GUEST EDITORIAL

Doing more with less? There is currently a serious lack of direction in

EPA's Office of Research and Development, brought about by the failure of the EPA administrator to nominate a new assistant administrator for research and development for the vacancy created over a year ago. The mandate of Congress, as set forth in several excellent pieces of legislation, emphasizes the need for research to solve the problems that stand in the way of achieving a clean and safe environment for the people. However, the signal being sent by EPA con­tradicts this mandate. EPA's nonenergy research funding in all programs has been reduced from $ 197 million in fiscal year 1981 to just $158 million in FY '83; the extramural research program has been hit especially hard.

Unfortunately, this comes at a time of great need for a sound scientific base for federal and state regu­lations. Leading consulting engineers are unsure how to advise their industrial and municipal clients on compliance. Within EPA, Deputy Administrator Hernandez has just asked that the scientific data base supporting the regulatory effort be reviewed by the EPA Science Advisory Board. How will the widely acknowledged gaps in the scientific data base be filled if R&D funding is insufficient?

A severe blow is being dealt to water quality re­search by the federal agency Congress has asked to preserve water quality. The Water Program will suffer a 40% reduction in funding ($27.7 million, down from $45.1 million). This includes elimination of all ex­tramural research in toxic pollutant measurement, monitoring, and quality assurance in areas where toxics are known to be present. Yet there is need for research on standardization of toxicity tests and es­tablishment of safe concentrations so that a sound policy can be developed that is neither overprotective nor underprotective of aquatic life. In addition, the budget calls for drastic cuts in wastewater treatment research at a time when cost-effective treatment seems to be an elusive goal.

Drinking water research is being reduced from $28.4 million in FY '82 to $22.9 million in FY '83. Yet the General Accounting Office reports that 13 600 community water systems cannot meet federal water quality standards unless these facilities are improved.

0013-936X/82/0916-0429A$01.25/0 © 1982 American Chemical Society

It is especialy discouraging that little of the drinking water research will be done by universities; their ex­pertise and facilities are underused national re­sources.

Congress mandated that 15% of R&D funds be designated to provide the nation with a substantial base of fundamental research knowledge. EPA re­sponded by establishing the Exploratory Research Program. However, with the large R&D cuts proposed for FY '83, the most optimistic budget for this pro­gram is just $12.4 million. This means the University Grants Program component has been reduced by 75% in two years, which places it in a phase-out mode, according to some EPA program managers.

Admittedly, EPA's dual role of regulation and re­search in support of regulation is difficult to carry out. The R&D budget cuts might not be so critical if other agencies were available to pick up the slack. Unfor­tunately, this is not the case. The Office of Water Research and Technology in the Department of In­terior has been eliminated and the National Science Foundation's budget has not increased enough to accommodate the additional requests for support.

The "doing more with less" philosophy seems un­workable when addressing the very complex problems created by wastes of our advanced technological age. There must be a sense of continuity in EPA's R&D policy, especially in the area of extramural support. It is short-sighted not to capitalize on the breadth of capabilities, extent of physical facilities, and diversity of talent existing outside the EPA.

'Éaa~*st4as Û· jU *altA+4S~

Francis A. DiGiano is president of the Association of Environmental Engineering Professors and a professor in the Depart­ment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina.

ES&T

Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 16, No. 8, 1982 429A