a

tight budgetary environment, ACS urges policy-makers to support the important

work carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science and Technology

Program. In reviewing the President’s budget request, ACS has identified four areas

of focus for EPA:

1. Growing the EPA Science & Technology account and increasing support for

scientific research supported by the Agency, particularly through the Office

of Research and Development (ORD).

2. Restoring important programs that build the talent pipeline for the environmental sciences, such as the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) fellowships.

3. Increasing support for green chemistry and engineering programs and reversing the short-sighted decision to eliminate the Technology for Sustainable Environment research program.

4. Reforming the management structure for science at EPA.

We look to science to understand environmental challenges and to develop 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 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. The President’s budget request is nominally $788 million, a nearly

eight percent increase over FY 2006; however, $62 million of this amount is an accounting change in Agency accounts. In real terms, S&T would be reduced one percent. 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.

For FY 2007, EPA should provide the ORD account $646 million, an increase of

8.6 percent relative to FY 2006 funding levels. This total represents a return to

ORD high funding point (FY 2004). ACS recommends that the additional funds be

applied to the following priority areas:

• Provide $10 million for the STAR fellowships.

• Increase overall STAR programmatic funding to $110 million.

• 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.

The FY 2007 budget request continues a pattern of declining support for science

at EPA for the Office of Research & Development, which is the largest part of the

S&T account. The Administration requested $557 million for ORD in FY 2006. This

represents a 6.4 percent cut in ORD resources over FY 2006. The $38 million decrease in ORD accounts from FY 2006 threatens ORD’s mission to carry out world

75

class environmental research, further damaging the government’s ability to provide

top notch research on behalf of the American taxpayer and ensure America’s policy

makers use sound scientific advice in decision-making.

The Administration’s proposal to eliminate the STAR fellowship program is a 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.

ACS supports increased funding for green chemistry and engineering programs to

advance the development and use of innovative products and process, reducing or

eliminating the use of hazardous substances. Because chemistry and chemical products fuel the economy of every industrialized nation, the tools and strategies chemists and chemical engineers develop will be instrumental in meeting the dual challenges of protecting the environment and strengthening the economy. The elimination of the Technology for Sustainable Environment research program under

STAR was an unfortunate decision that hobbles the Agency’s ability to work creatively with industry and others to carry out the mission through cost-effective technology substitution as opposed regulatory burdens.

Finally, ACS remains concerned about broader management issues raised by the

long-term decline in support for EPA science and technology programs. ACS understands the often 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:

• Inadequately funded;

• Not budgeted independently or separately bylined 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.

In previous Congresses, the Science Committee passed legislation addressing

many of these issues; unfortunately the situation today is 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 clean up, 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. ACS endorses the creation of a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology, as suggested by the National Research Council’s report in 2000, Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Deputy Administrator

for Science and Technology would add considerably to an effective and efficient EPA

response to these challenges.

ACS is a long-term advocate for increased attention to research programs at EPA,

both in budgetary and in management terms, and our enthusiasm for these programs remains strong. We also appreciate the Science Committees support for EPA

Science and Technology programs and look forward to working with the Committee,

Congress, and the Administration to ensure their future vitality. ACS thanks the

Committee for this opportunity to submit its written testimony and would be happy

to clarify, expound, or answer any questions made in this written testimony.

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125