Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
OCTOBER 20, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
5537 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
MR.
PETER F. GUERRERO
DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES
GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are here today
to discuss our report, which is being released today, on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) drinking water research program.(1) In the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996,(2) the Congress made significant changes
to the way that EPA is required to set drinking water quality standards in its
regulations governing public water systems. Among other things, the regulations
must be based on the best available peer-reviewed science and must consider
health risks, risk reduction, and implementation costs. The statute also
authorized increased funding for the scientific research needed to support the
regulations.
Concerned about whether EPA's drinking water research will be
sufficient to support the agency's forthcoming regulations, the Committee asked
us to -- compare EPA's budget requests for drinking water research during fiscal
years 1997 through 2000 with (1) the amounts authorized for such purposes by the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and (2) the amounts estimated by EPA
to be needed to support the regulations and regulatory determinations required
under the amendments;
-- obtain the views of stakeholders--those involved
with supplying and ensuring the safety of drinking water--regarding the
likelihood that EPA will be able to complete the research necessary to support
new regulations and regulatory decisions over the next 10 years and the
potential consequences if the research is not completed;(3) and
-- assess
EPA's drinking water research plans, including the tasks, projected funding, and
anticipated accomplishments, to support the development of new regulations and
regulatory decisions over the next 10 years.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we
found the following:
-- For fiscal years 1997 through 2000, EPA annually
requested millions of dollars less than the Congress authorized for drinking
water research and regulatory development in the 1996 amendments; however, the
gap has narrowed recently. According to EPA officials, the agency's annual
budget requests reflect the level of resources that agency officials believe is
needed to fulfill EPA's mission and program responsibilities, within the
planning ceilings and policy directives provided by the Office of Management and
Budget. But there is no overall estimate of resource needs for drinking water
with which to compare EPA's annual budget requests because the agency does not
generally prepare estimates of the total resources needed to carry out multiyear
research programs.
-- Stakeholders expressed concerns about the adequacy of
the research for the upcoming regulations on (1) arsenic and (2)
microbial pathogens, disinfectants (used to
treat drinking water), and disinfection by-products,
particularly the adequacy of research regarding health effects and the
analytical methods used to detect contaminants. While EPA officials acknowledge
that some high-priority research projects will not be completed in time for
these regulations, they believe that the available research will be sufficient
to support the regulations with sound science. According to the stakeholders,
the potential consequences of not having adequate research to support upcoming
regulations could be significant. For example, if EPA issues regulations that
are more stringent than can be justified by the available science, water
utilities could bear unnecessarily high treatment costs. On the other hand, if
EPA decides to set a less stringent standard because some scientific data are
not available, consumers could be exposed to harmful contaminants longer than
necessary.
-- EPA has prepared detailed research plans that identify the
specific tasks it needs to complete in order to support upcoming regulations on
arsenic and microbial pathogens,
disinfectants, and disinfection by- products.
However, EPA has not completed research plans for other significant portions of
its regulatory workload, including determinations on contaminants that are
candidates for regulation and the review and revision of existing drinking water
standards. Moreover, while the plans it has prepared specify research tasks,
projected accomplishments, and expected completion dates, EPA has not identified
the resources that are required to implement the plans and does not have an
effective system for tracking the progress of ongoing research in relation to
the plans. As a result, it is difficult to ascertain whether the research has
been adequately funded or will be available in time to support the development
of new regulations and regulatory determinations.
On the basis of these
findings, we recommended that EPA take steps to improve the link between
research needs and resources and to better ensure that limited research funds
within EPA and other organizations are most efficiently targeted. We also
recommended that EPA improve the tracking of ongoing research in relation to
existing research plans and communicate the agency's progress so that the Office
of Research and Development's key customers can obtain timely and accurate
reports on the status, timing, and funding of individual research projects.
Background
EPA's responsibility for conducting drinking water research
and developing the applicable regulations is split between its Office of
Research and Development and Office of Water. The Office of Research and
Development's five laboratories and centers are responsible for conducting
research on health effects, exposure, treatment technologies, and analytical
methods. In addition, its National Center for Environmental Assessment develops
risk assessments for some contaminants.(4) Within the Office of Water, the
Office of Science and Technology also does some risk assessments, and the Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water collects data on the occurrence of
contaminants in drinking water; prepares the economic assessments, including
cost-benefit analyses, and makes the risk management decisions necessary to
support the regulatory decisions; and writes the regulations.
Among other
things, the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act required EPA to
finish developing most of the regulations that were in process at the time of
the act's reauthorization, such as standards for arsenic;
microbial pathogens, such as cryptosporidium; disinfection
by-products; and radon. The amendments also created a new
process for identifying contaminants that may warrant regulation on the basis of
their adverse health effects, their frequency of occurrence in public water
systems, and the projected risk reduction to be achieved by regulating them. EPA
was required to publish, by February 1998, a list of high-priority contaminants
not currently regulated. (This list is known as the Contaminant Candidate List.)
Beginning in August 2001 (and in 5-year cycles thereafter), the amendments
require EPA to determine whether to regulate at least five of the contaminants
on the list. A determination to regulate them must be based on the best
available public health information and data concerning the occurrence of the
contaminant. In addition to regulating new contaminants, EPA must review and
revise, as appropriate, existing drinking water standards at least once every 6
years.
The 1996 amendments also modified EPA's standard-setting authority so
that health risks, risk reduction, and costs must be considered when drinking
water quality standards are established.
When proposing a regulation,
EPA is required to publish an analysis of, among other things, the effects of
the contaminant on the general population and on subpopulations that are
identified as likely to be at greater risk of adverse health effects due to
exposure to contaminants in drinking water than the general population.(5) In
addition, EPA is required to publish a determination of whether the benefits do
or do not justify the costs. To the degree that its actions are based on
science, EPA must use the best available peer- reviewed science and supporting
studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices.
EPA's Annual Budget Requests for Drinking Water Research and Regulatory
Development Are Less Than the Legislatively Authorized Amounts
For fiscal
years 1997 through 2000, EPA annually requested millions of dollars less than
the amounts the Congress authorized for drinking water research and regulatory
development in the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Beginning
with fiscal year 1998, the gap between the authorized funding levels and annual
budget requests was much larger for drinking water research than for regulatory
development, but this gap has narrowed recently for both areas. For example, in
fiscal year 1999, EPA requested $35.5 million for drinking water research, or 35
percent less than the $54.6 million that was authorized for that year. In fiscal
year 2000, when EPA requested $41.5 million of the $54.6 million authorized for
drinking water research, the difference between the authorized and requested
funding was 24 percent. To support regulatory development activities, EPA
requested $40.9 million in fiscal year 1999, or about 13 percent less than the
$47 million that was authorized. This gap was reduced to about 3 percent in
fiscal year 2000, when EPA requested $45.5 million of the $47 million authorized
for regulatory development that year.
According to officials within both the
Office of Water and the Office of Research and Development, EPA does not prepare
its annual budget requests on the basis of the specific funding authorizations
in environmental statutes. Instead, the budget requests reflect (1) the level of
resources that agency officials believe is needed to fulfill EPA's mission and
program responsibilities and (2) the planning ceilings and policy directives
provided by the Office of Management and Budget. Officials from the Office of
Research and Development told us that the amount of funding to be requested
annually for research on drinking water and other areas is determined through an
extensive planning process in which research coordination teams--each
responsible for a broad area of research--determine the Office's research
priorities for the upcoming budget year. The teams consider several factors,
including the Office's overall research strategy, the status of ongoing
research, program offices' priorities, and statutory and budgetary constraints.
Next, the Office of Research and Development's top management and EPA's Research
Coordinating Council, comprising Deputy Assistant Administrators from across the
agency, review the teams' recommendations and modify them as appropriate to
ensure that the Office's annual budget request focuses on the highest research
priorities across the agency.
Using this process, EPA estimates only the
resources needed for drinking water (and other) research for a specific budget
year, rather than the total resources needed to carry out a multiyear research
program for any given research area. In effect, the agency determines--on an
annual basis--what research can be accomplished within the targets provided by
the Office of Management and Budget. Therefore, there is no overall estimate of
resource needs for drinking water research with which to compare the annual
budget requests for drinking water research.
In fiscal year 1998, EPA did
attempt to do an unconstrained needs assessment that would identify the
activities and resources necessary to meet the new statutory mandates of the
1996 amendments, including requirements for drinking water research, and to
achieve public health objectives. As we reported earlier this year, EPA
concluded that the shortfall in research and data collection funding was in the
range of $10 million to $20 million annually for fiscal years 1999 through
2005.(6) The results of the assessment were presented to the National Drinking
Water Advisory Council and other stakeholders in April 1998.
EPA officials
subsequently explained that the intent of the needs assessment was not to
calculate exact budget requirements but to develop a "ballpark" estimate. In
March 1999, EPA officials testified that the level of funding received in fiscal
year 1999 and requested for fiscal 2000 is sufficient to provide the resources
needed to (1) meet all near-term requirements of the act's amendments in a
timely manner and (2) base regulatory decisions on sound science.(7) Officials
from the Office of Water and Office of Research and Development are currently
conducting a comprehensive evaluation of resource needs for the drinking water
research program for fiscal year 2001 and beyond.
Officials from the Office
of Research and Development pointed out that drinking water research as a
percentage of the total research budget has more than doubled--from 3.3 percent
in fiscal year 1995 to 7.8 percent in EPA's fiscal 2000 budget request. While
the officials acknowledge that it is beyond EPA's capacity to address all
drinking water research needs, they said that they have worked to establish
partnerships with federal and nonfederal research entities, such as the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, to
leverage additional resources.
Stakeholders Believe Some Research Will Not
Be Available in Time to Support Upcoming Regulations
Several stakeholders
were concerned about the adequacy of EPA's budget requests for drinking water
research and the proportion of the Office of Research and Development's research
budget that is devoted to drinking water. They believe that funding for drinking
water research should receive a higher priority within EPA, considering its
potential impact on public health, and they cited specific areas, such as
certain health effects studies, in which they believe that funding constraints
caused the research to be started too late to be available when needed.
Beyond the questions surrounding the funding of drinking water research,
stakeholders expressed concerns about the adequacy of the research that will be
available to support the regulations on arsenic and microbial
pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection by-
products.(8) In the case of arsenic, for example, several stakeholders
told us that some of the epidemiological studies,(9) which will provide
information on health effects, will not be completed in time, in part, because
the research was started too late for the results to be available when needed.
While some stakeholders, such as the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, agree that there will be
gaps in the health effects research, they believe that sufficient information
exists to take some interim action on arsenic. They expect EPA to lower the
existing standard by the statutory deadline of January 2001, and, when the
longer-term research is completed, to consider revising the standard again.
Regarding the regulations on microbial pathogens,
disinfectants, and disinfection by-products,
many stakeholders commented that some of the health effects research--including
epidemiological studies and research on sensitive subpopulations, such as
children and pregnant women--will not be completed in time for the regulations.
Both the Chairman of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council and the
Executive Director of the National Association of Water Companies, among others,
also expressed concern about whether researchers will be able to identify
reliable analytical methods for detecting microbial
contaminants, such as cryptosporidium, that will be included in the upcoming
regulations.
EPA officials acknowledge that some high-priority research
projects will not be completed in time for the upcoming regulations on arsenic
and microbial pathogens, disinfectants, and
disinfection by-products. For example, in the case of arsenic,
EPA has testified that a significant investment in health effects research must
continue for several years to address priority research needs. In the case of
research on disinfection by-products, officials from the Office
of Research and Development told us that the importance of studying certain
noncancer health effects has only recently been recognized as EPA's
understanding of the science has evolved. Even so, EPA officials believe that
the available research will be sufficient to support the regulations with sound
science. They told us that they will issue regulations using the best available
science and, when additional research results become available, will modify the
regulations, if appropriate, as part of the review and revision of existing
standards that are required every 6 years.
Some stakeholders questioned
EPA's approach. For example, the Executive Director of the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation sees EPA's regulatory approach as a compromise
that became necessary because some research was started too late to be available
when needed. In addition, using a two-stage approach to regulate contaminants
could increase costs to utilities in some instances.
According to the
Executive Director of the National Association of Water Companies, it is often
not cost-effective to make incremental changes in treatment technologies.
The consensus among stakeholders is that the availability of research for
contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List may be the most serious concern
because relatively little research has been initiated so far and EPA does not
expect to have a research plan until May 2000. According to a variety of
stakeholders and officials within the Office of Water, EPA should be conducting
research on these contaminants now so that the regulatory determinations and
rulemakings associated with these contaminants will be supported by sound
science. However, for the most part, this research is just now beginning. In a
March 1999 hearing before the House Committee on Science, the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Research and Development testified that in its
fiscal year 2000 budget, EPA redirected approximately $6 million from the
funding that had been dedicated to research on microbial
pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection
by-products to fill key data gaps and develop analytical
methods for chemicals and microbial pathogens on the
Contaminant Candidate List. Although the Office of Research and Development has
already initiated research in the areas of health effects, exposure, and
treatment for selected high-priority contaminants on the list, the fiscal year
2000 funding represents the first major reallocation of resources within the
drinking water research budget to address these research needs.
Some
stakeholders believe that EPA may have sufficient information for the first set
of regulatory determinations, which is due in August 2001. However, stakeholders
point out that the contaminants selected for the first determinations may simply
represent those for which the most information is available--and not those that
pose the most significant health risks. Greater concerns were raised about
whether EPA will have sufficient information for the next round of
determinations, which must be made by August 2006. A number of stakeholders were
particularly concerned that little or no health effects research has been
initiated for contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List, and some noted
that epidemiological studies can take 4 or more years to plan and conduct.
Consequently, they believe it is important to begin the work now so the results
will be available when needed.
According to stakeholders, the potential
consequences of not having adequate science to support the regulations could be
significant. If EPA issues regulations that are more stringent than what is
justified by the available research, water utilities could bear unnecessarily
high treatment costs. In the case of arsenic, for example, under both EPA's and
industry's projections, annual compliance costs could increase dramatically,
depending on how much the existing standard of 50 parts per billion is lowered.
Specifically, EPA has estimated that lowering the arsenic standard to 10 parts
per billion would result in annual compliance costs of $270 million, but found
that these costs would be much higher--reaching an estimated $2.1 billion--if
the standard were lowered to 2 parts per billion. Similarly, estimates by the
American Water Works Association range from $708 million, at a level of 10 parts
per billion, to $4.2 billion, at a level of 2 parts per billion.
On the
other hand, not having adequate research could have an impact on public health.
If EPA decides to set a less-stringent standard or defers regulation of a
contaminant because some scientific data are not available, this could mean that
consumers would be exposed to harmful contaminants for an additional 6 or more
years.(10) The Natural Resources Defense Council and other organizations have
expressed concern about the relatively limited research on the impact of
drinking water contaminants on sensitive subpopulations, such as pregnant women,
children, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems. An official
with the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water acknowledged that the study
of human reproductive and developmental effects, in particular, is an area in
which more research is needed. He told us that some earlier studies indicated a
possible association between exposure to drinking water treated with
disinfectants and these effects but that additional long-term
studies are needed to determine if there is any basis for concern.
EPA Has
Not Completed Some Research Plans and Does Not Identify or Track the Resources
Needed to Implement Existing Plans
EPA has not yet completed research plans
for its anticipated work on the Contaminant Candidate List and the review and
revision of existing standards, and has not developed a comprehensive research
plan that integrates both near-term and long-term research needs. EPA started
work on a research strategy for the Contaminant Candidate List after the first
list was published in 1998. Although EPA will be required to make a regulatory
determination on at least five contaminants from the first list by August 2001,
the agency does not expect to complete its strategy until May 2000. Similarly,
although EPA must complete the review and revision of about 80 existing
standards by August 2002, EPA only recently began the initial work associated
with identifying the research needs for this effort. EPA officials explained
that at this point, they do not expect the review of existing standards to
require a significant research effort, and, consequently, this work will be
incorporated into EPA's comprehensive research plan, which is targeted for
completion by December 2000.(11)
A number of stakeholders were concerned
that EPA does not yet have a comprehensive research plan. As illustrated in
appendix I, EPA is required to promulgate a number of important regulations over
the next few years and, at the same time, must begin the research necessary to
support future regulatory determinations on the Contaminant Candidate lists.
Stakeholders believe that developing a comprehensive plan would require EPA to
lay out an integrated approach for supporting ongoing regulatory efforts and
identifying and conducting research on emerging concerns, such as the presence
of pharmaceuticals in some sources of drinking water. In addition, a long-term
plan would allow the agency to be more anticipatory and less reactive; EPA would
thus be able to break the cycle in which the research lags behind regulatory
needs. Moreover, with a comprehensive plan, stakeholders can avoid duplicating
research that EPA already plans to fund and, instead, sponsor research that
complements EPA's efforts.
EPA has prepared detailed research plans in two
significant areas--(1) arsenic and (2) microbial pathogens,
disinfectants, and disinfection by-products.
Although the plans identify the specific research tasks that will be performed
and provide information on the anticipated accomplishments, they do not include
estimates of the resources needed to fund the planned research. As a result, it
is not possible to make a link between the estimated cost of the research laid
out in the plans and the funds requested for drinking water research in EPA's
budget--and, thus, determine whether the research is adequately funded.
Not
only do existing research plans lack key information on resource requirements,
but EPA also does not have an effective system for tracking the progress and
funding of ongoing research in relation to the plans. The Office of Research and
Development makes efforts to communicate the status and results of its work to
the Office of Water (e.g., through regular staff-level contacts, special
briefings, and status reports) and to interested groups outside the agency
through stakeholder meetings and other means. However, officials from both the
Office of Water and outside stakeholder groups indicated that they would like to
receive regular reports that contain more detailed information on the status of
projects in the research plans, including the estimated and actual start and
completion dates and the funding for individual projects.
Because the
program office needed better information to monitor the status of the work laid
out in the research plan and to track project- level resource expenditures, the
Office of Water developed its own tracking system for the research on
microbial pathogens, disinfectants, and
disinfection by-products. Since 1997, the Office of Water has
paid a contractor over $148,000 to develop and maintain the tracking system and
input data on the status of individual projects.
Better planning and a more
explicit link between research needs and resources would improve the
transparency of the budget development process. The Science Advisory Board,
which annually reviews the Office of Research and Development's budget requests,
has noted improvements in the Office's efforts to link research priorities with
specific environmental goals and in the coordination between the Office and the
needs of EPA's program offices. However, in commenting on the Office's fiscal
year 2000 budget, the Board's Research Strategies Advisory Committee indicated
that the lack of transparency in the process used to set research priorities
made it difficult for the Committee to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed
budget. The Committee recommended that EPA make available information on
high-ranking programs that it entertained during the budget-making process but
could not fund because of overall budget constraints and competition with other
programs. In addition, the Committee found that the criteria that EPA used to
emphasize or de-emphasize programs in the proposed budget were unclear and
recommended that EPA develop explicit criteria that can be used for setting
research priorities during the budget development process.
The Committee
concluded that such an exercise would not only improve communication and
understanding of the budget process for those outside the agency, but would also
assist EPA in making its internal decision process more efficient.
In
closing, Mr. Chairman, key stakeholders in the drinking water community have
concerns about whether EPA's research is on track to meet the demanding
regulatory agenda mandated by the Congress in the 1996 amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act. We believe that more detailed and better-communicated
information on planned and ongoing research would help EPA to deal with these
concerns and that providing such information is warranted on the grounds of both
accountability and efficiency. Identifying the nature, timing, and estimated
cost of needed research over the multiyear research plans--and linking these
needs to the annual budget request--will make the funding process more
transparent.
In addition, providing information on which projects will be
funded in a given year will give stakeholders within and outside EPA a clear
basis for assessing the impact of the agency's budget decisions. EPA's reliance
on outside research entities to fill the gaps that are beyond the agency's
capacity to meet makes it all the more important for EPA to identify
high-priority projects that may be deferred or abandoned because of funding
constraints. Similarly, having a more effective system for tracking ongoing
research will both enhance the budget development process and allow stakeholders
to make informed judgments about whether the research is adequately funded and
will be available when needed.
Our report being released today recommends a
number of actions to improve the transparency of the budget development process
and the effectiveness of the system used to track the progress and funding of
research projects. First, to improve the link between research needs and
resources and to better ensure that limited research funds within EPA and other
organizations are most efficiently targeted, we recommended that EPA (1)
identify the specific research that must be accomplished, (2) establish time
frames showing when the results must be available, (3) estimate the resources
that will be required to support the needed research, and (4) use these data to
develop budget requests and inform stakeholders about what research will be
funded. Second, we recommended that EPA improve the tracking of ongoing research
in relation to existing research plans and communicate the agency's progress so
that the Office of Research and Development's key customers, including the
Office of Water and outside stakeholders, can obtain timely and accurate reports
on the status, timing, and funding of individual research projects.
EPA
agreed that an adequate investment in drinking water research is critical to
provide a sound scientific basis for drinking water regulations. The agency also
noted the importance of linking multiyear research planning to the yearly budget
cycle and using effective tracking systems for monitoring and communicating the
status of research activities and resource requirements.
Mr. Chairman, this
concludes our prepared statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions
that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.
- - - - -
Contact and
Acknowledgments
For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact
Peter F. Guerrero at (202) 512-6111. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimony included Ellen Crocker, Teresa Dee, and Les Mahagan.
1Drinking Water Research: Better Planning Needed to Link Needs and Resources
(GAO/RCED-99-273, Sept. 24, 1999).
2P.L. 104-182, 110 Stat. 1613 (1996).
3To obtain stakeholders' views, we interviewed officials with the American
Water Works Association, American Water Works Association Research Foundation,
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, National Association of Water Companies, National Drinking Water
Advisory Council, and Natural Resources Defense Council. We also contacted
officials associated with the National Research Council and the Science Advisory
Board.
4A risk assessment typically involves an evaluation of (1) the
likelihood that a contaminant will cause an adverse health effect, (2) the
extent to which the population is exposed to the contaminant through drinking
water and other sources, and (3) the relationship between the level of exposure
and the adverse health effect.
5These "sensitive subpopulations" may include
infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a history of
serious illness, or other groups.
6Safe Drinking Water Act: Progress and
Future Challenges in Implementing the 1996 Amendments (GAO/RCED-99-31, Jan. 14,
1999).
7Implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments:
Hearing Before Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Drinking Water of the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 106th Cong. 13-14 (1999)
(Internet, GPO Access).
8Conventional water treatment practices require the
addition of disinfectant chemicals to the water, that, while
effective in controlling many harmful microorganisms, combine with organic and
inorganic compounds in the water and form potentially harmful disinfection
by-products.
9In general, environmental epidemiological
studies are used to determine whether an association exists between an adverse
health effect and the exposure of a population to a contaminant. Further studies
are often needed to confirm the epidemiological association and determine the
relationship between the level of exposure and the adverse health effect.
10Under section 102(a) of the 1996 amendments, the EPA Administrator has
authority to take action more quickly (i.e., promulgate an interim national
primary drinking water regulation) whenever contaminants are determined to pose
urgent threats to public health.
11EPA is required to develop a long-term
research plan under section 202(a) of the 1996 amendments. The statute does not
impose a deadline on the plan's completion.
END
LOAD-DATE: October 23, 1999
