Drinking Water Research: Better Planning Needed to Link Needs and
Resources (Testimony, 10/20/1999, GAO/T-RCED-00-15).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) drinking water research program, focusing on:
(1) a comparison of EPA's budget requests for drinking water research
during fiscal years 1997 through 2000 with: (a) the amounts authorized
for such purposes by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996; and
(b) the amounts estimated by EPA to be needed to support the regulations
and regulatory determinations required under the amendments; (2) 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; and (3) an assessment of
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.

GAO noted that: (1) for fiscal years 1997 through 2000, EPA annually
requested millions of dollars less than Congress authorized for drinking
water research and regulatory development in the 1996 amendments;
however, the gap has narrowed recently; (2) 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; (3) 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; (4) stakeholders expressed concerns about
the adequacy of the research for the upcoming regulations on: (a)
arsenic; and (b) 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; (5) 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; (6) according to the
stakeholders, the potential consequences of not having adequate research
to support upcoming regulations could be significant; (7) EPA has
prepared detailed research plans that identify the specific tasks it
needs to complete in order to support the upcoming regulations on
arsenic and microbial pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection
by-products; (8) 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; (9)
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; and (10) 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.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-00-15
     TITLE:  Drinking Water Research: Better Planning Needed to Link
	     Needs and Resources
      DATE:  10/20/1999
   SUBJECT:  Potable water
	     Water pollution control
	     Water supply management
	     Revolving funds
	     Water treatment
	     Safety standards
	     Hazardous substances
	     Pollution monitoring
	     Research programs
	     Safety regulation
IDENTIFIER:  EPA Contaminant Candidate List

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

Cover
================================================================ COVER

Before the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Committee on
Commerce, House of Representatives

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m.  EDT
Wednesday
October 20, 1999

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH - BETTER
PLANNING NEEDED TO LINK NEEDS AND
RESOURCES

Statement of Peter F.  Guerrero, Director,
Environmental Protection Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-00-15

GAO/RCED-00-15T

(160508)

Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EPA -

============================================================ Chapter 0

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 stakeholdersthose involved with supplying
     and ensuring the safety of drinking waterregarding 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. 

--------------------
\1 Drinking Water Research:  Better Planning Needed to Link Needs and
Resources (GAO/RCED-99-273, Sept.  24, 1999). 

\2 P.L.  104-182, 110 Stat.  1613 (1996). 

\3 To 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.  Wealso contacted
officials associated with the National Research Council and the
Science Advisory Board. 

   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

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. 

--------------------
\4 A 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. 

\5 These sensitive subpopulations may include infants, children,
pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a history of serious
illness, or other groups. 

   EPA'S ANNUAL BUDGET REQUESTS
   FOR DRINKING WATER RESEARCH AND
   REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT ARE LESS
   THAN THE LEGISLATIVELY
   AUTHORIZED AMOUNTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

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 teamseach
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
determineson an annual basiswhat 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 doubledfrom 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. 

--------------------
\6 Safe Drinking Water Act:  Progress and Future Challenges in
Implementing the 1996 Amendments (GAO/RCED-99-31, Jan.  14, 1999). 

\7 Implementation 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, 106\th Cong. 
13-14 (1999) (Internet, GPO Access). 

   STAKEHOLDERS BELIEVE SOME
   RESEARCH WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE
   IN TIME TO SUPPORT UPCOMING
   REGULATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

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 availableand 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 higherreaching 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. 

--------------------
\8 Conventional 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. 

\9 In 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. 

\10 Under 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. 

   EPA HAS NOT COMPLETED SOME
   RESEARCH PLANS AND DOES NOT
   IDENTIFY OR TRACK THE RESOURCES
   NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT EXISTING
   PLANS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

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 budgetand, 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
plansand linking these needs to the annual budget requestwill 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. 

--------------------
\11 EPA 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. 

-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

   CONTACT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

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. 

TIME LINE FOR UPCOMING REGULATIONS
AND REGULATORY DETERMINATIONS
=========================================================== Appendix I

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

*** End of document. ***