NEWS SCIENCE Superfund research program threatened by Congress, EPA A federal research program aimed at improving basic science to support Superfund is in jeopardy as a result of EPA internal maneuvers and proposed congressional budget cuts to the Superfund program. The Superfund Basic Research Program (SBRP) funds multidisciplinary projects that team molecular biologists, chemists, and engineers to investigate the relationship between hazardous substances in the environment and their impact on human health. A Senate appropriations bill would chop this year's $36 million SBRP research budget to $16 million for fiscal year 1996, and a House proposal would cut it to about $31 million. Of equal importance, sources said, are threats from EPA to shift the Agency-funded program from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to EPA and phase it out. The program has provided seed money for commercially useful technologies, according to supporters, and is currently the major source of funding for research on specific indicators of human exposure, including molecular biomarkers. Using highly sensitive analytical techniques, these projects find changes in DNA and cellular proteins, which serve as chemical signatures of exposure. This brand of health-based research is unique and essential if Superfund is to improve its risk assessment and cleanup protocols, according to Bernard Goldstein, former EPA assistant administrator for research and development and now director of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at Rutgers University. "Moving away from EPA's command and control depends on knowledge, which is what SBRP is providing," he said. SBRP is administered by NIEHS but funded through EPA, which may be the crux of the problem, sources said. The program funds 17 centers at U.S. universities that coordinate some
140 Superfund-related projects. The program's research budget comes from EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). With only three administrative staff, SBRP is almost totally extramural, according to William Suk, its director. However, NIEHS sources and others said EPA program directors are working on a plan to retain this money within the Agency, gain management control over the program, and possibly shift the program from NIEHS to the EPA Office of Research and Development. They also argue that the Agency's long-range goal is to do away with the program and use its funds for other Superfundrelated purposes. "OSWER has never been happy to give this money away," said Goldstein. "But every previous administrator has respected the split. The new twist is that this time the EPA administrator agrees [with OSWER]." Within the Clinton administration, that effort began last spring when EPA circulated a plan to eliminate SBRP funding by 1999 as part of a proposal to reduce Superfund costs {ES&T, July 1995, 307A). Also this year, OSWER Deputy Assistant Administrator Timothy Fields requested a review of the program by the EPA Office of Inspector General, a move NIEHS sources said fueled fears that the Agency intended to take over the program. The review, completed in August, "revealed a long-standing problem in administering the research program that can be traced to difficulties in communications and coordination between the two agencies," according to the report. However, the report laid much of the blame on OSWER. It noted that OSWER officials "claimed to have only limited knowledge of the various grants awarded by NIEHS" and saw it as an "orphan project" with no office or responsible individual. It said OSWER officials had not used NIEHS electronic bulle-
5 4 2 A • VOL. 29, NO. 12, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
tin boards that describe the program nor had they regularly attended NIEHS-sponsored meetings to learn about the program. The report noted, however, that both agencies had recently taken steps to improve communication and coordination. OSWER officials referred calls to EPA's press office where a spokesperson said only that "there was no effort to take funding from NIEHS and give it to ORD." The official also noted that the administration had requested "level funding" for NIEHS in the 1996 budget. Scientists familiar with the program argue that the proposed cuts and the attempts to change the program's management underestimate the program's significance and its contribution to exposure information. The program is essential, said John Groopman, Johns Hopkins Department of Environmental Health chair. An oncologist who has followed the program since its inception in 1987, Groopman receives no SBRP funding. "We need research looking at the entire spectrum of environmental exposures and outcomes in people," he said. "This is among the top problems cited by the public in this country, and the SBRP is the only research program to address it." Industry researchers also emphasized the program's importance. Daniel Abramowicz, an environmental research manager at General Electric, Schenectady, NY, and a reviewer of SBRP grant proposals, stressed the value of the "real-world nature of the toxicology and risk assessment" done by program scientists. Observers criticize EPA for not taking advantage of SBRP discoveries, especially technologies. SBRP funding has produced, for example, new cleanup technologies through research at the University of California-Berkeley, which developed a steam-enhanced extraction technology to remove solvents from contaminated soils. —REBECCA RENNER
