research priorities. The agency has also continued to commit resources comparable with those proposed in the committee's research portfolio. And the assistant administrator for ORD had tasked EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors to review the management of the research effort in detail and provide specific recommendations on how to improve management.

At the same time, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (which has important responsibility for monitoring, supersites, and emission inventories) participates in the EPA management structure for PM programs and has undertaken some valuable efforts to integrate research needs into the implementation of the monitoring and supersite program. However, there needs to be a strong senior-level commitment to sustaining and managing these efforts over the long term. (See the discussion and recommendations in Chapter 4.) Mechanisms for ensuring better cross-agency implementation of scientific initiatives have been recommended in a recent report of the NRC Committee on Research and Peer Review in EPA (NRC, 2000).

ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

In the next chapter, the committee discusses its six evaluation criteria and the approach it used for evaluating progress of the PM research program. Chapter 3 presents the committee's review of progress made in each of the 10 topics in the research portfolio. Chapter 4 summarizes findings and recommendations resulting from the committee 's evaluation of progress made in research on PM. The chapter also addresses general issues related to the program's implementation, providing a briefcase study in EPA's implementation of the speciation and supersite air-monitoring program.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement