UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 WASHINGTON D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

June 2, 2011

EPA-SAB-11-007

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Subject: Science Advisory Board Comments on the President's Requested FY 

2012 Research Budget

Dear Administrator Jackson:

The Science Advisory Board (SAB) has a long history of reviewing the President’s budget 

request for the Office of Research and Development (ORD). This year, the SAB requested 

specific budget-related materials from ORD, and an SAB Research Budget Work Group held a 

public meeting on March 3-4, 2011, to receive briefings from ORD management and interim 

National Program Directors. The Research Budget Work Group appreciated the quality of the 

presentations made by ORD and the diligent effort in explaining the main points of the budget in 

a compressed time frame. The chartered SAB held a public meeting on March 22, 2011, to 

review and approve this report prior to submitting it to you.

ORD has realigned its research from 13 project areas, defined by specific problems and media 

type, into four integrated programs (Air, Climate and Energy; Safe and Sustainable Water 

Resources; Sustainable and Healthy Communities; and Chemical Safety for Sustainability) 

related to your major priorities plus two cross-cutting areas (Human Health Risk Assessment and 

Homeland Security Research). This consolidation and realignment of programs reflects an 

emphasis on integrated transdisciplinary research, multi-pollutant exposures and sustainability.

Considerable synergies will be realized in integrating ORD research activities into the new

programmatic areas.

The SAB is highly supportive of the realignment of ORD research programs and of aligning the 

FY 2012 budget with them. The SAB is pleased that the realignment reflects the 

transdisciplinary and systems-based approach that has been recommended in previous SAB 

reports (Office of Research and Development Strategic Research Directions and Integrated 
Transdisciplinary Research, EPA-SAB-10- 010; EPA’s Strategic Research Directions 2008: An 

Advisory by the EPA Science Advisory Board, EPA-SAB-09-006). An example is the new area of 

Sustainable and Healthy Communities that recognizes the linkages between public health, 

ecosystem services and sustainability.

The SAB appreciates that in a time of budget declines, the requested reductions in ORD’s budget 

are not as deep as the reduction for EPA overall. It is appropriate that the proposed cuts to ORD 

programs were not across the board but strategic, investing in some research programs while 

decreasing resources to others. Based on the information ORD has been able to provide the SAB 

at this time regarding its new alignment of research programs, our comments address the 

appropriateness of the proposed investments and disinvestments for advancing EPA’s strategic 

research directions and meeting EPA’s priorities. 

Overall, the SAB is highly supportive of the increased investment in STAR Grants and 

Fellowships, strategic investments that will benefit future environmental research. The SAB 

supports the requested budget increases for the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research 

Program and the Chemical Safety for Sustainability Research Program as a minimum level for 

these programs, which will require additional funding to be fully successful. The SAB believes 

the cuts made to certain parts of the Homeland Security research program were understandable

and justified. 

We disagree however, with the planned disinvestments made in human health research because 

reductions in human health intramural research funding will hamper EPA’s ability to conduct 

major epidemiological studies and understand cumulative exposures and risks. We strongly 

disagree with the the requested level of investment in climate change research; ecosystem 

services science; and social, behavioral, and decision sciences. Funding for research on climate 

change adaptation should increase because this research will have broad impacts for 

environmental protection. The 10 percent cut in the President’s budget for ecosystem research 

weakens a program that supports multiple EPA regulatory programs. Lack of funding for social, 

behavioral, and decision science research will frustrate efforts to attain environmental and 

economic sustainability. We are concerned that the requested level of funding in these areas will 

jeopardize EPA’s ability to meet your environmental priorities.

Because ORD’s restructured research programs are so new and ambitious, the FY 2012 budget 

does not contain a great amount of detail describing research activities and the breakout of 

funding. As a result, the SAB cannot fully comment at this time on the adequacy of the requested 

budget for advancing the individual research visions in each of the new programmatic areas. At 

ORD’s request, the SAB plans to hold a joint public advisory meeting (June 29-30, 2011) with 

ORD’s Board of Scientific Counselors to review the draft frameworks that ORD has committed 

to develop for each new research program. At that time the SAB will have additional advice that 

may be useful to the Agency in future budget planning.
The SAB is pleased to have again reviewed the EPA research budget and looks forward to 

continued work with you to strengthen the Agency's vital research base that supports your 

priorities. We look forward to receiving your response to this review and continuing our 

interactions with EPA to develop future advice on the Agency’s science program.

Sincerely,

/signed/ /signed/

Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer Dr. Jerald Schnoor

Chair Chair

Science Advisory Board SAB Research Budget Work Group
i

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.

Mention of trade names of commercial products does not constitute a recommendation for use.

Reports of the SAB are posted on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/sab.
ii

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Science Advisory Board

Research Budget Work Group

CHAIR

Dr. Jerald Schnoor, Allen S. Henry Chair Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental 

Engineering, Co-Director, Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research, University 

of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

MEMBERS

Dr. Claudia Benitez-Nelson, Full Professor and Director of the Marine Science Program, 

Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC

Dr. Terry Daniel, Professor of Psychology and Natural Resources, Department of Psychology, 

School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

Dr. George Daston, Victor Mills Society Research Fellow, Product Safety and Regulatory 

Affairs, Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH

Dr. Costel Denson, Managing Member, Costech Technologies, LLC, Newark, DE

Dr. Nancy K. Kim, Senior Executive, Health Research, Inc., Troy, NY

Dr. Kai Lee, Program Officer, Conservation and Science Program, David & Lucile Packard 

Foundation, Los Altos, CA (affiliation listed for identification purposes only)

Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing, President, Cecil Lue-Hing & Assoc. Inc., Burr Ridge, IL

Dr. Floyd Malveaux, Executive Director, Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc., Washington, 

DC

Dr. James R. Mihelcic, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South 

Florida, Tampa, FL

Dr. Christine Moe, Eugene J. Gangarosa Professor, Hubert Department of Global Health, 

Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA

Dr. Horace Moo-Young, Dean and Professor, College of Engineering, Computer Science, and 

Technology, California State University, Los Angeles, CA

Dr. Eileen Murphy, Grants Facilitator, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, 

Piscataway, NJ
iii

Dr. Kenneth Olden, Dean, School of Public Health, City University of New York, New York, 

NY

Dr. Duncan Patten, Research Professor, Hydroecology Research Program , Department of Land 

Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT

Dr. Paige Tolbert, Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of 

Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA

Dr. Thomas S. Wallsten, Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology, University of 

Maryland, College Park, MD

Dr. R. Thomas Zoeller, Professor, Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst, MA

LIAISON MEMBER 

Dr. Kenneth Olden, Dean, School of Public Health, City University of New York, New York, 

NY (Liaison, Board of Scientific Counselors)

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF

Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Science Advisory Board (1400R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, Phone: 

202-564-2218, Fax: 202-565-2098, (nugent.angela@epa.gov)
iv

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Science Advisory Board

CHAIR

Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer, Professor and Charles M. Denny, Jr., Chair in Science, 

Technology and Public Policy, Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs and Co-Director of 

the Water Resources Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

SAB MEMBERS

Dr. David T. Allen, Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas, 

Austin, TX

Dr. Claudia Benitez-Nelson, Full Professor and Director of the Marine Science Program, 

Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences , University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC

Dr. Timothy Buckley, Associate Professor and Chair, Division of Environmental Health 

Sciences, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Dr. Patricia Buffler, Professor of Epidemiology and Dean Emerita, Department of 

Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA

Dr. Ingrid Burke, Director, Haub School and Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural 

Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY

Dr. Thomas Burke, Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins 

Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD

Dr. Terry Daniel, Professor of Psychology and Natural Resources, Department of Psychology, 

School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

Dr. George Daston, Victor Mills Society Research Fellow, Product Safety and Regulatory 

Affairs, Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH

Dr. Costel Denson, Managing Member, Costech Technologies, LLC, Newark, DE

Dr. Otto C. Doering III, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 

W. Lafayette, IN

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. T. Taylor Eighmy, Vice President for Research, Office of the Vice President for Research, 

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX
v

Dr. Elaine Faustman, Professor, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health 

Sciences, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, 

WA

Dr. John P. Giesy, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Veterinary Biomedical Sciences and 

Toxicology Centre, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Dr. Jeffrey Griffiths, Associate Professor, Department of Public Health and Community 

Medicine, School of Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA

Dr. James K. Hammitt, Professor, Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard University, Boston, MA

Dr. Bernd Kahn, Professor Emeritus and Associate Director, Environmental Radiation Center, 

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA

Dr. Agnes Kane, Professor and Chair, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 

Brown University, Providence, RI

Dr. Madhu Khanna, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL

Dr. Nancy K. Kim, Senior Executive, Health Research, Inc., Troy, NY

Dr. Catherine Kling, Professor, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA

Dr. Kai Lee, Program Officer, Conservation and Science Program, David & Lucile Packard 

Foundation, Los Altos, CA (affiliation listed for identification purposes only)

Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing, President, Cecil Lue-Hing & Assoc. Inc., Burr Ridge, IL

Dr. Floyd Malveaux, Executive Director, Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc., Washington, 

DC

Dr. Lee D. McMullen, Water Resources Practice Leader, Snyder & Associates, Inc., Ankeny, 

IA

Dr. Judith L. Meyer, Professor Emeritus, Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, 

Lopez Island, WA

Dr. James R. Mihelcic, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, State of Florida 21st 

Century World Class Scholar, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL

Dr. Jana Milford, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado, 

Boulder, CO
vi

Dr. Christine Moe, Eugene J. Gangarosa Professor, Hubert Department of Global Health, 

Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA

Dr. Horace Moo-Young, Dean and Professor, College of Engineering, Computer Science, and 

Technology, California State University, Los Angeles, CA

Dr. Eileen Murphy, Grants Facilitator, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, 

Piscataway, NJ

Dr. Duncan Patten, Research Professor, Hydroecology Research Program , Department of Land 

Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT

Dr. Stephen Polasky, Fesler-Lampert Professor of Ecological/Environmental Economics, 

Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Dr. Arden Pope, Professor, Department of Economics, Brigham Young University , Provo, UT

Dr. Stephen M. Roberts, Professor, Department of Physiological Sciences, Director, Center for 

Environmental and Human Toxicology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Dr. Amanda Rodewald, Professor of Wildlife Ecology, School of Environment and Natural 

Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Professor and Flora L. Thornton Chair, Department of Preventive 

Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

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 

of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

Dr. Kathleen Segerson, Philip E. Austin Professor of Economics , Department of Economics, 

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

Dr. Herman Taylor, Director, Principal Investigator, Jackson Heart Study, University of 

Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS
vii

Dr. Barton H. (Buzz) Thompson, Jr., Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural Resources Law 

at the Stanford Law School and Perry L. McCarty Director, Woods Institute for the 

Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Dr. Paige Tolbert, Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of 

Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA

Dr. John Vena, Professor and Department Head, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 

College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Dr. Thomas S. Wallsten, Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology, University of 

Maryland, College Park, MD

Dr. Robert Watts, Professor of Mechanical Engineering Emeritus, Tulane University, 

Annapolis, MD

Dr. R. Thomas Zoeller, Professor, Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst, MA

LIAISON MEMBERS 

Dr. Martin Philbert, Professor, Environmental Health Sciences and Senior Associate Dean, 

School of Public Health University of Michigan (Liaison, Board of Scientific Counselors)

Dr. Kenneth Olden, Dean, School of Public Health, City University of New York, New York, 

NY (Liaison, Board of Scientific Counselors)

Dr. James H. Johnson, Professor and Dean, College of Engineering, Architecture & Computer 

Sciences, Howard University, Washington, DC (Liaison, National Advisory Council for 

Environmental Policy and Technology)

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF

Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Science Advisory Board (1400R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, Phone: 

202-564-2218, Fax: 202-565-2098, (nugent.angela@epa.gov)
viii

Table of Contents

1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1

2. KEY FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS......................................................................... 3

3. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON ORD’S RESTRUCTURED RESEARCH PROGRAMS7

3.1. AIR, CLIMATE, AND ENERGY ........................................................................................... 7

3.2. SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES ................................................................. 9

3.3. SUSTAINABLE AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES................................................................. 13

3.4. CHEMICAL SAFETY FOR SUSTAINABILITY ...................................................................... 17

3.5. HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT.............................................................................. 19

3.6. HOMELAND SECURITY ................................................................................................... 21

3.7. ECONOMICS AND DECISION SCIENCE ............................................................................. 23

TABLE OF ACRONYMS.......................................................................................................... 26

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 27

ATTACHMENT A: EXTRACTS FROM EPA’S FY 2012 BUDGET IN BRIEF FOR THE 

SAB............................................................................................................................................... 28
1

Science Advisory Board Comments on the President's Requested FY 2011 

Research Budget.

1. Background

The Science Advisory Board (SAB) has a long history of reviewing the President’s budget 

request for the Office of Research and Development (ORD). The SAB reviewed the President’s 

FY2012 request for each of ORD’s six research areas (Air, Climate and Energy; Safe and 

Sustainable Water Resources; Sustainable and Healthy Communities; Chemical Safety for 

Sustainability; Human Health Risk Assessment; and Homeland Security), plus a seventh research 

area, Economics and Decision Science, directed by the National Center for Environmental 

Economics (NCEE) in EPA’s Office of Policy. The SAB addressed five common questions to 

each program area:

1. How well will the requested budget permit EPA to advance its strategic research 

directions and meet EPA priorities?

2. Are the changes since the FY 2010 enacted budget and EPA’s research budget 

trends appropriate, taking into consideration overall resources, FTEs, and 

intramural and extramural resources?

3. Are there well defined objectives/work products for next year’s budget? Can these 

be accomplished with the given resources?

4. Are there pivotal, “game-changing” investments that can advance the science?

5. Are there investments that will serve multiple program or multiple priority needs?

In addition to the detailed Budget Narratives and presentations provided by ORD and NCEE, 

which described the major programs that were enhanced, preserved or cut in the FY 2012 budget 

request, the work group drew on three information items extracted for them by ORD from EPA’s 

FY 2012 Budget in Brief:

• Transformational Solutions Through Science Innovation (fact sheet)

• EPA Office of Research and Development FY 2010 to FY 2012 in NEW 

Program/Project Structure

• EPA Office of Research and Development FY 2010 to FY 2012 in FORMER 

Program/Project Structure.

This information provides an overview of the changes associated with the President’s Budget 

request and is included as Attachment A to this report. The overview information details the 

cross-walk and realignment of budget categories in the FY 2012 President’s Budget with earlier 

budgets. In this context, it is important to note that many of the “decreases” and “increases” in 

budgets for individual ORD program areas represent reallocations from “old program” structures 

to new FY 2012 research program structures. The graphic below, provided by ORD to the SAB 

Research Budget Work Group Meeting on March 3, 2012, provides an overview of these 

complex budget reallocations.
2

Transfer of funds to ORD Integrated FY 2012 Programs

Key to ORD Program Acronyms

ACE Air, Climate and Energy Research Program

CSS Chemical Safety for Sustainability Research Program

HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment

HSR Homeland Security Research Program

SHC Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program

SSWR Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program
3

2. Key Findings and Observations

The President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request recommends a 13 percent decrease in 

EPA’s budget, a 2.6 percent cut to Science and Technology programs within the Agency and a 

2.1 percent cut to EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). Funding for ORD 

declined more than 20 percent (in GDP indexed dollars) from the high in 2004 to the low in 

2008, and had only begun to recover slightly in 2009 and 2010. The proposed reductions in FY 

2012 reverse this very appropriate trend toward recovery in levels of investment in science and 

technology. The proposed reductions limit the research needed to support EPA’s efforts to 

protect human health and the environment.

Overall, the SAB recognizes the difficult budget environment with which the nation is dealing in 

2012, and although we consider these planned cuts to EPA’s budget to be extremely unfortunate, 

we understand that they may be necessary to reduce overall government spending. Given the dire 

need for more cost-effective research on human health and the environment, the SAB agrees that 

it is critical to promote innovative, job-creating research. Thus, the SAB understands the relative 

priority given to ORD in this budget, but also recognizes that Agency cuts do not come from fat, 

but rather from the marrow of its activity and mission. The United States cannot ignore threats to 

air quality and ecosystems and threats from climate change as these threats will significantly 

reduce the health of the American people and the vitality of the American economy and 

ecosystems. It is also important to bear in mind that research has consistently strengthened the 

economy, in part by creating new kinds of jobs. Ceres, an organization that articulates the views 

of major American corporations on their social responsibilities, recently estimated that the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards alone will result in the creation of 1.5 million jobs over 

the next five years. The country needs clean energy and clean air as well as jobs, and the former 

can augment the latter.

Over the last year the EPA has realigned its research organization from 13 project areas, 

defined by specific problems and media type, into four integrated programs and two crosscutting areas (Human Health Risk Assessment and Homeland Security Research). Motivation for 

this consolidation and realignment of programs reflects an emphasis on integrated 

transdisciplinary research, multi-pollutant exposures and sustainability. The integrated research 

programs represent a new way of thinking about environmental research. Considerable synergies 

will be realized in combining research into the four programmatic areas: Air, Climate and 

Energy; Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (water quality plus drinking water); Sustainable 

and Healthy Communities; and Chemical Safety for Sustainability. The SAB strongly commends

ORD for a dramatic response to SAB past recommendations concerning its realignment of 

research areas and dedication to transdisciplinary research for protecting human health and the 

environment.

ORD’s realignment is wise and ambitious, moving EPA research in a new and bold direction.

ORD is moving from a risk management paradigm, which has guided and influenced research 

over the past two decades, towards a sustainability paradigm, and that move is welcome. It is 

consistent with a public health approach of preventing disease rather than a medical approach to 

treating disease after it occurs and recognizes that environment and health are an interconnected 
4

system. Restructuring EPA’s research programs, however, is a significant challenge, and the 

Agency must consider how to translate research results from this new approach into scienceinformed environmental policy and decisions. The Board looks forward to providing continued 

advice to ORD as it develops strategic plans for each of its newly restructured research 

programs.

The SAB is highly supportive of two requested increases for FY 2012. The President’s budget 

requests an increase in extramural research grants under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) 

program of 40 percent from $61.4M in the FY2010 enacted budget to $86.1M. It is most 

appropriate to seek out and stimulate cutting-edge research from external research institutions at 

a time when EPA itself is restructuring its research programs and exploring new research 

paradigms. The President’s FY 2012 budget request also includes a 56 percent increase over the 

FY 2010 enacted budget for EPA’s overall research Fellowship program to $17.3M. This overall 

fellowship program includes a Presidential Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) 

initiative, an important investment to stimulate research and training for scientists that supports 

the emphasis on sustainability. Within the overall fellowship investment, there is a 45 percent

increase over the FY 2010 enacted budget for the STAR Fellowship program to $14.1M. It is 

most appropriate to invest in training the next generation of environmental scientists when 

ORD’s research programs are taking a new direction.

Among the requested investments in the President’s budget for FY 2012, the SAB strongly 

supports a major reallocation of funds for Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) research, a 

22.9 percent increase over the FY 2010 enacted budget to $95.7M in the FY 2012 President’s 

budget request, and for Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) research, a 6.9 percent

increase over the FY 2010 enacted budget to $118.8M in the FY 2012 President’s budget 

request.

The requested increase in the CSS budget appears justified given the ambitious goals of this 

newly aligned multidisciplinary program. Realignment allows EPA to streamline its work and be 

more effective in achieving public health and environmental protection. The SAB supports the 

investments in endocrine-disrupting chemicals research, a 48 percent increase over the FY 2010 

enacted budget to $16.9M in the FY 2012 President’s budget request, the new green chemistry 

and design for the environment initiative (+$5.4 M) and next-generation computational 

toxicology tools (+$2 M).

Given the planned shift toward multipollutant cumulative risk assessment and the backlog of ten

thousand chemicals that need to be assessed, there is a strong need to invest in modernizing the 

human risk assessment approach to move beyond the one-pollutant-at-a-time framework. The 

Agency needs to develop a clear plan for how the outputs of the CSS program (e.g., Tox 21, 

NexGen) will be used by the ORD Human Health Risk Assessment program. With a flat budget 

for HHRA, it is unclear how innovation and modernization of the risk assessment program will 

be achieved.

In the SSWR program, the SAB recommends an increased focus on viewing water and 

wastewater holistically as an integral part of the overall water cycle, and additional resources for 

this area of research are needed. Wastewater is a resource providing water, nutrients, and energy 

for harvest and reuse, and it can be used to make communities more socially, economically, and 
5

environmentally sustainable. Such an approach is in concert with EPA’s changing role from 

purely a regulatory agency to one that promotes sustainable and healthy communities.

In the President’s FY2012 budget request there are significant reductions in ORD research in the 

areas of homeland security, human health, ecosystems, and air/climate/energy research. These 

programs provide needed knowledge and data as well as guidance and expertise to EPA offices 

charged with the mission of maintaining homeland security, improving air quality, mitigating 

climate change and cleaning up our environment while promoting sustainable and livable 

communities.

Homeland Security Research (HSR) is slated for a 24 percent budget reduction from the FY 

2010 enacted budget to $26.7M in the FY 2012 President’s budget request. The HSR program 

has developed emergency response products for water and wastewater treatment plants and 

buildings under threat of a chemical, biological or radiological attack. The SAB understands that 

these programs are considered “mature,” and the products that have been developed are widely 

considered to be of very high quality. The SAB believes that the reductions made as a result of 

the maturation of certain program elements are justified, but that funds should be provided to the 

Agency to disseminate the knowledge and software developed through these mature programs to 

states and communities. These products could help to make the nation’s water infrastructure 

more sustainable in the event of either terrorist attack or natural disasters. 

Within the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) research program, the President’s 

FY 2012 budget request calls for reductions in funding for human health research, a 16 percent

reduction from the FY 2010 enacted budget to $45.4M in the FY 2012 President’s budget 

request, and ecosystem research, a 15 percent reduction from the FY 2010 enacted budget to 

$60.9M in the FY 2012 President’s budget request. Reductions in human health intramural 

research funding will hamper EPA’s ability to conduct major epidemiological studies and 

understand cumulative exposures and risks. Future budgets need to provide for more high-quality 

epidemiological studies to better understand exposures and their impacts, especially for 

susceptible and vulnerable populations and hazard dose-responses functions needed to protect 

public health using the best possible science. The SAB does not support the reduced funding 

request for FY 2012 in this area.

The SAB is especially concerned about a 10 percent reduction in funding for ecosystems services 

research compared to 2.1 percent overall for ORD research. The proposed reduction provides 

inadequate funding for research that supports multiple EPA regulatory programs and that the 

SAB has characterized as transdisciplinary with the “potential to be transformative for 

environmental decision making” (SAB Report, Consultation on EPA’s Implementation of the 

Ecosystem Services Research Program, EPA-SAB-09-019). Ecosystem services research is 

critical for understanding the ways in which policy and management choices affect the type, 

quality and magnitude of the goods and services that ecosystems provide to sustain human wellbeing. Furthermore, these cuts jeopardize EPA's sustainability research program efforts.

Funds for ORD research on Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) would decline 3 percent from the 

FY 2010 enacted budget to $108.M in the FY 2012 President’s budget request. Relative to other 

budget cuts, this is modest, and it indicates that certain aspects of biofuels and mercury-in-air 
6

research are being completed. But there are cuts in resources for priority activities in the Clean 

Air Research Program for source-receptor and dose-effect research that investigate human 

exposure to air pollutants and resulting health effects in the nation’s major cities (-$ 0.150M) and 

in priority research on the effects of climate change on estuaries 

(-$0.625M). Funds for modeling research to support the development of State Implementation 

Strategies will be reduced (-$ 0.762M) and, as a result, State Implementation Strategies will be 

delayed. Additionally, the ACE program lacks focused investment in climate mitigation and 

adaptation, research needed to meet EPA’s priority of “taking action on climate change.”

After reviewing the President’s FY 2012 budget request in light of EPA’s Fiscal Year 2011-2010 

EPA Strategic Plan, the SAB finds ORD’s plan to structure its four major research programs 

around the Administrator’s four major goals meritorious. Based on the explicitly identified 

research visions and objectives identified for all of the newly structured programs, the SAB sees 

a major research gap in the area of social, behavioral and decision sciences. The SAB 

recommends that ORD develop an additional research strategy centered on addressing this gap.

EPA should conduct research addressing ways of obtaining environmental goals other than 

through command-and-control regulations. Research in social, behavioral and decision sciences 

is required to understand and effectively apply human behavior, market approaches and 

innovative incentives to conserve resources and emit less pollution. 

The SAB advises ORD to assume leadership to include the social, behavioral and decision 

sciences more broadly as an explicit research enterprise. This need not be a new program, but 

can be accomplished effectively by treating it as a cross-cutting strategy. This recommendation 

seems especially pertinent during ORD’s realignment of programs because each of the four 

research programs acknowledges issues in the decision, behavioral and social sciences, ranging 

from decision analysis and decision structuring to risk communication to behavior change and 

beyond. None of these realigned programs, however, seem to have devoted any resources to it.

Research in these areas is inexpensive relative to the costs involved in much of the physical and 

biological sciences. Relatively modest investments in this cross-cutting domain could have large 

future benefits.
7

3. Specific Comments on ORD’s Restructured Research Programs

3.1. Air, Climate, and Energy

ORD identified the problem statement that shaped the goals of this research program as follows:

Protecting health and the environment from the impacts of climate change and air 

quality are central 21st century challenges. These challenges are complicated by 

the interplay between air quality, the changing climate, and emerging energy 

options.

The vision of the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program is to “provide 

cutting-edge scientific information and tools to support EPA’s strategic goals to protect and 

improve air quality and take action on climate change.”

Overall, Ceres (2011) estimates that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards alone will 

result in the creation of 1.5 million jobs over the next five years. The country needs clean energy 

and jobs. Finally, clean air is one of EPA’s success stories. Ambient pollution levels have 

steadily decreased since the establishment of EPA and the enactment of the Clean Air Act. In 

How well will the requested budget permit EPA to advance its strategic research directions and 

meet EPA priorities?

Because of the changing structure of EPA’s research programs, ORD was not able to provide 

sufficient detail for the SAB to say with certainty whether the requested budget will permit EPA 

to advance its program-level strategic research directions and meet EPA priorities. ORD research 

on Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) is slated to decrease by $3.4 million dollars from $111.4 

million in 2010 (enacted budget) to $108 million in the President’s 2012 proposed budget – a 

decline of about 3 percent. Relative to other budget cuts, this is modest, and it indicates that 

certain aspects of biofuels (-$2.2 M) and mercury-in-air research (-$2.4 M) are being completed 

and are no longer in the budget. But there are cuts in resources for priority activities in the Clean 

Air Research Program for source-receptor and dose-effect research that investigate human 

exposure to air pollutants and resulting health effects in the nation’s major cities (-$150 K) and 

also cuts in research on the effects of climate change on estuaries (-$625 K). Funds for modeling 

research to support State Implementation Strategies will be reduced (-$ 762 K) and will delay 

their development.

The requested budget for global change research will decrease by $17,000 to $20.8M in a critical 

area where increased investments are needed. There are no clear investments in climate change 

adaptation, a very important area that will affect environmental protection broadly. Climate 

change affects different regions differently. Some arid regions and those depending on snowmelt 

from mountains may become drier; humid regions may become wetter with added problems of 

flooding. ORD could investigate various adaptation strategies with program offices and regions 

to help communities adapt to climate change by “hardening” their infrastructure, practicing water 

reuse, and implementing soil conservation practices on the landscape. Even research on 

“geoengineering” is needed in the event that mitigation and adaptation efforts are not sufficient.
8

March 2011, EPA issued The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. 

According to this study, the direct benefits from the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are 

estimated to be almost $2 trillion for the year 2020, exceeding costs by a factor of more than 30 

to one.

Are the changes since the FY 2010 enacted budget and EPA’s research budget trends 

appropriate, taking into consideration overall resources, FTEs, and intramural and extramural 

resources?

Certainly ACE should be a priority for the agency. Although air quality has improved over the 

decades as a result of EPA research, monitoring and enforcement, fine particulate matter and 

ozone are responsible for a large fraction of the human health effects in the United States each 

year caused by pollution, and OMB estimates that the benefits of air pollution regulations far 

exceed their costs. In addition, climate change and energy choices are among the most important 

issues looming before the country. It should be a top priority for EPA to research the most costeffective, job-creating policies possible to ensure our safe energy future. Support for climate 

change mitigation is roughly without change in the President’s 2012 budget compared to the 

2010 enacted budget, but it should be a high priority for more funding on both mitigation and 

adaptation. ORD has contributed substantially to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

especially in the area of modeling climate change effects on air and water quality. With new 

regional climate scenarios about to emerge from the North American Regional Climate Change 

Assessment Program and the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment, EPA 

could provide cutting edge research on possible futures expected under climate change 2010-

2050. Considerable research exists on climate mitigation strategies (Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change Working Group III, 2007), but very little has been done on estimating 

adaptation capacities on a regional scale and integrating them with mitigation capacities.

Are there well-defined objectives/work products for next year’s budget? Can these be 

accomplished with the given resources?

Yes, there are well-defined objectives and expected accomplishments for the FY 2012 budget 

year, but ORD did not fully communicate to the SAB the stage of each of those investments.

Furthermore, there are certain objectives that seem to be missing. For example, the ACE 

program’s “Theme 2” was identified as “Develop integrated approaches to assess how social 

and economic factors affect vulnerability to air pollution and climate change,” but ORD did not 

present plans for social and economic research to address this item. Research is needed in how to 

encourage behavior that sustains and improves the environment, such as driving habits, recycling

and reducing carbon footprints, which are small investments with big returns.

There are initiatives to develop and implement a new air-monitoring network using the latest 

breakthroughs in technology that promise to be much more cost effective and enlightening for 

mixtures of air pollutants. The Near Road research program promises important new information 

on road side exposures, an important human health and environmental justice issue. In addition, 

the SAB recommends that the Agency implement another game-changing investment in 

Are there pivotal, “game-changing” investments that can advance the science?
9

behavioral social sciences. By a small investment in behavioral science, ORD could conduct 

research to identify how to accomplish regulatory goals much less expensively with alternate 

incentives other than enforcement actions. There should be an entire new research effort in 

alternate means to attain improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emissions without the 

traditional command-and-control options and enforcement paradigm. This would revolutionize 

environmental protection and may prove popular with citizens, business, and Congress alike.

3.2. Safe and Sustainable Water Resources

Are there investments that will serve multiple program or multiple priority needs?

ACE provides tremendous synergies among the ORD climate, and energy research programs.

There are many cross-cutting issues between ACE and the other research areas as well:

atmospheric nitrogen deposition to watersheds, social and behavioral science on changing 

climate and water resources, and the energy-water nexus just to name a few. The United States 

cannot have clean energy resources in the future without water availability, and it cannot create 

clean water by desalination or water reuse if the country does not have abundant energy supplies.

One of the model projects for which the SAB applauds ORD is the cookstove project. Through a 

public-private partnership with the Peace Corps and the Department of State through the Global 

Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, EPA has leveraged private funds to expand the use of safe cook 

stoves in developing countries and parts of the United States, especially in Native American 

territory, where traditional cookstoves generate black soot. ORD’s investment in this area 

focuses on an important driver of global climate change. Black soot also is a threat to women’s 

and children’s health in developing countries and Native American reservations. By utilizing 

EPA’s unique expertise in characterizing emission generation, quantifying exposures and 

assessing human health effects, ACE will continue to address the health, environmental, 

economic, and gender risks associated with the use of solid fuels in traditional cookstoves.

ORD identified the problem statement that shaped the goals of this research program as follows:

Increasing demands for sources of clean water combined with changing land use 

practices, growth, aging infrastructure, and climate change and variability, pose 

significant threats to our Nation's water resources. Failure to manage our 

Nation's waters in an integrated, sustainable manner will limit economic 

prosperity and jeopardize both human and aquatic ecosystem health.

The vision of the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources program is to “use an integrated, 

systems approach to research for the identification and development of the scientific, 

technological and behavioral innovations needed to ensure clean and adequate and equitable 

supplies of water that support human well-being and resilient aquatic ecosystems.”
10

How well will the requested budget permit EPA to advance its strategic research directions and 

meet EPA priorities?

In its Fiscal Year 2011-2015 Strategic Plan the EPA identifies six near-term priority goals,

including: “Clean water is essential for our quality of life and the health of our communities.

EPA will take actions over the next two years to improve water quality.”

The SAB agrees with the reallocation of funds and the overall increase in the FY 2012 budget for 

Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR), a 6.9 percent increase over the FY 2010 enacted 

budget to $118.8M in the FY 2012 President’s budget request. While this increase is only a 

modest request, it attests to the Administration’s commitment to support SSWR during difficult 

economic times.

These budget increases for drinking water and water quality research are consistent with 

prevailing scientific and technological opinions that continued improvements in public health, 

the availability of reliable supplies of energy, a cleaner environment, adaption to climate change 

and economic stability cannot be achieved without the availability of adequate supplies of safe 

potable water and clean water for industrial and commercial development. This budgetary 

support continues SSWR’s obligation to deliver the scientific information and technological 

innovation necessary for the nation to produce adequate supplies of clean water. The SSWR 

program combines two well established groups, drinking water research and water quality 

research, both with a strong history of providing sound scientific and technical advice to the 

Agency.

The SAB supports the $6.0M increase to develop innovative new tools and information research 

in the development of green water infrastructure, especially in the face of nationally restricted 

financial resources. However, the SAB has concerns about whether the planned funding is 

sufficient to meet the full vision of the SSWR program. In 2012, SSWR appears to generally 

focus on urban systems and specifically on the management of storm-water. If this assessment is 

correct, the SAB considers this approach to be too narrow, and encourages the EPA to expand 

the scope of this work to include, for example, the study of large watersheds.

Given the tight integration of larger watersheds with urban water resources, larger watersheds 

need to be explicitly studied. Only in this manner can specific program goals be obtained, which 

focus on innovative solutions to reducing and managing groups of chemicals and pathogens and 

nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.

The new paradigm in wastewater management is to view wastewater not as a waste, but rather as 

a resource that can provide water, nutrients, and energy to meet social, economic and 

environmental needs. This paradigm fits within ORD’s focus of sustainability and a systems 

approach, and it links management of wastewater with issues of food production, land use, water 

quality and energy production. It also provides opportunities to advance science in understanding 

the direct and indirect energy use in public infrastructure as well as understanding risk associated 

with the use of non-potable water. There is also a strong social/behavioral component to this type 

of research. The SAB recommends that ORD demonstrate a leadership role in this effort to help 

water and wastewater utilities make critical advances in these areas.
11

The SAB is very supportive of the $4.2M increase in funding to assess the potential public health 

and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing. The combination of retrospective

analyses and new case studies is reasonable but may not be sufficient to gain the critical 

knowledge of the large-scale impacts of these processes from an ecological and human health

perspective. The SAB encourages the SSWR program to ensure that new case studies are 

conducted to expand the knowledge gained from this initial program. Proposed funding levels for 

FY 2012 are likely insufficient for the out-years.

The SAB understands the $2M reduction in the Beaches Program as it draws to a conclusion.

However, these studies are still critical and the SAB advises the program to provide a phased 

reduction approach that maintains the high quality of research and management guidelines that 

has already emanated from this program. Similarly, the SAB is concerned that proposed funding 

reductions for "development of best management practices” and informing decisions associated 

with control of pathogens in drinking water systems will limit the extent to which EPA can 

respond to the priorities defined by EPA's Distribution System Research and Information 

Collection Partnership. These reductions will affect the nation’s ability to respond water 

infrastructure problems that may cause endemic waterborne disease.

With respect to the SSWR program, the SAB believes that the EPA’s requested level of funding, 

which includes a 6.9 percent increase, will generally enable it to advance its strategic research 

directions and meet its near-term priorities.

As the nation engages the daunting environmental challenges of the twenty-first century, the 

critical nexus that exists between the water-energy, water-food, water-health, water-climate and 

water-environment interfaces cannot be overemphasized. The SAB recommends that the SSWR 

program continue to receive the budgetary support that it deserves. These interfaces demand 

abundant supplies of water to preserve and maintain the nation’s health and economic viability.

The EPA depends on a vibrant and productive SSWR program to meet its mandate to protect the 

Are the changes since the FY 2010 enacted budget and EPA’s research budget trends 

appropriate, taking into consideration overall resources, FTEs and intramural and extramural 

resources?

Realignment of drinking water and water quality research programs into an integrated research 

program addressing water resources and water infrastructure will exploit synergies, increase 

efficiency and foster transformative research focusing on entire watersheds for both ecological 

and human health. It is clear that by implementing this alignment and integration that the Agency 

is responding to recent recommendations and suggestions of the SAB and other external advisory 

groups. The SAB commends the Agency for this initiative. The realignment integrates drinking 

water and water quality, two mature ORD water programs. These program components have a 

history of delivering sound scientific and technological advice to inform EPA regulatory 

decisions and advisories, and the SAB expects that, with adequate budgetary support, the 

realigned SSWR program will continue to maintain its high level of performance. Synergies 

from this realignment will help to leverage the SSWR’s resources and extend its already 

impressive capabilities. 
12

nation’s health and environment, which depend on the production of safe drinking water and the 

maintenance of appropriate water quality nationally.

Yes, clearly defined research goals are stated for the FY 2012 budget, and the SAB believes that 

the SSWR will make progress towards meeting ORD’s objectives.

FY 2012 objectives and work products for the SSWR include the delivery of scientific and 

technical data from ongoing projects such as: studying the impacts associated with hydraulic 

fracturing on watersheds; criteria development and implementation guidance for recreational 

waters; carbon sequestration monitoring and model development; national wetlands condition 

assessment; developing new approaches for evaluating and managing groups of chemicals and 

pathogens; and developing new innovative approaches for reducing and managing nitrogen and 

phosphorus pollution in food producing watersheds such as the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

The SAB believes that the budget requests made by the SSWR program will allow ORD to 

accomplish its near-term priorities and objectives through the activities noted.

Are there well-defined objectives/work products for next year’s budget? Can these be 

accomplished with the given resources?

Are there pivotal, “game-changing” investments that can advance the science?

The investment in “green infrastructure” is potentially “game-changing.” One prime example is 

the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. EPA’s preliminary evaluation of the 

application of green and gray infrastructure within the watershed found that a proper mix of 

these infrastructures provides a least-cost solution for meeting nutrient and sediment reduction 

targets and achieving greenhouse gas mitigation, floodwater storage and recreational use. 

While the evaluations are in their infancy, the use of these infrastructures appears to have merit 

and the SAB encourages the Agency to continue these evaluations, and to explore opportunities 

to broaden the scope of their application.

The strategic measures associated with the two objectives for Goal 2 are quite extensive, and for 

objective 1, include waters safe to drink, fish and shellfish safe to eat and water safe for 

swimming. For objective 2, the strategic measures are even more extensive and comprehensive.

Strategic measures for objective 2 call on EPA to improve water quality on a watershed basis;

improve coastal and ocean waters; increase wetlands; improve the health of the Great Lakes;

improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem; restore and protect the Gulf of Mexico; 

Are there investments that will serve multiple program or multiple priority needs?

In its Fiscal Year 2011- 2015 Strategic Plan, the EPA identifies its strategic goal #2 as 

“Protecting America’s Waters” with two objectives: 1) to protect human health and 2) to protect 

and restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. Goal 2 is also defined as: “Protect and restore 

our waters to ensure that drinking water is safe, and that aquatic ecosystems sustain fish, plants 

and wildlife, and economic, recreational, and subsistence activities.”
13

restore and protect the Long Island Sound; restore and protect the Puget Sound Basin; and 

sustain and restore the United States-Mexico Border Environmental Health. All of these strategic 

measures require either the availability of abundant quantities of water safe to drink or water of 

specified quality appropriate for some intended commercial or industrial application(s), e.g., fish 

and shell fish production, a fundamental charge of the SSWR program. It is commendable that 

these EPA’s strategic goals and measures encompass the repair and protection of such a wide 

array of large scale natural systems, such as wetlands, oceans and coastal waters, the Great Lakes 

and the sensitive Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound ecosystems.

The work of the SSWR serves multiple priority needs by also protecting the nation’s food 

production capabilities, e.g., improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem, one of the 

nation’s unique and most efficient natural human seafood production resources. Also, as 

mentioned below in Section 3.6, the CANARY early detection system for drinking water 

contamination, developed collaboratively with ORD’s Homeland Security research program, not 

only protects drinking water but also protects Homeland Security.

3.3. Sustainable and Healthy Communities

ORD identified the problem statement that shaped the goals of this research program as follows:

Communities face social, economic, and environmental trade-offs in a resourceconstrained world. These trade-offs are often not well characterized in terms of 

the implications and interactions between human health, ecosystem services, 

economic vitality, and social equity. Conventional decision-making often does not 

adequately characterize these complex interactions. Communities therefore need 

holistic, integrated, and functional science and practical technical tools and 

support to find solutions that are sustainable: that is, they are equitable, efficient, 

and effective.

ORD described the “expected broad outcomes” for the Sustainable and Health Communities

(SHC) as follows: “Local, regional and national decision-makers will have tools to more 

equitably weigh and integrate social (including human health), economic, and environmental

factors in order to promote human health and welfare and to ensure that nature’s benefits are 

available to generations to come.” The FY 2012 budget requested research funds to support an 

integrated systems approach to: 1) pilot the development and use of information and tools for 

decision makers and stakeholders in urban communities; 2) conduct research on human health 

protection; 3) conduct research to address barriers to community sustainability; and 4) conduct 

research to develop performance measures for sustainable and health communities.

The President’s FY 2012 budget request calls for reductions in funding within the SHC program,

a 10 percent reduction from the FY 2010 enacted budget to $189.3M in the FY 2012 President’s 

budget request. The President’s FY 2012 research budget would create this new program by 

combining five programs (Fellowships, Human Health and Ecosystems, Sustainability, Land 

Protection and Restoration and Pesticides and Toxics), which existed in the FY 2010 enacted 

How well will the requested budget permit EPA to advance its strategic research directions and 

meet EPA priorities?
14

budget, into one transdisciplinary program. This restructuring appears appropriate based on the 

following ORD budget narrative descriptions for this program:

The SHCRP will focus primarily on environmental sustainability at the 

community scale. The SHC program aims to conduct research and development 

that will help communities assess their current health and environmental condition 

and identify strategies that increase ecosystem services while decreasing 

community health risks. Healthy communities will translate to healthy economies.

This new program is ambitious. It has the potential to offer communities an integrated 

understanding of environmental issues and solutions that can not only protect citizens from 

hazardous materials and activities but also offer them ways to understand, protect and use the 

"nature on which they depend" to help achieve a "sustainable and healthy community." This 

approach aims to offer communities research that informs an integrated understanding of the 

science that is essential to move toward sustainability and good health. Such integrated 

understanding would encompass both protection from pollution and hazards and identifying 

opportunities to make better use of the ecosystems and renewable resources on which every 

community depends.

The success of this novel and ambitious approach, however, depends on adequate research 

funding. The SAB believes that the funding request for FY 2012 is not adequate to support the 

program. The overall requested budget shows a reduction at a time when the new program 

requires investments to ensure its success.

Reductions in ecosystem research, a 15 percent reduction from the FY 2010 enacted budget to 

$60.9M in the FY 2012 President’s budget request, will impair ORD’s research on ecosystem 

services. These reductions will slow progress that SAB believes has the potential to characterize 

a fuller suite of ecological benefits from environmental protection actions for decision makers 

and the public [Consultation on EPA's Implementation of the Ecosystem Services Research 

Program (EPA-SAB-09-019), SAB Advisory on the EPA Ecological Research Program MultiYear Plan (EPA-SAB-08-011)]. The reductions in funding in the FY 2012 President’s budget 

request for ecosystems research follows a dramatic long-term downward trend since 2004 when 

the EPA ORD ecosystems budget was nearly double ($108M) the President’s request for FY 

2012. EPA should be cognizant of the potential impact of these reductions in research funding on

the future direction of the SHC program.

Reductions in funding for human health research, a 16 percent reduction from the FY 2010 

enacted budget to $45.4M in the FY 2012 President’s budget request, include a -$3M loss of the 

Congressionally-directed FY 2010 appropriation for children’s environmental health research 

and other reductions that will severely hamper EPA’s intramural capability to conduct major 

epidemiology studies. Such studies are needed to better understand exposures, especially for 

susceptible and vulnerable populations, and hazard dose-responses functions to support 

development of regulations to protect public health using the best possible science.

In addition, the requested budget does not explicitly show investment in two additional key 

areas. There is no explicit investment in or plans for social, behavioral and decision science 
15

research that will help communities understand and address key elements of the SHC vision, i.e., 

“the implications and interactions between human health, ecosystem services, economic vitality, 

and social equity.” Also, the requested budget does not explicitly show investment in research 

linking ecosystem services and ecological health. To achieve EPA’s and ORD’s sustainability 

goals, ORD’s research budget should include explicit investments in research on the

interconnections between human health and ecosystem services, a perfect example of where a 

systems approach could be applied. A budget that allows ORD to advance its strategic research 

directions should show investment in ways sustainable and healthy communities depend on 

ecosystem services and ways reductions in environmental degradation can reduce human

sensitivity to exposure to environmental toxicants.

Are the changes since the FY 2010 enacted budget and EPA’s research budget trends 

appropriate, taking into consideration overall resources, FTEs, and intramural and extramural 

resources?

As noted above, the SAB supports the overall new structure and approach of the SHC research 

program. The Board believes, however, that the reduced funding for ecosystem and human 

health research is inappropriate and that the lack of funding for social, behavioral, and decision 

sciences within this program will reduce its effectiveness. In addition, the SAB considers the 

reductions in the research budget for waste clean-up to be substantial. The Hazardous Substances 

Superfund research would experience a 16.7 percent reduction from the FY 2010 enacted budget 

to $17.8 in the FY 2012 President’s budget request. These cuts will impact future programs in 

OSWER, adversely affect the health and well-being of communities and impede EPA’s efforts to 

promote environmental justice.

The SAB, however, does support the FY 2012 budget request increase of $2M in a long-term 

review of EPA’s overall laboratory network. With increasing coordination, ORD, program and 

regional laboratories could integrate activities generally and across disciplines to save funds and 

use laboratory resources in a more effective, efficient fashion.

This realigned SHC program is an exciting and courageous effort to shift towards a communitybased approach to risk assessment and management, with all its multi-stressor/multimedia, 

cumulative risk complexities. It is the right direction and the Agency is correct to pursue it.

However, unlike other realigned programs (ACE, CSS and SSWR), which have been able to 

quickly and clearly define expected outcomes based on earlier accomplishments within the more 

Are there well-defined objectives/work products for next year’s budget? Can these be 

accomplished with the given resources?

ORD provided the SAB with an initial description of the general objectives for the SHC research 

program, but because of the novelty of the research program, EPA is still in the process of 

developing a detailed plan outlining research products, timelines and deliverables. The objectives 

are reasonable in general, but many specifics remain to be articulated. The objectives require 

alignment with the research products, FTEs and budget. ORD has committed to provide a draft 

plan for SAB review in June 2011 describing a proposed timeline and a strategy for multi-year 

investments.
16

traditional programs from which they were formed, the SHC program has not presented as clear 

a picture of what will be accomplished with the $189M allocated in the President’s requested FY 

2012 budget. This is understandable because the SHC program is not so much a collection of 

previous programs as a new way of conceptualizing the interrelated human health and 

environmental protection goals and the science and policy approaches for accomplishing them.

The SAB advises ORD to carefully plan how it will communicate SHC goals and activities and 

evaluate this new program as it develops.

Since the new research will use an integrated approach that considers problems from a systems 

perspective, research will cut across several of ORD’s former research areas that are now 

included in SHC research program. ORD has an opportunity to explain ways in which an 

integrated approach can realize synergies and program integration and minimize the adverse 

impacts to research from the significant reductions in the FY 2012 budget request. The SAB 

recommends that ORD provide a better mapping between outcomes and FTEs and budget to 

demonstrate how the requested budget for the SHC research program will permit EPA to 

advance its strategic research directions and meet EPA priorities.

• Identification of barriers to community sustainability, 

Are there pivotal, “game-changing” investments that can advance the science?

Unfortunately, because of lack of funding for social, behavioral, and decision science research 

and research focusing on the integration of human health and ecosystem services, ORD is not 

reaping the maximum benefit from this important new research area. ORD has, however, still 

identified important “game-changing” investments in the SHC research area presented to the 

SAB. These investments include:

• Tools designed to inform local decision makers and stakeholders so that they can move 

their communities toward greater sustainability, and

• General modeling approaches and pilot projects that may advance environmental justice 

and equitable solutions.

The SAB looks forward to learning more about these investments from ORD.

In addition, SAB members identified four additional game changing investments that should be 

included in the 2012 priorities and supported with research. These topics will be explored with 

ORD as part of the SAB’s continued focus on ORD strategic research directions. First, ORD 

should support research on life-stage susceptibility throughout the human life cycle. Second, 

cumulative risk assessments should be part of projects that consider interactions among human 

health; ecosystems; and economic, social, and nonchemical stressors. Third, as projects 

investigate interactions among human health and chemical stressors, ORD should invest in the 

epigenetic effects that can potentially result in transgenerational changes.

Finally, there is a need for ORD to invest in program evaluation to consider the effectiveness of 

the SHC research program. Because the SHC is such a novel and ambitious program, it can serve 

as the “test bed” for integrated transdisciplinary research that takes a systems approach and 

develops innovative solutions for environmental problems. It will be important to invest in 
17

evaluation to test the concept and measure its impact. SHC is an appropriate test-bed, since

EPA’s work in ecosystem services, now integrated within SHC, has laid the groundwork for the 

realignment to emphasize sustainability. The community-based approach offers a unique 

opportunity to determine what specific “mixes” of threats (including cumulative risks across

stressors and media) in particular social contexts are faced by actual communities. This would 

provide an empirical basis for orienting the multi-stressor research in the other programs. 

Yes, there are investments that may potentially serve multiple programs. There will be natural 

synergies with the SSWR program, the efforts of ACE to address air pollution and global change

and EPA’s environmental justice program. Through the SHC research program, EPA will have 

opportunities to develop non-invasive methods for controlling mold and asthma and for 

promoting green infrastructure.

Are there investments that serve multiple programs?

3.4. Chemical Safety for Sustainability

ORD identified the problem statement that shaped the goals of this research program as follows:

Although chemicals are essential to modern life, we lack innovative, systematic, 

effective, and efficient approaches and tools to inform decisions that reduce 

negative environmental and societal impacts of chemicals.

The vision of the Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) program is “EPA science will lead 

the sustainable development, use, and assessment of chemicals by developing and applying 

integrated chemical evaluation strategies and decision support tools for integrated evaluation

strategies.”

This new research program consolidates chemical safety-related research programs from eight 

previous ORD programs (Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, Computational Toxicology, 

Pesticides and Toxics, Land Protection and Restoration, Human Health and Ecosystems, 

Sustainability (E-waste), Human Health Risk Assessment and Clean Air). The realignment will 

allow the Agency to streamline its work and be more effective in achieving public health and 

environmental protection.

How well will the requested budget allow EPA to advance its strategic research directions and 

meet EPA priorities?

The President’s requested increase for this program, a 22.9 percent increase over the FY 2010 

enacted budget to $95.7M in the FY 2012 President’s budget request, appears justified and 

should allow the program to achieve many of its goals as outlined by the interim National 

Program Director. Ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution is a high priority for 

the Administrator. The program realignment is consistent with past SAB advice encouraging 

EPA to invest in multiple pollutant and cumulative risk approaches, but the requested budget 

shows no clear investment in several key areas.
18

This program is forward-looking and visionary. If given adequate resources, it appears that it 

could lead EPA in a number of other areas, including improved ecological risk assessment 

through modeling and simulation, life-cycle assessment, improved exposure assessment (a 

critical need as EPA moves forward with developing routine aggregate exposure and cumulative 

risk assessments and considers the "exposome," the measure of all the exposures of an individual 

in a lifetime and how those exposures relate to disease), enhanced understanding of 

environmental impacts on the epigenome and computational approaches to green chemistry.

More funding should be allocated in the future to these areas.

Placing the NextGen risk assessment program within the CSS program is appropriate because it 

will allow more seamless transfer of basic science into risk assessments. Special attention and 

coordination, however, will be required to ensure that the methodology is being translated into 

risk assessment practice, since such activities are still within the purview of ORD’s separate

Human Health Risk Assessment program. In addition, the SAB is concerned that there is no 

proactive budget initiative to develop ways of employing the results of the CSS program, 

including high throughput data, into hazard or risk assessment. This is a significant weakness.

Are the changes since the FY 2010 enacted budget and EPA’s research budget trends 

appropriate, taking into consideration overall resources, FTEs, and intramural and extramural 

resources?

The request for increased resources for FY 2012 is appropriate for the CSS program. This 

integrated, transdisciplinary program leverages the talents and expertise of existing ORD staff to 

go beyond individual disciplines. The staff is well trained to conduct excellent research. By 

realigning these scientists to work with each other toward common new research goals, the 

Agency will be able to successfully implement the goal of true multi-disciplinary research. The 

Agency should take the time to ensure that staff scientists are formally developed as this program 

progresses and that they are brought on board this new initiative. Clearly, this research capacity 

is important for the success of the realignment.

Are there well-defined objectives/work products for next year’s budget? Can these be 

accomplished with the given resources?

The SAB advises ORD to better define the specific objectives for the upcoming Fiscal Year. The 

CSS program is a new program that consolidates the strengths and assets of numerous former 

programs, so it is understandable that there are ambiguities in the presentation of specific 

objectives and the specific timeline for these goals. Some research areas appear overly broad, 

such as “targeted high priority needs.” As a result, it is difficult at this time to fully assess 

whether the objectives can be accomplished with the given resources. However, the broad 

objectives do represent Agency steps toward conducting more transdisciplinary research.

Are there pivotal, “game-changing” investments that can advance the science?

The program has the potential to make game-changing contributions in predictive toxicology and 

in reducing uncertainty in risk assessment through the use of state-of-the-art screening methods 

and computational approaches.
19

This research program has a high potential to accomplish game-changing objectives. These 

include: 1) development of approaches to assess multiple contaminant exposures; 2) reducing the 

use of animal models to assess toxicity and relying more on predictive models; and 3) 

developing tools that can be used in the medical field to further our understanding of 

individualized medicine and individualized toxicology. The program has been very creative in 

accessing data sources (e.g., data on discontinued pharmaceuticals) at no cost to the Agency.

The program could serve as a model for the rest of ORD in the use of computer modeling and 

simulation as a first step, rather than empirical testing. By combining the endocrine disrupter 

screening program with the computational toxicology program, there is a significant opportunity 

for the former to be modernized and provide much more valuable information for decisionmaking.

3.5. Human Health Risk Assessment

Are there investments that will serve multiple program and multiple priority needs?

Much of the work in this program will serve other programs and other priority needs. One could 

make the argument that this program will generate information that will be required across 

programs within EPA and across different federal agencies. The SAB hopes that EPA and the 

federal government will be able to provide the investments to help make this happen.

Health and environmental implications of nanotechnology appeared throughout the presentations 

and was included for CSS as well. However, the National Institutes of Health and other federal 

programs engage in public-private partnerships to fund the development of nanotechnology 

applications and products. The budget allocated to evaluating the health and environmental 

impacts of nanotechnology is not sufficient for EPA to anticipate possible future environmental 

issues associated with development of this technology. Resources committed to developing 

nanotechnology by private companies dwarf those allocated for assessing its impacts.

ORD described this program as providing an interface between researchers in other ORD 

programs who are generating new findings and data and regulators in the EPA program and 

regional offices who make regulatory, enforcement and remedial action decisions. The three 

parts of the program are: 1) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and other priority health 

hazard assessments; 2) risk assessment models, methods, and guidance and 3) air quality 

Integrated Science Assessments. 

Inasmuch as the 2012 budget represents only a slight reduction, a 1 percent reduction from the 

FY 2010 enacted budget to $5.7M in the FY 2012 President’s budget request, the Human Health 

Risk Assessment (HHRA) program appears to be in a reasonable position to maintain its 

strategic research and meet its top priorities. The increase in FTEs by 13 also appears to be 

appropriate. Presumably many of these will be EPA scientists with specialized risk assessment

training. However, the IRIS reviews in progress are ambitious and the Agency will be required to 

How well will the requested budget allow EPA to advance its strategic research directions and 

meet EPA priorities?
20

manage these reviews carefully. Moreover, it will be challenging for the Agency to incorporate 

new information, especially types of information resulting from Tox21 program, into IRIS and 

other assessments. IRIS assessments and the Integrated Science Assessments for National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards are important products that provide a foundation for protection of 

the public from chemical risks. The SAB is pleased that ORD is increasing the speed of 

producing these assessments. Given the basically flat budget, it is hoped that this increased 

efficiency will allow greater focus on cumulative risk assessment or groups of chemicals. The 

plan for a transition to multipollutant assessment needs to be clarified.

Are the changes since the FY 2010 enacted budget and EPA’s research budget trends 

appropriate, taking into consideration overall resources, FTEs, and intramural and extramural 

resources?

It will be difficult for the Agency to keep abreast of the “-omics” revolution and be able to use 

the latest computational toxicology tools to protect public and environmental health. Thus, the 

budget changes since 2010 do not appear to be sufficient for innovation and modernization of 

risk assessment for the Agency. As EPA moves from a risk management paradigm to a 

sustainability paradigm, increased resources will be needed. If the Agency is to make progress 

addressing the tens of thousands of chemicals of concern, it will be necessary to make an 

investment in using computational toxicology methods and conducting multipollutant risk 

assessment rather than only focusing on one chemical at a time. 

Are there well-defined objectives/work products for next year’s budget? Can these be 

accomplished with the given resources?

The objectives/work products for the next year were well articulated and it appears that the 

modest goals as outlined can be accomplished with the given resources, as they were in 2010 and 

2011. But eventually more funds will be needed as described above.

Are there pivotal, “game -hanging” investments that can advance the science?

Integrating Tox21 data into risk assessment will require investments that will be essential to 

modernize our ability to predict human and environmental health risks. It is not clear to the SAB 

who makes these investments at EPA. Formalizing and clarifying the linkage between the CSS

research program and HHRA will assist in ensuring that output from CSS is used by HHRA in a 

scientifically sound and defensible way.

The multi-pollutant, cumulative risk approach is a potential paradigm shift in how to assess 

chemical risks. Perhaps the ambient air pollution multi-pollutant science assessment under way 

could be considered a pilot for evaluating multi-pollutant assessments.

The HHRA program inherently serves multiple program needs. IRIS assessments clearly link to 

all the other integrated ORD programs. The IRIS assessments are used by basic science 

Are there investments that will serve multiple program and multiple priority needs?
21

programs as well as regulatory programs not just in EPA but in other agencies and by states as 

well. This program is a shared federal resource. 

The Integrated Science Assessments are extremely important to the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard reviews and thus are integrally related to the ACE program.

There are strong potential linkages to the CSS program – the HHRA program will clearly need to 

work with CSS to use the CSS output appropriately and maximally.

3.6. Homeland Security

ORD described three major responsibilities of the Homeland Security research (HSR) program.

Research is designed to 1) protect water systems from attacks and for detecting and recovering 

from successful attacks affecting water systems; 2) decontaminate buildings and outdoor areas 

impacted by a terrorist attack by leading efforts to establish clearance goals and clean up and 3) 

be part of a nationwide laboratory network with the capability and capacity to analyze for 

chemical, biological and radiological agents for routine monitoring and in response to a terrorist 

attacks.

How well will the requested budget allow EPA to advance its strategic research directions and 

meet EPA priorities?

This program has a well defined mission. The ORD Center for Homeland Security was initially 

charged to develop and deliver products quickly, with the plan that the Homeland Security 

Research Center would be sunsetted after three years. However, it has been positively received 

within the Agency and by the users of its products and continues to enjoy support from many 

stakeholders. Therefore, ORD has supported maintaining the program because it recognizes its 

value. However, in the FY 2012 President’s budget, HSR is slated for a 24.9 percent reduction 

from the FY 2010 enacted budget to $26.7M in the FY 2012 President’s budget request, due 

mostly to maturation of its initial research products.

Over half of the $24.7M request is directed towards monitoring and decontamination after a 

chemical, biological or radiological release, including response to a wide area anthrax attack.

The safe buildings program was eliminated in the requested FY 2012 budget. The program 

activities related to developing contamination approaches to wide areas is limited because the

budget allows only for small pilot level tests. The efforts are focused on evaluating single agent 

releases and no budget is provided to address release of mixtures.

Are the changes since the 2010 budget and EPA’s research budget trends appropriate, taking into 

consideration overall resources, FTEs, and intramural and extramural resources?

The cuts in the budget are likely to limit the ability of the HSR program to interact with EPA’s 

regional and program offices, important clients for ORD’s water related research. These 

interactions are especially important for disseminating recently developed real-time water 

monitoring and decision-making tools. EPA must plan for the resources needed to disseminate 

these models and real-time tools available for states and communities to use. 
22

A 75 percent reduction in methods development for analyses of chemical, biological and 

radiological warfare agents is a huge reduction in a single program. The changes since the 2010 

budget may be appropriate as several programs within the Center for Homeland Security are 

mature.

Are there well-defined objectives/work projects for next year’s budget? Can these be 

accomplished with the given resources?

This program has a well defined mission and the FY 2012 requested budget describes many HSR

activities that are maturing. The SAB is concerned, however, that many of the 2012 activities are 

related to data collection efforts, which are resource-intensive and may be damaged if budgets 

are cut rapidly. The FY 2012 requested budget describes the planned research objectives broadly 

and does not detail the research tasks to be performed to achieve these objectives. For example, 

in “developing microbial risk assessment methodologies,” is the need really to develop methods?

Or is it to develop more data that could be used in these risk assessments? More detail is needed 

to fully evaluate whether the requested budget is sufficient, in general, to allow EPA to 

accomplish the stated objectives.

Are there pivotal “game-changing” investments that can advance the science? 

There do not appear to be many game changing investments supported by the requested budget

that can advance the science. The relatively small budget and homeland security mission 

primarily focus on monitoring and decontamination after a chemical, biological, or radiological 

release preclude many game-changing advances.

One example, however, of a pivotal, “game-changing” investment is the CANARY early 

detection system for drinking water contamination, developed collaboratively as part of the 

homeland security initiatives program. CANARY was designed to detect when there has been 

intentional or unintentional contamination of a drinking water system by monitoring and 

analyzing through its unique software. The CANARY system is a free software tool available 

worldwide to drinking water utilities striving to provide safe water to their customers. The 

software is in use in over 20 major U.S. cities including Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York, Los 

Angeles and San Francisco. CANARY has been accessed by more than 600 utilities in 15 

countries. The tool resulted from an investment in interagency collaboration between two 

Federal agencies, the EPA’s ORD and DOE’s Sandia Laboratories. The SAB commends the 

Agency for demonstrating that interagency innovative collaboration not only works, but can be 

accomplished relatively inexpensively.

The majority of proposed research activities are directed to monitoring and decontamination after 

a chemical, biological or radiological release. EPA makes a significant contribution to the 

nation’s ability to respond to natural disaster and unconventional warfare because of the 

Agency’s expertise in identifying and handling toxic substances in environmental media. Within 

the Agency and ORD's emphasis on sustainability, HSR could serve multiple priority needs and 

programs and also provide opportunities for game-changing research if it were better integrated 

Are there investments that will serve multiple program or multiple priority needs?
23

with research developing resilience of the built environment in the face of sudden disruptions

and natural disasters.

3.7. Economics and Decision Science

Sustainability is a challenge grounded in the human dimensions of a coupled human and natural 

system. Humans are the driving force of environmental changes both good and bad, and human 

institutions and behavior must change if a transition toward a sustainable economy is to be 

achieved. Thus it is striking that EPA’s budget accords so little explicit attention to research on 

the human elements of coupled systems.

Economics remains a low priority for EPA, and decision sciences were eliminated altogether in 

the 2008 reorganization that transferred the Economics and Decision Science extramural 

research program to the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). The fragments 

of social science research continue to be subjected to the disinvestments of a declining budget. A 

long-term dataset, the Pollution Abatement Cost and Expenditure survey series, is a casualty of 

these cuts, limiting our ability to understand the economic implications of environmental 

regulation. This is a serious loss because of the length of time needed to collect data on industries 

making long-term capital investments in response to globalization and national economic shifts, 

as well as environmental regulations. NCEE retains a function as an internal “consulting group,”

available for studies in the Office of Policy and elsewhere within the Agency. This is an 

important function, not only to help EPA meet its immediate responsibilities involving economic 

analysis, but also as a way to maintain awareness within EPA of the perspectives and utility of 

understanding the human dimensions of environmental problems.

Social science has no explicit place within the four major research programs around which ORD 

is being reorganized. The SAB appreciates the need for social science as a cross-cutting theme, 

but that understanding needs to be translated into a durable institutional presence in the Agency 

if the human dimensions of sustainability are to become a permanent part of EPA’s approach.

The SAB has commented repeatedly on the neglect of social and behavioral at EPA. A time of 

politically frightening budget deficits is not the moment for a sweeping investment in the social 

sciences. But people and the institutions that shape human behavior, including markets and 

informal norms, as well as the regulations and laws that fall within EPA's legal responsibility, are 

central to sustainability. Environmental protection requires research related to these dimensions 

to achieve sustainable outcomes.

How well will the requested budget allow EPA to advance its strategic research directions and 

meet EPA priorities?

It appears that the total budget devoted to Economics and Decision Science (EDS) is $1M (plus 

an additional $0.4M for NCEE), a reduction of $.2M from FY 2010 enacted funding of 1.2M.

This is barely enough to keep the Center alive, much less to advance strategic directions.
24

Are the changes since the FY 2010 enacted budget and EPA’s research trends appropriate, taking 

into consideration overall resources, FTEs, and intramural and extramural resources?

The President’s requested FY 2012 budget for EDS represents a 17 percent decrease from the 

FY10 level and is only 43 percent of the EDS budget in FY 2007. The SAB believes that the 

EDS budget should be increased. Economics and especially decision sciences cut across the 

Agency’s goals, yet the budget marginalizes them. This marginalization is misguided because 

relatively small investments in these areas can provide large benefits. The one appropriate 

research investment to note is ORD’s requirement that STAR grant applications include a social 

scientist on applicants’ research teams.

The EDS research program was transferred from ORD to the NCEE in 2008. Since 2008, EPA 

has disinvested in decision science research and the SAB believes this disinvestment was a 

mistake. The SAB advises EPA to return responsibility for decision science research to ORD and 

develop an explicit research enterprise in environmental behavioral, social, and decision 

sciences. Such an enterprise need not be a separate new program, but would provide institutional 

support for integrating environmental behavioral, social, and decision sciences into ORD’s 

transdisciplinary research programs.

Are there well defined objectives/work products for next year’s budget? Can these be 

accomplished with the given resources?

It appears that efforts will be directed towards children’s health protection and valuation of water 

resources, but only two projects seem to be well defined, both relating to water valuation. These 

activities involve modeling cost-effective nutrient management options for the Chesapeake Bay 

and modeling welfare impacts of ocean acidification. 

The limited budget makes it difficult to accomplish very much, and these few projects may be 

sensible, given that they address problems that cut broadly across the Agency.

Are there pivotal, “game-changing” investments that can advance the science?

This program would be game-changing if the investments were adequate. The budget is too 

small to be game-changing in any sense. The SAB supports NCEE’s plans to direct a substantial 

portion of its limited funds to external grants, especially for graduate student research. This is a 

good way to leverage resources and to bring new economists into environmental research.

However, there is little evidence that this program can similarly affect the other social, 

behavioral and decision sciences. 

The SAB deplores the elimination of decision sciences from the portfolio. It is apparent in the 

Agency’s strategic plan that the decision sciences, and more generally the behavioral and social 

sciences, should be playing increasing roles in EPA’s portfolio of research activities. Needs for 

research in social, behavioral, and decision science are apparent in the Strategic Plan, but receive 

virtually no funding in the President’s FY 2012 requested budget.
25

Are there investments that will serve multiple programs or multiple priority needs?

The entire, albeit very small, budget serves multiple programs at EPA that require the 

results of economic research.
26

TABLE OF ACRONYMS

ACE Air, Climate and Energy Research Program

CSS Chemical Safety for Sustainability Research 

Program

HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment

HSR Homeland Security Research Program

iNPD Interim National Program Director

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

ORD Office of Research and Development

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research

SHC Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research 

Program

SSWR Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research 

Program
27

REFERENCES

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007 Climate change 2007: Mitigation. 

Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers. Authors Netz, 

B.; Davidson, O. R.; Bosch, P. R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L. A. Editors Netz, B.;Davidson, O. 

R.;Bosch, P. R.;Dave, R.;Meyer, L. A.. 23 pp. Web site: 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf.

Olshansky, S. Jay et al. 2005. A Potential Decline in Life Expectancy in the United States in the 

21st Century. New England Journal of Medicine. 352:11, 2005.

Pope, Arden, Majid Ezzati, and Douglas W. Dockery. 2009. Fine-Particulate Air Pollution and 

Life Expectancy in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. 360:376, 2009.

University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute, James Heintz, Heidi GarrettPeltier, Ben Zippere. 2011. New Jobs Cleaner Air; Employment Effects Under Planned 

Changes to the EPA’s Air Pollution Rules. Ceres Report. 2011.

www.ceres.org/epajobsreport

.
28

Attachment A: Extracts from EPA’s FY 2012 Budget in Brief for the SAB
29
30