levels are within an order of mag nitude of causing health effects. "If we endorsed [the risk char acterization] subject to minor cleanup at this point it would not represent a consensus," con cluded Morton Lippmann, a member of the SAB executive board and chair of the health panel. There was a strong need to "sharpen up" portions of the re port, he added. The panels' review of the risk characterization itself was pre sented by John Graham, head of the Harvard Center for Risk Anal ysis. Despite strengths, Graham said, the characterization lacked balance, especially concerning cancer. For example, he said, po tency figures for negative health effects were spelled out but pro tective effects that have been at tributed to dioxin exposure were not provided. Also, uncertainties in EPA's position were not seri ously analyzed or clearly por trayed, he said, and EPA's risk characterization for noncancer effects did not allow use of incre mental analysis of regulatory al ternatives. Graham said he worried that EPA's risk characterization would leave risk managers "naked and in the cold" when making decisions about rules in the years ahead. He urged that a new risk characterization be drafted by risk managers outside EPA. Linda Birnbaum, director of the EPA Environmental Toxicol ogy Division, defended the risk characterization as sufficiently reviewed by outside researchers. Speaking after the meeting, she said the Agency may have made a mistake by not making the role of outside scientists clearer. There is a need to make EPA's reasoning "more transparent" so managers could better use and trust the material, she said. "In some cases, we didn't make it clear how we moved from A to B, bu they are not telling us we need new data." —JEFF JOHNSON
EPA research faces major cuts
F
ederal funding for environ mental science faces an uphill battle in the new Congress, judging from the 1996 fiscal year House and Senate budget resolu tion and the 1995 rescision con ference report. "Disappointing" was how Jo seph K. Alexander, EPA deputy assistant administrator for sci ence, termed the proposed cuts. He noted that in some research areas EPA got off easier than other federal agencies, but several programs proposed for elimina tion are key to new directions EPA hopes to take. EPA science programs pro posed for elimination in 1996 budget resolutions include the Environmental Technology Initia tive (ΕΤΙ), environmental educa tion research fellowships, and re search programs directed to global change and environmental justice, according to congres sional budget documents. Alexander was particularly alarmed at the proposed elimina tion of the $120 million ΕΤΙ and $10 million fellowship programs. ETI's elimination will curb devel opment and verification of new environmental technologies. Wip ing out the fellowships would de stroy a new program in which 2400 students applied for 100 fel lowships in its first trial year. "Maybe we haven't made this clear to Congress, but there is a need to recruit bright grad stu dents for environmental science careers," he said. "This isn't a pro gram to train a new generation of tree huggers but to train the best professionals for jobs in state and local government, industry, and the regulated community." Although budget resolutions show congressional intent, they are merely federal spending blue prints, setting broad limits on funding to be appropriated later in the budget process. That pro
cess began for EPA May 23 and 24 as the House Appropriations Sub committee on Veterans' Affairs, Housing and Urban Develop ment, and Independent Agencies wrestled with the EPA 1996 ap propriation bill. Subcommittee members plan to mark up the EPA appropriation bill in late June. Subcommittee members warned that cuts lie ahead. EPA Administrator Carol Browner de fended her budget but agreed to provide a list of program priori ties by mid-June. She also noted that after two years of piecemeal program cuts, the Agency was reaching a point where some ac tivities could no longer be done. Browner and members also discussed the 1995 congressional rescision package that cleared the House and Senate but has been vetoed by President Clinton. Re scision legislation withdraws funds allocated in earlier years but not spent. The package removes about $1.5 billion from EPA. Most of the cuts ($1.3 billion) are in drinkingwater facility funds. Cuts in the research arena include: $6 million from the Environmental Monitor ing and Assessment Program (EMAP); $1 million from "aca demic training" programs; $1.3 million in neurotoxicity and health effects research; $5 million unspecified research cuts; and $1.3 million in research-related procurement savings. The resci sion would also return $83 mil lion earmarked for a research center at Bay City, MI. EMAP cuts come as the Agency is restructuring the $36 million program, said Robert Huggett, EPA assistant adminis trator for research, who predicted EPA will now work more closely with other agencies to integrate program resources. —JEFF JOHNSON
VOL. 29, NO. 7, 1995/ENVIRC)NMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY • 3 0 3 A
