Policy News - December 18, 2003

EPA's homeland security agenda under scrutiny

During his tenure as governor of Utah, Mike Leavitt was recognized as a national leader on homeland security. The U.S. EPA's new administrator is expected to have plenty of challenges overseeing the agency's homeland security research.

In late October, two National Research Council (NRC) panels released reports critiquing EPA's research plans for its National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC), deeming the plans overly ambitious. Both panels emphasize that officials should prioritize actions that are within EPA's expertise and seek help from other agencies. They also highlighted the tension EPA officials face for the first time as they struggle with how best to distribute potentially sensitive information about water facilities to local, regional, and state officials.

NHSRC, which is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, was officially established in January. NHSRC plans to close in October 2005, a time frame that intentionally provides a sense of urgency to get work done, says Timothy Oppelt, NHSRC's director. NHSRC received $3.6 million for preliminary work in FY '02 and $50 million of new EPA money for work in FY '03, and the center requested $29 million for FY '04.

"When most people hear 'homeland security', they don't think EPA, but most aren't aware how much of an emergency responder we are," says Paul Gilman, U.S. EPA's science adviser and director of the Office of Research and Development (ORD). EPA leads the federal government's efforts to protect water supplies and has played a major role in decontaminating buildings. Staff at NHSRC and on EPA's Water Protection Task Force created plans outlining research areas and specific projects for water security and building contamination, which were evaluated by separate NRC panels. A third NRC panel will address NHSRC's risk assessment studies in 2004.

NRC released its water review in two parts. The first report, A Review of the EPA Water Security Research and Technical Support Action Plan, released in July, noted that the research agenda lacked an “overarching framework” to help local and regional agencies and utilities build their own prevention and response plans.

The panel criticized the agenda because it mentions little about communication programs and does not even outline a way to alert the public, utilities, and elected officials if rate increases are needed to pay for securing facilities, computer systems, and information. “The dangers of keeping information too closely guarded may in fact be much greater than the dangers of an ill-intentioned person,” NRC wrote.

The panel also found that the water action plan lacked enough information on wastewater systems, which “made it difficult to assess the adequacy of [those] proposed research needs.” Finally, the agenda is “silent on the financial resources required to complete the plan.”

In the second report, A Review of the EPA Water Security Research and Technical Action Plan: Part 2. Project Evaluation, released in October, the panel offered a more detailed review of specific projects identified in the action plan. Overall, it recommended focusing on drinking water, which appears to be a more vulnerable risk. The panel again cited a need for prioritizing “reasonable near term goals” and minimizing duplicity of work in other agencies, and made several recommendations on how to remedy this. The panelists praised the use of EPA’s existing Environmental Technology Verification program to evaluate potential technology but warned about its high operating costs. And they reiterated their view that EPA needs to develop effective communication plans.

The water plan is a strong, positive step “for securing water in general,” says Joan Rose, a microbiology professor at Michigan State University and vice chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Water Science and Technology Board, which organized a review of the water plan. But it should include wastewater studies on a broad scale because accidents and blackouts can unintentionally wreak the same kind of havoc on a water system as terrorism, she says. Rose echoes NRC’s concerns about balancing security with the great need for public and utility access to information databases.

Others who have seen the agenda criticize it for not clearly addressing the funding issue. Alan Roberson, a spokesperson for the American Water Works Association, says he “would have liked to see projected costs” of implementing the plan.

In a single and much more straightforward report called Review of EPA Homeland Security Efforts: Safe Buildings Program Research Implementation Plan released in October, NRC’s building committee wrote that EPA had correctly identified four key research areas. However, NRC recommended prioritizing decontamination and disposal projects because time is short and EPA is most knowledgeable in these areas; other work should be left to agencies with the appropriate expertise.

Oppelt says the good recommendations will be incorporated into work as soon as possible. “Of course, if we are unfortunate enough to have additional terrorist attacks in this country that might focus on water infrastructure or building contamination, that might change the dynamic in terms of what the next steps would be,” says Oppelt.

Currently, EPA managers are discussing a range of “transition strategies” that include long-term research needs and possibly extending the life of NHSRC.

All three reports are available at www.nas.edu. —RACHEL PETKEWICH