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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–166PDF 2011

FOSTERING QUALITY SCIENCE AT EPA: 

THE NEED FOR COMMON SENSE REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2011 

Serial No. 112–52 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. ANDY HARRIS, Maryland, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

November 17, 2011 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Andy Harris, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement by Representative Paul Tonko, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Witnesses: 

DR. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office Of Research And Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

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

Mr. Arthur Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24 

Mr. David Trimble, Director, Natural Resources And Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 33 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

DR. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office Of Research And Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................................................... 58 

Mr. Arthur Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 74 

Mr. David Trimble, Director, Natural Resources And Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 82 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted Statement for the Record by Mr. M. Granger Morgan, Head, Department of Engineering and Public Policy University and Lord Chair Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University ........................................... 87 

(1) 

FOSTERING QUALITY SCIENCE AT EPA: 

THE NEED FOR COMMON SENSE REFORM 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:52 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Harris 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

RALPH M. HALl. TEXAS 

u.s. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, TEXAS 

RANKING MEMBER 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

www.5cie"";f'hollse.gov 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

Fostering Quality Science at EPA: The Needfor Common Sense Reform 

Thursday, November 17, 2011 

2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Mr. Artbur Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mr. David Trimble, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office 
3 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HEARING CHARTER 

Fostering Quality Science at EPA: The Needfor Common Sense Reform 

PURPOSE 

Thursday, November 17, 2011 

2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

On Thursday, November 17, 2011, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology will hold a hearing to review research and development activities at the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and how such activities support EPA program needs; explore 

the transition of science from the Office of Research and Development (ORD) to other program offices 

for use in developing and implementing regulations; examine the Science Advisory Board (SAB) 

process and how it contributes to the quality of science developed at ORD; and discuss any needed 

changes to the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Act which authorizes science 

activities at EPA. 

WITNESSES 

Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Mr. Arthur Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mr. David Trimble, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability 

Office 

BACKGROUND 

The Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDA) authorizes 

research and scientific activities at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Originally enacted in 

1976, Congress subsequently passed annual authorizations through fiscal year 1981. In addition to 

establishing annual authorization levels, these statutes also directed EPA policy in a variety of areas, 

including establishing the Office of Research and Development (ORD) , , requiring a 5-year 

environmental R&D plan, and creating EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). 

I See Appendix 1 for EPA organizational structure. 
4 

Year Act Public Law Number 

1976 ERDDA 94-475 

1977 ERDDA of 1978 95-155 

1978 ERDDA of 1979 95-477 

1979 ERDDA of 1980 96-229 

1980 ERDDAofl981 96-569 

Since 1981, there have been a number of bills introduced to reauthorize ERDDA that were not 

ultimately enacted into law.2 As a result, explicit authorization of EPA's environmental R&D ended at 

the end of fiscal year 1981. This failure to comprehensively reauthorize EPA programs and activities 

illustrates a broader trend among expired environmental statutes. The Congressional Research Service 

notes this trend, stating "Although Congress somewhat recently has renewed the authorization of 

appropriations for certain EPA programs and activities through targeted amendments to various statutes, 

a more comprehensive reauthorization of many of the statutes that EPA administers has not been 

enacted for a number ofyears.,,3 

In addition to ERDDA, EPA also derives authority for R&D activities through other major 

environmental statutes. For example, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA Administrator must issue air 

quality criteria that "shall accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind 

of extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence 

of such pollutant in the ambient air."4 Through the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA sets 

standards based on "the best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies conducted in 

accordance with sound and objective scientific practices."s Similarly, the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

requires EPA to publish water quality information "accurately reflecting the latest scientific 

knowledge.,,6 

In many cases, these major regulatory statutes also authorize specific R&D programs and activities. For 

example, the Clear Air Act established a national research and development program for the prevention 

and control of air pollution including establishing technical advisory committees and research on air 

pollutant monitoring. The SDW A authorized the Administrator of EPA to conduct research and studies 

relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical or mental diseases 

resulting directly or indirectly from contaminants in the water including improved methods to identify 

and measure contaminants in drinking water and improved methods to identify and measure the health 

effects of contaminants in drinking water. The CW A directed the Administrator to establish national 

programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution and as part of such programs to 

work in cooperation with other State and Federal agencies to coordinate and accelerate research, 

2 HR 3115 (1982), HR 2804 (1982), S. 1205 (1982), S. 2577 (1983), HR 2899 (1984), S. 1292 (1984), HR 2319 (1985), 

S. 2702 (1985), S. 1144 (1986), HR 2355 (1987), HR 1523 (1987), HR 2153 (1989), HR 4873 (1990), HR 2404 (1991). S. 

1655 (1991), HR 1994 (1993), S. 1545 (1993), HR 2405 (1995), HR 1814 (1995), HR 3322 (1996), HR 1276 (1997), HR 

1742 (1999),HR 1743 (1999). 

3 Congressional Research Service, "Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes Administered by the Environmental 

Protection Agency," RL30798, August 11. 2011 

442 U.S.C. §7408 (0)(2) (2000). 

'42 U.S.c. §300g-1(b)(3)(A)(i). 

633 U.S.C. §1314 (0)(1). 

2 
5 

investigation, experiments, demonstrations and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, 

reduction and elimination ofpolIution in the navigable waters of the u.s. 

The science enterprise at EPA is spread across program offices and regions. ORD is organized into 

three national labs (comprised of 18 separate labs) and four national centers (which have 19 divisions).7 

In addition to 18 labs within ORD, there are 9 labs split among several program offices and each of the 

10 regions has its own lab.8 In FY2010, the appropriations level for EPA Science and Technology 

activities (S&T includes ORD and the other 19 labs) was $750 million. The appropriations level for 

FY2011 was $650 million. The FY2012 House Committee-passed appropriations level is $755 million 

and the FY2012 Senate Committee draft appropriations level is $809 million. 

The fragmented nature of EPA R&D presents a challenge to program management and coordination, 

and has complicated efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of these activities. Numerous studies 

conducted by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO), the National Academies of Science (NAS) and other outside groups over the years have cited 

significant concerns with the science activities of the Agency and the difficulties in evaluating the 

usefulness ofthe science to program needs. 

Science Quality 

The FY2012 Annual Plan of the EPA's OIG raises significant concerns about science and technology 

activities at the Agency, stating that "[ qJuestions exist as to whether EPA is collecting the right data, of 

sufficient quality, and is making that data available.,,9 In terms of EPA's regulatory process, the 

Iuspector General (IG) further states that "[mJany policies are out of date or are based on outdated 

science and technology."!O As part of the update on its High-Risk Program, GAO highlighted concerns 

about EPA politicization of science, saying that "[i]n recent years, concerns have been raised regarding 

the perceived politicization of science in agency decisions."!! In 2009, GAO added EPA's handling of 

toxic chemicals through the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) to its list of areas at high risk for 

waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.!2 Similarly, the chair of a 2009 National Academy of 

Sciences panel on ways to improve the Agency's risk assessment told the EPA's Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) and Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) earlier this year that the risk assessment 

process was the Agency's "Achilles heel.,,!3 

7 See Appendix 2. 

, See Appendix 3. 

9 EPA Inspector General (IG), "FY 2012 Annual Plan," November 2011, 

hlm:llwww.epa.gov/oig/reports/2012/EPA OIG FY2012 AnnuaiPlan.pdf. 

10 Ibid. 

II GAO, "Ensuring Sound Science." February 28. 2011, http://www.gao.govlbighrisk/agency/epalensuring·soundscience.php. 

12 GAO, "HIGH.RlSK SERIES: An Update," January 2009, GAO-09-271, http://www.gao.gov/new.itemg/d0927I.pdf. See 

also: David Trimble, "EPA HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS: Sustained Management and Oversight Key to Overcoming 

ChaUenges," Testimony before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, July 14, 2011. 

hltp://science.house.gov/sites/rcpuhlicans.science.hollse.govll1lesJdocumentsJhearings/071411 Trimble.pdf. 

13 Inside EPA, "Key Adviser Warns EPA to Improve Agency Science Or Face A 'Crisis'," July 6, 2011. 

3 
6 

Peer Review 

EPA IG's recently-released "Procedural Review of EPA's Greenhouse Gases Endangennent Finding 

Data Quality Processes" raised a number of concerns about how the Agency classifies scientific 

assessments and infonnation, as well as the quality of peer review that EPA science undergoes. In 

reviewing EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) in support of the Endangennent Finding, the IG 

found that: 

"EPA's peer review did not meet all OMB [Office of Management and Budget] 

requirements for such documents. EPA had the TSD reviewed by a panel of 12 

federal climate change scientists. However, the panel's findings and EPA's 

disposition of the findings were not made available to the public as would be 

required for reviews of highly influential scientific assessments. Also, this panel 

did not fully meet the independence requirements for reviews of highly influential 

scientific assessments because one of the panelists was an EPA employee. Further, 

in developing its endangennent finding, we found that OAR [Office of Air and 

Radiation] did not: Include language in its proposed action, final action, or internal 

memoranda that identified whether the Agency used influential scientific 

infonnation or highly influential scientific assessments to support the action. OAR 

also did not certify that the supporting technical infonn.,,14 

Advisory Panels 

Several concerns have been raised about the make-up, transparency, and rigor provided by EPA 

advisory panels like the SAB and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Despite the 

requirement under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that panels be "fairly balanced in tenns of 

points of view presented and the functions to be perfonned by the advisory committee," 1 5 GAO has 

found that "[m]any advisory committee members are not appropriately screened for potential conflicts 

of interest or points ofview.,,16 Similarly, EPA IG has also cited avenues for improving the Agency's 

process for establishing peer review panels. In a 2009 review of the National Center for Environmental 

Assessment's process, EPA IG found that the Center "does not have procedures for addressing conflicts 

of interest or potential biases," lacked "adequate controls to establish accountability for suitability 

detenninations and rationale for including or excluding each panelist," and did not have a useful 

interpretation of impartiality in selecting peer review panels. 17 Testimony from a recent participant in 

CASAC's particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard panel stated that the CASAC 

process is "flawed, narrow, and possibly ethically questionable.,,18 

14 EPA IG, "Procedural Review of EPA's Greenhouse Gases Endangerment Finding Data Quality Processes," Report No. 11· 

P·0702, September 26, 2011, http://www.epa.gov/oig/reportsl2011120110926-ll·P·0702.pd[ 

15 5 U.S.c. App 

16 GAO, "Ensuring Sound Science." See also: John Stephenson, GAO, Testimony before the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works, U.S. Senate. "SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY: EPA's Efforts to Enhance the Credibility and Transparency ofIts 

Scientific Processes," June 9. 2009, http://www.gao.gov/productslGAO·09-773T. 

17 EPA IG, "EPA Can Improve Its Process for Establishing Peer Review Panels," April 29, 2009, Report No. 09·P·0147, 

http://www.cpa.gov/oigireports/2009/20090429·09·P·OI47.pdf. 

18 Robert F. Phalen, University of Cali fomi a, Irvine. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, House 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, October 4,2011, 

http://science.housc.gov/sites/rcpubl icans.science.hotlse.gov/fi les!documcntslhcarinos! 1 00411 Phalen.pdf 

4 
7 

Prioritization 

In order for EPA science to better match the agency's environmental goals and the individual regulatory 

needs of program offices, both GAO and the EPA IG have recommended important reforms, GAO 

found that "EPA needs to better emphasize the development and use of environmental indicators and 

information ... as a mechanism for prioritizing its allocation oflimited resources,',!9 and that the "[l]ack 

of complete and comprehensive environmental information on air or water quality, for example, makes 

it difficult for EPA to evaluate the success ofits policies and programs.,,20 EPA IG has also found that, 

despite the fact that the top goal in the Agency's strategic vision includes "Taking Action on Climate 

Change,,,2! EPA "does not have an overall plan to ensure developing consistent, compatible climate 

change strategies across the Agency" which could "result in duplication, inconsistent approaches, and 

wasted resources among EPA's regions and offices.,,22 

Scientific Integrity 

Finding that significant numbers of ORD staff were unaware of the Agency's policies earlier this year, 

the EPA IG recommended that "ORD should improve how it evaluates the effectiveness of its policies 

and procedures for scientific integrity and research misconduct.,,23 Concerns have also been raised 

about the lack of detail in EPA's draft scientific integrity policy. 24 

Management of Laboratory and Science Activities 

In a July 2011 report requested by Ranking Member Miller, GAO found that EPA's laboratory activities 

"remain fragmented and largely uncoordinated," and that "EPA has not undertaken an agency wide, 

coordinated approach to managing its scientific efforts and related facilities as part of an interrelated 

portfolio of facilities." This report also found that the Agency had failed to implement the 

recommendations of five independent evaluations of EPA's scientific and laboratory management since 

1992.25 

19 GAO, "Improving the Development and Use of Environmental Information," November 12,2009, 

http://www.gao.gov/highriskJagency/epalimproving-the-development-and-use-of-environmental-infoffi1ation.php. 

20 GAO, "'Environmental Protection Agency," November 6, 2009, http://\vww.gao.govlhighrisk/agencv/epaJ. 

21 http://www.epa.gov/planandbudgetJstrategicplan.html. 

22 EPA IG, "EPA Needs a Comprehensive Research Plan and Policies to Fulfill its Emerging Climate Change Role," 

February 2, 2009, Report No. 09-P-0089, http://\\ww.epa.gov/oig/reportsl2009/20090202-09-P-0089.pdf. 

23 EPA IG, "Office of Research and Development Should Increase Awareness of Scientific Integrity Policies," July 22, 2011, 

Report No. Il-P-0386, http://\V''~v.epa.gov/oig!reportsl20 11I20110722-II-P-0386.pdf. 

24 Emily Yehle, "EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy Draft Skimpy on Specifics, Critics Charge," Greenwire, August 8, 201 I, 

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/20 II I08!08108grecnwire-epas-scientitic-integrity-policv-drat1-skimoy-0-521 O.html. 

25 GAO, "ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: To Better Fuifilllts Mission, EPA Needs a More Coordinated 

Approach to Managing Its Laboratories," July 2011, GAO-lt-347, http://www.gao.o-ov/new.items/dlt347.pdf. 

5 
8 

.0 EPA 

United Suues EI'\'IHo"Hnen~a, Pmte:;tl!)r 

Agency 

U.S. EPA 

Organizational 

Chart 

Appendix 1 

6 
9 

oEPA UnotedStalcs 

fn>mOllmenlal:>mtect<o~ 

Agerocy 

1 

Appendix2 

ORO's Organization 

immediateOffice 

oflheAsststanlAdministrator 

PauIAnaslaS,AM:istantAdministrator 

lek Kadel!, Oeputy AssistantAdmlnbtrator lor Management 

KevinTelchman,Oeputy AssistantAdministratorfor Science 

RamonaTrovato, Associate AssimnlAdministrator 

2 3 

( /jltiolllll"togr.tltlOirtttrm 

'Ai!:,ChrNltIMEnlrgy 

'Sailllnd$u$b;iOU:bllWtttrRnouret$ 

·Suual/l.lblli~dHNlthyCOlMlll"ititt. 

'ClltlllkllSfItty~tSvSUifIJbili1y 

·Hul!l.loHt:.lhhl/i$kAntssmtrrt 

'Homtl,n~$fturily 

'\ 

I 

I 

i 

I 

) 

The bottom of this ch;:ut shows three national lilbs and four n,Hicn;)1 centers. The three national labs are broken down in 

Appendix 3. 
10 

Appendix3 

2 

Column 1 shows 10 regional labs. Column 2 shows 9 program labs. Column 3 shows 18 ORO labs. 

8 
11 

Chairman HARRIS. The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will come to order. Good afternoon. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘Fostering Quality Science at EPA: The Need for Common Sense Reform.’’ In front of you are packets containing the 

written testimony, biographies, and truth in testimony disclosures 

for today’s witness panel. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

First of all, I want to thank you for your patience as we went 

through our first series of votes, and I want to welcome everyone 

to this afternoon’s hearing on ‘‘Fostering Quality Science at EPA.’’ 

I would like to note my appreciation at the outset to Dr. Anastas 

for moving his schedule around in order to be with us today, but 

you know, I was a little disappointed that we didn’t get your testimony until late last night, so I haven’t had the chance to review 

it, but I look forward to hearing it in person. I trust that you will 

make sure to try to meet the committee deadlines, a little more leeway time there, in the future. 

In the last 9 months this committee has held seven different 

hearings on issues related to EPA science and process. In each of 

these hearings we have questioned the processes by which the 

agency ensures the development and dissemination of quality 

science and raised concerns about EPA moving forward on specific 

regulations before the science is available to inform those decisions. 

In today’s hearing we are discussing the overall science enterprise 

and its function within EPA. 

Research and development at EPA have been authorized by a 

number of environmental laws, but the Environmental Research 

Development and Demonstration Authorization Act or ERDDA is 

the only statute dedicated solely to science activities in the agency. 

This law, first enacted in 1976, was reauthorized annually through 

fiscal year 1981, providing authorization levels to address different 

environmental issues. 

Additionally, ERDDA established the Office of Research and Development, required five-year R&D plans, and created EPA Science 

Advisory Board. However, despite numerous efforts in both the 

House and Senate, no reauthorization has occurred in 30 years. 

EPA is a unique agency in that it performs the functions of the 

scientists, the policymaker, the regulator, and the enforcer. Since 

it has been 40 years since the creation of the agency and 30 years 

since science activities were last authorized, it is both appropriate 

and necessary for Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of the EPA 

in fulfilling all of those roles. 

In the current economic climate and given the EPA’s breadth of 

jurisdiction over the economy, the agency must be vigilant in ensuring that it only promulgates regulations that are necessary and 

appropriate to protect public health and welfare. Quality science is 

an essential requirement in creating these regulations, yet time 

and again EPA’s scientific justification for many of its rules and 

regulations have been questioned based on concerns with data 

quality, peer review, lack of transparency, and other process problems. 

It has gotten to the point where the perception is that EPA may 

have a pension for pursuing outcome-based science in order to validate its regulatory agenda. This has led to a crisis of confidence 
12 

that undermines the ability of the public to trust what EPA says, 

an untenable situation for an agency with sweeping authority over 

the Nation’s economic activity. 

So what can be done to fix this dilemma? Is it a question of 

greater oversight, or are there fundamental changes within the organization of EPA that are needed to address these problems? 

There have been reports, evaluations, and studies over the years 

that have identified the specific problems within the EPA science 

enterprise. 

Consequently, these reports have contained recommendations to 

the agency on how to alleviate these problems. Unfortunately, 

many of these recommendations have not been followed and all too 

often Congress has been absent from these reform efforts. 

As this committee undertakes the process to reauthorize ERDDA, 

I invite any interested stakeholders to provide recommendations 

and suggestions. Similarly, I welcome the suggestions of my colleagues across the aisle and hope that they will view this as an opportunity to collaborate on much-needed reforms. 

Science activities at EPA comprise only a fraction of the agency’s 

overall budget, but their importance and impact on jobs in the 

economy are enormous. Good regulations must be based on good 

science, and good science requires transparency, quality data, and 

confirmation of processes and results through peer review. 

In other words, it requires an adherence to the scientific method 

and longstanding principles governing the incorporation and use of 

scientific and technical information to regulatory decision making. 

Again, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the 

Subcommittee today. Again, I apologize for the delay, and I look 

forward to a constructive discussion. 

I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ANDY HARRIS

I want to welcome everyone to this afternoon’s hearing on Fostering Quality 

Science at EPA: The Need for Common Sense Reform. I would like to note my appreciation at the outset to Dr. Anastas for moving his schedule around in order to 

be with us today, however, I am disappointed that you did not get your testimony 

to us until 6:00 pm last night. I trust that you make sure to meet Committee deadlines in the future. 

In the last nine months, this Committee has held seven different hearings on 

issues related to EPA science and process. In each of these hearings, we have questioned the processes by which the Agency ensures the development and dissemination of quality science and raised concerns about EPA moving forward on specific 

regulations before the science is available to inform those decisions. In today’s hearing, we are discussing the overall science enterprise and its function within EPA. 

Research and development in EPA have been authorized by a number of environmental laws, but the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act, or ERDDAA (ERDDA) is the only statute dedicated solely to science 

activities in the agency. This law, first enacted in 1976, was reauthorized annually 

through fiscal year 1981 providing authorization levels to address different environmental issues. Additionally, ERDDAA established the Office of Research and Development, required 5-year R&D plans and created EPA’s Science Advisory Board. 

However, despite numerous efforts in both the House and Senate, no reauthorization has occurred in 30 years. 

EPA is a unique agency in that it performs the functions of the scientist, the policy maker, the regulator, and the enforcer. Since it has been forty years since the 

creation of the agency, and thirty years since science activities were last authorized, 

it is appropriate and necessary for Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of the EPA 

in fulfilling all these roles. 
13 

In the current economic climate and given the EPA’s breadth of jurisdiction over 

the economy, the Agency must be vigilant ensuring that it only promulgates regulations that are necessary and appropriate to protect public health and welfare. Quality science is an essential requirement in creating these regulations. Yet time and 

again, EPA’s scientific justification for many of its rules and regulations have been 

questioned based on concerns with data quality, peer review, lack of transparency 

and other process problems. It has gotten to the point where the perception is that 

EPA has a penchant for pursuing outcome-based science in order to validate its regulatory agenda. This has led to a crisis of confidence that undermines the ability 

of the public to trust anything EPA says, an untenable situation for an Agency with 

sweeping authority over the nation’s economic activity. 

So what can be done to fix this dilemma? Is it a question of greater oversight? 

Or are there fundamental changes within the organization of EPA that are needed 

to address these problems? There have been reports, evaluations, and studies over 

the years that have identified the specific problems within the EPA science enterprise. Consequently, these reports have contained recommendations to the Agency 

on how to alleviate these problems. Unfortunately, many of these recommendations 

have not been followed, and all too often Congress has been absent from these reform efforts. 

As this Committee undertakes the process to reauthorize ERDDAA, I invite any 

interested stakeholders to provide recommendations and suggestions. Similarly, I 

welcome the suggestions of my colleagues across the aisle and hope that they will 

view this as an opportunity to collaborate on much needed reforms. 

Science activities at EPA comprise only a fraction of the agency’s overall budget, 

but their importance and impact on jobs and the economy are enormous. Good regulations must be based on good science, and good science requires transparency, quality data, and confirmation of processes and results through peer review. In other 

words, it requires an adherence to the scientific method and longstanding principles 

governing the incorporation and use of scientific and technical information to regulatory decision-making. 

I want to thanks the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today and 

I look forward to a constructive discussion. 

Chairman HARRIS. I now want to recognize Mr. Tonko for five 

minutes for an opening statement. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ranking Member Miller 

wanted to be here at the start of this hearing but had a scheduling 

conflict and will join us later. I want to thank Chairman Harris for 

holding a hearing to examine the ability of EPA’s research enterprise to meet the agency’s mission to protect public health and the 

environment. 

Scientific research, knowledge, and technical information are 

fundamental to EPA’s mission and inform its standard setting, regulatory, compliance, and enforcement functions. The agency’s scientific performance is particularly important as complex environmental issues emerge and evolve, and it is science, not partisan 

politics, which should guide their resolution. 

Unfortunately, controversy continues to surround many of the 

agency’s areas of responsibility. Let me be clear. There may be 

some legitimate concerns related to EPA’s research enterprise, but 

EPA is not the demonic agency that our Republican majority has 

made it out to be this Congress. This hearing is the beginning of 

a real opportunity to become informed about structural and substantive concerns related to EPA’s research activities. I hope that 

my Republican counterparts are really interested in reform that 

will lead to better research to enhance public health and protect 

our environment. 

I do not believe anyone would disagree that we should always adhere to best practices, transparency, and indeed, integrity in all of 

our work. That is why in 2008, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Mr. Miller, requested that GAO take a look at the inde-
14 

pendent evaluations that have been done over the past 20 years 

and that identified problems with EPA’s 35 laboratories’ operations 

and management. 

In an atmosphere of constrained budgets it is imperative that 

with EPA’s increasing need to understand complex environmental 

problems, they are positioned to formulate sound environmental 

protection policies. These independent evaluations have called for 

improved planning, coordination, and leadership, as well as consolidation of laboratories. The EPA operates some 35 laboratories to 

provide the scientific foundation for its mission. When it was established in 1970, EPA inherited 42 laboratories from programs in 

various federal departments. EPA has since closed or consolidated 

some laboratories and created new ones to support its core mission. 

Of course, closing facilities always has an impact on the surrounding community. That impact could, perhaps, be amplified 

given the current state of the economy, and we must be mindful 

of such outcomes. Despite this, it is still our responsibility to explore all options for productive and effective cost savings. 

Independent evaluations of the GAO have highlighted the need 

for the EPA to develop a coordinated planning process for its scientific activities and improve agency-wide research planning, 

among many other suggestions. It is important to note that these 

issues are not new under the current Administration. They span 

the activities and inactivity of several Administrations. Don’t be 

fooled by the rhetoric on the right that the Obama Administration 

was the impetus of the concerns expressed here. These concerns did 

not appear overnight or in just the past three years. They will need 

to be corrected over time, and any reorganization will need to be 

done in an orderly, well thought out manner with much oversight 

and input. 

In recent years, the IG has put forward many recommendations 

to improve the ORD that appear to have been embraced by the 

agency. Overall, the IG has found that the EPA ORD peer review 

process adequately produces objective scientific reviews. As we 

have said time and time again in this committee, good policy and 

decisions begin with good science. I am sure there is room for improvements, and I hope we can work together to identify opportunities to make EPA more effective in protecting our—the public and 

our environment. 

Today we are presented with the perfect opportunity to show 

American taxpayers that not every issue needs to be polarizing or 

politicized. It is an opportunity for Congress to be productive and 

objective. It is also an opportunity to put our differences aside and 

have meaningful conversations and exchanges of ideas. We need to 

build upon EPA’s scientific legacy and ensure that we continue to 

improve our shared environment, including for future generations. 

Chairman Harris, we look forward to working with you in the 

months ahead. With that I conclude my opening remarks but would 

ask, Mr. Chair, that before I yield back, I do have one further point 

of business if you will allow me to continue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:] 
15 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PAUL TONKO

Mr. Miller wanted to be here at the start of this hearing but had a scheduling 

conflict, and will join us later. I want to thank Chairman Harris for holding a hearing to examine the ability of EPA’s research enterprise to meet the agency’s mission 

to protect public health and the environment. Scientific research, knowledge, and 

technical information are fundamental to EPA’s mission and inform its standardsetting, regulatory, compliance, and enforcement functions. The agency’s scientific 

performance is particularly important as complex environmental issues emerge and 

evolve. And it is science, not partisan politics, which should guide their resolution. 

Unfortunately, controversy continues to surround many of the agency’s areas of responsibility. Let me be clear, there may be some legitimate concerns related to 

EPA’s research enterprise, but EPA is not the demonic agency that the Republican 

Majority has made it out to be this Congress. 

This hearing is the beginning of a real opportunity to become informed about 

structural and substantive concerns related to EPA’s research activities. I hope that 

my Republican counterparts are really interested in reform that will lead to better 

research to enhance public health and protect the environment. 

I do not believe anyone would disagree that we should always adhere to best practices, transparency, and integrity in all of our work. That is why in 2008, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Mr. Miller, requested the GAO to take a look at 

the independent evaluations that have been done over the past 20 years and that 

identified problems with the EPA’s 35 laboratories’ operations and management. In 

an atmosphere of constrained budgets, it is imperative that, with EPA’s increasing 

need to understand complex environmental problems,they are positioned to formulate sound environmental protection policies. 

These independent evaluations have called for improved planning, coordination, 

and leadership, as well as consolidation of laboratories. The EPA operates 35 laboratories to provide the scientific foundation for its mission. When it was established 

in 1970, EPA inherited 42 laboratories from programs in various federal departments. EPA has since closed or consolidated some laboratories and created new ones 

to support its core mission. Of course, closing facilities always has an impact on the 

surrounding community. That impact could perhaps be amplified given the current 

state of the economy and we must be mindful of such outcomes. Despite this, it is 

still our responsibility to explore all options for productive and effective cost-savings. 

Independent evaluations and the GAO have highlighted the need for the EPA to 

develop a coordinated planning process for its scientific activities and improve agency-wide research planning, among many other suggestions. It is important to note 

that these issues are not new under the current Administration—they span the activities and inactivity of several Administrations. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric on 

the ‘‘right’’ that the Obama Administration was the impetus of the concerns expressed here. These concerns did not appear overnight or in just the past three 

years. They will need to be corrected over time. And any reorganization will need 

to be done in an orderly, well thought-out manner; with much oversight and input. 

In recent years, the IG has put forward many recommendations to improve the 

ORD that appear to have been embraced by the agency. Overall, the IG has found 

that the EPA ORD peer review process adequately produces objective scientific reviews. As we have said time and time again in this Committee, good policy and decisions begins with good science. I am sure there is room for improvement and I hope 

we can work together to identify opportunities to make EPA more effective in protecting the public and the environment. 

Today, we are presented with the perfect opportunity to show American taxpayers 

that not every issue needs to be polarizing or politicized. It’s an opportunity for Congress to be productive and objective. It’s also an opportunity to put our differences 

aside and have meaningful conversations and exchanges of ideas. We need to build 

upon EPA’s scientific legacy and ensure that we continue to improve our shared environment, including for future generations. 

Chairman Harris, we look forward to working with you in the months ahead. I 

yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Without objection. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I want to ensure that we include into the 

record the written testimony of Dr. Granger Morgan, the former 

chair of the EPA Science Advisory Board. He included with his testimony a letter expressing his frustration with the surrounding 

events of our committee’s request for him to testify, and he states, 

and I would read the first two paragraphs of his letter that are ad-
16 

dressed to you, Andy Harris M.D., as Chair, and Representative 

Brad Miller of North Carolina as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. 

‘‘Dear Congressman Harris and Miller, several days ago I was 

contacted by committee staff about the possibility of testifying to 

the hearing you are holding tomorrow afternoon on the EPA 

Science Advisory Board. Because I had academic conflicts I was not 

able to attend the hearing. Last evening your staff indicated that 

arrangements could be made for me to testify over a video link if 

I could get my testimony prepared and submitted by midday today. 

Accordingly, I dropped everything and prepared the testimony that 

follows. I have just now been informed that my testimony is no 

longer desired. 

I understand that such things happen, however, having already 

spent the time to write my remarks, I thought you and some other 

Members might find it of some use to see what I had prepared.’’ 

Chairman Harris, these are difficult words to read. Here in Congress we call on some of the world’s best experts to come and testify. These are busy people who sacrifice their time and their resources as a service to our country. I hope this type of situation 

does not occur again and that under your leadership we can improve the committee’s relationship with potential witnesses going 

forward. 

Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to enter this testimony 

into the record. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. Let me just ask for a 

clarification. You want to submit the letter into the record. Is that 

right? So not his testimony? 

Mr. TONKO. It is included altogether I am told. His testimony 

and his letter. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, I mean, my concern is that, you know, 

with testimony we would get to actually question people who actually submit testimony. So it is just a minor clarification. I mean, 

I am perfectly willing to submit his letter, a letter with an attachment into the record, but I don’t think we can really call it testimony. 

Mr. TONKO. Yeah. 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay. 

Mr. TONKO. We will abide by that and provide—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay. 

Mr. TONKO. —what we have here on behalf of the witness who 

had hoped he could present, Mr. Morgan. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko, and we will 

absolutely. I mean, we do want—we recognize that the people we 

ask to appear in front of this committee are very busy and sometimes difficult to arrange a schedule, and you know, even with the 

delay today, I mean, sometimes we have to juggle even within that 

schedule, but, yes, it is my desire to do that, to make it easy for 

someone to come and share their experience with the American 

public in a Congressional hearing. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and with that I yield 

back my time. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 
17 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witness panel. Our 

first witness today is Dr. Paul Anastas, well known to the Committee and Subcommittee, the Assistant Administrator of the Office 

of Research and Development at EPA. The next witness will be Mr. 

David Trimble, Director of Natural Resources and Environment at 

the U.S. General Accounting Office, and I guess the way you are 

sitting here, the other witness is Mr. Arthur Elkins, Inspector General of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Thank you all for appearing before the Subcommittee today. 

Now, we were notified that we may actually in another half hour 

or so go back for one more vote or possibly two more votes, so we 

are going to go through the testimony. We are going to start questioning, and we will see where that ends up. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each, after which Members of the Committee will have 

five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant 

Administrator of the Office of Research and Development at the 

EPA. Dr. Anastas. 

STATEMENTS OF DR. PAUL ANASTAS, 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH 

AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Dr. ANASTAS. Good afternoon, Chairman Harris, Congressman 

Tonko, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am Paul 

Anastas. I am the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with 

you today about EPA’s research programs. 

Scientific research is vital to pursuing EPA’s mission of protecting human health and the environment. As EPA Administrator 

Lisa Jackson has said time and again, science is the backbone of 

EPA. All of the agency’s decisions and actions are grounded in 

sound and rigorous science. That is what the American people expect and deserve. 

Every day the scientists and engineers in the EPA’s Office of Research and Development demonstrate excellence and dedication in 

their scientific work. I could not be more proud of my colleagues 

or more confident in their abilities. 

But we all recognize that in science there is no room for arrogance. That is why we work closely with our Science Advisory 

Board to obtain independent, external peer review of our research 

plans and with our Board of Scientific Counselors to obtain peer review of our research products. At every step along way we seek 

input from the scientific community and the public. We welcome 

their comments, and we address them. 

This process, which can include public comment periods, open 

peer review sessions, and public meetings, is one of the most rigorous and transparent peer review processes anywhere. We firmly 

believe that when it comes to science, transparency is the most 
18 

powerful way to ensure integrity. The agency depends on its Office 

of Research and Development to provide the scientific tools, assessments, and technologies to inform decision making. 

For this reason in addition to being sound and transparent, 

EPA’s research must also be highly effective and responsive. Over 

the past year EPA has engaged in a major effort to strength its research program with two primary goals. First, to ensure that our 

research most effectively meets the needs of those who use and depend upon it, including EPA’s program and regional offices. Second, 

to ensure the cohesiveness of research across the Office of Research 

and Development, including the development of collaborative research plans that cut across multiple disciplines and multiple laboratories. 

With these goals in mind EPA research programs were aligned 

into four crosscutting areas. One, air climate and energy, two, safe 

and sustainable water resources, three, sustainable and healthy 

communities, and four, chemical safety for sustainability. 

In addition, EPA is continuing to fulfill its scientific responsibilities in two targeted research areas; homeland security and human 

health assessment. Realigning our research has made EPA’s scientific enterprise more effective by design. We have new opportunities to coordinate scientific expertise, capabilities, and resources 

that were previously managed separately. 

We have built engagement with EPA’s program and regional offices into every stage of the research process to ensure that their 

needs are met in a timely and responsive manner. We have broken 

down the traditional boundaries between scientific disciplines so 

that our scientists can more effectively address crosscutting real 

world challenges. 

In their 2011 joint report EPA Science Advisory Board and Board 

of Scientific Counselors stated that they ‘‘strongly support ORD’s 

consolidation and realignment of research programs.’’ 

Science and technology in EPA is not limited to the agency’s Office of Research and Development. A network of laboratories spans 

across ORD, program offices, and regional laboratory organizations, 

each with different objectives toward the pursuit of EPA’s mission. 

To be clear, the Office of Research and Development laboratories 

conduct research and assessments that inform many of the agency’s actions and decisions including protective standards and guidance. The program offices’ office laboratories develop science that 

supports regulatory implementation, compliance, and enforcements 

at the national level. Regional laboratories provide technical information to support immediate regional needs and regional decision 

making. 

The recent GAO report on EPA’s laboratory network recommends 

that the EPA Administrator take several actions to improve the cohesion and management of the agency’s laboratories. We take these 

recommendations very seriously, and I invite you to review EPA’s 

response to each of these recommendations in my written testimony. 

To conclude, EPA has a strong tradition of scientific excellence. 

In all of our research we are committed to strong science, continual 

improvement, and scientific openness on behalf of the American 
19 

people. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, 

and I will be happy to take questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Anastas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL ANASTAS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good morning Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller, and other distinguished 

Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Anastas. I am the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). 

The Office of Research and Development (ORD) is unique in the environmental 

science community because it conducts intramural and extramural research across 

the entire spectrum of disciplines necessary to support the mission of EPA. EPA 

works with many providers of scientific information to accomplish its mission, including international and domestic academic institutions, state and local agencies, 

industry, and other federal scientific agencies. 

I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today about our research programs. 

I understand that the Committee would like me to discuss a number of specific 

issues, but first I would like to talk about the bigger picture—where I believe EPA 

needs to be orienting our scientific efforts if it is going to provide the cutting edge 

knowledge and tools needed in the 21st century and to be competitive in the world. 

Every day, EPA continues to transform the vision of a healthy economy and a 

healthy environment into reality for all Americans. It’s a vision that starts with 

science. The Agency relies on ORD to produce scientifically sound research, methods, and tools to fulfill its legislative mandates and meet its mission to protect 

human health and the environment. EPA is a world leader in scientific research for 

human health and environmental protection. The environmental breakthroughs 

mentioned above could only be achieved through research and development including the that of EPA’s scientific research. The cumulative benefits of this work, along 

with work in other sectors, have restored ecosystems, improved public health, and 

increased overall life expectancy in a time when our economy and population have 

continued to grow. 

Further, in its 2011 report on Sustainability and the US EPA, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences recognized that current approaches aimed at decreasing existing risks, however successful, are not capable of 

avoiding the complex problems in the US and globally that threaten the planet’s 

critical natural resources and put current and future human generations at risk. In 

considering sustainability as a way of ensuring long-term human well-being, the report also states that the potential economic value of sustainability to the U.S. is recognized to not merely decrease environmental risks, but also to optimize the social 

and economic benefits of environmental protection. 

ORD RESEARCH PROGRAMS 

During the past year, EPA’s research programs have been realigned to meet the 

emerging needs of EPA internal and external stakeholders while advancing the 

science needed for sustainability. As a starting point, ORD research programs are 

structured to address the EPA strategic goals in the EPA FY 2011–2015 Strategic 

Plan. ORD’S research program are focused on: 

• Air, Climate, and Energy; 

• Safe and Sustainable Water Resources; 

• Sustainable and Healthy Communities; and 

• Chemical Safety for Sustainability 

In addition to above 4 programs, EPA has special responsibilities for two targeted 

research programs —homeland security and human health risk assessment, which 

integrates scientific information from EPA and other research to develop health assessments for environmental contaminants. 

Organizing our research into these six areas provides ORD with opportunities to 

integrate and coordinate research among areas that were previously planned and 

managed separately. For example, the Chemical Safety for Sustainability program 

now integrates research on pesticides and toxics, endocrine disruptors, and computational toxicology. Similarly, the Safe and Sustainable Waters program brings together research on drinking water and surface water quality. Certain topics, such 

as climate change, nitrogen, and children’s health, involve multiple scientific disciplines and, therefore, require integration across research programs. 
20 

1 Ibid., page 1. 

2Letter from EPA Deputy Administrator Robert Perciasepe to David C. Trimble, Acting Director Natural Resources and the Environment, U.S. GAO, July 11, 2011. 

Research is conducted by ORD scientists and engineers working in laboratories 

and research facilities at 14 locations around the country. They are joined by a network of collaborators and partners, including those supported through EPA’s 

Science to Achieve Results (STAR) extramural research program. The STAR program provides competitive funding opportunities for research grants, graduate and 

undergraduate fellowships, and larger, largely multidisciplinary research centers. 

EPA is also one of 11 federal agencies that participate in the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, enacted in 1982 to strengthen the role of small 

businesses in federal research and development, create jobs, and promote technical 

innovation. 

Engaging Others in ORD’s Research Planning 

We are very serious about ensuring that the research and development work in 

ORD is responsive to the needs of the Agency. Over the past year, through meetings 

with managers and staff in EPA’s program and regional offices, webinars, ‘‘listening 

sessions’’ with the public, and other open platforms, Agency researchers have undertaken an unprecedented effort to engage EPA’s partners and stakeholders inside 

and outside the government. The discussions sparked collaboration, innovation, and 

creativity from every corner of the EPA research community involved in designing 

needed research. ORD is committed to providing ongoing interactions to ensure that 

Agency program and regional offices, states, tribes, and other stakeholders receive 

the scientific information they need to make informed decisions and enforce the nation’s environmental laws. 

In addition to the steps taken to ensure involvement by the Program and Regional 

Offices in ORD’s research planning process, ORD is committed to providing scientific expertise to the Program Offices as they develop regulations and policy. ORD 

research also provides the tools needed to evaluate management options for thousands of sites contaminated by past practices or current environmental releases. 

Further, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides expert advice on scientific and 

technical matters within the Agency. We formally request the SAB to review our 

research plans and proposed allocation of ORD resources each year and ORD values 

their input. 

PEER REVIEW 

The EPA takes its responsibility concerning peer review very seriously. For example, all of ORD’s draft human health assessments are subjected to rigorous, open, 

independent, external peer review. The external peer reviewers typically convene at 

a public meeting to discuss their comments on our work. . We recognize the importance of independent, external peer review in maintaining high standards for the 

quality of the science and technical products that EPA produces and sponsors. Peer 

review is an important component of the scientific process that provides a focused, 

objective evaluation of a draft product. The constructive criticisms, suggestions, and 

new ideas provided by the peer reviewers stimulate creative thought, and strengthen and confer credibility on the product. Comprehensive, objective peer reviews lead 

to good science and product acceptance within the scientific community. Thus, peer 

review ensures that the Agency’s scientific reports are held to the highest possible 

standards. 

EPA makes every effort to assure that the scientists serving on these review panels do not have any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including an appearance 

of bias or lack of impartiality. This rigorous process is designed to assure that the 

Agency’s peer reviews are independent, open, transparent, and of the highest scientific quality. 

EPA LABORATORIES — RESPONSE TO THE GAO REPORT 

Now I want to discuss EPA’s network of laboratories and the Agency’s response 

to the recent GAO report about EPA laboratories. I agree with the GAO observation 

that ‘‘EPA’s scientific research, technical support, and analytical services underpin 

the policies and regulations the agency implements.’’ 1 The connection between 

EPA’s laboratory science and Agency decision-making illustrates the strategic importance of EPA’s laboratory network. This network consists of 35 laboratories located in 29 cities nationwide. 2

EPA’s laboratory network is comprised of ORD, program office, and regional laboratory organizations. Each of these three laboratory organizations has different ob-
21 

3Letter from EPA Deputy Administrator Robert Perciasepe to David C. Trimble, Acting Director Natural Resources and the Environment, U.S. GAO, July 11, 2011. 4See the GAO High Risk Series on Federal Real Property, beginning with U.S. GAO-03-122, 

January 30, 2003. 5Letter from EPA Deputy Administrator Robert Perciasepe to David C. Trimble, Acting Director Natural Resources and the Environment, U.S. GAO, July 11, 2011, pages 1–2. 6 ‘‘Laboratories for the 21st Century: Program Overview.’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Energy Management Program. January 2004. 7 Executive Order 13514 of 2009. Federal Register Vol 74 No 194, 52117–52127. October 8, 

2009 8This letter appears as Appendix IV (pages 39–45) in the GAO report cited in the first footnote. 

jectives 3 with respect to EPA’s mission-and a common need for coordination with 

Agency clients and partners: 

• ORD laboratories have primary responsibility for research and development— 

developing knowledge, assessments, and scientific tools that form the 

underpinnings of the vast majority of EPA’s protective standards and guidance. 

• Program Office laboratories have primary responsibility for directly supporting 

regulatory implementation, compliance, and enforcement at a national level— 

e.g., motor vehicle standards testing, pesticide registration. 

• Regional laboratories are responsible for providing scientific data and sampling 

results which support the Regional environmental programs’ needs for immediate information to make decisions on environmental conditions, enforcement, 

and progress to achieve our nation’s standards for environmental and human 

health. 

While the scientific activities of EPA’s research and program laboratories focus on 

long-term outcomes at a national level, EPA’s regional laboratories are designed and 

organized to meet the near-term decision-needs of their Regions, State, and Tribal 

partners. 

EPA has benefited from advice by the U.S. Government Accountability Office 

(GAO)-most recently, from the GAO study of EPA’s laboratory network published in 

July 2011. 

The report from GAO identifies a number of challenges to managing federal laboratories government-wide. 4 One major challenge is the increasing cost of maintaining the portfolio of aging federal laboratory facilities. A second major challenge is 

reducing the energy consumed by laboratory facilities. 

These facilities consume more energy and emit more greenhouse gases per square 

foot of floor space than virtually any other type of facility-from five to ten times the 

amount of energy than office buildings with an equivalent footprint. 5 EPA recognizes that improving the energy and environmental ‘‘footprint’’ of federal laboratory 

facilities is important for our nation’s strategy to achieve energy independence, improve the environment, and reduce consumption of natural resources. 6 In fact, Executive Order 13514 requires that each federal agency prepare a strategic sustainability plan to guide its efforts to ‘green’ its facilities to improve their effectiveness 

and efficiency. 7

The GAO report on EPA’s laboratory network recommends that the Administrator 

of EPA take seven actions to improve the cohesion and management of the Agency’s 

laboratories. In general, EPA agrees with these GAO recommendations. EPA’s Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe communicated EPA’s response to the GAO recommendations in a July 2011 letter, which GAO included in its report. 8 Here are 

highlights of the seven GAO recommendations and EPA’s responses: 

1) Develop an overarching issue-based planning process that reflects the collective 

goals, objectives, and priorities of the laboratories’ scientific activities. 

EPA will consult with stakeholders to determine the best approach to develop 

an overarching planning process and system. 

2) Establish a top-level science official with the authority and responsibility to coordinate, oversee, and make management decisions regarding major scientific activities throughout the agency, including the work of all program, regional, and research laboratories. 

EPA will expand the authority and responsibility of the Agency’s Science Advisor 

to coordinate, oversee, and make recommendations to the Administrator regarding 

major scientific activities throughout the agency, including the work of all program, 

regional, and ORD laboratories. EPA’s Science and Technology Policy Council 

(STPC) will assist the Science Advisor with these new responsibilities. This Council 
22 

brings together senior leaders from EPA’s programs, regions, and laboratories to address the Agency’s high priority science-policy issues. 

3&4) Improve the Agency’s physical infrastructure and real property planning and 

investment decisions by: managing individual laboratory facilities as part of an 

interrelated portfolio of facilities, and ensuring that facility ‘‘master plans’’ are upto-date and that analysis of the use of space is based on objective benchmarks. 

EPA will strengthen its master planning process-which the Agency believes overall has kept the Agency’s laboratories and their support buildings in good condition. 

Over the next 3–5 years the Agency plans to: upgrade and streamline the master 

planning process; update the plans as required; reinforce the current master planning portfolio perspective; and strengthen the ties between the current annual and 

five year Building & Facility call letter process and the master plans. 

5) Improve the completeness and reliability of operating-cost and other data needed 

to manage its real property and report to external parties. 

EPA will continue to refine the master planning process to upgrade and validate 

its internal operating costs and other metrics. EPA is also reviewing options for improving data reliability and completeness for the remaining labs within its laboratory enterprise. 

6) Develop a comprehensive workforce planning process for all laboratories that is 

based on reliable workforce data and reflects current and future agency needs in 

the overall number of federal and contract employees, skills, and deployment across 

all laboratory facilities. 

EPA will develop a workforce planning process for its laboratory network as part 

of a broader Agency workforce planning process. 

7) If the EPA Administrator determines that another independent study of EPA 

laboratories is needed, then the Agency should include—within the charge questions 

for this study—alternate approaches for organizing the laboratory workforce and infrastructure. These alternate approaches should include options for sharing and consolidation. 

The FY 2012 President’s Budget includes funds to conduct a study of EPA’s laboratory enterprise which considers the long-term research needs of the Agency while 

seeking opportunities to promote efficiencies and reduce the Agency’s physical footprint. This study will be conducted by an independent expert body. EPA will request 

that this external body consider information in this GAO report and alternate approaches for organizing the workforce and infrastructure of EPA’s laboratory network, and explore options for consolidation. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, I believe that we have a strong tradition of excellence in science 

at EPA—and that we are poised to build upon this tradition and take environmental 

protection to the next level. EPA scientists and engineers, as members of, and in 

collaboration with, the broader scientific community, are applying scientific innovation to spark the scientific and technological breakthroughs that lie just over the 

horizon—emission-free vehicles; smart phone apps that provide key environmental 

and health information; benign, ‘‘green’’ chemical processes and products; and water 

recycling and reuse technologies. Agency scientists, researchers, and their partners, 

are working toward the vision of a sustainable future. 

I look forward to working with the Committee to address current and emerging 

environmental problems that will help our Agency protect the environment and 

human health. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Anastas. 

I now recognize our second witness, Mr. Arthur Elkins, Inspector 

General of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Elkins. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR ELKINS, JR., NSPECTOR 

GENERAL, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. ELKINS. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Harris, Congressman Tonko, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Arthur 

Elkins, Jr., Inspector General at the EPA. I am pleased to appear 

before you today to discuss recent work conducted by my office re-
23 

lated to EPA’s Office of Research and Development. My submitted 

statement for the record details this work. Today I want to focus 

on three areas; peer review panels, scientific integrity, and EPA’s 

overall workforce and workload, which have implications for ORD. 

Peer review is an important process for enhancing scientific work 

products so that the decisions made by EPA have a sound, credible 

basis. In 2009, we reviewed EPA’s peer review process in response 

to concerns about EPA’s handling of allegations of a lack of impartiality on one of its peer review panels. Our review focused on 

EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment, one of 

ORD’s primary users of peer reviews. We found that the laws, regulations, and requirements governing EPA’s peer review process 

are adequate to produce objective scientific reviews, but that EPA 

needed to improve its operating guidance. Basically, impartiality 

was vaguely defined and procedures addressing conflict of interest 

needed to be improved, as does documentation of resolutions. 

We made recommendations to ORD to improve its peer review 

process in each of these areas. ORD agreed to all of our recommendations and certified that these corrective actions were completed in December 2009. 

This year we looked at whether ORD has controls to address scientific integrity and research misconduct, and how effective those 

controls are. We found that ORD has internal controls that includes policies, procedures, training, and peer review. However, 

ORD could improve how it evaluates the effectiveness of its policies 

and procedures for scientific integrity. ORD did not test its policies 

and procedures because ORD asserted that few reported instances 

of misconduct meant that it generally does not occur. However, few 

identified instances could signal that staff lack awareness of criteria and reporting requirements necessary to identify and report 

misconduct. As part of our work we surveyed ORD science staff on 

their awareness of EPA scientific integrity policies. We found that 

nearly 2/3 of respondents were unaware of EPA’s policies and procedures on research misconduct, and nearly 1/3 of respondents 

were unaware of EPA’s scientific integrity principles. 

We made recommendations to ORD to strengthen their controls 

and raise awareness about scientific integrity and research misconduct. ORD agreed with our recommendations and plans to complete all corrective actions by September 2012. 

For an organization to operate efficiently and effectively it must 

know what its workload is so that it can accurately determine the 

resource levels needed to carry out its work. We have issued three 

reports since 2010 examining how EPA manages its workload and 

workforce levels overall, which I believe have implications for ORD. 

We found that EPA has not collected comprehensive workload 

data or conducted workload analys is across the Agency in about 

20 years. The Agency does not require program offices to collect 

and maintain workload data. Without sufficient workload data, 

program offices are limited in their ability to analyze their workloads and accurately estimate resource needs. Therefore, the Agency must base budget decisions primarily on subjective justifications 

at a time when budgets continue to tighten, and data-driven decisions are critical. 
24 

We also found that the agency’s policies and procedures do not 

include a process for determining resource levels based on workload 

as prescribed by OMB. As a result, the agency cannot demonstrate 

that it has the right number of resources to accomplish its mission. 

Finally, we found that the Agency does not have a coherent program of position management to assure the efficient and effective 

use of its workforce. 

We made several recommendations to address these findings. 

EPA has not committed to a specific course of action with milestones for completion for many of our recommendations. Therefore, 

they remain open pending our receipt of an acceptable corrective 

action plan. 

In conclusion, OIG work has identified areas where ORD can improve its operations and activities so it can better provide the solid 

underpinning of science necessary for EPA regulatory decision 

making. I believe the OIG has made a positive impact through the 

many recommendations we have made to ORD in those areas. To 

their credit, ORD has been receptive to many of our recommendations. We will continue to work with ORD to identify additional 

areas needing attention. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I 

would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Elkins follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR ELKINS, JR., INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good afternoon Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I am Arthur Elkins, Jr., Inspector General at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I also serve as the Inspector General of the U.S. 

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. I am pleased to appear before you 

today for the first time since becoming Inspector General in June 2010 to discuss 

recent work conducted by my office related to EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). As the scientific research arm of EPA, ORD conducts research on ways 

to prevent pollution, protect human health and the environment, and reduce risk. 

ORD’s role is critical given that EPA relies on sound science to safeguard human 

health and the environment. 

Under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, Inspectors General are 

tasked with promoting economy and efficiency, and identifying fraud, waste and 

abuse within their respective agencies. In recent years, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has increased its focus on ORD’s operations and activities. My testimony 

today highlights the results of this work from 10 selected reports issued since 2009 

in the following areas: ORD controls, performance measures and resources; and 

ORD’s role in providing research for decision-making in selected program areas. 

ORD Controls, Performance Measures and Resources 

OIG work has identified areas for improvement regarding ORD peer review panels, internal controls to address scientific integrity and research misconduct, performance measures, and how EPA manages its workforce and workload that have 

implications for ORD. 

Peer Review Panels 

Peer review is a process for enhancing a scientific or technical work product so 

that the decision or position taken by EPA, based on that product, has a sound, 

credible basis. The former EPA Deputy Administrator requested we review EPA’s 

peer review process in response to concerns about EPA’s handling of allegations of 

impartiality on one of its peer review panels. Our review focused on EPA’s National 

Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) peer review process. Specifically, our 

objectives were to determine whether: 1) current laws, regulations, guidance, and 

other relevant requirements for such panels are adequate to produce objective sci-
25 

entific reviews; and 2) the current system of populating and managing such expert 

panels could be improved. 

In our April 2009 report, we noted that NCEA’s peer review panel selection process did not differ in many aspects when compared to the processes of four other 

science-based organizations. One noteworthy difference impacting panel selection 

was that Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) panels, such as the National 

Academy of Sciences and EPA’s Science Advisory Board, attempt to achieve consensus among panelists, and concerns about impartiality of panel members can be 

mitigated by balancing the panel with varying viewpoints. Since NCEA peer review 

panels are not designed to obtain consensus, NCEA strives to select ‘‘impartial’’ panelists. However, we found that this concept was vaguely defined in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and EPA guidance and was not explained in any 

NCEA-specific operating guidance. Further, NCEA did not have procedures for addressing conflicts of interest or potential biases impacting a panelist’s impartiality 

that became known after a panel had completed its deliberations. Finally, there was 

no clear documentation of authority and responsibility for making final determinations regarding panel selection or how potential conflicts of interest were resolved. 

We made several recommendations to ORD to improve the peer review process. 

Among them were: 1) define the concept of ‘‘impartiality’’ and maintain records of 

all management decisions pertaining to the selection of peer reviewers, particularly 

resolution of potential conflicts of interest; 2) in cases where panelists with potential 

conflicts or biases are accepted on the panel, the records should include a memorandum of decision explaining the suitability and rationale for including or excluding each panelist, which is signed off on by an EPA official; and 3) develop guidance 

to address conflict of interest issues that arise after panel formulation and amend 

contracts for external peer review services to require that panelists re-certify their 

conflict of interest status prior to the panel convening. ORD agreed to all of our recommendations and provided an acceptable corrective action plan. EPA certified that 

these corrective actions were completed in December 2009. 

Scientific Integrity 

Since EPA decision-making relies on science, it is critical that EPA’s scientific and 

technical activities be of the highest quality and credibility. Since 2000, a number 

of federal and EPA policies on ensuring the integrity of government science have 

been issued. EPA Order 3120.5 implements the federal policy on research misconduct, and ORD and others formulated the ‘‘Principles of Scientific Integrity’’ and 

the Principles of Scientific Integrity E-Training to further highlight professional ethics for EPA scientists. We looked at whether ORD has controls to address scientific 

integrity and research misconduct and how effective those controls are. 

We reported in July 2011 that ORD has internal controls that include policies, 

procedures, training, and peer review. However, ORD should improve how it evaluates the effectiveness of its policies and procedures for scientific integrity and research misconduct. Currently, ORD does not test its policies and procedures because 

ORD asserts that few reported instances of misconduct means that it generally does 

not occur. However, few identified instances of research misconduct could signal 

that staff lacks awareness of key criteria and reporting requirements necessary to 

identify and report misconduct. 

We issued an electronic survey to over 1,300 ORD science staff on their awareness 

of EPA’s scientific integrity and research misconduct policies and procedures. We 

found that 65 percent of respondents were unaware of EPA Order 3120.5, and 32 

percent were unaware of EPA’s Principles of Scientific Integrity. We also found that 

ORD has not updated the Principles of Scientific Integrity E-Training since June 

2005. The existing e-training is not mandatory for ORD staff and does not include 

actual examples to aid understanding by training participants. Sixty-five percent of 

our survey respondents indicated they had not completed the e-training. Those who 

have not completed the training may be unaware of key criteria regarding scientific 

integrity. 

We made three recommendations to ORD. First, periodically test the effectiveness 

of controls in place to address scientific integrity and research misconduct. Second, 

work across EPA offices to initiate outreach on EPA Order 3120.5 to raise awareness on roles/responsibilities and reporting steps, and to identify EPA staff and 

managers who should complete the Principles of Scientific Integrity E-Training. Finally, continue to work with unions to update and implement E-training. Without 

these additional internal control efforts, ORD risks having its science called into 

question, potentially lessening the credibility of its work. ORD agreed with our recommendations and subsequently followed up with a corrective action plan addressing our recommendations. ORD plans to complete all corrective actions by September 2012. 
26 

ORD Performance Measures 

In 2010, ORD had twelve national research programs that provided science to 

support EPA’s goals in its strategic plan. One research program, the Land Research 

Program (LRP), provided the science and technology needed to preserve land, restore contaminated properties, and protect public health from environmental contaminants. The LRP spent $186.2 million on land-related research between fiscal 

years (FYs) 2005 and 2009. We conducted a review to determine whether the LRP 

had appropriate performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of its research 

products. 

The difficulty of measuring research performance has been recognized by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) and other authoritative 

sources. No single measure can adequately capture all elements of research performance. LRP employed a variety of methods to assess its research performance, such 

as: 1) OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures; 2) client feedback; 

and 3) peer reviews by EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) who provides 

advice, information, and recommendations on ORD’s research programs. 

In our August 2010 report, we noted that improvements were needed in each area 

to better enable ORD to assess the effectiveness of LRP research products. Key findings included: LRP did not have measures that assessed progress toward short-term 

outcomes; LRP’s citation analysis PART measures were not meaningful to ORD program managers and were not linked to LRP’s goals and objectives; ORD’s survey 

of LRP clients did not provide a meaningful measure of customer feedback because 

ORD’s client survey was not reliable; LRP lacked some key measures that would 

aid BOSC in conducting its LRP program reviews; and ORD had not clearly defined 

elements of its long-term goal rating guidance for BOSC reviews. 

Several underlying issues impacted ORD’s development of LRP performance 

measures. These included the inherently difficult nature of establishing outcome-oriented research measures and ORD’s decision not to tailor its measures to each research program. As a result, ORD had invested resources in performance measures 

and tools that had not effectively measured key aspects of LRP performance. The 

measures did not provide LRP with the data to assess program progress towards 

goals, identify areas for program improvement, or track the short-term outcomes of 

its research. 

We made several recommendations to ORD to improve LRP’s research measures, 

including that ORD: 1) develop measures linked to short-term outcomes in LRP’s 

Multi-Year Plan; 2) augment LRP’s citation analysis with measures meaningful to 

ORD program managers and linked to LRP’s goals and objectives; 3) develop an implementation plan for the client survey to ensure that the program has a reliable 

method for assessing relevance (or develop a reliable alternative customer feedback 

mechanism); 4) provide appropriate performance measurement data to BOSC prior 

to full program reviews; and 5) revise its long term goal rating guidance to BOSC 

for program reviews. ORD generally agreed with our recommendations and provided 

an acceptable plan of action to address our recommendations. 

EPA Workload and Workforce 

Over the last five years, EPA has averaged over 17,000 positions in its organizational structure with annual payroll costs of approximately $2 billion. ORD’s enacted budget for FY 2011 was $582.1 million with an authorizing level of 1907.2 

full-time staff. For any organization to operate efficiently and effectively, it must 

know what its workload is. While there is no one exact definition of workload, it 

is commonly thought to be the amount of work assigned to, or expected to be completed by, a worker in a specified time period. Workload that is set too high or too 

low can negatively affect overall performance. The main objectives of assessing and 

predicting workload are to achieve an evenly distributed, manageable workload and 

to accurately determine the resource levels needed to carry out the work. The OIG 

has issued three reports since 2010 examining how EPA manages its workload and 

workforce levels. While not specifically focused on ORD, our findings and recommendations are applicable to ORD since they span across EPA programs and offices. 

We found that EPA has not collected comprehensive workload data or conducted 

workload analyses across EPA in about 20 years. EPA does not require program offices to collect and maintain workload data, and the programs do not have databases or cost accounting systems in place to collect data on time spent on specific 

mission-related outputs. OMB guidance states that agencies should identify their 

workloads to help determine the proper workforce size, and federal accounting 

standards require that agencies establish cost accounting systems to allow them to 

determine resources consumed for work performed. Without sufficient workload 
27 

data, program offices are limited in their ability to analyze their workloads and accurately estimate resource needs, and EPA’s Office of Budget must base budget decisions primarily on subjective justifications at a time when budgets continue to tighten and data-driven decisions are needed. 

We also found that EPA’s policies and procedures do not include a process for determining resource levels based on workload as prescribed by OMB. Further, EPA 

does not determine the number of positions needed per mission-critical occupation 

using workforce analysis as required by the Office of Personnel Management. These 

conditions occurred because EPA has not developed a workload assessment methodology and has not developed policies and procedures that require workload analysis 

as part of the budget formulation process. As a result, EPA cannot demonstrate that 

it has the right number of resources to accomplish its mission. 

Finally, we found that EPA does not have a coherent program for position management to assure the efficient and effective use of its workforce. Position management provides the operational link between human capital goals and the placement 

of qualified individuals into authorized positions. While some organizational components have independently established programs to control their resources, there is 

no Agency-wide effort to ensure that personnel are put to the best use. Without an 

Agency-wide position management program, EPA leadership lacks reasonable assurance that it is using personnel in an effective and efficient manner to achieve mission results. 

We made several recommendations to address these findings including that EPA: 

1) conduct a pilot project requiring EPA offices to collect and analyze workload data 

on key project activities; 2) amend guidance to require that EPA complete a workload analysis for all critical functions to support its budget request; and 3) establish 

an Agency-wide workforce program that includes controls to ensure regular reviews 

of positions for efficiency, effectiveness, and mission accomplishment. EPA has not 

committed to a specific course of action with milestone dates for completion for 

many of our recommendations, therefore they remain open pending completion. 

ORD Role in Providing Research for Decision-Making in 

Selected Program Areas 

OIG work has also raised concerns about ORD’s limited role in chemical risk programs such as the children’s chemical evaluation and endocrine disruptor programs, 

and about the processes and procedures for climate change research and greenhouse 

gases endangerment finding. 

Voluntary Children’s Chemical Evaluation Program 

EPA utilizes voluntary partnership programs to help it address a wide array of 

environmental issues by collaborating with companies, organizations and communities. EPA often relies on scientific data provided by its partners and self-certifications rather than independently validate such data. The result is that ORD often 

plays a limited role in these partnership programs. One example is the Voluntary 

Children’s Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP), a pilot program administered by 

EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and designed to 

assess the possible risks from 23 chemicals. EPA asked the manufacturers and importers of these chemicals to volunteer to provide data sufficient for EPA to evaluate 

the risks of these chemicals to children’s health. 

In a July 2011 report, we reviewed the VCCEP to determine the outcomes of the 

program. Overall, we found that poor program design and EPA’s failure to use its 

regulatory authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act to compel data collection from industry partners resulted in the failure of the VCCEP as an effective 

children-specific chemical management program. ORD did not have a lead role in 

any aspect of the program. ORD activities were limited mainly to participating as 

a stakeholder during the program’s design phase, and placing an ORD scientist on 

the Peer Consultation Panel. The panel, comprised of experts in toxicity testing and 

exposure evaluations, independently analyzed the submitted data to determine 

whether additional data was necessary to adequately characterize the risks the 

chemical may pose to children. An independent third party was used to manage this 

peer consultation process rather than ORD. 

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 

In our May 2011 report, we reviewed whether EPA has planned and conducted 

the requisite research and testing to evaluate and regulate endocrine-disrupting 

chemicals. We specifically focused on EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 

(EDSP), which is administered by OCSPP with support from ORD. The Food Quality Protection Act, passed in 1996, gave EPA the authority to screen and test substances that may have an effect in humans similar to that of a naturally occurring 

estrogen, or such other endocrine effects as the EPA Administrator may designate. 
28 

Congress also passed the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments in 1996, which provided EPA additional discretionary authority to test substances. In 1998, EPA established the EDSP, which uses a two-tiered screening and testing approach to assess endocrine effects. 

We found that EPA has not adequately addressed the emerging issue of endocrine 

disruptors. The program has made little progress in identifying endocrine-disrupting 

chemicals. While we acknowledge that EDSP encountered difficulties and delays, its 

lack of progress is also due to EPA’s lack of management control over the program. 

EDSP has not developed a management plan laying out the program’s goals and priorities or established outcome performance measures to track program results. 

EDSP has not finalized specific procedures to evaluate testing results. Finally, 

EDSP has not clearly defined the universe of chemicals it plans to evaluate over 

time. Developing a management plan would ensure that the program’s goals and 

priorities are transparent so EPA’s leadership and Congress can assess whether the 

goals of the program are being achieved within reasonable cost and schedule. 

ORD provides support for EDSP. EPA established the Endocrine Disruptor Research Program in 1995, which conducts both basic and applied research to develop 

the fundamental scientific principles used by EPA program and regional offices in 

making risk assessment decisions. ORD also conducted the underlying research to 

develop many assays for chemical testing. ORD identified endocrine disruptors as 

one of its top six research priorities and since 1998, ORD has issued a research plan 

and two multiyear plans concerning endocrine disruptors. Within the multiyear 

plans, ORD specifically identified the support of EDSP as one of its three long-term 

goals. However, ORD stated in its draft Multiyear Plan for Endocrine Disruptors for 

FY 2007–2013 that the long-term goal of supporting EPA’s EDSP will not be carried 

forward beyond 2011. According to the plan, all future work would be under a different long-term goal. It is unclear what impact, if any, this will have on the program. 

Climate Change Research 

Since the enactment of the Global Change Research Act of 1990, EPA’s research 

on climate change - also known as global warming—has been part of a national and 

international framework. EPA is 1 of 13 federal agencies that make up the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program, which is a multi-agency effort focused on improving our understanding of the science of climate change and its potential impacts. 

Part of EPA’s role is to understand the regional consequences of global change. ORD 

manages EPA’s climate change research function through its Global Change Research Program. EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation conducts activities related to 

mitigating greenhouse gases. 

In a February 2009 report we looked at how well EPA policies, procedures, and 

plans help ensure that its climate change research fulfills its role in climate change. 

We found that EPA did not have an overall plan to ensure developing consistent, 

compatible climate change strategies across the Agency. We surveyed EPA regions 

and offices and found they needed more information on a variety of climate change 

topics. They needed technical climate change research and tools as well as other climate change policy guidance and direction. We learned that, in the absence of an 

overall Agency plan, EPA’s Office of Water and several regional offices had independently developed, or were developing, their own individual climate change strategies and plans. The lack of an overall climate change policy can result in duplication, inconsistent approaches, and wasted resources among EPA’s regions and offices. 

At the time of our report, EPA’s plan for future climate change research did not 

address the full range of emerging information needs. Specifically, the projected 

time of completion or the scope of some research projects did not match the timing 

or the scope of regions’ needs. ORD did not have a central repository of its climate 

change research for its internal users, nor did it effectively communicate the results 

of its climate change research to EPA’s internal users. While ORD collected research 

requirements from regions and program offices, the selection criteria for research 

topics were not transparent to the regions. Finally, ORD did not have a system to 

track research requests through completion, or a formal mechanism to obtain feedback from its users. 

We made several recommendations to ORD to establish various management controls to ensure EPA fulfills its emerging climate change role and related information 

needs. Among our recommendations was that ORD must continue to routinely update the Science Inventory to include the latest information from its laboratories 

and centers; establish a formal mechanism to track regional research needs from research project selection to completion; and establish a formal method for coordinating research work with regions and program offices, communicating research re-
29 

sults, and collecting feedback on research products. ORD agreed with our recommendations and has certified that all corrective actions have been completed. 

Greenhouse Gases Endangerment Finding 

In September 2011, we reported on our review of the process EPA used to make 

and support its greenhouse gases endangerment finding based on a congressional 

request. Our objective was to determine whether EPA followed key federal and EPA 

regulations and policies in obtaining, developing, and reviewing the technical data 

used to make and support its greenhouse gases endangerment finding. Our review 

examined the data quality procedures EPA used in developing the endangerment 

finding. We made no determination regarding the impact that EPA’s information 

quality control systems may have had on the scientific information used to support 

the finding. We did not test the validity of the scientific or technical information 

used to support the endangerment finding, nor did we evaluate the merit of EPA’s 

conclusions or analyses. 

We found that EPA met statutory requirements for rulemaking and generally followed requirements and guidance related to ensuring the quality of the supporting 

technical information. However, EPA’s peer review of the technical support document (TSD) for the endangerment finding did not meet all OMB requirements for 

peer review of a highly influential scientific assessment primarily because the review results and EPA’s response were not publicly reported, and because 1 of the 

12 reviewers was an EPA employee. In our opinion, the TSD was a highly influential scientific assessment because EPA weighed the strength of the available science 

by its choices of information, data, studies, and conclusions included in and excluded 

from the TSD. EPA officials told us they did not consider the TSD a highly influential scientific assessment. We also found that no contemporaneous supporting documentation was available to show what analyses EPA conducted prior to disseminating information from other agencies in support of its greenhouse gases 

endangerment finding. 

We recommended that ORD: 1) revise its Peer Review Handbook to accurately reflect OMB requirements for peer review of highly influential scientific assessments; 

2) instruct program offices to state in proposed and final rules whether the action 

is supported by influential scientific information or a highly influential scientific assessment; and 3) revise its assessment factors guidance to establish minimum review and documentation requirements for assessing and accepting data from other 

organizations. EPA stated that its response to the final report will address our recommendations. We consider our recommendations unresolved pending our receipt 

and analysis of EPA’s response to our final report, which is due at the end of December 2011. 

Unimplemented ORD Recommendations 

The Subcommittee expressed an interest in OIG recommendations that ORD has 

not implemented. Unimplemented recommendations refer to recommendations from 

prior OIG reports on which corrective actions have not been completed. The OIG is 

mandated by the Inspector General Act to identify unimplemented recommendations 

in our semiannual reports to Congress. We prepare a Compendium of 

Unimplemented Recommendations to satisfy this requirement. Our Compendium 

highlights for EPA management those significant recommendations from previous 

semiannual reports to Congress that have remained unimplemented past the date 

agreed upon by EPA and the OIG. It also provides a listing of all of the other significant recommendations with future completion dates. 

In our most recent Compendium, we identified one unimplemented recommendation by ORD that is past due from a 2009 report that reviewed actions EPA has 

taken to mitigate health risks from chemical vapor intrusion at contaminated sites. 

We specifically recommended that ORD finalize toxicity values for Trichloroethylene 

and Perchloroethylene in the Integrated Risk Information System database. The 

agreed-to completion date was September 30, 2011. We also identified eight 

unimplemented recommendations with future planned completion dates from four 

reports. Corrective actions are set to be completed by ORD on these recommendations ranging from December 2011 out to 2015. 

Planned and Ongoing Work on ORD Activities 

In addition to the completed work discussed above, the OIG is currently conducting reviews of other ORD activities that may be of interest to the Subcommittee. One area we are reviewing is ORD’s management of Science to Achieve 

Results (STAR) grants, which fund research grants and graduate fellowships in numerous environmental science and engineering disciplines through a competitive solicitation process and independent peer review. For FYs 2008 through 2010, this 
30 

program received over $90 million in funding. We are planning a review of the actions EPA takes before awarding a STAR grant and during its monitoring of a grant 

to ensure no research misconduct occurs. We expect to start this work during the 

current FY. We have also started an evaluation of ORD’s review process for proposals submitted for one particular STAR grant competition. Specifically, our objectives are to determine whether ORD followed applicable federal and EPA policies 

and procedures in managing the technical peer review panel process, and communicated with grant applicants in an accurate, timely, appropriate, and transparent 

manner regarding the status of their proposals. We expect to complete this work by 

April 2012. 

Another area we are currently examining is EPA’s approach to nanomaterials, 

which has become an emerging issue. Nanomaterials are particles so tiny they cannot be detected by conventional microscopes. These miniscule materials are being 

widely used in consumer products because of their unique properties and potential 

benefits, but the health and environmental implications associated with their use 

have not been fully determined. We have started a review to determine how effectively EPA is managing the human health and environmental risks of nanomaterials. We expect to complete this work by January 2012. 

Conclusion 

OIG work has identified areas where ORD can improve its operations and activities so it can better provide the solid underpinning of science and technology necessary for EPA regulatory decision-making. I believe the OIG has been a positive 

agent of change through the many recommendations we have made to ORD in those 

areas. To their credit, ORD has been receptive to many of our recommendations. We 

will continue to work with ORD to identify additional areas needing attention. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Elkins. 

Our third and final witness, Mr. David Trimble, Director of Natural Resources and Environmental at the U.S. General Accounting 

Office. Mr. Trimble. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID TRIMBLE, DIRECTOR, 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, 

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Chairman Harris, Congressman Tonko, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss 

GAO’s work on EPA’s laboratories. As you know, EPA operates its 

own laboratories because scientific research, knowledge, and technical information are fundamental to its mission and underpin the 

policies and regulations the agency implements. 

My testimony draws on the report we issued in July of this year 

on EPA’s laboratory operations and will focus on three areas; longstanding planning, coordination, and leadership issues; management of EPA’s workload and workforce; and management of EPA’s 

real property. 

First, EPA has not fully implemented key recommendations from 

prior independent evaluations that were aimed at improving longstanding planning, coordination, and leadership issues. A 1992 expert panel recommended that EPA implement a planning process 

that integrates and coordinates scientific work throughout the 

agency, including the work of its regional, program, and office and 

research and development laboratories. EPA has not fully implemented this recommendation. 

Instead, these offices independently plan the activities of their 

respective laboratories based on their own office’s priorities and 

needs. Consequently, the EPA has a limited ability to know if scientific activities are being unintentionally duplicated among the 
31 

laboratories or if opportunities exist to collaborate and share scientific expertise, equipment, and facilities across organizational 

boundaries. 

A 1994 evaluation by MITRE recommended EPA consolidate and 

realign its laboratory facilities and workforce, finding that the geographic separation of laboratories hampered their efficiency and 

technical operations, and the consolidation and realignment could 

improve planning and coordination, problems MITRE noted had 

hampered EPA’s science and technical community for years. 

EPA has not fully implemented this recommendation and currently operates 37 labs across the Nation. Three studies, including 

two by the National Research Council, noted that EPA’s planning 

and coordination issues are due in part to the lack of a top science 

official with the responsibility or authority to coordinate, oversee, 

and make management decisions regarding major scientific activities throughout the agency. 

In a 2000 report on improving science at EPA, NRC noted that 

the lack of a top science official was a formula for weak scientific 

performance in the agency and poor scientific credibility outside 

the agency. Currently EPA operates its laboratories under the direction of 15 different senior officials using 15 different organizational and management structures. 

In response to our report EPA has proposed to increase the responsibilities of its science advisor. It is not clear that this will 

fully address the issue. On this point let me note that the NRC’s 

2000 report concluded that the designation of ORD as a coordinator 

for the agency’s scientific planning activities had proved to be insufficient because the position did not provide the level of authority 

or responsibility for oversight, coordination, and decision making. 

It also noted that the assistant administrator for ORD could not be 

reasonably expected to direct world-class science at ORD and also 

try to improve science practices throughout the rest of EPA. 

Second, EPA does not use a comprehensive planning process for 

managing its laboratories’ workforce. Many of the regional laboratories provide the same or similar core analytical capabilities, but 

each region independently determines and attempts to address its 

individual workforce needs. EPA also lacks basic information on 

how many scientific and technical employees it has working its laboratories, where they are located, what functions they perform, or 

what specialized skills they may have. 

In addition, the agency does not have a workload analysis for the 

laboratories to help determine the operable numbers and distribution of staff throughout the enterprise. We believe that such information is essential for EPA to prepare a comprehensive laboratory 

workforce plan to achieve the agency’s mission with limited resources. 

Third and finally, EPA does not have complete and accurate data 

on the real property associated with its laboratories. EPA’s 37 labs 

are housed in 170 buildings and facilities in 30 cities across the 

Nation. Real property management is a government-wide challenge 

that has been identified by GAO as a high-risk area. 

In 2010, the Administration directed agencies to speed up efforts 

to identify and eliminate excess properties to help achieve $3 billion in cost savings by 2012. In July, 2010, EPA told OMB that it 
32 

did not anticipate disposing of any of its labs in the near future because the facilities were fully used and considered critical to the 

agency. 

However, we found that EPA did not have accurate and reliable 

information called for by OMB to inform this determination. Specifically, EPA did not have complete or accurate data on the need 

for the facilities, the property use, facility condition, and the facility’s operating efficiency. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trimble follows:] 
33 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID TRIMBLE, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
34 

Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the research and development 

activities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the findings 

of our recent report on the agency's laboratory enterprise. 1 EPA was 

established in 1970 to consolidate a variety offederal research, 

monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities into one agency 

for ensuring the joint protection of environmental quality and human 

health.2 Scientific research, knowledge, and technical information are 

fundamental to EPA's mission and inform its standard-setting, regulatory, 

compliance, and enforcement functions. The agency's scientific 

performance is particularly important as complex environmental issues 

emerge and evolve, and controversy continues to surround many of the 

agency's areas of responsibility. Unlike other primarily science-focused 

federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health or the National 

Science Foundation, EPA's scientific research, technical support, and 

analytical services underpin the policies and regulations the agency 

implements. Therefore, the agency operates its own laboratory 

enterprise. This enterprise is made up of 37 laboratories that are housed 

in about 170 buildings and facilities located in 30 cities across the nation. 

Specifically, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORO) operates 

18 laboratories with primary responsibility for research and development. 

Four of EPA's five national program offices' operate nine laboratories 

with primary responsibility for supporting regulatory implementation, 

compliance, enforcement, and emergency response. Each of EPA's 10 

regional offices operates a laboratory with responsibilities for a variety of 

applied sciences; analytical services; technical support to federal, state, 

and local laboratories; monitoring; compliance and enforcement; and 

emergency response. 

1GAO, Environmental Protection Agency: To Better Fulfill Its Mission, EPA Needs a More 

Coordinated Approach to Managing Its Laboratories, GAO-11-347 (Washington, D.C.: July 

25,2011). 

2Reorganization Plan NO.3 of 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 15623 (Dec. 2, 1970) (5 U.S.C. 

Appendix 1). 

3The national program offices with laboratories are the Office of Air and Radiation, the 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, the Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention, and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

Page 1 GAO·12·236T 
35 

Over the past 20 years, independent evaluations by the National Research 

Council and others have addressed planning, coordination, or leadership 

issues associated with EPA's science activities' The scope ofthese 

evaluations varied, but collectively they recognized the need for EPA to 

improve long-term planning, priority setting, and coordination of laboratory 

activities; establish leadership for agencywide scientific oversight and 

decision making; and better manage the laboratories' workforce and 

infrastructure. When it was established in 1970, EPA inherited 42 

laboratories from programs in various federal departments. According to 

EPA's historian, EPA closed or consolidated some laboratories it inherited 

and created additional laboratories to support its mission. Nevertheless, 

EPA's historian reported that the location of most of EPA's present 

laboratories is largely the same as the location of its original laboratories in 

part because of political objections to closing facilities and conflicting 

organizational philosophies, such as operating centralized laboratories for 

efficiency versus operating decentralized laboratories for flexibility and 

responsiveness. Other federal agencies face similar challenges with 

excess and underused property. Because of these challenges, GAO has 

designated federal real property as an area of high risk.' 

This statement summarizes the findings of our report issued in July of this 

year that examines the extent to which EPA (1) has addressed the 

findings of independent evaluations performed by the National Research 

Council and others regarding long-term planning, coordination, and 

leadership issues; (2) uses an agencywide, coordinated approach for 

managing its laboratory physical infrastructure; and (3) uses a 

comprehensive planning process to manage its laboratory workforce. In 

preparing this testimony, we relied on the work supporting our July report. 

In conducting that work, we reviewed agency documents and 

independent evaluations, visited EPA laboratories, interviewed agency 

officials, and examined agency databases; our recent report contains a 

detailed description of our scope and methodology. All of the work for our 

July report was performed in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

4The National Research Council is the principal operating agency of both the National 

Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. 

'High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: February 2011). 

Page 2 GAO-12·236T 
36 

EPA Has Not Fully 

Addressed Findings of 

Evaluations on Longstanding Planning, 

Coordination, or 

Leadership Issues 

EPA has taken some actions but has not fully addressed the findings and 

recommendations of five independent evaluations over the past 20 years 

regarding long-standing planning, coordination, and leadership issues 

that hamper the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of its science 

activities, including its laboratory operations. 

First, EPA has yet to fully address planning and coordination issues 

identified by a 1992 independent, expert panel evaluation that 

recommended that EPA develop and implement an overarching issuebased planning process that integrates and coordinates scientific efforts 

throughout the agency, including the important work of its 37 

laboratories· That evaluation found that EPA's science was of uneven 

quality and that the agency lacked a coherent science agenda and 

operational plan to guide scientific efforts throughout the agency. 

Because EPA did not implement the evaluation's recommendation, EPA's 

programs, regional officials, and ORD continue to independently plan and 

coordinate the activities of their respective laboratories based on their 

own offices' priorities and needs. 

Second, EPA has also not fully addressed recommendations from a 1994 

independent evaluation by the MITRE Corporation to consolidate and 

realign its laboratory facilities and workforce' -even though this 

evaluation found that the geographic separation of laboratories hampered 

their efficiency and technical operations and that consolidation and 

realignment could improve planning and coordination issues that have 

hampered its science and technical community for decades. In its 

evaluation, MITRE recommended that EPA (1) realign and consolidate 

the ORD laboratories; (2) consolidate program laboratories in the Office 

of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances' and the two 

laboratories under the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air; and (3) through 

consolidation, reduce the number of regional office laboratories to a few 

laboratories with a national service focus. In response to the MITRE 

6Environmental Protection Agency, Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible 

Decisions, The Report of the Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA, EPAl600/9-

91/050 (Washington, D.C.: March 1992). 

7MITRE Corporation, Center for Environment, Resources, and Space, Assessment of the 

Scientific and Technical Laboratories and Facilities of the U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (McLean, Va., May 1994). 

sNow known as the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Page 3 GAO-12-236T 
37 

study, an agencywide steering committee formed by EPA to consider 

restructuring and consolidation options issued a report to the 

Administrator in July 1994,9 The steering committee report stated that 

combining ORO laboratories at a single location could improve teamwork 

and raise productivity but concluded that, for the near term, ORO should 

be functionally reorganized but not physically consolidated. Regarding 

program office laboratory consolidations, the Office of Radiation and 

Indoor Air did not physically consolidate its laboratories but did 

administratively and physically consolidate its Las Vegas laboratory with 

ORO's Las Vegas radiation laboratory, and the Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances colocated three of four laboratories 

with the region 3 laboratory, As for the regional laboratories, the steering 

committee's report endorsed the current decentralized regional model but 

did not provide a justification for its position, 

Third, EPA has not fully addressed recommendations from the 

independent evaluations regarding leadership of its research and 

laboratory operations, 10 More specifically, EPA has not appointed a top 

science official with responsibility and authority for all the research, 

SCience, and technical functions of the agency- even though one study 

found that the lack of a top science official was a formula for weak 

scientific performance in the agency and poor scientific credibility outside 

the agency, Instead, EPA's efforts to establish leadership over its 

laboratory enterprise have relied on adviSOry positions and councils to 

achieve consensus and voluntary cooperation of ORO and the agency's 

program and regional offices, Because of the limited success of EPA's 

advisory positions and councils and in the absence of a central science 

policy authority, the National Research Council in 2000 recommended 

that EPA request authority from Congress to create a new position of 

deputy administrator for science and technology, with managerial 

authority to coordinate and oversee all the agency's scientific and 

9Environmental Protection Agency, Research, Development, and Technical SeNices at 

EPA: A New Beginning, Report to the Administrator, EPAl600/R·94/122 (Washington, 

D,C.: July 1994), 

10National Research Council, Interim Report of the Committee on Research and Peer 

Review in EPA (Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 1995); Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Regional Laboratories (Washington, D.C., 

Aug. 20, 1997); and National Research Council, Strengthening Science at the US. 

Environmental Protection Agency: Research-Management and Peer Review Practices 

(Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 2000). 

Page 4 GAO·12·236T 
38 

EPA Has Not Taken 

an Agencywide, 

Coordinated 

Approach to Manage 

Its Laboratory 

Physical 

Infrastructure 

technical activities. To date, EPA has not requested authority to create a 

new position of deputy administrator for science and technology and 

continues to operate its laboratories under the direction of 15 different 

senior officials using 15 different organizational and management 

structures. As a result, EPA has a limited ability to know if scientific 

activities are being unintentionally duplicated among the laboratories or if 

opportunities exist to collaborate and share scientific expertise, 

equipment, and facilities across EPA's organizational boundaries. 

On the basis of our analysis of EPA's facility master planning process, we 

found that EPA manages its laboratory facilities on a site-by-site basis 

and does not evaluate each site in the context of all the agency's real 

property holdings-as recommended by the National Research Council 

report in 2004." EPA's facility master plans are intended to be the basis 

for justifying its building and facilities spending, which was $29.9 million in 

fiscal year 2010, and allocating those funds to specific repair and 

improvement projects. Master plans should contain, among other things, 

information on mission capabilities, use of space, and condition of 

individual laboratory sites. In addition, we found that most facility master 

plars were out of date. EPA's real property asset management plan 

states that facility master plans are supposed to be updated every 5 years 

to reflect changes in facility condition and mission, but we found that 11 of 

20 master plans were out of date and 2 of 20 had not been created yet. 12 

Because EPA makes capital improvement decisions on a site-by-site 

basis using master plans that are often outdated, it cannot be assured it is 

allocating its funds most appropriately. According to officials responsible 

for allocating capital improvement resources, they try to spread these 

funds across the agency's offices and regions equitably but capital 

improvement funds have not kept pace with requests. The pressure and 

need to effectively share and allocate limited resources among EPA's 

many laboratories were also noted in a 1994 National Academy of Public 

Administration report on EPA's laboratory infrastructure, which found that 

11National Research Council, Investments in Federal Facilities: Asset Management 

Strategies for the 21st Century (Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 2004). 

12Master plans are created for owned properties only. We found there were no master 

plans for two laboratory properties located in Research Triangle Park, N.C., and Fort 

Meade, Md. We also found that 9 of the 11 outdated master plans were over 10 years old. 

PageS 
39 

EPA has "too many labs in too many locations often without sufficient 

resources to sustain a coherent stable program."" 

In addition, because decisions regarding laboratory facilities are made 

independently of one another, opportunities to improve operating 

efficiencies can be lost. Specifically, we found cases where laboratories 

that were previously colocated moved into separate space without 

considering the potential benefits of remaining colocated. In one case, we 

found that the relocation increased some operating costs because the 

laboratories then had two facility managers and two security contracts 

and associated personnel because of different requirements for the 

leased facility. In another case, when two laboratories that were 

previously colocated moved into separate new leased laboratories 

several miles apart, agency officials said that they did not know to what 

extent this move may have resulted in increased operating cost. 

EPA also does not have sufficiently complete and reliable data to make 

informed decisions for managing its facilities. Since 2003, when GAO first 

designated federal real property management as an area of high risk, 

agencies have come under increasing pressure to manage their real 

property assets more effectively. 14 In February 2004, the President issued 

an executive order directing agencies to, among other things, improve the 

operational and financial management of their real property inventory. 15 

The order established a Federal Real Property Council within the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), which has developed guiding principles 

for real property asset management. In response to a June 2010 

presidential memorandum directing agencies to accelerate efforts to 

identify and eliminate excess properties,'6 in July 2010 EPA reported to 

the OMB that it does not anticipate the disposal of any of its owned 

laboratories and major assets in the near future because these assets are 

13National Academy of Public Administration, A Review, Evaluation, and Critique of a 

Study of EPA Laboratories by the MITRE Corporation and AddiUonal Commentary on EPA 

Science and Technology Programs (Washington, D.C .. May 1994), 10. 

14High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-011-278 (Washington, D.C.: February 2011). 

15Federal Rea! Property Asset Management, Exec. Order No. 13327,69 Fed. Reg. 5897 

(Feb. 4, 2004). 

16Presidential Memorandum, Disposing of Unneeded Federal Real Estate, 75 Fed. Reg. 

33987 (June 16, 2010). 

Page 6 GAO-12-236T 
40 

fully used and considered critical for EPA's mission. 17 EPA stated that 

decisions regarding facility disposal are made using the Federal Real 

Property Council's guidance but we found that EPA does not have the 

information needed to effectively implement this guidance. Specifically, 

EPA does not have accurate, reliable information regarding (1) the need 

for facilities, (2) property usage, (3) facility condition, and (4) facility 

operating efficiency-thereby undermining the credibility of any decisions 

based on this approach. 

First, EPA does not maintain accurate data to determine if there is an 

agency need for laboratory facilities because many facility master 

plans are often out of date. According to EPA's asset management 

plan, the master plans are tools that communicate the link between 

mission priorities and facilities. However, without up-tO-date master 

plans, EPA does not have accurate data to determine if laboratory 

facilities are needed for its mission. 

Second, the agency does not have accurate data on space needs and 

usage because many facility master plans containing space utilization 

analyses are out of date, EPA also does not use public and 

commercial space usage benchmarks-as recommended by the 

Federal Real Property Council-to calculate usage rates for its 

laboratories. Instead, EPA measures laboratory usage on the basis of 

interviews with local laboratory officials, According to EPA officials, 

they do not use benchmarks because the work of the laboratories 

varies. In 2008, however, an EPA contractor created a laboratory 

benchmark based on those used by comparable facilities at the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of 

Health, the Department of Energy, and several research universities 

to evaluate space at two ORD laboratories in North Carolina. 

Consequently, we believe that objective benchmarks can be 

developed for EPA's unique laboratory requirements. In addition, the 

contractor's analysis concluded that EPA could save $1.68 million in 

annual leasing and $800,000 in annual energy costs through 

consolidation of the two ORD laboratories, Agency officials told us 

they hope to consolidate the laboratories in fiscal year 2012 if funds 

are available, 

"Fnv;,'nn,nA,,'"1 Protection Agency, Real Property Cost Savings and Innovation Plan 

(Washington, D.C .• July 23, 2010, 

Page 7 GAO,12,236T 
41 

EPA Does Not Use a 

Comprehensive 

Workforce Planning 

Process for Its 

Laboratories 

Third, the agency does not have accurate data for assessing facilities' 

condition because condition assessments contained in facility master 

plans are often outdated. The data may also be unreliable because 

data entered by local facility managers are not verified, according to 

agency officials. Such verification could involve edit checks or controls 

to help ensure the data are entered accurately. 

Fourth, EPA does not have reliable operating cost data for its 

laboratory enterprise, because the agency's financial management 

system does not track operating costs in sufficient detail to break out 

information for individual laboratories or for the laboratory enterprise 

as a whole. Reliable operating cost data are important in determining 

whether a laboratory facility is operating efficiently, a determination 

that should inform both capital investment and property disposal 

decisions. 

EPA does not use a comprehensive planning process for managing its 

laboratories' workforce. For example, we found that not all of the regional 

and program offices with laboratories prepared workforce plans as part of 

an agencywide planning effort in 2007, and for those that did, most did 

not specifically address their laboratories' workforce. In fact, some 

regional management and human resource officials we spoke with were 

unaware of the requirement to submit workforce plans to the Office of 

Human Resources. Some of these managers told us the program and 

regional workforce plans were a paperwork exercise, irrelevant to the way 

the workforce is actually managed. Managers in program and regional 

offices said that workforce planning for their respective laboratories is 

fundamentally driven by the annual budgets of program and regional 

offices and ceilings for full-lime equivalents (FTE). " 

In addition, none of the program and regional workforce plans we 

reviewed described any effort to work across organizational boundaries to 

integrate or coordinate their workforce with the workforces of other EPA 

laboratories. For example, although two regional workforce plans 

discussed potential vulnerability if highly skilled laboratory personnel 

retired, neither plan explored options for sharing resources across 

18An FTE consists of one or more employed individuals who collectively complete 2,080 

work hours in a given year. Therefore, one full-time employee or two half-time employees 

equal one FTE. 

PageS GAO-12-236T 
42 

regional boundaries to address potential skill gaps. According to EPA's 

Regional Laboratory System 2009 Annual Report, many of the regional 

laboratories provide the same or similar core analytical capabilitiesincluding a full range of routine and specialized chemical and biological 

testing of air, water, soil, sediment, tissue, and hazardous waste. 

Nonetheless, in these workforce plans, each region independently 

determines and attempts to address its individual workforce needs. As a 

result, by not exploring options for sharing resources among the ORD, 

program, and regional boundaries to address potential skill gaps, EPA 

may be missing opportunities to fill critical occupation needs through 

resource sharing. 

Moreover, EPA does not have basic demographic information on the 

number of federal and contract employees currently working in its 37 

laboratories. Specifically, EPA does not routinely compile the information 

needed to know how many scientific and technical employees it has 

working in its laboratories, where they are located, what functions they 

perform, or what specialized skills they may have. In addition, the agency 

does not have a workload analysis for the laboratories to help determine 

the optimal numbers and distribution of staff throughout the enterprise. 

We believe that such information is essential for EPA to prepare a 

comprehensive laboratory workforce plan to achieve the agency's mission 

with limited resources. Because EPA's laboratory workforce is managed 

separately by 15 independent senior officials, information about that 

workforce is tracked separately and is not readily available or routinely 

compiled or evaluated. Instead, EPA has relied on ad hoc calls for 

information to compile such data. 

In response to our prior reports on EPA's workforce strategy'· and the 

work of the EPA Inspector General, EPA hired a contractor in 2009, in 

part to conduct a study to provide information about the agency's overall 

workload, including staffing levels and workload shifts for six major 

Human Capital: Implementing an Effective Worldorce Strategy Would Heip EPA to 

Achieve Its Strategic Goals, GAO-01-812 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001); Human 

Capitat Key Principles fDr Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003); Clean Water Act: Improved Resource Planning Would 

Help EPA Better Respond to Changing Needs and Fiscal Constraints, GAO-05-721 

(Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005); EPA's Execution of Its Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget 

Authority for the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional 

Offices, GAO-08-11 09R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2008); Environmental Protection 

Agency: Major Management Challenges, GAO-09-434 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 4, 2009). 

PageS GAO·12·236T 
43 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361360) 

functions, including scientific research. In its budget justification for fiscal 

year 2012, however, the agency reported to Congress that a survey of the 

existing workload information provided by the contractor will not 

immediately provide information sufficient to determine whether changes 

are needed in workforce levels. As of October 2011, EPA had not 

released the results of this study, and we therefore cannot comment on 

whether its content has implications for the laboratories. The agency 

asked its National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and 

Technology to help address scientific and technical competencies as it 

develops a new agencywide workforce plan. However, the new plan is not 

complete, and therefore it is too early to tell whether the council's 

recommendations will have implications for the laboratories. 

Finally, in our July 2011 report on EPA's laboratory enterprise we 

recommended, among other things, that EPA develop a coordinated 

planning process for its scientific activities and appoint a top-level official 

with authority over all the laboratories, improve physical and real property 

planning decisions, and develop a workforce planning process for all 

laboratories that reflects current and future needs of laboratory facilities. 

In written comments on the report, EPA generally agreed with our findings 

and recommendations. 

Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller, this concludes my prepared 

statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or other 

members of the subcommittee may have at this time. 

For further information on this statement, please contact David Trimble at 

(202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the 

last page of this statement. Other staff that made key contributions to this 

testimony include Diane LoFaro, Assistant Director; Jamie Meuwissen; 

Angela Miles; and Dan Semick. 

Page 10 GAO-12-236T 
44 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Trimble, and I 

thank the panel for their testimony. Reminding Members that 

Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. The chair will 

at this point open the round of questions, and I recognize myself 

for five minutes. And, again, thank you all for being here. 

Dr. Anastas, I have got some questions with regards to science 

and some with regards to administration. Let me start with regards to science. 

I understand that actually the EPA just issued its—the outline 

of how it is going to study the hydrofracturing. I think it was just 

issued a couple of weeks ago, and I understand part of that is the 

EPA plans to retrospectively sample its sights. 

Now, I got to ask, I mean, when I remember back to epidemiology, you only sampled retrospectively when prospective data is either, you know, unavailable or too expensive to obtain, but there 

are thousands of hydrofracturing wells being drilled where you can 

prospectively obtain data. Why would you choose retrospective data 

analysis? Again, this goes to the quality of the data that you are 

going to gather. 

I am sorry. Your mic is not on. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Thank you for the question. The study is designed 

to both include retrospective and prospective data. The retrospective data is to look at sites that have had reports of contamination 

to, one, verify if that contamination has, indeed, taken place, and 

two, what the cause of that contamination, if it—— 

Chairman HARRIS. And that is exactly my point, Dr. Anastas, 

and I am sorry because we have got a few so I have got to rush 

you along a little bit, but you could never know how that contamination took place. All you know is the contamination is there then. 

You don’t know if it naturally was occurring at that site, if it occurred before the hydrofracturing occurred. 

I mean, I got a real problem when we say we are going to do 

really good science, and then we say, well, by the way, we are going 

to look at something retrospectively that we can do prospectively. 

Now, at those samplings my understanding is that yesterday 

EPA indicated would not permit industry to shadow EPA when it 

sampled its sites. Now, you said that integrity—the one way you 

ensure integrity or at least encourage the perception of integrity is 

through transparency. Why wouldn’t you want someone to be there 

when you sample the sites? Was that a decision that you all made 

or someone else in the—you know, your shop made or someone 

else? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The study is designed to have very close interaction 

with partners who are at the sites. 

Chairman HARRIS. Doctor, you know exactly what I am asking 

you. Can industry representatives be there when you sample these 

sites? I am being told that EPA indicated they would not permit 

industry to shadow EPA at the sampling of sites. 

Do you have something to hide with the way you sample? If not, 

why not let the sun shine in? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Of course not. 

Chairman HARRIS. You will reconsider that decision you think? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I think that the study is designed so that if the 

property owner allows for the presence of people beyond EPA on 
45 

that site, then we have every desire to work collaboratively and as 

openly as possible. 

Chairman HARRIS. Boy, am I glad to here that. Thank you very 

much. 

Now, you said that science, Lisa Jackson says science is the 

backbone of EPA, and I want to read you a couple of things that 

she said, and I am going to ask you as a scientist if you agree. 

She said, ‘‘We are actually at the point in many areas of the 

country where on a hot summer day the best advice we can give 

you is don’t go outside, don’t breathe the air, it might kill you.’’ 

Do you think that is the way a scientist would word findings? 

Are you comfortable with that as a scientist? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I believe the administrator was talking about the 

air quality concerns that she had and that when we are not doing 

what is needed to be done to improve the air quality that it is unacceptable that the advice is to simply stay inside. 

Chairman HARRIS. Don’t breathe the air. It might kill you. Okay. 

Now, she also said in September that, ‘‘If we could reduce particulate matter to health levels, it would have the same impact as 

finding a cure for cancer.’’ Dr. Anastas, 600,000 people in this country died from cancer. You—are you going to say scientifically, you 

are going to tell us that if we just reduce particulate matter to 

healthy levels, we are going to save 600,000 lives a year? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I believe what the administrator was saying was 

that the dramatic health benefits to reducing particulate matter 

statistically have the type of dramatic increase that you would 

have on increasing the battle against cancer. 

Chairman HARRIS. Six hundred thousand deaths a year. Dr. 

Anastas, a scientist, true standard deviations out from your estimate, does it include 600,000 deaths being avoided? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I do not have the numbers. 

Chairman HARRIS. Could you get me the numbers because that 

leads to my point, and I only have about 30 seconds I guess. I have 

asked for that exact information from someone who testified in 

front of this committee two months ago, and it said that the crossstate regulations avoid, ‘‘up to 34,000 premature deaths.’’ 

Now, Dr. Anastas, you are a scientist. That is not the way you 

word a result. That is the way you word a discussion, something 

else, opinion. The scientific answer is it is this estimate, this is the 

range of the estimate, and this is how I derived it. That is a pretty 

simple question I asked two months ago. Where is the holdup at 

the EPA? Is it your office, or is it some other place to get that very 

simple answer? Where does 34,000 come from, what does up to 

34,000 mean, what are the standard deviations associated with 

that estimate, is it a summary of the individual estimates that, you 

know, because you and I both know how you can get up to 34,000. 

You can take zero to 1,000 34 times and actually have a chance of 

it being zero. And yet I could say that it is up to 34,000. 

And you know as a scientist that wouldn’t be subject to rigorous 

examination. So where is the holdup? Do you have any idea why 

I have to wait two months for a simple answer? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I will be happy to follow up with you to get those— 

that information to you. 
46 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you so very, very much, because, you 

know, I agree with you that, you know, science should be the backbone of EPA, and I agree with you that transparency will paint a— 

will contribute to the perception of integrity, but we have got to 

have both those things. Thank you, Doctor. 

And I now recognize Mr. Miller for five minutes, and welcome. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, and I apologize for arriving on a dead 

run and not having been part of the hearing to this point. I did 

chair the Oversight Subcommittee of this Committee, the Science 

Committee, for four years and in the 2007 to 2009 period, a turnaround time of two months from any agency in the Bush Administration would have been a great turnaround time. 

Mr. Elkins, you conducted a report on the EPA’s peer review 

process, and you determined the EPA’s peer review process was, 

your term was adequate to produce objective scientific review, and 

you said in your written testimony that there are areas where 

EPA’s peer review process can be improved. 

Please tell us how the peer review process is adequate and how 

it could be better than adequate. 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, our report for the most part looked at areas 

related to potential conflicts of interest in the peer review process 

and whether or not EPA adequately had procedures in place to not 

allow a conflict of interest to occur. What we found is that the procedures that EPA had in place did not adequately address that 

issue, but generally speaking we found that the peer review process 

was adequate. 

After our report was issued EPA agreed with our recommendations, amended its peer review handbook, and as of today it is adequate. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay, and how long ago did they make those 

changes in their peer review process based on your recommendations? 

Mr. ELKINS. I don’t have that information with me. I believe that 

report was back in 2009. I can get that for you if you would like. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. I think this hearing is based upon a GAO report that I requested, and I requested it based on the Subcommittee’s work, to see if EPA’s agency-wide management of its research 

enterprise and laboratory infrastructure was all that it could be, 

and we have seen the results of those criticisms being a much 

broader criticism of EPA science, not just whether it was well managed or properly coordinated but whether it was honest and reliable. 

Dr. Trimble, in your investigation did you find any reason to 

question the quality of EPA scientific results? Was the science still 

valid? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. The scope of our work did not go into issues of scientific quality. That would not be something that we would venture 

into, not being a science agency. Our work is really more are they 

positioned organizationally to be as strong as they could be. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. So you simply did not look at that. You have 

no reason based upon your evaluation, there is nothing in your 

evaluation that questions the quality of EPA’s scientific work? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. No, sir. 
47 

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Anastas, in light of the various problems or suggestions that GAO has made, what is the EPA now doing to ensure 

the quality and credibility of the scientific data and results? Are 

you changing based on the GAO’s study? 

Dr. ANASTAS. In short the answer is yes. The recommendations 

from the GAO are welcome. Our response to the GAO enunciates 

how we are positively responding to those recommendations, each 

of those recommendations. Those responses are detailed in my 

written testimony and in short, we welcome the suggestions and 

outline how we are proceeding to act on those recommendations. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back 40 seconds. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

The chair now recognizes our colleague from California, Mr. 

Rohrabacher, for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman, for the leadership that you are showing on 

this very significant issue of scientific integrity and the EPA. Those 

of us who have been around for awhile have seen that there are 

various methodologies that people utilize to obtain their political 

agenda, and I would have to say that in my 30 years here in Washington I have never seen the politicalization of science so dramatically as we have in the last few years. But there has been evidence 

that for longer than that, of course. 

Let me just note that we have the IG here, the EPA’s IG here. 

You stated and there is word from your office that the peer review 

process, which is, of course, one of the mainstays into the scientific 

process, when applied to greenhouse gas endangerment findings, 

that the EPA did not meet OMB’s actual requirements for a peer 

review that withstands, that basically meets the standard. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, what our report looked at is process, and what 

we—what our report stated was that we believe that the 

endangerment finding process should have incorporated a highlyinfluential scientific assessment, and if you follow that model, there 

are certain steps that need to occur as opposed to just the influential scientific assessment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. ELKINS. And so our findings was based that if the HISA was 

not—that the EPA did not consider or they did not follow the HISA 

process when they—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So it didn’t meet the OMB requirements in 

this case. So those requirements had said it wasn’t met and maybe 

you could tell us what has been done to alleviate that problem. 

Peer review of greenhouse gas research seems to have been compromised. How have you corrected that? 

Dr. ANASTAS. As Inspector General Elkins noted, there was no— 

and I believe as you know there is no determination that there was 

any problems at all with the science. What was looked at was the 

process. The—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But if the process is faulty, you can’t say that 

the outcome, oh, boy, the IG didn’t find the outcome bad. If the 

process is bad, you don’t know what your outcome is. 

Dr. ANASTAS. The EPA made the determination—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 
48 

Dr. ANASTAS. —that this was not a high-impact scientific assessment according to the OMB bulletin, a high-impact scientific assessment, that it was not a high-impact scientific assessment according to the OMB bulletin, and OMB agreed with that determination. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So you did nothing. Thank you. 

Dr. ANASTAS. And if I may—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So you determined that you didn’t have to do 

anything even though you found that—even though the IG’s office 

right there has found that you didn’t meet the right standard. 

Dr. ANASTAS. And yet despite following OMB’s direction we have 

still taken the IG’s recommendations and are addressing each of 

those recommendations and will be addressing them fully. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we would hope that the next time that 

we hear that your IG reporting that your peer review process 

doesn’t meet the OMB standards, that maybe they will be able to 

report that you do next time, but at this point I am not sure what 

your answer reflects, whether or not you have done anything differently, but we will see what the IG’s report says next time 

around. 

The—let me just note that when you determine that there is a 

problem to be examined and that you are—then the EPA moves 

forward that now something is going to be regulated because you 

found a problem with it, it automatically means that there is a lot 

of things that the people are going to have to do now that they otherwise wouldn’t have to do. 

There is a great deal of expense that takes place in our society 

based on your finding that there is a problem, and even though— 

and I would like you to tell me why, and let me see if I can pronounce it right, perchlorate. I have been noticing here, and I have 

been given by my staff, that the National Academy of Sciences and 

others have not found any problem with perchlorate, but the EPA 

has designated it as something that needs to be regulated by the 

EPA. 

Now, why is that? What is the scientific basis that you disagree 

with the National Academy of Sciences and others who did not find 

that a problem? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The scientific assessment of perchlorate had findings about the hazard, the degree of hazard of perchlorate. The determination of whether or not to regulate has certainly scientific 

input and other statutory considerations that need to be considered 

when making that determination. In whole all of those factors are 

considered by the administrator in making that determination. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I yield back. Thank 

you. 

Chairman HARRIS. I now recognize the gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Dr. Anastas, thank you for your testimony and to all of you on 

the panel. But Doctor, in your testimony you mentioned that ORD 

has organized its research into six areas, providing ORD with opportunities to more effectively plan in what is a coordinated way 

rather than the ongoing individual basis. 
49 

How do these six areas of research align with the research areas 

of the program and regional offices? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Thank you for the question because it is the—it is 

that alignment that is the basis of why we undertook this effort. 

What has been done is to—rather than look at fragmented programs, instead engage our offices of water and air and solid waste 

in order to determine what the highest priority there is are and 

have that discussion directly between the program offices, the regional offices, and our researchers in ORD. 

It was through that very intensive process over the course of the 

past year that we identified these crosscutting areas that will not 

only give greater synergies and flexibility but I believe there is 

agreement not only internally but by our Science Advisory Board 

and our Board of Scientific Counselors that this will make it more 

effective in being responsive to those high-priority areas. 

Mr. TONKO. Now, when you do that, there might be a concern for 

duplication or overlap, and just what does the agency do to ensure 

that there isn’t any of the overlap or duplication between ORD’s research, for instance, and that of their program offices? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Yes. It is this effort, these conversations between 

ORD and the program offices that quite frankly are happening 

more now than any time in the past, that are looking to ensure 

that we don’t have duplication. Those are the conversations that 

are taking place not only with individual offices but across program 

offices to ensure either complementarity to make sure that they are 

not—there is not duplication. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, and Dr. Anastas, you mentioned that 

ORD takes steps to ensure that there is an involvement by the program and regional offices in ORD’s research planning process. You 

also indicate that ORD provides scientific expertise to those program offices as they develop those regulations and their policy. 

Now, does ORD have involvement in the research planning process of the program offices? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Yes. It is part of the same discussions that the program offices and the regional offices are, as I described, have complementary duties, complementary responsibilities. So the Office of 

Research obviously has responsibility for research, but other scientific analysis will take place in the program office, technical support, generation of data for immediate needs will take place in the 

regional offices, and those are coordinated through these conversations. 

Mr. TONKO. And what impediments, if any, are there to ORD and 

the program offices from being involved in one another’s research 

planning process? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I believe that the efforts that we have undertaken 

over the course of the past year have removed many of those impediments and have—these regular dialogues, these formalized 

meetings, this regular follow-up is looking to and I think quite successfully removing the historical impediments. 

Mr. TONKO. Now, you say most of them. Are there any that 

might exist for which there is a concern or where there is a need 

for better flow or interaction? 
50 

Dr. ANASTAS. I would be happy to give a thoughtful answer to 

that, and I will be happy to follow up if I can think of any additional impediments. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, and I will take advantage of the 40 seconds that the gentleman had to ask Dr. Anastas 

one question that is kind of burning to me because we would like 

to wrap this up before we go to vote. 

As a scientist, purely as a scientist, forget the EPA 

hydrofracturing study, forget that there is language saying, you 

know, we urge the EPA, which we know that is not, you know, 

statutory, binding, as a scientist, you have five objectives. You are 

looking at five things in the lifecycle, and that is—one is, you 

know, whether or not you are withdrawing ground water, affecting 

groundwater resource, but then the last four have to do with contamination of ground water. Let’s talk about those last four. 

Your testimony yesterday at Transportation & Infrastructure, 

there have been 1.2 million hydrofracturing wells drilled with no 

documented case of drinking water contamination, no—and I asked 

the panel, I keep on asking every panel, is there any—no. As a scientist 1.2 million applications of a technology with no documented 

affect on those last four things that study is looking for. 

Will you—I mean, do they come to you and say, look. Dr. 

Anastas, as a scientist should we really be studying that? Do we 

really need to study it? Did that question ever occur, or it is just— 

the assumption is we are going to do this study, so I am going to 

plow ahead. 

Dr. ANASTAS. There are two things that I would like to say. One 

is when concerns are raised to this Congress and Congress urges 

the EPA to undertake a study, we take that seriously, and I think 

that we all have a bias toward wanting more information out there. 

The second thing that I think answers your question directly is 

that you can’t find what you are not looking for, and so how we 

thoughtfully construct a study that Congress urged us to do to ensure that we find out whether or not these concerns are valid and 

to what degree, I think that that is incumbent upon us when we 

are urged to do it by this Congress. 

Chairman HARRIS. The one thing I asked at the very beginning 

is forgetting the urging to do by Congress. As a scientist, 1.2 million applications of a technology. 

Dr. ANASTAS. You can’t—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Is there a justification for spending monies to 

do that study as a scientist? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I am really not persnickety about 

the rules, but the conduct of this hearing does not even resemble 

anything provided for in the House rules. Mr. Tonko did not yield 

you his 40 seconds. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me note for my—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Recognize the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have been the chairman, having been the 

chairman of various subcommittees that you are absolutely wrong 

in your reading of the House rules, because those may have been 

the House rules before, but it is the prerogative of the chairman 
51 

of a subcommittee as to how he will conduct that subcommittee 

hearing. I have been in many subcommittees where the chairman 

went on for 10 minutes in order to get a straight answer from a 

witness. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, thank you, and look. I will end because 

this is the problem. We are blending politics with science. That is 

the disappointment. 

I recognize the gentleman from Maryland for five minutes. 

Mr. BARTLETT. My question has to do with the same commonsense that the Chairman is talking about. 

We have a little community in western Maryland, George’s 

Creek. By the way, in Maryland MDE acts instead of EPA, and 

that is because they are at least as stringent as EPA, so that—EPA 

lets them act. 

The effluent from the sewage treatment plant at George’s Creek 

was a little bit out of bounds, and so they had to put in a new 

treatment plant. That was enormously expensive. This is a very 

small, very poor community. The state gave them all the grants 

that legally they could give them and still it was a huge financial 

burden on the community. All three county commissioners lost 

their last—their next election over it. 

Trying to negotiate with MDE over this that the juice wasn’t 

going to be worth the squeezing was like trying to talk the fly out 

of snatching the—the toad out of snatching the next fly. That 

wasn’t going to happen. They were totally mindless. 

George’s Creek is hundreds of miles from the bay, and the river 

enters in where the bay empties into the ocean. It is going to be 

little or no effect to this. There were many other better places to 

spend that money than forcing George’s Creek into this. 

Where does commonsense enter in? Clearly that money could 

have been better spent somewhere else than at George’s Creek, but 

there was no negotiating with these people, and there are many 

regulations that you might have that will cause such an economic 

burden that the money might be better spent somewhere else in 

our society. 

How do you make these commonsense decisions? 

Dr. ANASTAS. One of the things that I would like to say about 

making commonsense decisions or decisions about science is that 

politics cannot, will not, and must not enter into scientific decisions. Politicizing science is antithetical to everything I am and everything that I do. 

When we engage in scientific studies with the hydraulic fracturing study being discussed today, we have engaged scientific experts from all walks of life, from industry, from academia. We have 

engaged thousands of people from the public to ensure that this scientific study will be objective. We will not presuppose the results 

of this scientific study one way or the other. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Sir, I think the chairman’s concern is that if there 

had been 1.2 million frackings and there is zero evidence of any 

groundwater contamination, any aquifer being contaminated, why 

would it be commonsense to spend any money on a scientific study? 

Aren’t there other places we can better spend our money? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I believe that with an endeavor of the importance 

of hydraulic fracturing . . . 
52 

Mr. BARTLETT. But we have done it 1.2 million times and no evidence of any contamination. Isn’t there better places we might 

spend our money than scientific—I am a scientist. I spent a whole 

lot of my life doing that, so I understand science. 

Dr. ANASTAS. The level of concern that has been raised by the 

public needs to be addressed as recognized by this—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. But how can the public have a concern when 

there are zero evidences of contamination after 1.2 million fracking 

operations? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I have to repeat that you can’t find something if 

you don’t look, if you don’t ask the questions, if you don’t do the 

science. That is why we do science, to answer the questions, to address the concerns. So one way or the other objectively we can state 

what the current state of affairs is. 

Mr. BARTLETT. You don’t think that there is some validity in observing that 1.2 million fracking operations that have not produced 

any evidence of water contamination, you don’t think that that is 

relevant? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I think all data is relevant. All objective, scientifically-credible data is relevant. The absence of data is not proof of 

anything. We construct scientific studies to get data that we can 

turn into information, that we can turn into knowledge. That is 

what the scientific—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. Let me ask you a question. If you go to the communities where we have had these 1.2 million fracking operations 

and you ask them, has there been any water contamination, and 

they tell you, no, so is that not a reasonable scientific investigation? 

Dr. ANASTAS. It is exactly because we have gone out and asked 

have there been contaminations, and when people say the answer 

is yes, part of this study is to validate whether or not that is true, 

whether or not that has happened. 

Mr. BARTLETT. But it is my understanding that there has been 

no documented evidence of contamination with 1.2—who says there 

has been contamination if that is not documented? 

Dr. ANASTAS. It is the documentation or lack of documentation 

that we seek. If somebody reports that there has been contamination, that needs to be scientifically validated. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I hope that is the most urgent place to spend your 

money. I doubt that it is. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. McNerney, the gentleman from California, is recognized for 

five minutes. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 

panel for coming here today. 

The EPA is a large organization, it has a lot of different laboratories, the statutes haven’t been changed for a long time. There is 

no doubt in my mind that there is room for improvement. There 

is possible duplication, there is possible processes that could be improved, and so on, and I think that is an important function that 

this Subcommittee should be going after, and yet, nothing in this 

hearing today from the other side has been helpful in that stated 
53 

goal of this hearing, to gain an understanding of the best ways to 

reorganize and reauthorize the ORD. 

So moving forward, Mr. Elkins and Mr. Trimble had a fairly good 

list of suggestions that they claimed have not been implemented by 

the ORD. So, Mr. Elkins and Mr. Trimble, is it your opinion that 

this is being resisted, that these changes are being resisted, or are 

there statutory or resource limitations that are keeping these suggestions from being implemented? 

Mr. ELKINS. Actually, the reports that we have issued to ORD for 

the most part they have been responsive to our recommendations. 

We have, you know, we have had a few recommendations such as 

the endangerment finding, we are still waiting a response back 

from, but generally speaking they have been responsive. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So the impression I had earlier in your testimony was that they weren’t being responsive, but what I am hearing now is, yes, the recommendations are being listened to, and 

they are being responded to as the agency has the capability to respond. 

Mr. ELKINS. Generally speaking I think that would be accurate—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Trimble. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I think EPA has generally been agreeable to our 

recommendations, taking a very positive approach to this. The one 

area where I think we have a disagreement is concerning the recommendation about establishing a top science official for EPA to 

manage all the science activities. 

As I noted in my opening comments their proposal to add additional responsibilities to the science advisor I think is probably 

going to be problematic. We will track that, but as I noted the NRC 

back in 2000 when they were tracking the same issue stated in 

their report that they had underestimated the size of the challenge 

that would be faced in coordinating science activities across the 

agency, and they explicitly noted the challenge of dual heading the 

chief of ORD with this responsibility. And much of what they focus 

on is to corral all the sort of three types; the programs, the regions, 

and ORD, you need somebody with authority. In a bureaucracy 

that means management and budget in reality to make things happen and to knock heads and make—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I mean, that sounded like a good recommendation. Do you think there is a statutory limitation that is preventing 

that from happening, or is there just some resistance within the department? What is your—— 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I know in the NRC’s recommendation it requested 

that go forward with a second deputy, which I believe would require action by the Hill. We didn’t recommend that it go that far, 

but we recommended that it be a senior person above all the labs. 

Whether or not EPA could do that on its own I suspect they could, 

but that is not something we have delved into. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Thank you. Now, what has suffered from 

these problems that you all have found? Is it the quality or the 

quantity? What has been the negative fallout from those deficiencies? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, I think it depends on the report. You know, 

it depends on the area that we have looked at, but generally speak-
54 

ing, for instance, on the workload issues and the workforce planning, position management, the issue there is not being able to estimate exactly what your workload is, and therefore, not being able 

to determine what human resources you need to address those 

issues or the specialties that you need on staff. That is an issue. 

The other issue that has come up in other studies has to do with 

data quality, which relates to the information coming in whether 

it is reliable and whether or not there are systems and procedures 

in place to make sure that it is reliable. 

These are the types of concerns and questions that have come up 

through the reports that we have done. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. What I would highlight specifically to this top 

science official, I would just go back to the NRC report that noted 

that the lack of a top science official is a formula for weak scientific 

performance and poor scientific credibility. So I think you have this 

over-arching effect. 

More specifically, you have potentially lost opportunities for collaboration, for consolidating resources, you know, especially with 

the tight budgets in terms of workforce and workload and facilities. 

You miss opportunities to leverage that. 

And then without the data on workload and workforce, you are 

not in a position to know whether you have got the right people 

at the right place doing the right thing. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Then, again, this may be a statutory 

issue. It may not—it may be that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to create that position on its own. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I would now recognize the chairman of the committee, Mr. Hall 

from Texas, for five minutes. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. Anastas, I would like to raise a few concerns about EPA’s 

study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and water. 

We have had a lot of testimony here, and basically the testimony 

has been that there is just no way in the world that the testimony 

you and others from your department have given could be true. 

And I want to ask you in response to questions I sent to you for 

the record from hydraulic fracturing hearing in May, you responded on September 23 that all aspects of this research would 

have, and I quote, this is your quote, ‘‘an associated quality assurance project plan’’ which has been ‘‘reviewed and approved prior to 

the stated data collection.’’ 

However, your agency started testing and data collection before 

the final study plan was done. 

My question is were specific project plans completed and subjected to public comment and external peer review prior to testing 

and prior to the release of the full final study plan? Yes or no? 

Dr. ANASTAS. A quality action project plan is not—— 

Chairman HALL. I didn’t ask you that. Just give me a yes or no 

answer to the question I asked you. I don’t want a lecture from 

you. 

Dr. ANASTAS. The quality action project plans are reviewed by experts both internally and externally. 

Chairman HALL. Were they reviewed? 
55 

Dr. ANASTAS. They were reviewed. 

Chairman HALL. Well, that is what I asked you. Were specific 

project plans completed and subjected to public comment and external peer review prior to testing and prior to the release of the full 

final study plan, and your answer—— 

Dr. ANASTAS. The review process—— 

Chairman HALL. —to that is yes. Is that right? 

Dr. ANASTAS. No. The answer is that they were externally and 

internally reviewed. The process by which they go through that review is different from that of the full project protocols and plan. 

Chairman HALL. Do you consider this study, ‘‘a highly influential 

scientific assessment?’’ 

Dr. ANASTAS. That determination has not been made. 

Chairman HALL. Why do you think it hadn’t been made? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I can tell you that it has not been made but—and 

that it certainly will be a decision that we will—and a determination that we will make. 

Chairman HALL. Do you think it doesn’t meet the threshold? 

Dr. ANASTAS. That determination has not been made. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Elkins, in your opinion do you think the hydraulic fracturing study should be considered a highly-influential 

scientific assessment? 

Mr. ELKINS. Sir, we really haven’t taken a look at that particular 

issue, so I am not in a position to comment. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. E&E News reported that EPA has abandoned its announced study protocols in order to, ‘‘release more of 

its findings in 2012.’’ Can I get any assurance that the committee— 

can you give the committee any assurance that this target release 

date is not politically driven? 

If so, what is the difference between releasing findings in the late 

2012 versus, say, early 2013? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I can give this committee complete assurance that 

the release of data is not politically driven. 

Chairman HALL. I have one last question. Do I have a little time 

left? 

Chairman HARRIS. Yes, you do, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Trimble and Mr. Elkins, your offices have 

been critical of EPA’s process for selecting impartial scientific advisory panels. Can you describe the problems that you have incurred 

in the agency’s handling of external peer review panels and what 

can be done to prevent EPA from stacking the panels? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, yes, sir. In the one report that we have done 

that addressed that specifically, again, that I believe we did back 

in 2009, the specific issue was whether or not the Agency had systems in place to identify any conflicts of interest. At that time we 

found that the system wasn’t robust enough to make those sorts of 

determinations, but since we brought that to the agency’s attention, they have addressed that, and in their current peer review 

handbook it does address, you know, our concerns. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentlemen. I yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I just want to—before we break up I want to thank the witnesses 

for their valuable testimony, all the Members for their questions. 

To provide a brief clarification for Dr. Morgan’s letter for the 
56 

record, unfortunately Dr. Morgan was unable to confirm his video 

attendance at this hearing until 5 hours after the deadline for testimony to be submitted. We are happy to include his comments in 

letter form as we have accepted and look forward to working with 

all members of the scientific community in the future. 

The Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in 

writing. The record will remain open for two weeks for additional 

comments from Members. The witnesses are excused. The hearing 

is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(57) 

Appendix I: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
58 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by DR. Paul Anastas, 

Assistant Administrator, 

Office Of Research And Development, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

Questions Submitted by Chairman Andy Harris 
59 

EPA Response. 

The EPA agrees with the underlying principle and objectives of this GAO 

recommendation. Congress considered two bills in 2001 to establish a deputy 

administrator of science and technology at the EPA - and neither bill was enacted. 

In response to the GAO recommendation, the EPA will expand the authority and 

responsibility of the Science Advisor to coordinate, oversee, and make recommendations 

to the Administrator regarding major scientific activities throughout the Agency, 

including the work of all program, regional, and ORD laboratories. 

In considering the best structure to accomplish the objectives in this GAO 

recommendation, the EPA recognizes that the management of its laboratory enterprise 

must help the enterprise adapt to significant external pressures. These pressures create a 

demand for: 

1. Solutions to complex, interdependent, and dynamic systems problems for many of 

the EPA's clients across the nation; 

2. Interdependence and a high level of knowledge sharing - with many clients, in 

many regions, at many geographic and temporal scales, and in many communities across 

the nation; 

3. Sharing resources including shared facilities that are more efficient and 

sustainable, shared expertise and human resources, and shared equipment and supplies 

4. Responding proactively to declining financial resources and to increasing mandates 

for energy-efficient and sustainable facilities. 

GAO Recommendation 

The EPA Administrator should improve physical infrastructure and real property 

planning and investment decisions by managing individual laboratory facilities as part of 

an interrelated portfolio of facilities. 

EPA Response. 

The EPA notes that its annual Buildings and Facilities (B&F) call letter process allows 

the Agency to manage laboratory facilities as an interrelated portfolio. In the call letter 

process, the EPA collects and prioritizes aU facility project requests independent of the 

requestor, according to the mission of that Program or Region, and the Agency's 

priorities and strategic plans. The projects arc first reviewed to balance the mission, 

programmatic. and legislative requirements the EPA must weigh when allocating its 

limited resources. The projects are then evaluated against Agency and industry 

standards for health and safety, environmental compliance, infrastructure requirements, 

such as Green building requirements, and energy reduction goals. The results of this 

2 
60 

process form an annual capital spending plan that effectively allocates limited resources 

on a portfolio- and Agency-wide basis. 

The EPA agrees with the GAO that more can be done to strengthen its master planning 

process, which the Agency believes overall has kept the EPA's 35 laboratories and 68 

laboratory support buildings in good condition. As the GAO points out, the EPA's 

internal real property asset management plan states that facility master plans are 

supposed to be updated every five years to reflcct changes in facility condition and 

mission. Projects identified through the mastcr planning process and implemented 

through the B&F call letter process described above are taking longer to complete (six 

to ten years) than the originally anticipated (five years). This forms the basis of the 

EPA's position that the master plans need to be updated as required, to reflect mission or 

condition changes not on any set time line. Over the next three to five years, the Agency 

plans to upgrade and streamline the master planning process, update the plans as 

required, reinforce the current master planning portfolio perspective, and strengthen the 

ties between the current annual and five-year B&F call letter process and the master 

plans. 

GAO Recommendation 

The EPA Administrator should improve physical infrastructure and real property 

planning and investment decisions by ensuring that master plans are up-to-date and that 

analysis of the use of space is based on objective benchmarks. 

EPA Response. 

The EPA agrees with the GAO that the Agency's master plans must be up-to-date and 

include effective benchmarks and metrics. As noted above, the GAO points out that the 

EPA's real property asset management plan states that facility master plans are supposed 

to be updated every five years to reflect changes in facility condition and mission. As 

part of our plan to upgrade the master planning process, the EPA intends to revise this 

guidance to ensure that the master plans are updated as required to reflect mission or 

condition changes versus a timeline, even if this occurs on a more frequent basis than the 

current five year guidance. As the GAO points out, almost 50 percent of the EPA's 

Master Plans have been updated to reflect changing mission or infrastructure needs. 

Some examples are: the Cincinnati laboratory five-phase infrastructure replacement 

project, the Research Triangle Park laboratory consolidation; and the Region 10 

laboratory modernization. 

The space conditions and utilization metrics identified in the master plans are updated 

annually by the facility managers as part of the Federal Real Property Council process 

and validated through audits. Objective benchmarks for laboratory usage are employed 

when the laboratories are of sufficient size to establish a valid baseline; most of the 

3 
61 

EPA's laboratory facilities, however, are small and have specific functional requircments 

for each lab module. The functional requiremcnt establishes the need for thc space 

allocation rather than the population of the laboratory. 

As the EPA continues to upgrade its master planning process, the Agency will continue 

to work with other federal agencies and industry associations to define relevant 

laboratory benchmarks. As a rule, the Agency alrcady uses benchmarks for the square 

footage of a typical laboratory module. The Agency uses industry averagcs, national 

guidelines, and comparable Agency rcfcrences to determine laboratory space and 

operating costs. Once benchmarks are updated and proven valid, the Agency will 

include the benchmarks in its master plans. 

GAO Recommendation 

The EPA Administrator should improve physical infrastructure and real property 

planning and investment decisions by improving thc completeness and reliability of 

operating-cost and other data needed to manage its real property and report to external 

parties. 

EPA Response. 

The EPA agrees with the GAO that the Agency's operating metrics should be updated. 

As stated above, as the EPA continues to refine the master planning process, thc Agency 

will work internally to upgrade and validate its internal operating costs and othcr 

metrics. The EPA agrees that reliable data are needed to manage its laboratory enterprise 

cffcctively. Beginning in FY 2011, the Agency addcd coding to track operating costs at 

program-funded laboratory facilities that were not previously tracked. The Agency will 

review options for improving data reliability and completeness for the remaining labs 

within its laboratory enterprise. 

GAO Recommendation 

The EPA Administrator should develop a comprehensive workforce planning process 

for all laboratories that is based on reliable workforce data and reflects current and 

future Agency needs in the overall number of federal and contract cmployces, skills, and 

deployment across all laboratory facilities. 

EPA Response. 

The EPA agrees with this recommendation and recognizes that opportunities cxist to 

improve workforce planning procedures for its laboratory enterprise. The EPA will 

develop a comprehensive workforce planning process for its laboratory enterprise as part 

of a broader Agency workforce planning process. The comprehensive workforce 

planning process for EPA laboratories will be based on information about 

l. The EPA's priority needs for mission relevant laboratory science 

4 
62 

2. Laboratory functions and systems required to meet these needs and to transform 

laboratory outputs into results that contribute to Agency decisions 

3. Workforce skills and disciplines required to sustain cach laboratory and the 

Agency's portfolio of laboratories - including capability and capacity - across the 

scope of the Agency's functions, systems. programs, and facility lifetime. 

Collectively, these three components define a framework for comprehensive laboratory 

workforce planning. 

In FY 2012, the EPA plans to strengthen its existing strategic workforce planning 

process by integrating workforce planning with its annual budget process. The Agency 

will annually assess if its workforce has the skills to meet the nation's cnvironmental 

priorities today and in the future. Each regional office and headquarters program office 

will consider the EPA's Strategic Plan and Administrator's priorities to establish their 

optimal workforce based on needed occupations. By using planned FTE resource levels 

for FY 2012 and proposed resource levels for FY 2013-2015, each office, including 

laboratories, can better identify potential skill and workforce gaps. Overall, these efforts 

will strengthen succession planning efforts, lead toward improved strategic recruitment 

and outreach efforts, and ensure office position management, staffing, and hiring 

decisions are aligned to mission success. 

GAQ Recommendation 

[f the EPA Administrator determines that another independent study of the EPA 

laboratories is needed, then the Agency should include (within the charge questions for 

this study) alternate approaches for organizing the laboratory workforce and 

infrastructure. These alternate approaches should include options for sharing and 

consolidation. 

EPA Response. 

The President has requested funds to begin a long-term study of the EPA's laboratory 

enterprise in FY 2012. If funded, this long-term study will be conducted by an 

independent expert committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). When the 

NAS committee prepares its design for the long-term study, the EPA will request that 

NAS consider information in this GAO report and alternate approaches for organizing 

the workforce and infrastructure of the EPA's laboratory enterprise. 

Both President Obama and EPA Administrator Jackson have emphasized that science 

must be the backbone for the EPA's programs and decisions. As GAO indicated in its 

report, knowledge and technical information from the Agency's laboratories, scientists, 

and partners are more important than ever to inform decisions that protect our nation's 

environment and human health. 

5 
63 

QUESTION 2: GAO, NAS, and other independent evaluations have recommended that the 

EPA establish a top-level science official with the authority and responsibility to coordinatc, 

oversee, and make management decisions regarding major scientific activities throughout the 

Agency; including the work of all its laboratories. What are the EPA plans for implementing this 

recommendation? 

ANSWER: 

In response to the GAO recommendation, the EPA will expand the authority and responsibility 

of the Science Advisor to coordinate, oversce, and make recommendations to the Administrator 

regarding major scientific activities throughout the Agency, including the work of all program, 

regional, and ORO laboratories. 

QUESTION 3: GAO's report states that EPA does not use objective criteria for determining 

whether its laboratory facilities are fully utilized and that the Agency does not know how much it 

costs to operate these facilities. 

a. How does EPA rationalize or justify the need for EPA's existing laboratory infrastructure 

without this information? 

b. Has EPA evaluated whether the investment of additional resources into its aging laboratory 

is worthwhile? Wouldn't it make more sense to consolidate laboratory locations and 

concentrate resources into fewer buildings or into hiring more staff or conducting research? 

ANSWER: 

The EPA will use the funding ($2M) in the FY 2012 appropriation to conduct a long-term study 

of the EPA's laboratories. 

With regard to the questions about the use of objective criteria for laboratory facilities, the space 

conditions and utilization metries identified in EPA master plans are updated annually by the 

facility managers as part of the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) process and validated 

through audits. The functional requirement establishes the need for the space allocation rather 

than the population of the laboratory. 

Over the next three to five years, the Agency plans to upgrade and streamline the master 

planning process; update its plans as required; reinforce the current master planning portfolio 

perspective; and strengthen the ties between the current annual and 5-year B&F cal/letter 

process (described below) and the master plans. 

EPA facility master plans are revised periodically to reflect changes in facility condition and 

mission-including the feasibility of investing additional resources in existing facilities. As 

6 
64 

GAO points out, the EPA's facility master plans are supposed to be updated every 5 ycars to 

reflect changes in facility condition and mission. The EPA intends to revise this guidance to 

reflect mission or condition changes, cven if this occurs on a more frequent basis than the current 

five year guidance. 

The EPA notes that the draft GAO report did not take into account thc Agency's annual 

Buildings and Facilities (B&F) call fetter proccss; projects implemented through the B&F call 

fetter process take longer to complete (6-10 years) than the originally anticipated (5 years). In 

this process, each project is prioritized by the Programs and Regions to ensure that it is aligned 

with the mission of that Program or Region, and meets the Agency's priorities and strategic 

plans. The projects arc first reviewed to balance the EPA's mission, programmatic, and 

legislative requirements. and are then cvaluated against Agency and industry standards for health 

and safety, environmental compliance, infrastructure requirements, and energy reduction goals. 

The results of this process form an annual capital spending plan that effectively allocates limited 

resources on a portfolio and Agency-wide basis. The master plan projects can only be completed 

as funding becomes available; this forms the basis of the EPA's position that the master plans 

need to be updated as required, not on a set time line. 

QUESTION 4: Many EPA seience activities are housed within regulatory offices. For 

example, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation manages the National Fuel and Vehicle Emissions 

Laboratory, as well as the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory. 

a. Please explain the origin and reasons for this structure, which would seem to present a 

conflict of interest with regulators managing and directing the work of scientists. 

b. How does EPA organize its science activities to be insulated from regulatory influences 

and ensure it remains objective and unbiased? 

ANSWER: 

a. At the EPA's founding, the Agency inherited 183 buildings at 84 sites in 26 states. Fortytwo sites consisted of laboratories. The EPA's mission and decision needs required a 

laboratory enterprise with three distinct laboratory organizations: research, program, and 

regional laboratory organizations. Each of the EPA's three laboratory organizations has 

different objectives and responsibilities with respect to the EPA's mission-

• Research laboratories have primary responsibility for research and developmentdeveloping knowledge, assessments, and scientific tools that form the underpinnings 

of many of EPA's risk assessments and risk management decisions. 

• Program laboratories have primary responsibility for implementing legislative 

mandates to develop and implement specific programs to support regulatory 

7 
65 

implementation, compliance, and enforcement at a nationallevel-e.g., motor vehicle 

standards testing, pesticide registration. 

• Regional laboratories have primary responsibility for providing scientific data in 

support of the Region's environmental programs, including infonning immediate and 

near-tenn decisions on environmental conditions, compliance, and enforcement. 

These different objectives and responsibilities create needs for different and distinct laboratory 

functions, facility systems, and even architectural and engineering rcquircments-bctween 

individual laboratories and between laboratory organizations. The Agency's three laboratory 

organizations interact with each other, with partners in the EPA's national regulatory and 

regional programs, and with scientists in academia, other federal and state agencies, and 

industry. 

b. The nature of scientific infonnation and how it fits within the context of Agency 

decision-making determines thc rolc and use of EPA laboratory science. Strong 

independent science is of paramount importancc to decisions about our nation's 

environmental policies. The quality of the laboratory science that underlies the EPA's 

protective standards is vital to the credibility of EPA decisions and ultimately to the 

Agency's effectiveness in protecting the environment and human health. 

For these reasons, the role and use of EPA laboratory science are guided by the policies and 

procedures of the "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peer Review Handbook 3rd Edition," 

(EPAIlOOIB-06/002, available at www.epaigov). The third edition of this EPA handbook 

incorporates the provisions of the OMB Final Infonnation Quality Bulletin for Peer Review that 

was issued to help agencies enhance their peer review accountability and transparency for all 

scientific activities, including influential scientific infonnation and highly influential scientific 

assessments. 

The EPA also supports review of the design and results of some laboratory scientific activities at 

the program-project level; these reviews are conducted by committees of independent experts 

chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

QUESTION S: How does EPA detennine where to spend ils science and technology dollars? 

Please describe EPA's protocol for detennining research priorities. 

ANSWER: 

The EPA's scientific and technical needs are identified through close and continual dialogue 

with the EPA's Programs and Regions as well as through input from the Science Advisory Board 

(SA B). Our science and technology investments are focused on relevancy and responsiveness to 

the Agency mission and program priorities, and addressing important problems or critical 

8 
66 

technical barriers to protecting human health and the environment. The EPA's scientific and 

technical needs are identified through close and continual dialogue with the EPA's Programs and 

Regions. 

To ensure our research meets the Agency's research needs and supports timely and missionrelevant outcomes, we havc developed the following protocol for determining rcsearch priorities: 

• National (research) Program Directors (NPDs) mect with program and regional office 

leads to identify research priorities. 

• Once a budget is developed, reviews with each Program Office are held, on a quarterly 

basis, to ensure a mutual understanding of priorities, products, and delivcrables. 

• In addition, ORD research will be ineluded in a database that will allow ORD, Programs, 

and Regions to monitor activities, milestones, products, and outcomes to provide a basis 

for making strategic decisions on future priorities, resources, and staffing. 

After the Budget is released, research priorities are also reviewed by the EPA's external national 

advisors, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) and the SAB. The SAB focuses on ORD 

research priorities and strategic directions. The BOSC is focused on research implementation 

guidance. 

QUESTION 6: With respect to EPA's annual budget, please answer the following questions. 

a. What is the split between the amount of funding spent on basic research and amount 

spent on applied research? 

b. Please detail how much science and technology funding supports each of the following 

environmental statutes: 

I. Clean Air Act 

2. Federal Water Pollution Act 

3. Safe Drinking Water Act 

4. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

5. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

6. Oil Spill Pollutions Act 

7. Toxic Substances Control Act 

8. Pollution Prevention Act 

9. Global Change Research Act 

ANSWER: 

The EPA does not budget by statute, although research activities undcr certain appropriations arc 

designated to advance the EPA's authorities under specific statutes (such as the research 

component under the Inland Oil Spills appropriation which advances OP A responsibilities and 

the S&T Transfer under the Superfund appropriation which advances CERCLA responsibilities). 

9 
67 

Today's increasingly complex public health and environmental problems require an approach 

that supports innovation that leads to transformational solutions, for example, research that goes 

beyond studying single chemicals or narrowly defined problems. Throughout the last year, the 

EPA worked extensively to realign its research programs to ensure all of our activities reflect an 

integrated, transdiseiplinary approach. Our goal is to find and apply sustainable solutions 

through innovation. To do that effectively, our efforts will be driven based largely on how the 

results will be applied to solving human health and environmental problems. 

QUESTION 7: Most modem environmental problems are multi-media issues. Many of the 

relatively simple environmental problems that were air or water specific have largely been 

addressed. Many of the remaining and emerging environmental challenges are significantly more 

complex. Please describe how EPA S&T considers and incorporates the complex nature of these 

multi-media issues into its planning and management decisions. 

ANSWER: 

Modem environmental problems are indeed multi-media, and the EPA has positioned its 

research programs to reflect the interdependency of environmental problems. Because the nature 

of environmental and human health issues has become more complex, our research planning and 

management approaches are implementing systems thinking and integrative approaches that 

complement our traditional single discipline approaches. In all aspects of our work, from 

problem identification and definition, to research design, conduct and implementation, the EPA's 

national rescarch programs involve the widest span of scientific and teehnical disciplines as well 

as needs of EPA's Programs and Regions, so that diverse perspectives are collaboratively 

brouglit to bear on today's complex, multi-media environmental problems. 

QUESTION 8: What protocols guide EPA's determination of whether or not a study is a highly 

influential scientific assessment? Given that there are protocols for data collection required of a 

study that received this classification that are not required for influential scientific information, 

how is EPA determining what protocols to follow when collecting data for its study on hydraulic 

fracturing? How is EPA undertaking data collection if it does not know whether the study will be 

SUbjected to peer revicw as a highly influential scientific assessment? 

ANSWER: 

The EPA has guidelines for implementing the Information Quality Guidelines 

(http://www.e.pa.gov/quality/informationguidelinesidocumentsiEPA InfoQualityGuidelines.pdO, 

which we developed to be consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's Information 

Quality Guidelines. These guidelines providc agency personnel with guidance to help determine 

whether or not a study is likely to be considered a highly influential scientific assessment. This 

guidance, along with OMB's Final Information Quality Bulletinfor Peer Review and agency 

documents, including the Data Quality System document 

10 
68 

(http://www.epagov/quality/qa docs.html) and thc Peer Review Handbook 

(http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/Peer''1020Review%20HandbookMay06.pdt), provide 

infonnation on data collection and peer review requirements for various types of 

investigations. The EPA has designated the 2012 and 2014 study reports on hydraulic fracturing 

as "highly influential seientific assessments"; therefore, they will undergo rigorous independent 

peer review. 

QUESTION 9: E&E News reported on EPA's premature collection of data for its fracking study 

prior to completion of its study plan. Specifically, the report said "EPA is downplaying concerns 

about the early data collection, saying it was ncccssary to 'provide a foundation for the full 

study' and will allow for the agency to be able to release more of its findings in 2012 instead of 

the final 2014 study deadline." In response to a question about the factors driving EPA's decision 

to initiate premature data collection in order to release more findings in 2012, you assured that 

this decision was not politically driven. What is the significance of and reason for EPA's 2012 

target release date, and what is the difference between releasing findings in late 2012 versus 

early 2013? 

ANSWER: 

The EPA's hydraulic fracturing study has important implications for a wide range of 

stakeholders. From the time the EPA submitted the initial scoping document for the study to the 

Science Advisory Board (SAB) in March, 2010, the Agency has indicated its intent to havc 

preliminary results available by late 2012 and the full report by late 2014. The 2012 date was 

detennined to be an important juncture in the progress of the study- a date that was highly 

responsive to the public and Congress, and that could be met without compromising the 

Agency's absolute commitment to transparency and rigorous quality assurance procedures. The 

EPA has vigorously communicated its plans for all activities that will be described in the 2012 

and 2014 reports with all stakeholders since the earliest days of the development of the study 

plan. Of course, any information disseminate in 2012 will be preliminary, as stated above. and 

will be treated as such in any agency decision making on hydraulic fracturing. 

Consistent with section 2.5 of the EPA's requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, the 

Agency's " ... shall be reviewed and approved by an authorized EPA reviewer to ensure that the 

QA Project Plan contains the appropriate content and level of detail. The authorized reviewer, for 

example the EPA project manager 1 with the assistance and approval of the EPA QA Manager or 

by the EPA QA Manager alone, are defined by the EPA organization's Quality Management 

Plan. In some cases, the authority to review and approve QA Project Plans is delegated to 

another part of the EPA organization covercd by the same Quality Managcment Plan." 

QUESTION 10: EPA recently announced in the Federal Register that it will be launching a 

standing committtee of its Science Advisory Board to review Integrated Risk Infonnation 

System or IRIS Assessment. 

11 
69 

a. Will you suspend all current and pending IRIS assessments until this panel is able to 

review them? 

b. You have stated that this panel will be "similar \0 the Clean Air Science Advisory 

Committee." We have received significant recent testimony on imbalances and the lack 

of independence ofthis group, with one former member calling the process "flawed, 

narrow, and possibly ethically questionable. Can you guarantee that non-academic and 

non-goverrunental scientists will be welcomed on this panel? What steps are being taken 

to ensure that the panel is "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented"? 

c. The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee was required by Congress in the 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments. Under what authority is EPA establishing this standing 

body, and what steps have been taken to comply with Federal Advisory Committee Act 

notification requirements? 

ANSWER: 

a. No. The EPA has no plans \0 suspend the IRIS Program and will incorporate the NAS 

recommendations in a phased-in approach, although we will closely review each ongoing 

IRIS assessment to ensure they are of the highest possible scientific quality, using a 

transparent process that includes rigorous peer review. Independent rigorous external 

peer review is a cornerstone of the IRIS process. The EPA ensures that every IRIS 

assessment undergoes external peer review that is open to the public. The SAB Chemical 

Assessment Advisory Committee will provide peer review for selected IRIS assessments, 

and advise the EPA on improvements to the IRIS process as it implements 

recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences. 

b. The SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee will not be an independent 

chartered federal advisory committee such as the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee. Rather, the Chemical Assessment Committee will be a subcommittee of the 

SAB, an existing independent chartered federal advisory committee. Members of the 

SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee, appointed by the EPA Administrator, 

will serve as a core of experts to provide ongoing advice, through the chartered SAB, to 

improve the EPA's IRIS process. The SAB will provide advice on the IRIS process,just 

as the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee advised the EPA in developing the new 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards process. 

As chemical-specific IRIS reviews are identified, the SAB Staff Office will augment the 

expertise on the SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee with additional experts, as 

required, to form ad hoc panels. (This is similar to how the SAB Staff Office augments the 

CASAC with additional experts to form CASAC panels for different Clean Air Act criteria 

pollutants subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards.) This process is known as panel 

formation. The SAB panel formation process will provide an opportunity for public nomination 

12 
70 

of experts for panels and public comment on cxperts being considered for panel membcrship. 

The SAB panel formation process strives to meet the Federal Advisory Act requirement that 

advisory panels be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented." The EPA SAB 

Staff Office will seek a wide pool of experts from different sectors who are free of both financial 

conflicts of interest and an appearance of a lack of impartiality. Wc are confident that nonacademic and non-governmental scientists will be able to meet these criteria and participate on 

such panels. 

c. The new SAB subcommittee, the SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee. 

will not be established under the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Rather the 

new subcommittee will be established as a standing subcommittee of the SAB, as 

announced in the Federal Register on November 18, 2011 (76 FR 71561-71562). That 

Notice cited the Congressional mandate for the SAB, established in 1978 by the 

Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) to 

provide independent advice to the Administrator on general scientific and technical 

matters underlying the Agency's policies and actions. The Notice requested public 

nominations of experts by January 6, 2012. 

13 
71 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

Hearing Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Randy Neugebauer 

"Fostering Quality Science at EPA: The Needfor Common Sense Reform" 

Thursday, November 17,2011 

QUESTION 1: For an agency that publicly prides itself on being science-driven and making 

sound, evidence-based decisions, it is interesting to me that the EPA's prcss release in response 

to the Inspector General's findings was so flippant. If the Agency were so concerned with 

scientific integrity and validity, I would think it would take any implications of unsatisfactory 

conduct very seriously and consider making legitimate changes to address those problems. Could 

you please explain why the Agency was so nonchalant about the unbiased recommendation that 

you improve your peer review process and scientific assessments? Does the EPA have any plans 

to implement any or all of the Inspector General's recommendations? 

ANSWER: 

Despite our disagreement with many of the Office of the Inspector General's findings in their 

report entitled Procedural Review of EPA's Greenhouse Gases Endangerment Finding Data 

Quality Processes, we feel it was an important report, and have seriously considered their 

recommendations. Peer review is an integral component of the EPA processes for developing 

science information, and we are always interested in making improvements that promote greater 

transparency. Thus, the EPA is developing a plan that addresses the OIG's recommendations. 

14 
72 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

Hearing Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Brad Miller 

"Fostering Quality Science at EPA: The Needfor Common Sense Reform" 

Thursday, November 17,2011 

Role of the EPA Science Advisor 

QUESTION 1: Dr. Anastas, as the EPA Science Advisor, how are you limited in your authority 

over the research agency-wide? 

ANSWER: 

The EPA Science Advisor has a dual role as Assistant Administrator for Research and 

Development. The EPA will expand the authority and responsibility of the Science Advisor to 

coordinate, oversee, and make recommendations to the Administrator regarding major scientific 

activities throughout the Agency, including the work of all program, regional. and ORO 

laboratories. 

EPA Science Advisory Board 

QUESTION 2: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides expert advice on scientific 

and technical matters within the Agency. Dr. Anastas, ORO frequently requests SAD to review 

research plans and its proposed allocation of ORO resources each year. How does the ORO 

decide which scientific and technical matters to ask the SAD to review? 

ANSWER: 

The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SA B) is an important resource for the Office of Research 

and Development (ORO). The SAB plays a significant role in advising ORO on the overall 

strategic direction of our research, as well as the strategic direction of the individual research 

programs. This advice is obtained in part through the SAB's annual review of the budget 

request. As necessary, ORD also requests SAD input on selected research projects and products. 

This input ranges from advice on conceptual design to peer review of specific products. The 

decision to request SAB input or review is based on such factors as the complexity and 

significance of the research, and the expected benefits, costs and timing of the review. 

15 
73 

Coordination of External Research 

QUESTION 3: EPA's laboratory network is comprised of the ORD laboratories, program office 

laboratories, and ten regional laboratory organizations. Each of these laboratory organizations 

has different objectives with respect to EPA's mission. Where do contracted and external 

research fit into this network? 

ANSWER: 

In addition to its network of intramural laboratories, the EPA's research organi7.3tion-the 

Office of Research and Development maintains a National Center for Environmental Research 

(NCER). NCER supports high-quality research by the nation's leading scientists and engineers 

through extramural, competitively-awarded, assistance agreements and contracts. A description 

of this extramural research portfolio is available at < 

h tIl': I! 1'2 (i 2 (, 5 nea v 506 .aa. ad. cpa. co \'! necrin tranct! a ho ut/research -portfolio-j lme20 1 O. pdf>. 

NCER funds research grants and graduate fellowships in numerous environmcntal science and 

engineering disciplines through a competitive solicitation process and indcpendcnt peer review. 

These grants engage the nation's best scientists and engineers in targeted research that 

complements the EPA's own intramural research program and those of our partners in other 

Federal agencies. In addition, through this same competitive process, NCER periodically 

establishes large research centers in specilic areas of national concern. At present, these centers 

focus on children's health. particulate matter, computational toxicology, and biological threats to 

homeland security. 

The EPA is also one of 11 Federal agencies that participate in the Small Business Innovative 

Research (SBIR) program established by the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 

1982. To this end, NCER awards competition-based contracts that support the SBIR program. 

The goals oCthe NCER SBIR program are to develop, apply, and demonstrate, innovative 

technologies that (a) solve environmental problems and provide sustainable outcomes, and (b) 

ultimately will be commercialized. 

16 
74 

Mr. Arthur Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Questions Submitted by Chairman Andy Harris 
75 

important and influential scientific documents receive the most rigorous and transparent peer 

reviews. We also believe that identifying areas of the guidance and specific situations that may 

be open to differing interpretations is important, particularly for making peer review decisions on 

future actions. Our report's recommendations address areas of EPA's guidance that need to be 

revised to: 1) be consistent with OMB guidance; 2) provide more detail on how to assess other 

organizations' data; and 3) ensure documentation of the Agency's peer review decisions. We 

believe these are important recommendations for helping to assure the quality of data used by 

EPA in future actions. 

2. One of the recommendations in your Compendium of Unimplemented 

Recommendations for EPA'that was originally made in 2005 and has not yet been 

implemented is to "conduct an unbiased analysis of the mercury emissions data to establish 

a maximum control technology floor in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act." EPA's final Utility or mercury MACT rule is currently being reviewed by OMB. 

Why was this analysis important? 

OIG Response 

An unbiased analysis ofthe mercury emissions data to establish a maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) floor in accordance with the Clean Air Act is important for two reasons. 

First, it is needed to set a limit that achieves the emission reductions required by the Act. Second, 

such an approach was not taken by EPA in developing the limit for existing sources (i.e., the 

MACT floor) for its proposed MACT in 2002. 

Clean Air Act Section 112(D)(3) describes how EPA is to set emissions limits for new and 

existing sources. New sources are required to meet the emissions limits achieved in practice by 

the best controlled source in the industry. Existing sources are to achieve, at a minimum, the 

emissions limits achieved in practice by the top performing 12 percent of all existing sources. 

Thus, an unbiased analysis of emissions data is needed to establish the minimum level (or floor) 

of emission reductions required for all sources. 

In 2005, we reported on EPA's development of its proposed rule for controlling mercury 

emissions from coal-fired steam generating electric utilities. This rule proposed two potential 

approaches to controlling emissions: 1) a maximum achievable control technology limit; or 2) a 

performance-based market approach. We reported that evidence indicated that EPA senior 

management had instructed EPA staff to develop a MACT standard for mercury that would 

result in national emissions of 34 tons annually, instead of basing the standard on an unbiased 

determination of what the top performing sources were achieving in practice. The 34-tons-per-' 

year target was based on the amount of mercury reductions expected to be achieved as a cobenefit from implementation of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (S02) controls under a 

separately proposed, but related, air rule. 
76 

3. Can you describe the failure of the Agency to appropriately inform its employees about 

its scientific integrity policies? Has EPA implemented any of your recommendations? 

OIG Response 

In our July 2011 report enti.tled Office 0/ Research and Development Should Increase Awareness 

o/Scientific Integrity Policies, we focused on whether EPA's Office of Research and 

Development (ORO) had controls to address scientific integrity and research misconduct and the 

effectiveness of those controls. We did not look at EPA as a whole. We found that ORO had 

internal controls that included policies, procedures, training, and peer review. However, ORO 

did not evaluate the effectiveness of those controls for scientific integrity and research 

misconduct. ORO asserted that few reported instances of misconduct meant that it generally does 

not occur. However, few identified instances of research misconduct could signal that stafflacks 

awareness of key criteria and reporting requirements necessary to identify and report 

misconduct. 

During our review, we issued an electronic survey to over 1,300 ORO science staff and received 

nearly 500 responses. We found that 65 percent of respondents were unaware of EPA's Order 

3120.5 addressing research misconduct, and 32 percent were unaware ofEP A's Principles of 

Scientific Integrity. We also found that ORO had not updated the Principles of Scientific 

Integrity E-Training since June 2005. The existing e-training was not mandatory for ORO staff 

and did not include actual examples to aid understanding by training participants. Our survey 

found that 66 percent of respondents did not complete the training. Those who have not 

completed the training may be unaware of key criteria regarding scientific integrity. 

We made several recommendations to ORO. We recommended that ORO periodically test the 

effectiveness of controls to address scientific integrity and research misconduct. We also 

recommended that ORO work with EPA offices to initiate outreach on EPA Order 3120.5 to 

raise awareness on roles/responsibilities and reporting steps, and to identify EPA staff and 

managers who should complete the Principles of Scientific Integrity E-Training. Lastly, we 

recommended that ORO continue to work with unions to update and implement e-training. Such 

updates should include making the e-training mandatory for all ORO staff, ensuring that the 

updated course contains actual examples, and creating a system for maintaining current contact 

information for reporting instances of scientific integrity and research misconduct. ORO agreed 

with oUT recommendations. 

Since our report was issued, EPA has taken action to implement oUT recommendations. For 

example, EPA is developing a new Agency-wide policy on scientific integrity. A draft policy 

was issued on August 5,2011, and the final policy was scheduled for completion by December 

2011 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, though that deadline has since been 

delayed. ORO has developed a review protocol to test the effectiveness of the policy once 

finalized. Also, in August 2011, EPA named a Scientific Integrity Official and Scientific 

Integrity Committee with officials in each program and regional office. Together this group 

makes up EPA's Scientific Integrity Committee. EPA's scientific integrity committee will work 

with Agency partners to initiate outreach on EPA Order 3120.5 to raise awareness of 

roles/responsibilities and reporting steps by December 31, 2011. Finally, updates on the 
77 

Principles of Scientific Integrity E-Training are under development. EPA is working with the 

unions to make the e-training mandatory. The training will include actual examples. The 

schedule for course completion is July 2012 with training of staff to be completed by September 

2012. 

4. EPA has listed "Taking Action on Climate Change" as a top goal in the Agency's 

strategic vision. Does EPA have a comprehensive research plan to achieve this objective? 

OIG Re§Jlonse 

In our February 2009 report entitled EPA Needs.a Comprehensive Research Plan and Policies to 

Fulfill its Emerging Climate Change Role, we found that EPA's latest plan for future climate 

change research did not address the full range of emerging information needs. We reconunended 

that EPA establish a formal; transparent research requirements determination process that 

includes well-defined procedures for identifying a unified set of priority climate change research 

needs; and establish a formal mechanism to track regional research needs from research project 

selection to completion. In response, EPA agreed to make ORD's and the Global Change 

Research Program's (GCRP) research prioritization processes more transparent to the program 

and regional offices. Specifically, the National Program Director for the GCRP would issue a 

memorandum describing how GCRP priorities are set on an annual basis. In addition, they 

committed to a memorandum summarizing the ORD mechanisms to communicate and 

coordinate GCRJ" s work, and a survey of EPA stakeholders regarding the timeliness and 

usefulness of its products to enhance research planning. In June 2011, EPA issued a draft 

framework for its research on air, climate, and energy issues. The OIG has not evaluated the 

effects of EPA's actions in response to our 2009 reconunendations, nor whether the 2011 draft 

framework constitutes a comprehensive research plan to achieve its strategic vision on climate 

change. 

5. Please describe your office's views on EPA's handling of endocrine disruption research. 

OIG Re§Jlonse 

In our May 2011 report entitled EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Should 

Establish Management Controls to Ensure More Timely Results, we reviewed whether EPA has 

planned and conducted the requisite research and testing to evaluate and regulate endocrinedisrupting chemicals. We specifically focused on EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 

(EDSP), which is administered by the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

(OCSPP) with support from ORD. In 1998, EPA established EDSP which uses a two-tiered 

screening and testing approach using validated assays to assess endocrine effects. 

We found that 14 years after passage of the Food Quality Protection Act and Safe Drinking 

Water Act amendments, EPA's EDSP had not determined whether any chemical is a potential 

endocrine disruptor. The Agency had believed it would take, at most, one year for prevalidation 

of the assays and one year to validate the studies. In his February 2010 testimony before 

Congress, the EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for OCSPP explained that because of the 

many complexities in methods development and validation of Tier 1 assays, validation of Tier 1 
78 

assays took 10 years and is ongoing for Tier 2 assays. An EDSP manager told us that EDSP was 

unaware of the complexities, resources, and time needed to validate assays until years after 

EPA's 2001 settlement agreement with the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) was 

signed. However, EDSP did not substantially revise its milestones for completing assay 

validation in its status reports to NRDC. For example, 9 of the 11 updates that EPA provided to 

NRDC for the estrogen receptor binrung assay incrementally adjusted the milestones, 

collectively, by 4 Y, years. 

While we acknowledged that EDSP encountered rufficulties and delays, we determined that its 

lack of progress was also due to a lack of management controls over the program. EDSP had not 

developed a management plan laying out the program's goals and priorities or established 

outcome performance measures to track program results. EDSP had not finalized specific 

procedures to evaluate testing results. Finally, EDSP had not clearly defined the universe of 

chemicals it plans to evaluate over time. Developing a management plan would ensure that the 

program's goals and priorities are transparent so EPA's leadership and Congress can assess 

whether the goals of the program are being achieved at a reasonable cost and schedule. 

We recommended that EPA: 1) define and identify the universe of chemicals for screening and 

testing; 2) develop and publish a standardized methodology for prioritizing the universe of 

chemicals for screening and testing; 3) finalize specific Tier I and Tier 2 criteria to evaluate 

testing data; 4) develop performance measures; 5) develop a comprehensive management plan; 

and 6) hold armual program reviews. In its response to our recommendations, OCSPP stated that 

it plarmed to use computer models and in vitro high throughput assays in the EDSP to prioritize 

chemicals. In the long-term, OCSPP plans to replace Tier I in vivo assays with in vitro high 

throughput assays. OCSPP stated that its approach is based on advances in computational 

modeling and molecular biology, understanding of endocrine-specific initiating events, and 

adverse outcome pathways as well as robotics for conducting rapid in vitro assays on hundreds 

of chemicals simultaneously. The OIG has requested more information from OCSPP about how 

it plans to validate high throughput assays since the EDSP is required to use validated tests. 

6. Your office has been critical of EPA's process for selecting impartial scientific advisory 

panels. Can you describe the problems that have occurred in the Agency's handling of 

external peer review panels? 

OIG Response 

The OIG has issued two evaluation reports regarding EPA's peer review process since 2004. 

While these reports rud notidentify specific instances of biased panels, we noted areas where 

EPA could improve its controls over the panel selection process. 

In our November 2004 entitled Review of Conflict of Interest Allegations Pertaining to the Peer 

Review of EPA's Draft Report, "Exposure and Human Health Evaluation of Airborne Pollution 

from the World Trade Center Disaster, " we reported on allegations of conflicts of interest 

regarding a peer review panel established to review a draft evaluation ofhurnan exposure from 

the World Trade Center (WTC) rusaster. We found that the peer review panel included one 

panelist with an extensive history of provirung expert testimony and similar services for 
79 

.defendants in asbestos lawsuits, and two panelists who had made prior public statements 

regarding the safety of the air around the WTC site. These circumstances provided a basis for the 

perception that one panelist had a potential conflict of interest and that two panelists had 

potential biases that would prevent them from providing impartial input. We also found that 

EPA's contractor tasked with convening the panel did not inquire whether the three panelists had 

received funding from industry or had publicly expressed viewpoints on the issues to be 

reviewed. 

We made a number of recommendations to better· ensure that guidance in EPA's Peer Review 

Handbook will be fully followed, including that EPA provide: 1) better oversight of peer review 

contracts to ensure that potential panelists are asked about industry financing and their 

relationship with clients; and 2) supplemental guidance and training of peer review leaders 

regarding the types of information they may need to obtain about potential panelists' opinions 

and viewpoints when they assess whether panels are independent and balanced. EPA agreed with 

our recommendations. In response to our draft report, ORD issued a policy announcement that 

required that specific conflict of interest provisions be included in task order statements of work 

for EPA peer reviews, unless these provisions are waived by the National Center for 

Environmental Assessment (NCEA) Director. These provisions adequately addressed many of 

our concerns. ORD also identified milestone dates for developing additional guidance to 

supplement the existing EPA Peer ReviewHandbook, revising existing training materials, and 

developing a peer review website. Further, ORD stated it would ask the Science Policy Council 

to adopt an Agency-wide policy directing its contractors to use the information-collection forms 

that are currently being used by the EPA Science Advisory Board and the National Academy of 

Sciences to aid staff in assessing peer review panel balance. 

In our April 2009 report entitled EPA Can Improve Its Process for Establishing Peer Review 

panels, we noted that NCEA's peer review panel selection process did not differ in many aspects 

when compared to the processes of four other science-based organizations. However, since 

NCEA peer review panels are not designed to obtain consensus, NCEA strives to select 

"impartial" panelists. We found that this concept was vaguely defined in OMB and EPA 

guidance and was not explained in any NCEA-specific operating guidance. Further, NCEA did 

not have procedures for addressing conflicts of interest or potential biases impacting a panelists' 

impartiality that became known after a panel had completed its deliberations. Also, there was no 

clear documentation of authority and responsibility for making final determinations regarding 

panel selection or how potential conflicts of interest were resolved. We made recommendations 

to ORD to improve management controls by better defining the concept of "impartiality" and 

maintaining records of all management decisions pertaining to the selection of peer reviewers, 

particularly resolution of potential conflicts of interest. We also recommended that guidance be 

developed to address conflict of interest issues that arise after panel formulation. ORD agreed 

with our recommendations and certified that all corrective actions were completed as of 

December 2009. 
80 

EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Responses to 

Questions for the Record 

Rep. Randy Neugebauer 

1. Has the EPA indicated any willingness to improve its selection ofimpartial scientific 

advisory panels? What problems have you observed in this regard, and how important is it 

to the soundness of the EPA's scientific findings to engage with truly unbiased external 

peer reviewers? 

OIG Response 

The OIG has issued two evaluation reports regarding EPA's peer review process since 2004. 

Based on EPA's fonnal responses to these reports, EPA has iridicated a willingness to improve 

its selection process for peer review panels. 

In our November 2004 entitled Review of Conflict of Interest Allegations Pertaining to the Peer 

Review of EPA's Draft Report, "Exposure and Human Health Evaluation of Airborne Pollution 

from the World Trade Center Disaster, "we recommended that EP A take several actions to 

better ensure that guidance in EPA's Pe.er Review Handbook was fully followed. This included 

providing: 1) better oversight of peer review contracts to ensure that potential panelists are 

asked about the industry financing they have received, and their relationship with any clients 

whose interests might be affected by the subject being peer reviewed; and 2) supplemental 

guidance and training of peer review leaders regarding the types of infoUllation they may need 

to obtain about potential panelists' opinions and viewpoints when they assess whether panels 

are independent and balanced. EPA agreed with our recommendations .. In response to our draft 

report, EPA's Office of Research and Development CORD) issued. an policy announcement that 

required that specific conflict of interest provisions be included in task order statements of work 

for EPA peer reviews, unless these provisions are waived by the National Center for 

Environmental Assessment (NCEA) Director. These provisions adequately addressed many of 

our concerns. ORD also identified milestone dates for developing additional guidance to 

supplement the existing EPA Peer Review Handbook, revising existing training materials, and 

developing a peer review website. Further, ORD stated it would ask the Science Policy Council 

to adopt an Agency-wide policy directing its contractors to use the infonnation-collection foUlls 

that are currently being used by' the EPA Science Advisory Board and the National Academy of 

Sciences to aid staff in assessing peer review panel balance. 

In our April 2009 report entitled EPA Can Improve Its Process for Establishing Peer Review 

Panels, we made several recommendations to EPA to improve the peer review process. Among 

them were: 1) define the concept of "impartiality" and maintain records of all management 

decisions pertaining to the selection of peer reviewers, particularly resolution of potential 

conflicts of interest; 2) in cases where panelists with potential conflicts or biases are accepted on 
81 

the panel, the records should include a memorandum of decision explaining the suitability and 

rationale for including or excluding each panelist, which is signed by an EPA official; and 3) 

develop guidance to address conflict of interest issues that arise after panel formulation and 

amend contracts for external peer review services to require that panelists re-certify their conflict 

of interest status prior to the panel convening. ORD agreed to all of our recommendations and 

certified that all corrective actions were completed as of December 2009. Further, we noted that 

in response to our 2004 report, NCEA had developed a questionnaire and received OMB 

approval for EPA contractors to use the questionnaire to help identify potential conflicts of 

interest or potential biases that may affect the selection of a potential panel member. The 

questionnaire asks potential panelists to address their possible financial conflicts of interest and 

those of their family members, as well as possible non-financial independence and impartiality 

issues. 
82 

Mr. David Trimble, Director, 

Natural Resources And Environment, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Questions Submitted by Chairman Andy Harris 
83 

(3) GAO has stated in the past that "lack of complete and comprehensive environmental 

information on air and water quality ... makes it difficult for EPA to evaluate the success of 

its policies and programs" and that "they need to use environmental indicators to 

prioritize its allocation of limited resources." Has EPA made the necessary changes to 

prioritize the most pressing environmental problems? 

Reliable environmental information is needed to provide better scientific understanding of 

environmental trends and conditions and to better inform the public about environmental 

progress in their locales. However, EPA has struggled with providing a focus and the necessary 

resources for environmental information since its inception in 1970. When we last reported on 

this issue in 2004, we found that, while much data has been collected over the years, most 

water, air, and land programs lack the detailed environmental trend information needed to 

provide direction for future research and monitoring efforts. 1 At that time, we made a number of 

recommendations aimed at improving the quality, utility, and transparency of environmental 

information. EPA generally agreed with our recommendations, and has made some progress in 

trying to obtain and use improved environmental information over the past several years. 

However, since we issued our report in 2004, we have not conducted a comprehensive 

assessment of EPA's efforts to use environmental information to prioritize its allocation of 

resources. 

' GAO, Environmental Indicators: Better Coordination Is Needed to Develop Environmental Indicator 

Sets That Inform DeCisions, GAO-OS-52 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2004). 
84 

(4) Your office has been critical of EPA's process for selecting impartial scientific 

advisory panels. Can you describe the problems that have occurred in the Agency's 

handling of external peer review panels? 

EPA and other agencies rely on advice from federal advisory committees on scientific and 

technical issues, Because advisory committees provide input to federal decision makers on 

significant national issues, it is essential that their membership be, and be perceived as being, 

free from conflicts of interest and balanced as a whole, In 2008, GAO testified about continuing 

problems with the independence of advisory committee members - that is, their freedom from 

conflicts of interest - and the balance of the committees overall in terms of pOints of view and 

functions to be performed. 2 

In our 2008 testimony, we found that EPA's practices for ensuring the independence of its 

advisory panel members were better than that of the other nine agencies we reviewed, For 

example, unlike some of the other agencies we reviewed, EPA did not make inappropriate use 

of "representative" appOintments-that is, an appOintment expected to reflect the views of the 

entity or group they are representing and not subject to conflict-of-interest reviews, In addition, 

of the nine agencies GAO reviewed, only EPA consistently (1) collected information on 

committee members appointed as special government employees that enabled the agency to 

assess the points of view of the potential members and (2) used this information to help achieve 

balance, Moreover, the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency responsible for 

developing guidance on establishing and managing federal advisory committees, highlighted the 

practices employed by some of EPA's federal advisory committees in its training material as 

"best practices", 

Hearing Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Randy Neugebauer 

(5) Has the EPA indicated any willingness to improve its selection of impartial scientific 

panels? What problems have you observed in this regard, and how important is it to the 

soundness of the EPA's scientific findings to engage with truly unbiased external peer 

reviewers? 

As we discussed in our response to question 4 above, in 2008 GAO testified that EPA's 

practices for ensuring the independence of its advisory panel members were better than that of 

the other nine agencies reviewed, Although we made a number of recommendations in the 

report, on which our testimony was based, the report did not include any recommendations to 

EPA,' 

2GAO, Federal Advisory Committee Act: Issues Related to the Independence and Balance of Advisory 

Committees, GAO-OS-61lT, Washington, D,C.: Apr. 2, 200S), 

3 GAO, Federal Advisory Committees: Addifional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and 

Balance, GAO-04-328 (Washington, D,C.: Apr. 16,2004), 
85 

Hearing Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Brad Miller 

(6) Mr. Trimble, in your testimony you state that the EPA has not appointed a top science 

official with the responsibility and authority for all the research, science, and technical 

functions of the agency. Dr. Anastas is the Science Advisor of the EPA in addition to the 

head of ORO. Why is the Science Advisor not considered the science official with this 

responsibility and authority? Is this the best way to handle the role of science official at 

the EPA? If not, what are some alternative options? 

In response to our recommendation to establish a top-level science official with the authority 

and responsibility to coordinate, oversee, and make management decisions regarding major 

scientific activities throughout the agency, EPA proposed to increase the responsibilities of its 

science advisor. However, it is not clear that this will fully address the issue and it may 

ultimately introduce additional challenges for EPA. We note that in 2000, the National Research 

Council reported that it had previously "underestimated the level of authority needed to achieve 

the necessary degree of cooperation and coordination of scientific activities and policy in the 

regulatory and regional offices." The Council also concluded that "no single individual could 

reasonably be expected to direct a world-class research program in ORO while also trying to 

improve scientific practices and performance throughout the rest of the agency," stating that 

"these jobs are inherently different." Lastly, the Council cautioned that "assigning agency-wide 

scientific authority to the assistant administrator for ORO might produce a conflict of 

responsibilities, because many decisions about science in the regulatory programs could affect 

ORO's budget or favor ORO's research over research done elsewhere." 

In considering alternatives to EPA's proposal to increase the responsibilities of the science 

advisor, we note that improvements to the scientific leadership of EPA's research and laboratory 

operations will be driven by the level of authority and responsibility provided to the chosen toplevel science official. In 2000, the National Research Council recommended that EPA Establish 

a deputy administrator for science and technology with the authority and responsibility to 

coordinate and oversee scientific activities throughout the agency. Although the Congress 

considered two bills in 2001 to establish a deputy administrator of science and technology, no 

legislation was enacted. While we did not specifically recommend that EPA establish a deputy 

administrator position, we believe that similar authority, including management of resources, will 

be required. 
86 

APPENDIX II: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
87 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD BY MR. M. GRANGER MORGAN, HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC POLICY UNIVERSITY AND LORD CHAIR

PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
88 

This afternoon I will concentrate my testimony on the role and perfonnance of the SAB. 

However, I will conclude with a few more general remarks about the importance of research at 

the EPA. 

During the years that I was involved with the SAB, its membership was consistently comprised of 

some of our nation's leading experts in environmental science and engineering. While an effort 

was made to assure disciplinary and gender diversity, the primary criteria for membership has 

always been two-fold: 

1. Representation across all of the scientific disciplines that are key to the perfonnance of 

EPA's mission; and, 

2. Outstanding scientific credentials. 

Following a 2001 GAO report that recommended improvements in the transparency of the 

selection process for SAB committee membership, major improvements were made. As the GAO 

subsequently noted approvingly "EPA revised the Board's policies and procedures, as GAO had 

recommended. ,,1 Details on these procedures can be found on the SAB's public web site2 

The role the SAB has played has varied somewhat from one administration to the next. However, 

in her 1990 book The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors and Policymakers, and his 1992 book The 

Advisors: Scientists in the Policy Process, both Sheila Jasanofe and Bruce Smith4 have argued 

that, together with the Defense Science Board, the SAB had become the most effective advisory 

board to a federal agency. Jasanoff concluded that, despite some early years of finding its way, by 

1990 the SAB had become "a powerful and respected adjunct to EPA's regulatory programs" that 

was drawn from " ... a representative cross section of the scientific community ... " She notes that 

"Perhaps the most important reason [for the SAB's success] ... is that the EPA's activities (labeled 

"science") has insulated the Board from overly close identification with EPA's regulatory goals 

and related implementation strategies." It is my assessment that this characterization has 

remained valid since Prof. Jasanoffwrote these lines over 20 years ago. The SAB continues to 

play an important role in assuring that the EPA's regulatory policy are based on sound science, 

and that its research programs focus on assuring that the Agency will have the science-base to 

address emerging environmental problems in the future. 

In recent years, the SAB, and its various subcommittees, has perfonned three primary functions. 

It has: 

1. Perfonned reviews of Agency work products; 

2. When asked, it has undertaken special studies for the Agency; and 

3. It has performed self-initiated studies on topics that the Board considers to be of critical 

importance. 

Attachment I contains recent examples of products 2 and 3. 

I will briefly comment on each of these functions. I should also note that there are a number of 

other functions, such as the periodic review of standards for criteria air pollutants, analysis of 

GAO-09-773T. 

See: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebSABSOJNominationExperts?OpenDocument 

and http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebSABSO/cthics?OpenDocument. 

3 Sheila Jadsanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors and Policymakers, Harvard University Press, 

302pp., 1990. 

4 Bruce L. R. Smith, The Advisors: Scientists in the policy process, Brookings, 238pp., 1992. 

-2-
89 

clean air compliance analysis, and reviews of the performance of the EPA's laboratory system, 

that are handled by advisory committees other than the SAB. 

Review Agency Work Products: The SAB typically spends the majority of its time performing 

reviews of Agency draft documents and other work-products. In a typical year, it completes 15 to 

20 such detailed reviews. 

In my experience, these reviews have played an important and consistent role in improving the 

quality of Agency work-products, assuring that the best available science and methods are being 

applied as the Agency conducts its work. 

I do, however, have one concern about SAB reviews of Agency work-products. While EPA has 

gotten much better in recent years at assuring that all its work products receive external peer 

review, it is not clear to me that the SAB is consistently asked to review the Agency's most 

important work-products. Sometimes there appears to be some "venue shopping," by which I 

mean that some Agency staff use other methods, such as review panels assembled outside 

contractors. Given the volume of EPA work products that must be reviewed, using other methods 

is entirely appropriate because there is simply no way that the SAB could handle all of thcse 

products. However, I do believe that it would be valuable to reiterate the importance of using the 

SAB for review of the Agency's most important products. 

Conduct Studies as Requested: From time-to-time when the Agency has a specific need it asks 

the SAB to conduct studies on its own. For example, in recent years, the SAB has assisted the 

Office of Research and Development in an exercise to help set future research priorities. The 

SAB has conducted a review of the scientific understanding of hypoxia (the "dead zone") in the 

Gulf of Mexico, drinking water contamination from partial lead line replacement, and evaluation 

of treatment technology for risks posed by the discharge of ballast water from ships (that can 

introduce invasive aquatic species). 

Conduct Self-Initiated Studies: Over the years, the SAB has also played an important role by 

identifying issues that it believes need to receive greater Agency attention and has conducted its 

own studies on such topics. For example, for a number of years the SAB performed a series of 

studies to identify environment risks that were receiving insufficient attention, as well as studies 

to identify environmental issues that are not on the Agency's agenda, but are likely to become 

important in the future. 

Some recent examples of such studies have been an assessment of the role of reactive nitrogen in 

the environment and a large study on how best to evaluate impact on ecosystems. Sometime 

these studies have significant impact on subsequent agency thinking and performance. 

An example of such a study that did not have the impact we'd hoped for was a study conducted 

during my term as Chair of the SAB. Members of the SAB observed that the EPA was not as 

prepared as they might have been in responding to a number of past environmental disasters such 

as the aftermath of Katrina and of September II. To help assure that the Agency is better 

prepared for future environmental disasters, the SAB undertook a self-initiated study in which we 

invited in a number of organizations that regularly deal well with environmental disasters to brief 

the SAB so that we could learn from their experiences. Unfortunately, the resulting report 

"Preparing for Environmental Disasters" (Attachment 2) was finalized late in 2008, so I believe 

got lost in the shuffle with the change to a new administration. 

- 3 -
90 

Some Concluding Remarks on Research at EPA: On two previous occasions, when I testified 

before this committee, in my capacity as Chair of the SAB, I stressed the importance of 

maintaining a strong research capacity in EPA in the areas of environmental science and 

engineering. This is important to assure that present and emerging regulations are based on a 

strong base of sound science. It is also critically important to assure that the Agency will have the 

scientific knowledge it will need to respond in a sensible and effective way to future 

environmental challenges. 

Today, research on environmental issues is spread across many different federal agencies and 

across many groups in universities and the private sector. In my view, the federal government 

could do a better job of tracking all of these activities, making sure that the knowledge flows to 

EPA and other agencies as needed, and identifying critical research gaps. 

While EPA may need from time-to-time to reshape the focus of the research it conducts in light 

of changing needs and challenges, I can definitively state that the research conducted across the 

nation outside of EPA is not sufficient to meet the Agency's needs. Without strong and consistent 

support for research within the EPA, the nation cannot reasonably expect the Agency to continue 

to accomplish its mission of protecting human health and the environment. 

That concludes the testimony I would have presented. I hope you find it of some use. 

MGM:pjs 

Attachments 

- 4-

Yours, 

V;:;C;;f/<:UA-q--j;(Zq--

M. Granger Morgan 

Head, Department of Engineering 

and Public Policy 

University and Lord Chair Professor 

Professor, EPPIECElHeinz 
91 

ATTACHMENT 1 

Recent SAB comments on ORD Research Directions 

Office of Research and Development (ORD) New Strategic Rcsearch 

Directions: A Joint Report of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and ORD 

Board of Scientific Councilors (BOSC). EPA-SAB-12-001 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf!804D 1 A3A4A393C028525793000732744!$F 

ilc/EP A-SAB-12-00 l-ul1signed&4f 

Office of Research and Development Strategic Research Directions and 

Integrated Transdisciplinary Research. EPA-SAB-lO-OlO 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproducLnsf/E989ECFC 125966428525 77 5B004 7BE 1 A/$ 

FilelEPA -$AB-I 0-0 I O-unsigned.pdf 

SAB reports responding to Agency requests for scientific analysis 

Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Update by the EPA Science 

Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-08-003 

http://yosemite.epa.gov!sab/~roducLnsf/C3D2F27094EO3F90852573B800601D93/$F 

ik/EPA-SAfi-08-003complete.unsigneQ,pc!f 

Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: a Report by the EPA 

Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-II-009 

jJJtp:llyosemite.epa.gov Isab/sapJrrQdu<;Lnsf/{iFFF I BFB6F4EQ9FD852578CB006EO 149/$ 

FileIEPA-SAB-II-009-unsigned.pdf 

SAB Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Partial Lead Service Line 

Replacements. EPA -SAB-II-O 15 

http://yosemite.epa.gov Isab/sabproduet.nsf/964CCDB94F4 E6216852579190072606F I$Fi 

leIEPA-SAB-ll-O 15-unsigned.pdf 

SAB self-initiated activities 

Reactive Nitrogen in the United States: An Analysis ofInputs, Flows, 

Consequences, and Management Options - A Report of the Science Advisory 

Board. EPA-SAB-II-013 

http://yosemite.epa. gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/6705 7225CC780623852578F 1 0059533 D/$F il 

eIEPA-SAB-11-013-unsignedJ2M 

Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services. 

EPA -SAB-09-0 12 

http2{yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproducLnsf/F3DB 1 F5C6EF90EE 185257 5C50058915 7/$F 

ile/EP A-SAB-09-0 12-unsigned.pdf 
92 

A TT ACHMENT 2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 

EPA-SAB-09-002 

The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson 

Administrator 

October 24, 2008 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington. D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD 

Subject: SAB Advisory Report "Preparing for Environmental Disasters" 

Dear Administrator Johnson: 

J am pleased to send to you a self-initiated Advisory Report of the EPA Science 

Advisory Board (SAB) titled "Preparing for Environmental Disasters." Our primary 

motivation in this effort has been to help the Agency become less reactive and more 

anticipatory and to think more broadly about how it identifies and assesses possible future 

large-scale environmental disasters and develops plans for responding to and 

communicating about them. 

EPA's statutory responsibilities in such settings are limited, and in the context of an 

environmental disaster, "that's not my department" is not a satisfactory answer to a 

concerned general public that will look at the Agency's name and expect it to take a wider 

range of responsibilities than it is likely to actually have. The public may not understand, 

or in the face of a major environmental disaster care very much, about the intricacies of 

bureaucratic or political constraints. Thus, they may blame EPA for the shortcomings of 

others. 

It is very much in the Agency's interest to assure that preparations for possible 

future disasters have been well developed and that there are not gaps in responsibility or 

response. While it is clear that the Agency has already undertaken extensive preparations 

to deal with a range of specific environmental disasters, we also recommend that EPA also 

invest modest additional resources in some broader efforts. 

To this end the SAB recommends that the EPA establish a small interdisciplinary 

Environmental Disaster Assessment Team of five to seven professionals who are charged 

with identifying, prioritizing and assessing potential environmental disasters. This team 

should develop a system to identify potential environmental disasters, prioritize them 

based on probability and consequence, and identify common attributes and response 

strategies that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of agency responses. 
93 

In addition, the proposed Environmental Disaster Assessment Team should 

perform, or arrange for others to perform, reasonably comprehensive assessments of those 

disasters deemed to be of greatest concern. It should then help and advise the Agency to 

fully: I) identify gaps in coverage by Federal, State and Local authorities and needs for 

improved coverage, coordination and preplanning; 2) develop prior arrangements with 

experts and organizations who can provided the needed knowledge and skills and develop 

a geo-coded Jist of this expertise so that these connections can be made rapidly in an 

emergency; and 3) identify short term waivers to regulations that might be needed and 

prearranged mechanisms to achieve these waivers in a way that balances efficiency with 

protection and other objectives. 

In undertaking this self-initiated study, one of the first steps the SAB took was to 

invite a set of briefings from a range of organizations that have extensive experience in 

dealing with a wide variety of environmental disasters. We did this because we wanted to 

see if there were general lessons to be drawn that might be relevant to the EPA's needs, and 

because we wanted to get ourselves "grounded" in examples of a number of real events so 

that our deliberations would not be too abstract. 

From these examples we concluded that the Agency would be well advised to more 

systematically examine and seek to learn from the best practices of other public and private 

organizations. In so doing, it should seek strategies by which it, and other responsible 

parties, might better: 

I) anticipate, assess, plan jor, and practice responses to deal with major events 

that plausibly might occur in coming years; 

2) learn rapidly what is going on and developing a rapid and rough sense of what 

risks may exist to people and the environment; 

3) effectively coordinate and communicate with other key players including first 

responders and the public; 

4) respond with flexibility to the specific needs and circumstances ofthe event at 

hand, including the ability to adapt procedures and make real-time decisions 

when previous plans are not working; 

5) delegate decision authority to responsible individuals in the field; and 

6) mobilize personnel and resources in a rapid and orderly way. 

Beyond these general recommendations the report makes a number of more specific 

recommendations, many of which should help to improve EPA's capacity in the 

emergency response program. 

The SAB recommends that the EPA compile an inventory of existing models, tools, 

data and resources, including those that, while developed for other purposes, might be 

made usejillfor disaster response; perform a comprehensive assessment and develop a 

report on the gaps in the available resource systems; solicit feedback from users of these 

tools, particularly local and state personnel and regional EPA managers, regarding resource 

systems; and identify further development and research needs. 

The SAB recognizes that field measurements made during the early stages of a 

disaster have a different purpose than field measurements made for long-term monitoring 

and remediation. Emergency responders and citizens need fast order-of-magnitude 

2 
94 

indications of the nature and level of hazards they may face. Accordingly instrumentation, 

quality assurance procedures for authorizing the release of data, and measurement 

priorities should be designed to appropriately meet those needs. While recognizing the 

progress that has been made in the development of the Environmental Response 

Laboratory Network. the report recommends that tbe agency pay additional attention to 

developing procedures for rapid field measurement, data analysis and data release during 

the early stages of emergencies, as well as protocols for how those procedures will be 

modified to assure greater precision and quality control as needed in later stages of the lifecycle of an environmental disaster. 

The report makes a variety of other more specific recommendations related to tools 

for data display and analysis, documentation of decisions, routine post-hoc performance 

audits. and improving communication. 

In this latter context, the report notes that virtually all of the Agency's work in 

communication with the general public lacks a key empirical foundation. To correct this 

deficiency, the SAB recommends that the Agency reinvigorate its program in behavioral 

social science application and research, perhaps by reestablishing the very successful 

collaboration it once had with National Science Foundation's Decision Research and 

Management Science program. This should include a strong program in empirically based 

methods of risk communication as well as development, demonstration and evaluation of 

mechanisms for better including public values and preferences in post-disaster clean-up 

decisions. 

Clearly the SAB is not the right organization to develop detailed operational plans to 

deal with environmental disasters. Rather, it is our hope that by taking a fresh independent 

look, this report may persuade the Agency to begin to add to its current activities the kind 

of broader, more anticipatory approach we believe is needed. 

In the future, once the agency has developed a broader planning process and plans, 

the SAB would be happy to provide thoughtful expert reviews and advice on the technical 

and behavioral dimensions of those processes and plans. 

Sincerely, 

/Signed/ 

Dr. M. Granger Morgan 

Chair 

U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board 

3 
95 

NOTICE 

This report has been written as part of the activities of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), a 

public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator 

and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The SAB is structured to provide 

balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency. This 

report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency and, hence, the contents of this report do 

not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor of 

other agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade 

names of commercial products constitute a recommendation for use. Reports of the SAB are 

posted on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/sab. 
96 

CHAIR 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Science Advisory Board* 

Dr. M. Granger Morgan, Lord Chair Professor in Engineering. Department of 

Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 

SABMEMBERS 

Dr. Gregory Biddinger, Coordinator, Natural Land Management Programs, Toxicology 

and Environmental Sciences, ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences. Inc., Houston, TX 

Dr. Thomas Burke, Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns 

Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 

Dr. James Bus, Director of External Technology, Toxicology and Environmental 

Research and ConSUlting. The Dow Chemical Company, Midland. MI 

Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta, Professor, Department of Environmental Medicine, School of 

Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 

Dr. Maureen L. Cropper, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Maryland, 

College Park, MD 

Dr. Virginia Dale, Corporate Fellow, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN 

Dr. Kenneth Dickson, Regents Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University 

of North Texas, Aubrey, TX 

Dr. David A. Dzombak, Walter J. Blenko Sr. Professor of Environmental Engineering, 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. College of Engineering, Carnegie 

Mellon University. Pittsburgh, PA 

Dr. Baruch Fischhoff, Howard Heinz University Professor, Department of Social and 

Decision Sciences, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon 

University, Pittsburgh, PA 

Dr .• James Galloway, Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of 

Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 

Dr. James K. Hammitt, Professor, Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard University. Boston, 

MA 

*This roster reflects the SAB membership during 2007 and 2008 when the activity was 

conducted. 

ii 
97 

Dr. Rogene Henderson, Senior Scientist Emeritus, Lovelace Respiratory Research 

Institute, Albuquerque, NM 

Dr. James H. Johnson, Professor and Dean. College of Engineering, Architecture & 

Computer Sciences. Howard University, Washington, DC 

Dr. Bernd Kahn, Professor Emeritus and Director, Environmental Radiation Center, 

Nuclear and Radiological Engineering Program, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 

GA 

Dr. Agnes Kane, Professor and Chair, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 

Brown University, Providence, RI 

Dr. Meryl Karol, Professor Emerita, Graduate School of Public Health, University of 

Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, P A 

Dr. Catherine Kling, Professor, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, 

IA 

Dr. George Lambert, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Director, Center for Childhood 

Neurotoxicology, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School-UMDNJ, Belle Mead, NJ 

Dr. Jill Lipoti, Director, Division of Environmental Safety and Health. New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ 

Dr. Michael J. McFarland, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental 

Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT 

Dr. Judith L. Meyer, Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus, University of Georgia, 

Lopez Island, W A 

Dr. Jana Milford, Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 

University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 

Dr. Rebecca Parkin, Professor and Associate Dean, Environmental and Occupational 

Health, School of Public Health and Health Services, The George Washington University 

Medical Center, Washington, DC 

Mr. David Rejeski, Director, Foresight and Governance Project, Woodrow Wilson 

International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC 

Dr. Stephen M. Roberts, Professor, Department of Physiological Sciences, Director, 

Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 

Dr. Joan B. Rose, Professor and Homer Nowlin Chair for Water Research, Department of 

Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 

iii 
98 

Dr. James Sanders, Director and Professor. Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, 

Savannah, GA 

Dr. Jerald Schnoor, Allen S. Henry Chair Professor, Department of Civil and 

Environmental Engineering. Co-Director, Center for Global and Regional Environmental 

Research, University oflowa. Iowa City. lA 

Dr. Kathleen Segerson, Professor. Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, 

Storrs. CT 

Dr. Kristin Shrader-Frechette, O'Neil Professor of Philosophy, Department of Biological 

Sciences and Philosophy Department, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 

Dr. V. Kerry Smith, W.P. Carey Professor of Economics . Department of Economics , 

W.P Carey School of Business ,Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 

Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, Interim Director and Professor, Institute on the Environment, 

University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 

Dr. Thomas L. Theis. Director. Institute for Environmental Science and Policy, 

University of Illinois at Chicago. Chicago, IL 

Dr. Valerie Thomas. Anderson Interface Associate Professor, School of Industrial and 

Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, GA 

Dr. Barton H. (Buzz) Thompson. Jr., Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural Resources 

Law at the Stanford Law School and Director, Woods Institute for the Environment 

Director, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 

Dr. Robert Twiss, Professor Emeritus, University of California-Berkeley, Ross, CA 

Dr. Lauren Zeise, Chief, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Branch, Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, 

Oakland, CA 

LIAISONS 

Dr. Steven Heeringa, (FIFRA SAP), Research Scientist and Director, Statistical Design Group, 

Institute for Social Research (ISR). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 

Dr. Melanie Marty, (CHPAC Chair), Chief, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch, Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California EPA, Oakland, CA 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF 

Mr. Thomas Miller, Designated Federal Officer, EPA SAB, Washington, DC 

iv 
99 

Table of Contents 

SAB Advisory Report: Preparing for Environmental Disasters 

1. Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 

2. Learning from Others ...................................................................................................... 2 

3. Identifying a Range of Potential Environmental Disasters ......................................... .4 

4. Geographically Specific Tools for Data Display, Analysis and Decision Support ..... 7 

5. QAlQC for Data During Emergencies ......................................................................... 11 

6. Improved Communication and Public Consultatiou .................................................. 11 

7. Summary aud Restatement of Key Recommendations .............................................. 14 

v 
100 

SAB Advisory Report: Preparing for Environmental Disasters 

1. Background 

Even with improved preparation and careful advanced preventive actions, 

occasional environmental disasters are inevitable. They will arise from natural events, 

such as storms. earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions that have significant human and 

environmental impacts (SAB, 1995, 1999). Unfortunately they may also result from 

accidental or intentional human events, such as largc spills, structural collapse, facility 

explosions or terrorist attacks. 

When disasters with large environmental consequences occur, the public naturally 

looks to EPA to playa central role in characterizing environmental impacts, protecting 

human health and ecosystems, and in coordinating and overseeing post disaster clean-up. 

However, EPA's authority covers only a subset of the issues that may arise in an 

environmental disaster (See Box I, Appendix A). These include protection of drinking 

water supplies, the cleanup of contaminated buildings, and the development of a 

nationwide laboratory network to support response. EPA has developed an Emergency 

Response Business Plan I and continues to work hard to prepare for those aspects of 

disasters for which it has responsibility, following the general framework laid out in the 

National Response Framework (see Figure I, Appendix A) 

Other federal, state, and local agencies have primary responsibility for other aspects 

of dealing with environmental disasters, including First Response. When the scale of a 

disaster is large, or especially politically salient, senior political leaders also become 

involved. In such situations, EPA has found itself buffeted by forces over which it has 

little or no control or authority. At the same time, the public may not understand, or in the 

face of a disaster care very much, about the intricacies of bureaucratic or political 

constraints and blame EPA for the shortcomings of others. 

While no one can predict the future, we believe that it should be possible to 

identify. at least in general terms, the range of large-scale environmental disasters that 

could plausibly arise from natural causes (earthquakes, hurricanes), accidents (accidental 

explosions, structural collapse) and terrorist events. The EPA has already done some of 

this, partly in response to previous SAB investigations and recommendations (SAB, 1995, 

1999). However, in crisis situations large organizations are rarely capable of rapid 

innovation. Rather, they respond with previously developed "standard operating 

procedures" (Allison and Zelikow, 1999). As a result, if EPA is to improve its response to 

future large-scale environmental disasters it must have performed needed research and 

developed plans in anticipation of the range of plausible contingencies. At least as 

important, Agency personnel must have practiced and refined these plans in "table-top" or 

'The Emergency Response Business Plan is designed to facilitate readiness to deal with five simultaneous 

incidents of national significance (INS) while also maintaining effective "day-to-day" capabilities. 
101 

other exercises that address both the risks and the likely wmplex institutional setting in 

which the Agency will likely have to execute its plans. The agency has already been doing 

these things for those aspects of a number of potential environmental disasters for which it 

has statutory authority. This report recommends that the Agency expand the range of those 

activities and invest modest resources in some broader efforts to scope and prioritize 

potential disasters with large environmental consequences. Indeed, if it does this well, 

EPA may even be able to assist other government and private sector entities to identify 

gaps and blind spots in their current thinking and improve their current preparation and 

response plans. 

The purpose of this SAB self-initiated study has been to stimulate the agency to 

become less reactive and more anticipatory and to think more broadly about how it 

identifies and assesses possible future large-seale environmental disasters and develops 

plans for responding to and communicating about them. Clearly, the SAB is not the right 

organization to develop detailed operational plans. Rather, it is our hope that by taking a 

fresh independent look at the problem, and building on previous SAB efforts on the topic 

of preparedness for environmental disasters (SAB, 1995, 1999) we can persuade the 

Agency to begin to adopt the kind of broader, more anticipatory approach we believe is 

needed. In the future, once the agency has developed a broader planning process and 

plans, the Science Advisory Board would be happy to provide thoughtful expert reviews 

and advice on the technical and behavioral dimensions of those processes and plans. 

The Board would like to recognize and thank Agency staff for its insights, critical 

commentary. and assistance in this effort. 

2. Learning from Others 

In undertaking this self-initiated study, one of the first steps the SAB took was to 

invite a set of briefings from a range of organizations that have extensive experience in 

dealing with a wide variety of environmental disasters. This was done for two reasons: a) 

because the SAB wanted to see if there were general lessons to be drawn that might be 

relevant to the EPA's needs; and, b) because the SAB wanted to get itself "grounded" in 

examples of a number of real events so that our deliberations would not be too abstract. 

People who graciously shared their time and experiences in disaster prevention and 

management with the SAB over the course of the study are listed in Appendix B to this 

report. In reviewing the most successful of the efforts the SAB identified a number of 

themes and approaches that it believes will likely be common to any effort to deal 

effectively with environmental disasters. These include: 

1) Anticipating, assessing, planning and practicing to deal with events that can 

reasonably be anticipated to oceur. When this is done, previously developed 

operational and communication plans, trained personnel, and previously identified 

instrumentation and materials can all be rapidly and efficiently brought to bear on 

the problem. 

2) Learning rapidly about what is going on and developing a rapid and rough sense of 

what risks may exist to people and the environment. This means, for example, that 

field measurements made in the early stages of a disaster should probably be 

2 
102 

designed quite differently (different instrumtnts, quality assuran(;e, etc.) than 

measurements that are made for long-term monitoring and remediation. It means 

that one needs to have access to and prior experience with appropriate fast 

modeling and monitoring tools. It also means that with some prior geo-coded 

inventories of what materials (sewage, chemical stores, etc.) might be available for 

release during a disaster one should be able to anticipate some aspect of likely 

exposures, and the consequent measurement and modeling needs. 

3) Communication with the general public and with non-technical decision makers in 

a meaningful way. There is clear empirical evidence that such communication will 

be much more effective if it is based on the prior development and iterative 

empirical testing of at least the kernels of key messages and disseminated by 

trusted organizations or individuals. There is also clear evidence that helping 

people figure out what numbers mean, what their choices are, and what they should 

do to protect themselves, their children, their employees, and the environment, are 

all critical. 

4) Coordination and communication with other key players. EPA has specific 

statutory responsibilities in terms of what it is and is not responsible for. However, 

in the context of an environmental emergency, "that's not my department" is not a 

satisfactory answer. The general public is likely to look at the Agency's name and 

expect it to take a wider range of responsibilities than it is likely to actually have. 

In order to avoid serious misunderstanding and inadequate response, there clearly 

needs to be coordination in both message and action. The SAB saw the briefings it 

received as strongly suggesting that such coordination and effective communication 

would almost certainly not happen unless there are pre-developed plans and 

messages that have been developed 'and rehearsed among relevant parties. 

5) Flexibility, including the ability to adapt procedures and make real-time decisions 

when previous plans are not working. It was clear from the briefings that the most 

successful private organizations the SAB heard from have been very good at 

identifying strategies that are not working and making improvement rapidly. 

Figuring out how to replicate this ability to adopt an iterative approach in federal 

agencies clearly presents challenges that need to be addressed. 

6) Delegation to folks in the field, and the willingness of senior management to back 

their decisions, was another characteristic of the successful private organizations 

the SAB heard from. Again, figuring out how to replicate this capability in Federal 

agencies clearly presents challenges that need to be addressed. 

7) Mobilization of personnel and resources in a rapid and orderly way was a 

characteristic of the successful private organizations the SAB heard from. In the 

case of EPA, there is considerable expertise across the agency, including its 

laboratories, which might be mobilized if there were adequate prior planning, 

training and rehearsal. How much of this has already occurred is not clear to the 

SAB. 

3 
103 

The SAB recommends that as EPA works to imllnlve the way in which it identifies, 

assesses, prepares for, and responds to possible future environmental disasters, it 

should examine and seek to learn from the best practices of other public and private 

organizations. 

3. Identifying a Range of Potential Environmental Disasters 

There is no way to know the future. Some enormous but imaginable environmental 

disasters, such as the impact of a large meteorite. or a continental-scale lava flow. are of 

such low probability that it would make little sense for EPA. with its limited resources and 

large set of obligations. to spend time thinking very much about them (Smil, 2008). Other 

environmental disasters will be sufficiently small or local in extent that it is unlikely that 

EPA would become involved. However. there are other regularly occurring environmental 

disasters, such as floods and hurricanes that have signi ficant human health and 

environmental impacts (SAB. 1995, 1999). 

When Agency staff think about environmental disasters, typically, they start wilh 

one of the 15 DHS National Planning Scenarios} and the Agency's authorities (Box I. 

Appendix A) and go from there. While this is appropriate. the committee believes that it 

would also be wise for the Agency to develop a systematic taxonomy of plausible events 

and plausible combinations of events3

• ask what would be the environmental consequences 

of each, and then in a systematic way. starling with those whose consequences are 

potentially most serious, ask: 

• what agencies would deal with the various consequences? 

• what responses and coordination would be needed? 

• where are the gaps in authority and expertise? 

• what other parties are likely to have key roles? 

• what ifany short term waivers to regulations and other rules might be 

needed and what mechanisms are needed to achieve these in a way that 

balances efficiency with protection and other objectives? 

• what needs to be done to facilitate good coordination within EPA, with 

other Federal Agencies, with state and local government. and with the 

private sector? 

• where are there commonalties across different types of environmental 

disasters that could be exploited to develop more efficient and effective 

response plans? and 

• what would the public expect of the EPA? 

A very simple illustration of how sllch a taxonomy might be developed is provided 

in Table I (see Appendix A). Other strllctures are also possible. The key point is to first 

'EPA is an active participant in the DHS-coordinated Incident Planning Management Team (lMPT), which, 

among other activities, is conducting detailed panning related to the National Planning Scenarios. Note that 

all of the scenarios involving chemical releases involve "attacks." While these events could be extremely 

dangerous, so too could a wide range of accidental releases. The latter may actually be more likely. 

'By combinations of events we mean things such as a large earthquake combined with wildfires, a 

consideration of whether key infrastructures such as power and communication continue to operate, or 

whether there are cross linkages between infrastructures (e.g. power available to run compressor stations in 

natural gas supply systems or to run pumps in water and sewer systems), etc. 

4 
104 

J.:velop some way to tliillk systematkally aDOUl the full range of piau sib It disasters the 

Agency might be called upon to address. , 

The entries in T~ble I are still abstract. The next step. once a taxonomy of this sort 

is developed. is to select a range of specific events and think through their consequences. 

Suppose, for example. that a major volcanic even! was to occur in the Pacific Northwest -

essentially a larger scale version of the Mt. St. Helens eruption but with impacts that 

extend to a number of popUlation centers such as Seattle. Tacoma, Olympia, or the 

Portland area. Clearly, such an event could havc a large number of consequences. In 

Addition, to wide-spread devastation of precious terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and 

forest resources, there could be extensive loss of life, widespread destruction of built 

property, and disruptions of critical infi·astructures. such as power supply, communication, 

roads and water. One way to explore these would be to build a set of "influence diagrams" 

that trace out various causal chains. Figure 2 (see Appendix A) shows a highly simplified 

example of the impacts that such an event might have on the sustained contamination of a 

water supply. 

Figure 3 (see Appendix A) presents an illustrative time line for pre- and post-event 

planning and action. The main features of pre-event analysis include: identifying likely 

measurement needs; developing measurement tools and protocols, and risk analysis and 

consequence analysis tools; identifying likely communication needs and developing pretested communication modules that can be modified once the specifics of an event are 

known; identifying issues of jurisdiction/coordination; planning for longer term 

remediation needs; and identifying and implementing mitigating actions and strategies that 

could reduce or eliminate risks. Illustrations of a few post-event actions are shown on the 

right hand side of Figure 3. 

Over the course of the past two years, the SAB has had occasion to review a 

number of geographical information systems being developed by different regional EPA 

offices. If these efforts were better coordinated. the result could be a very useful tool for 

pre-event analysis to identify and assess the various facilities that could result in sources of 

difficulty (such as chemical or other contamination). The availability of such a system or 

systems could also prove invaluable during the actual management of an event once it had 

happened. 

Clearly, developing such assessmcnts will take time and care. The agency will not 

be able to do this for a large number of potential natural, accidental and terrorist-caused 

disasters all at once. Accordingly, 

the SAB recommends that the EPA establish a small interdisciplinary 

Environmental Disaster Assessment Team of five to seven fulltime 

professionals who are charged with working across the agency to identify, 

prioritize and assess potential environmental disasters. 

We believe that with the right people, resources, and mandate, slich a group could 

make very substantial progress in just a few years. After developing a taxonomy of 

possible risk events, and working up a modest number of example assessments. such a 

group could then use these results as a basis to consult with Regional Offices. The National 

Homeland Security Research Center, key mission offices across the Agency. and the 

5 
105 

Ageney's Office of'Research and Developn,ent, ;n vrder to sel priorities across pott:ntial 

disaster scenarios (some of which would be generic in nature, some of which, like 

earthquakes or volcanic events, would be specitic to geographical regions). As the work of 

such a small assessment team progressed, they would certainly tind many situations in 

which the same sequences and responses apply across many different events and 

contingencies. 

EPA does not have a mandate to deal with all aspects of environmental disasters. 

Indeed, in many eases, the legal mandate is limited to only a modest sub-set of all the 

issues that may arise. However, 

the SAB recommends that the small Environmental Disaster Assessment Team 

recommended above start by prioritizing a systematically developed list of 

potential disasters and then that it perform, or arrange for others to perform, a 

reasonably comprehensive assessment of those that are deemed to be of greatest 

concern. 

The SAB makes this reeommendation for three reasons. First, without such a 

comprehensive anticipatory approach, the EPA runs a high risk of finding itself unprepared 

and playing catch-up in the face of future environmental disasters. Second, without such 

an approach, coordination with other Agencies may be spotty. Finally, without such a 

systematic approaeh, eventualities will likely arise in which no clear preparation has been 

made by any Federal agency to deal with at least some aspect of an acute environmental 

problem and, even if EPA's mission does not encompass that contingency, the public will 

likely look to the Agency for leadership, or blame the Agency for an inadequate response. 

Of course, there are others at EPA's Homeland Security Research Center, EPA 

ORO, regional EPA offiees, in DHS research centers, at Department of Energy National 

Labs, in universities, and in other research and operational entities, who have done 

portions of such assessments. Clearly, the proposed Environmental Disaster Assessment 

Team should build upon the prior work of such groups as it proceeds with this effort. 

Having put in place an ongoing process to perform such assessments (starting with 

the highest priority issues), the Agency will be in a much better position to: 

• prepare and practice response plans for a range of high probability events; 

• identify likely gaps in expertise and develop prior arrangements with experts and 

organizations who can provide the needed knowledge and skills; 

• develop a geo-coded list of this expertise so that these connections can be made 

rapidly in an emergency; 

• identify short term waivers to regulations and other rules that might be needed and 

prearrange mechanisms to achieve these waivers in a way that balances efficiency 

with protection and other objectives; 

• develop and pre-test public communications messages, that can be easily modified 

to meet the specific needs of different contexts, to deal with those events; 

• engage in coordination activities with other Federal, State and private parties; and 

• develop measurement and quality assurance protoeols that will allow rapid 

dissemination and use of field measurements in the early stages of a disaster. 

6 
106 

While the Agency is already doing many of these things in the context of specific risk 

scenarios and legislative authority, the SAB believes that great benefit could be obtained 

from a parallel effort that adopts a more holistic and comprehensive approach of the sort 

outlined. 

4. Geographically Specific Tools for Data Display, Analysis and Decision Support 

In this and the following section, we tum to a more detailed set of issues, some of 

which relate to the small Environmental Disaster Assessment Team proposed in Section 3, 

but most of which are more relevant to the ongoing work of the EPA emergency respunse 

program. 

Assessing potential future disasters, planning for response, and executing an 

effective response once a disaster has occurred, all require information and modeling and 

analysis capabilities at a variety of scales (local, regional. and national). Local first 

responders such as fire, emergency services. or police, can respond and routinely are first 

to address the immediate needs created by small local disasters. However, as the spatial 

scale of the disaster increases additional resources, information and tools are needed to 

respond and address the consequences of the disaster. 

EPA has developed a variety of spatial analysis tools incorporating geographic 

information systems (GIS) and fate and transport models that, while developed for other 

purposes, could be made applicable to the needs of emergency responders by providing 

information helpful in identifying vulnerable populations and environmental resources at 

the state, regional, and national scales. These tools incorporate GIS data layers such as 

land use, infrastructure, location of chemical storage facilities, industrial facilities, human 

census tract data. sensitive environmental anJ public health receptors, and a myriad of 

other spatially explicit databases into decision support systems. EPA has also developed 

and uses transport and fate models capable of estimating the dispersion of chemicals, 

particles, microorganisms. and radiation released by a disaster into the air and water. If 

modified for use in disaster setting, some of these tools could be particularly valuable for 

disaster managers responding to incidents at the regional scale. The following paragraphs 

provide detai Is on a number of salient issues. 

a) Models. Tools. and Resources. Maximum preparedness for short- and long-term 

emergency response actions requires development and maintenance and 

deployment of a variety of models, tools and other resources (resource systems). 

Consultations by EPA with SAB and Homeland Security Advisory Committec 

(HSAC) have addre~sed specific elements of this overall system resource 

portfolio but have not provided the overall context for SAB and SAB's 

Homeland Security Advisory Committee (HSAC) consideration of these 

reviews. 

The SAB recommends that EPA compile an inventory of existing 

models, tools and resources, including those that, while developed for 

other purposes, might be made useful for disaster response. 

7 
107 

Once these "assets" have been listed (including applicable assets t~0m other 

agencies) they should be mapped against the list of disasters identified in National 

Planning Scenarios and by the proposed Environmental Disaster Assessment Team 

and their applicability to each should be established. EPA has special expertise in 

risk assessment of building disasters and building decontamination, water and 

wastewater infrastructure assessment, surface water and groundwater quality 

modeling, air quality modeling, emission locations and databases, municipal and 

industrial site locations, and ecological risk assessment. EPA tools may be 

especially useful in decision support for certain types of disaster response, and 

these applications should be identified a priori. 

One example where this may already have happened is the Water Security 

Initiative (WSI), successor to the Water Sentinel Model that EPA developed for 

assessing the vulnerability of water distribution systems under various 

contamination scenarios. WSI consists of models and other tools to provide: 

enhanced physical security monitoring; water quality monitoring; routine and 

triggered sampling of high priority contaminants; public health surveillance; and, 

consumer complaint surveillance. 

b) Identification or Gaps and Prioritization o[Research Needs. Following 

completion of such an inventory of models and other tools, 

The SAB recommends a comprehensive assessment and report of the 

gaps in the available resource systems, and a listing of needs for further 

development and research. 

The list of gaps in the resource system inventory should be prioritized. This 

prioritization process should consider the environmental and human health 

consequences caused by missing tools or information, the impacts of related 

consequences (including spatial and temporal scales), and other relevant criteria. 

This analysis should enable optimization of the allocation of EPA resources to fill 

these gaps over the short-, intermediate- and long-term. 

The SAB recommends that the listing of development and research 

needs (identified in the gap analysis) be prioritized and conveyed across 

the Agency. 

Once gaps and research needs have been identified, the SAB would be pleased to 

review the results and offer its advice. 

c) Characteristics of Models, Tools and Resources. Effective use of resource 

systems requires functionality and reliability under a wide variety of 

circumstances and conditions, including disaster response situations. These 

characteristics should include: 

• Portability. To the extent possible, resource systems should be portable to allow 

transportation and usage in difficult field conditions. The systems should be 

designed to be fie ld-ready. 

8 
108 

• Redundancy. There should not be allY single expert or expert-system that 

cannot be replaced in an emergency. Duplication of function is a necessity. 

• Interoperability. Models and databases must be compatible with those from 

other agencies. Personnel with various backgrounds. and from other agencies. 

should be able to use them. 

• Resiliency. These systems should be robust and have limited vulnerability. To 

the extent possible. resource systems should be able to operate when central 

power sources and direct internet access are not available. and they should not 

rely solely on standard communication lines to function. 

d) Dissemination and Maintenance o[Resource Systems. To achieve maximum 

effectiveness, resource systems must be disseminated to the full range of 

potential users, including first responders and long term-managers at the local 

and State level, in addition to EPA central office and regional staff and other 

federal agencies. Relevant databases such as the Toxics Release Inventory 

(TRI), which is under threat of losing essential data due to proposed changes in 

thresholds of reporting, is nationally computerized and available and should be 

preserved. The Chemical Storage Inventory under the Clean Air Act 112(r) is 

another example of data that can be helpful in emergency disaster planning and 

response and should be digitized for ready access by first responders. Resource 

systems should be maintained to keep their contents current, reliable and easily 

searchable. 

The SAB recommends that EPA solicit feedback from users, 

particularly local and state personnel including first responders, and 

regional EPA managers, regarding resource systems and where 

necessary digitized databases to support improved disaster response 

decisions. 

Periodic updates of resource systems should consider comments and criticisms 

from users. The results of audits of response performance following actual 

events and trials should also be used in maintenance and updating of resource 

systems. 

e) Document the Basis o[Decisions. During a disaster decision makers have little 

time and thus it would be inappropriate to require detailed written justification 

of all decisions that are made. At the same time, if the Agency is to learn from 

past experience, some documentation of the considerations and factors that lead 

to key decisions would be extremely valuable. 

The SAB recommends that EPA develop simple streamlined methods to 

document tbe basis of decisions made in the course of managing 

environmental disasters. 

For example, this might be as simple as equipping key decision makers with 

small digital audio recorders which would allow verbal documentation that 

could subsequently be transcribed. 

9 
109 

f) Audit-, o(Event Response Per(iJrmuJlce. EPA should playa special fdle as 

compiler and synthesizer of performance results and characteristics. The 

Agency often identifies problems which are commonly referred to as "lessons 

learned", but "lessons" are not really "learned" and have little value until 

procedures and behaviors are changed (continuous improvement). While we are 

aware of and have read the reports by the Agency's Inspector General on EPA's 

performance during several recent environmental disasters, we are not persuaded 

that these sufficiently meet this need. 

The 8AB recommends that EPA perform and encourage performance 

audits of event responses by its staff at the local, state, regional and 

national level. 

g) Sensitivity o(Resource Systems. In some cases, components of resource systems 

developed by EPA may be too sensitive to warrant general release to the public 

or to local and state entities. 

The 8AB recommends that EPA carefully assess the content of its 

resource systems to evaluate the security risks associated with their 

release. 

Criteria recommended by SAB for this evaluation include the ability of system 

resources to be used to implement an attack, or to optimize consequences of an 

attack. Examples of resource systems that have components with considerable 

risk associated with release include the "consequence modeling" component of 

the Water Sentinel program and, to a lesser extent, the incident modeling in 

Emergency Consequence Assessment Tool (ECAT). For example, if a 

calibrated Water Sentinel model for a specific utility falls into the wrong hands, 

it could be used against that utility by attacking them at their most vulnerable 

distribution system locations. 

h) Development o(Resource Clearinghouse. The SAB endorses efforts like those 

in ECAT to compile a wide breadth of information in a user-friendly form. This 

work should also include internet enabled tools (with and without securityrelated access controls) and coordination of spatial data bases (land use, land 

cover, census data, chemical plants). It is presumed that all counties in the US 

have an inventory of all chemical facilities, power plants, water and wastewater 

treatment facilities, hazardous waste generators, storage facilities, hospitals, 

research labs, universities, etc. located within their jurisdictional boundaries. in 

terms of types and amounts of potential contaminants and their coordinates. 

These inventories, as well as Federal databases in which EPA has primary 

authority, need to be updated annually. Thus, 

The 8AB recommends that EPA emphasize its role in the development 

of centralized and streamlined virtual libraries of references, guidance 

materials and models, and other resources. 

Completion of the tasks outlined in this section should prove valuable to the small 

interdisciplinary Environmental Disaster Assessment Team recommended above in 

10 
110 

Part 3 of this report, and that team shouid be consulted in the forrr.ulation and 

completion of these tasks. However, this team should not be given primary 

responsibility for completing these tasks so as not to divert its attention from the 

critically important job of identifying, ranking, assessing and planning for possible 

future environmental disasters. 

5. QA/QC for Data During Emergencies 

Field measurements made during the early stages of a disaster have a different 

purpose than field measurements made for long-term monitoring and remediation. 

Emergency responders and citizens need fast order-of-magnitude indications of the nature 

and level of hazards that they may face. Accordingly instrumentation, quality assurance 

procedures for authorizing the release of data, and measurement priorities need to be 

designed to appropriately meet those needs. 

Many existing EPA data protocols do not emphasize rapid response, because they 

have been developed to meet the needs of long-term monitoring and regulatory activities. 

Especially in the early stages of an emergency, the quality of data may have to be balanced 

against the need to get information to users on the time-scale they require. This balance 

should be worked out in advance, so that procedures are already developed and approved 

before the emergency occurs, and a graceful transition can be achieved from rapid orderof-magnitude assessment to increasingly more time consuming and accurate 

characterizations as time goes by (See Figure 2 in Appendix A). While the SAB is pleased 

to see the creation of the Agency's Environmental Response Laboratory Network, with its 

focus on "screening/sentinel laboratories," "confirmatory laboratories," and "reference 

laboratories" this is an issue that warrants additional attention. 

The SAB recommends that EPA develop procedures for rapid field 

measurement, data analysis and data release to the public during the early 

stages of emergencies, as well as protocols for how those procedures will be 

modified to assure greater precision and quality control as needed in later 

stages of the life-cycle of an environmental disaster. 

6. Improved Communication and Public Consnltation 

Communication needs and content are highly context dependent. Before, during 

and after events, the goals and methods for effective communications should be different. 

For example, during an event when immediate protective actions are needed, rapid oneway approaches are critical. However, before and after events, these methods are rarely 

appropriate. In these periods, dialogues with decision makers, stakeholders and 

representatives of the public are key ways for building knowledge about current contexts 

and information needs and preferences. Development of messages based on knowledge 

and empirical testing enhances the probability of effective decisions and actions during 

events. Without such fundamental and current knowledge, communications may create 

problems where few or none existed. 

Effective communication between many different parties is essential: a) in 

performing assessments and making plans before an environmental disaster oeeurs, b) in 

protecting human health and ecosystems during the initial stages of an environmental 

11 
111 

disaster, and c) in managing long-term protel;tivn, clean-up and recovery from an 

environmental disaster. 

Communications about environmental disaster requires two-way interactions within 

the U.S. EPA, across agencies, and with partners and the public.4 In designing any 

communications program, one must ask the question: "How can information be transmitted 

to elicit well informed decisions and behavior by individuals, first responders, decision 

makers and organizations?" 

Communications need to occur throughout the process of assessing, preparing for, 

and responding to environmental disasters. Of course, the purpose and form of the 

communication often needs to change at different stages along the life cycle of an event 

(Figure 2 Appendix A). For example, immediate protective guidance is often necessary 

during the initial response phase while there is great uncertainty, while more specific 

guidance is provided during later stages when more information is available and 

uncertainties have been reduced. 

No aspect of communication is more important than communication with the 

public - including both those directly affected by the event and the general public. Too 

often, communication is seen as the one-way conveyance of facts, guidance and decisions 

from experts and those in charge to a passive receiving public. Sometimes in a crisis 

situation such one-way communication is necessary ("You need to stay in your house and 

seal the doors and window because a cloud of toxic gas is rapidly approaching"). As 

elaborated below, even in such situations, communications are likely to be far more 

effective if generic versions have been carefully developed, empirically evaluated and 

refined ahead oftime through careful two-way interaction with individuals who are typical 

of the intended audience. 

Recent years have witnessed considerable progress in developing a scientific basis 

for risk communication. The key insight from this work is that a priori there is no such 

thing as an expert in the design of the content of effective risk communication messages. 

It is essential to adopt an empirical approach. Unless one understands the way in which a 

recipient will interpret and understand a message, even as simple a message as "Take a wet 

cloth to cover your face in the event you find yourself being exposed," one can have no 

confidence that it will be properly understood. 

Behavioral social scientists have developed a variety of strategies to determine, 

through empirical studies, the "mental models" that people adopt in thinking about risks 

(Fischhoff, 2005; Morgan et al., 2002). They have also developed empirical strategies for 

testing and refining possible messages (Fischhoff, in press). Unfortunately, with almost no 

behavioral social scientists on staff: EPA does not possess the expertise to make use of 

such methods.s 

'In this connection the EPA is developing and deploying an emergency management data architecture known 

as Emergency Management Portal (EMP). The office is also working closely with regions to establish 

communication standards and assure that needed equipment is available. Finally the Agency has developed a 

Crisis Communication Plan. However, none of these activities appear to be well infonned by modern 

behavioral social science. 

sEPA's National Homeland Security Research Center has run a series of workshops on "message mapping" 

(Covello et a!., 2007). While these have identified many issues that deserve consideration in the event of 

12 
112 

This absence of understanding and expertise also has implications for other aspects 

of EPA's mission. For this reason the SAB makes two related recommenrlations: 

First, ORD should re-establish its program in behavioral social science and risk 

communication research, perhaps by reinvigorating the very successful 

collaboration it once had with the NSF Program in Decision Research and 

Management Science (DRMS). 

Second, in assembling the small interdisciplinary Environmental Disaster Assessment 

Team proposed above in Part 3, at least one or two of the members should have 

a strong working understanding of, and ability to apply, modern methods of 

empirical social science for developing risk communication strategies, and the 

design, testing and refinement of risk communication messages. 

Frequent, transparent interactions with partners (within the Agency, across 

agencies, and with others) in advance of events are an important part of building 

communication readiness. Purposes of these interactions and related research include: 

• Determination of how peopleform their concepts of risk and related issues, as well 

as how people make decisions and what information influences their decisions. 

• Development and rigorous pre-testing of consistent messages for a variety of 

scenarios and receivers. Scenarios formulation should include representatives of the 

public and mass media to ensure that exercises involve their perspectives and gauge 

the likelihood of behaviors that would have significant impacts in real events. 

Representatives of other partners appropriate to the scenario should also be 

involved both in drills as well as in debriefings after exercises. During an event, 

zero tolerance for false positives often works against providing the public with 

timely and useful protective information. The tradeoffs in risks (e.g., public health 

and environmental vs. organizational) are important considerations that should be 

clearly identified and articulated by decision makers. When uncertainty prevents a 

definitive decision, warnings that include protective actions and specific guidance 

should be issued with a caveat to stay tuned in for more certain information. Pretesting such messages would yield considerable insights about what will and will 

not work well in eliciting desirable behaviors. 

• Anticipation of how people would respond to communication initiatives (messages 

and interactive engagements), especially under stressful conditions. Research is 

needed to identify how first responders, decision makers and the public are most 

likely to respond to communication initiatives. 

• Empirical research involving formative and summative evaluations ofrisk 

communication activities is essential to ensure continuing progress. 

In environmental disasters EPA should endeavor to ensure that information the 

Agency has developed gets to the persons or organization that are trusted by the intended 

receivers (in crisis conditions) or partners (in routine conditions). In some situations, 

another entity or person (e.g., local official or community leader) will be seen as a more 

possible water security emergencies, no empirical studies are included of how various audiences might 

understand and interpret alternative messages. 

13 
113 

trusted source of infonnation. In those cil~umstances, th;;: EPA should focus on getting the 

best possible information to that party and helping him/her promptly interpret and use the 

information correctly. In preparation for an event, EPA should a) recognize and be in 

contact with trusted social networks within a community, and discover the ways in which 

information is currently and rapidly disseminated (e.g., reverse 911, e-mail, instant 

messaging, YouTube and other networks) 

There is an urgent need to improve consultation with the public on a variety of 

tough choices that many environmental disasters can present. An obvious example is 

decisions about "how clean is clean enough" when restoration to pre-disaster conditions is 

neither technically nor economically feasible. Effective mechanisms to perform such 

consultation are lacking. 

Tbe SAB recommends tbat tbe development, demonstration and evaluation of 

mecbanisms for better including public values and preferences in clean-up 

decisions should be an element of the reinvigorated program of behavior 

research in ORD. 

The SAB understands that EPA has developed a Crisis Communication Plan and 

already participates in a wide variety of multi-agency drills and exercises on disaster 

response. The SAB also recognizes that selected employees within EPA have been 

assigned to red or blue response teams, and they are already recognized for their 

capabilities in specialized areas of disaster response. These employees are expected to stop 

all other duties in the event of a disaster and devote themselves solely to the response for 

however long it takes. Such employees havc laptop computers especially dedicated for 

disaster response, and they have successfully executed drills in "bunker" locations. 

However, it is our belief that shortcomings may still exist in the area of communications, 

and that the ability to locate and contact each person in the network during a disaster has 

not been given proper attention by the agency or by Homeland Security. 

Tbe SAB recommends tbat a failsafe metbod for communication among key 

members oftbe disaster response team be designed, implemented and tested 

on a regular basis. 

Obviously, responders must be able also to communicate with critical models, databases, 

and decision support tools and convey the results of their analysis to responsible parties. 

7. Summary and Restatement of Key Recommendations 

Thinking broadly and becoming more anticipatory should be a goa'i of every 

agency. While it is doing a good job of addressing those aspects of environmental 

disasters for which it is responsible in the context of DHS National Planning Scenarios 

EPA would be well advised to also think more broadly and in a more anticipatory way 

about the full range of possible environmental disasters that could arise from natural 

causes. accidents or the actions of terrorists. To this end the Science Advisory Board 

recommends that the EPA: 

a) Establish a small interdisciplinary Environmental Disaster Assessment Team of 

five to seven professionals who are charged with identifying, prioritizing and 

14 
114 

assessing potential environmental d:sasters. This team should develop a system 

to identify potential environmental disasters, prioritize them based on 

probability and consequence, and identify common attributes and response 

strategies that could improve thc efficiency and effectiveness of agency 

rcsponse. 

b) The Environmental Disaster Assessment Team should perform, or arrange for 

others to perform, reasonably comprehensive assessments of those disasters 

deemed to be of greatest concern. It should then help and advise the Agency to 

further: 

• Identify gaps in coverage by Federal, state and local authorities and needs 

for improved coverage, coordination and preplanning; 

• Develop prior arrangements with experts and organizations who can 

provide the needed knowledge and skills and develop a geo-coded list of 

this expertise so that these connections can be made rapidly in an 

emergency; 

• Identify short-tenn waivers to regulations and other rules that might be 

needed and prearranged mcchanisms to achievc these waivers in a way that 

balances efficiency with protection and other objectives. 

In support of the mission of the Agency's emergency response program, the SAB 

recommends that the EPA: 

c) Examine and seek to learn from the best practices of other public and private 

organizations. In so doing, it should seek strategies by which it, and other 

responsible parties, might better: 

• anticipate. assess. plan for. and practice responses to deal with major 

events that plausibly might occur in coming years; 

• learn rapidly what is going on and develop a rapid and rough sense of what 

risks may exist to people and the environment: 

• effectivezy coordinate and communicate with other key players including 

first responders and the public; 

• respond with flexibility to the specific needs and circumstances of the event 

at hand, including the ability to adapt procedures and make real-time 

decisions when previous plans are not working; 

• delegate decision authority to responsible individual in the field; and 

• mobilize personnel and resources in a rapid and orderly way. 

d) Compile an inventory of existing models, tools, data and resources, including 

those that, while developed/or other purposes, might be made usefolfor disaster 

response; perform a comprehensive assessment and develop a report on the gaps 

in the available resource systems; solicit feedback from users of these tools, 

particularly local and state personnel and regional EPA managers, regarding 

resource systems; and identify further development and research needs. Since 

some of these tools may involve sensitive information, their content, and 

associated access policies should be carefully reviewed to assure an appropriate 

balance between needs of local and regional responder and the public and the 

necessity for protection against misuse. Emphasize EPA '8 role in development 

15 
115 

of centralized and streamlined virtuallibrarks of references, guidance muterials 

and models, and other resources. 

e) Develop procedures for rapid field measurement, data analysis and data release 

during the early stages of emergencies, as well as protocols for how those 

procedures will be modified to assure greater precision and quality control as 

needed in later stages of the life-cycle of an environmental disaster. 

f) Develop simple streamlined methods to document the basis of decisions made in 

the course of managing environmental disasters. 

g) Conduct performance audits of event responses by EPA staff at the local, state, 

regional and national level. 

h) Finally, to better ground its work on communications in modem behavioral 

social science, the SAB recommends that the EPA reinvigorate its program in 

behavioral social science research and application, perhaps by reestablishing the 

very successful collaboration it once had with NSF-DRMS. This should 

include: i) a strong program in empirically based methods of risk 

communication, and development, demonstration and evaluation of mechanisms 

for better including public values and preferences in post-disaster clean-up 

decisions. 

16 
116 

References 

Allison, Graham T. and Philip Zelikow, Essence of Decision Second Edition, Longman. 

Addison Wesley Longman, 1999,416 pp. 

Covello, Vincent, Scott Minamyer, Kathy Clayton, "Effective Risk and Crisis 

Communicaton during Water Security Emergencies: Summary report of EPA sponsored 

message mapping workshops," EPA/600/R-07/027, March 2007. 

Fischhoft~ B. (2005). Cognitive processes in stated preference methods. In K-G. Maler & 

J. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook o/Environmental Economics, pp. 937-968, Amsterdam: 

Elsevier. 

Fischhoff, B. , "Risk perception and communication", in R.Detels, R.Beaglehole, 

M.A .. Lansang, and M. Gulliford (eds), Oxford Textbook o.fPublic Health, Fifth Edition, 

Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press. 

Morgan, M. Granger, Baruch Fischhoff, Ann Bostrom and Cynthia Atman, Risk 

Communication: A mental models approach, 351 pp., Cambridge University Press, New 

York,2002. 

SAB (1995), "Future Issues in Environmental Engineering," EPA-SAB_EEC-95-004, US 

EPA Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC. 

SAB (1995), "Environmental Impacts of Natural Hazards: The need for Agency action," 

EPA-SAB_EEC-99-COM-003, US EPA Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC. 

Smil, Vaclav, Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next 50 Years, MIT Press, 320pp. 

2008. 

R-l 
117 

APPENDIX A 

Tables, Figures, and Illustrations 

I 

Box 1: Summar,), of EPA's authorizations and responsibilities with respect to environmental 

disasters. 

, EPA has over 30 years experience in responding to releases of oil and hazardous materials under the 

National Contingency Plan (NCP) that was established and/or modified by the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). the Clean Water Act (CW A), 

and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Most of these responses do not rise to the level oflncidents of 

National Significance that are the focus of the National Response Framework (NRF) and the National 

Incident Management System (NIMS) which are required by various Homeland Security Presidential 

Directives (HSPDs). Typically, EPA receives over 30,000 release notifications per year (hazardous 

materials account for about 66% of the total notifications and oil spills for about 34%). Under this 

program EPA conducts 300 responses per year and assists in about 500 others. Specific EPA 

responses are to: i) environmental emergencies, ii) acutely hazardous sites/inland oil spills, iii) 

nationally-declared disasters, iv) terrorist incidents, and v) major national security events. Response 

activities include, but are not limited to: i) sampling and monitoring, ii) site screening, iii) 

decontamination, iv) disposal, v) dust mitigation, and vi) data management. 

Under EPA's national approach to responses to Incidents of National Significance, the system that the 

Agency uses to respond to oil and hazardous material releases, under the NCP are integrated into the 

NRP and NIMS structure and are used when EPA responds within that structure as a part ofthe total 

national response to such incidents. 

The National Response Framework provides a comprehensive and coordinated structure to prepare for 

and respond to all Incidents of National Significance. The NRP, coupled with the nationwide response 

template of the NIMS provides the response structure and mechanisms that enable government and 

nongovernmental agencies and organizations to provide an all-hazards approach to emergency 

response activities. The system established is able to address large-scale events needing national 

leadership (e.g., the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, and Agencies such as EPA) 

for incident management and smaller events where localized management is more appropriate (e.g., 

state and local officials and organizations). 

A-l 
118 

Figure 1: The preparedness cycle as outlined in the January 2008 National Response Framework. EPA has 

worked hard applying this approach to the aspects of many disasters for which it has primary responsibility. 

A-2 
119 

Table 1: One possible example of a structure that EPA might use to develop a taxonomy 

of potential environmental disasters. 

Events With Humans 

Natural events or their Systems in the Causal Chain 

, ___ 0 ___ 0_-

Biologically related Complex network system failure;; 

Disease (natural) Dam. levee. dike failures 

Invasive species (natural) Disruption of network infrastructures 

Geologically related (e.g .. power. water, sewer, highEarthquake ways. rail, pipelines. etc.) 

Flood plain events Large structural collapsc 

Volcanic eruptions Nuclear events 

Weather related 

Drought Human induced {unintentional and 

Flood (e.g .. Tsunami. storm surge) intentional) 

Lightening Biological 

Wildfire Chemical release 

Wind (e.g .. hurricane. tornado) Explosions 

Fire 

Invasive species 

Radiological 

Water. air, food contamination 

Note: WhIle many of the Items listed here mvolve preclpltatmg events that happen suddenly, for 

completeness any such taxonomy should also include events that develop more gradually (e.g. 

droughts, invasive species) whose consequences are never-the-less disastrous. When more than one 

disturbance occurs. the response may be more extreme than would occur when these disturbances 

occur singly. (Paine et ai., 1998) 

A-3 
Lavanow ) 

( MudFlow ) 

Figure 2: Simplified illustration of an influence diagram tracing some of the routes by which a volcanic event m

result in sustained contamination of water supply 

A-4 
For an Event of a aiven tvoe: 

lin? 

Conl;eqilimce AriaIY$i$, ' / 

" .,' <' .' ",. '» 

Pre-event mitillation and avoidance 

, Measurement 

Risk analysis and 

consequence 

analysis tools 

Communication 

Jurisdiction I 

Coordination 

Remediation 

Mitigation 

Pre-placement of equipment development of 

protocols, etc. 

Pre-development of 

base methods 

Pre-development & 

testing of base 

messages; pre-planned 

communication 

channels 

SOPs, etc. 

Drills 

planning 

Prior actions that could 

reduce or eliminate risks 

Figure 3. Pre- and post-event tasks for an environmental disaster. Many of the actions noted sh90uld be performed at the regional leveL 

A-5 
122 

Æ 

APPENDIXB 

Dis:lster Prevention and Management Experts P"esenting Infomlation to the SAB 

Name 

Mr. Joseph Becker 

Mr. Patrick Brady 

Ms. Debbie Dietrich 

Dr. Baruch Fischhoff 

Mr. Michael Lunsford 

Ms. Suzanne Mattei 

Dr. L.D. McMullen 

Mr. Alan Nelson 

Mr. Timothy Overton 

Mr. Timothy Scott 

Dr. Gayle Sugiyama 

Ms. Dana Tulis 

Mr. William Wark 

Dr. Henry Willis 

Organization 

The Arne icap Rc(! Cross 

CN3F Ri'ilway 

EPA Office of Emergency Management 

Carnegie Mellon University 

CSX Transportation 

The Sierra Club 

Des Moines Water Works 

Nuclear Energy Institute 

Dow Chemical Company 

Dow Chemical Company 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

EPA Office of Emergency Management 

Unites States Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board 

The Rand Corporation 

B-1