LABORATORY PLAN
FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MARCH I rT S 1974
-------
LABORATORY PLAN
FOR THE
ENVIRONMEINTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MARCH
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page Number
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY OF PLAN 1
III. DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN 2
Objective of Plan 2
Overall Laboratory Systems 3
The Laboratory Reevaluation Study Group 3
IV. THE EPA LABORATORY PLAN k
1.0.0 REGIONAL LABORATORIES 5
1.1.0 REGION I 8
1.1.1 Needham Heights, Mass. 8
1.2.0 REGION II 8
1.2.1 Edison, New Jersey 8
1.2.2 Rochester, New York 8
1.2.3 New York, New York 9
1.3.0 REGION III 9
1.3.1 Charlottesville, Va. 9
1.3.2 Annapolis, Maryland 9
1.3.3 Wheeling, W. Va. 9
l.U.O REGION IV 10
l.i^.l Athens, Georgia 10
1.5.0 REGION V . 11
11
11
11
11
11
1.5-0 REGION V
1.5.1 Chicago, 111.
1.5.2 Grosse lie, Mich.
1.5.3 Cleveland, Ohio
1.5.i4 Minneapolis, Minn.
1.5«5 Evansville, Ind.
1.6.0 REGION VI 12
1.6.1 Ada, Oklahoma 12
1.6.2 Houston, Texas 12
1.6.3 Bay St. Louis, Miss. 12
1.7.0 REGION VII 13
1.7.1 Kansas City, Kan. 13
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page Number
1.8.0 REGION VIII 13
1.8.1 Denver, Colo. 13
1.9.0 REGION IX 1U
1.9.1 Alameda, Calif. Ill
1.9.2 San Francisco, Calif. Ik
1.10.0 REGION X 1^
1.10.1 Seattle, Wash. 15
2.0.0 NATIONAL LABORATORIES 16
2.1.0 Research Triangle Park, N.C. 17
2.2.0 Cincinnati, Ohio 18
2.2.1 Edison, N. J. 18
2.3.0 Corvallis, Oregon 18
2.3.1 Narragansett, R. I. 19
2.3.2 Gulf Breeze, Pla. 19
2.3.3 College, Alaska. 20
2.3.14 Athens, Georgia 20
2.3.5 Duluth, Minn. 21
2.3.6 Ada, Oklahoma 21
2.3.7 Grosse lie, Mich. 22
2.14.0 Las Vegas, Nev. 22
2.5.0 Ann Arbor, Mich. 23
2.6.0 Montgomery, Ala. 23
2.7.0 Beltsville, Md. 2k
2.8.0 Bay St. Louis, Miss. 2k
2.9.0 Washington, D.C. 25
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In 1971, the Administrator of EPA commissioned a study to develop
a laboratory plan fully responsive to the Agency's environmental
mission. The study of laboratory requirements was in response to
a directive contained in the Fiscal Year 1972 Report of the
Agriculture-Environmental and Consumer Protection Subcommittee of
the House Committee on Appropriations that such a study be under-
taken, together with a realization of the need to develop order
from the multitude of facilities inherited under Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970. This study of the EPA laboratory system included a
survey of all existing EPA laboratories and related programs as well
as an evaluation of requirements for new or modified facilities
based upon program consideration. The findings of the study were used
to mold the requirements into a complete laboratory system that would
meet not only present but future national environmental goals as well.
The results of the study were furnished to the Office of Management
and Budget and to interested Congressional Committees in the document
entitled "Laboratory Plan for the Environmental Protection Agency -
November 1972". This revised Laboratory Plan is the result of a
review and reevaluation of the findings and conclusions contained in
the original Laboratory Plan, in the light of the inevitable changes
that continuously occur in the EPA mission, programs direction, and
resources allocations.
II. SUMMARY OP PLAN
This revised EPA Laboratory Plan revalidates the following conclusions
given in the Executive Summary of the November 1972 Laboratory Plan.
t Each EPA region will be provided with safe and adequate
laboratory facilities to meet immediate needs as well as
future program growth. Such facilities are imperative
to assure decentralization of the Agency's regulatory,
monitoring and technical assistance roles and to strength-
en the Regional analytical support to regulatory actions
and State technical assistance.
• The EPA research laboratories will be consolidated on a
programmatic basis to concentrate scientific capabilities
in a minimum number of locations.
-------
The following summary conclusion is added as a result of the
reevaluation study:
• EPA will proceed as a high priority with the required
modification or replacement of existing laboratory
facilities to bring all EPA laboratory facilities in
compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Admin-
istration (OSHA) and EPA safety standards. .
The following summary conclusion has been deleted as a result
of the reevaluation study:
• A National Environmental Pesticides Center will be
established at the Mississippi Test Facility, Bay
St. Louis, Mississippi.
The revised Plan continues to support the consolidation of existing
and projected regional support laboratory resources into one Central
Regional Laboratory (CRL) facility for each of the 10 EPA Regions.
However, upon reevaluation, the need for time-dependent analyses of
water samples require the retention of a small laboratory component
in six critical locations—Cleveland, Ohio; Minneapolis, Minnesota;
Evansville, Indiana; Wheeling, West Virginia; Rochester, New York;
Grosse lie, Michigan—originally identified to be closed out in the
November 1972 Laboratory Plan. Also, the Beltsville, Maryland, site
must be retained because of ongoing pesticides programs tied to
existing agricultural plots and orchards at that location.
Major facility projects are recommended to provide safe and adequate
facilities for the National Environmental Research Centers (NERC)
and other National Program Support Laboratories (PSL) in Cincinnati,
Ohio; Research Triangle Park, N.C.; Gorvallis, Oregon; Narragansett,
Rhode Island; Gulf Breeze, Florida; Newtown, Ohio; Duluth, Minnesota;
and Montgomery, Alabama.
III. DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN
Objective of Plan;
The principal objective of this effort is to define the most efficient
and effective system of laboratories which will facilitate accomplish-
ment of national environmental goals. The plan, as developed:
-------
• ELIMINATES .WHEREVER POSSIBLE, FRAGMENTATION AND
DUPLICATION OF EFFORT
• PROMOTES UNIFIED DIRECTION OF PROGRAMS
• TRANSFERS EMPHASIS FROM SINGLE-MEDIUM PROGRAMS TO
MULTI-MEDIA PROGRAMS (I.E., CONSOLIDATE TOWARD UNIFIED,
ENVIRONMENTAL APPROACH)
• TRANSFERS EMPHASIS FROM SINGLE-POLLUTANT ORIENTATION
TO MULTI-POLLUTANT ORIENTATION
f RESPONDS TO AREAS OF MAJOR GROWTH
• RESPONDS TO NEW EPA CONTROL LEGISLATION
t CONSOLIDATES, WHERE POSSIBLE, TO KEEP CAPITAL AND
OPERATING COSTS TO A MINIMUM
Overall Laboratory System;
The EPA laboratory programs fall into two basic categories: (l) Regional
Laboratories are those which support EPA's operational activities within
the respective regions, (2) National Laboratories are those laboratories
whose programs are national in scope, including Research Laboratories
(RL) and Program Support Laboratories (PSL). The Research Laboratories
conduct research which forms the basis of EPA's environmental control
effort. The Program Support Laboratories carry out specialized environ-
mental programs, such as the testing of motor vehicle emission control
systems or national enforcement activities. These roles, while
organizationally separate within EPA, complement each other to form a
consolidated environmental program.
The Laboratory Plan Reevaluation Study Group;
The basis for this revised Laboratory Plan was developed by a 6-man
Reevaluation Study Group comprised of representatives from each of EPA's
five Assistant Administrators' Offices and the Office of Regional Liaison.
The Office of Planning and Management (0PM) was assigned the lead role.
Mr. Arthur H. Nies, Director of 0PM's Facilities and Support Services
Division, was appointed Group Leader. With its broad representation
throughout the Agency, the Study Group was able to assemble updated
information on the laboratory needs from all offices and organizational
entities throughout EPA and to develop an overall revised Laboratory
Plan for EPA's laboratory facilities.
-------
IV. THE EPA LABORATORY PLAN
The revised EPA Laboratory Plan,as with the original Laboratory Plan,
was developed from inputs representing a broad base of individuals
and offices within EPA. The report was evaluated thoroughly by the
Administrator, the Deputy Administrator, and the five Assistant
Administrators. Decisions resulting from this evaluation were applied
to the Study Group report with the final modification being this plan
which represents EPA1 s best current strategy to meet regional and
national goals.
The following sections detail the specific steps called for by the
proposed plan. Each location where laboratories how exist is treated
individually, and a succinct description is given of the facilities,
the program objectives, and the extent to which these facilities are
adequate to carry out these programs. Specific recommendations are
given for implementing the plan.
-------
1.0,0 REGIONAL LABORATORIES
1.0.1 Introduction
One of the major emphases of EPA's organizational design has "been
the decentralization of functions to the 10 EPA Regional Offices.
Since the establishment of the Agency, the Regions have taken on
far greater responsibilities for many activities and have been
pursuing them vigorously. Other functions are likely to be
decentralized further in the future. Some of these functions require
laboratory support, particularly in monitoring, investigative and
analytical support of enforcement and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System actions, and the provision of technical assistance
to State and local governments.
The Organization Order for EPA's Regional Offices assigns these
functions to the Surveillance and Analysis Division:
(l) Regional Investigations and Fact Gathering, This mission,
which on a continuing basis requires the majority of S&A
resources, includes the collection, analysis, and evaluation of
environmental data to provide for:
-Overview of State implementation plan progress;
-Compliance and enforcement of Federal Standards;
-Information supporting the issuance of licenses
and permits;
-Federal facilities program support; and
-Technical backup to preparers of environmental impact
statements.
(2) Special studies supporting National programs including:
-Conduct of one-time environmental surveys;
-Investigative support to set National emission
standards;
-Environmental quality progress measurement;
-Modeling to assess compliance efforts; and
-Environmental forecasting based on demographic
factors.
(3) Extramural technical assistance to universities, industry,
and State, municipal, and other Federal agencies. This
assistance includes:
-Advisory services;
-Expert testimony;
••Laboratory evaluation;
-Equipment calibration; and
-Information dissemination concerning standard
instrumentation and approved methodology.
-------
Each Surveillance and Analysis Division is further divided into
a S\u*vt'illnnoe TCrtunoh which performs the riecemwy f'iold work and
collects samples to support monitoring;, npooin.1 nl.udlon, mid
enforcement action, and a Technical Support Branch which provides
physical, chemical, and biological laboratory analyses and other
laboratory services, provides technical assistance to state and local
laboratories, and provides a. source of technical expertise to testify
in enforcement actions.
The capabilities which the Regional Offices inherited from EPA's
predecessor agencies, or which have subsequently been created,
vary considerably from region to region. Some of these variations
are necessary and proper and relate to the specific problems faced
by some regions, such as the acid mine drainage problems in Region III
and the animal feed lot problems in Region VII, Others relate to
the variations in need between regions based on such factors as
population, geographic area, availability of State and local resources
to attack pollution problems, and differences in the industrial and
agricultural activities in the regions, such as Regions IV and V, and
permit smaller allocations in the smaller regions, such as Region I,
VII, VIII and X.
Other variations in present capability are based on historical factors
rather than programmatic need. Some regions inherited larger, more
capable staff, better equipment inventories, and better facilities
from EPA's predecessors than others. All of these factors were
considered in developing a plan to satisfy regional laboratory needs.
1,0,2 OSie Regional Need
EPA's highest priority in providing laboratories is to assure that
each region is provided with facilities which are:
(l) Of sufficient size to accommodate the required analytical
staff together with the required equipment and support personnel.
(2) Safe for all regional laboratory operations,
(3) Equipped to perform chemical, biological and physical
analyses to support water pollution, air pollution, and, where
assigned, other activities in the region,
(U) Located at a site which is reasonably convenient to both
the Regional Headquarters and the areas within the region
where major pollution problems are encountered.
-------
1.0.3 Guidelines for Regional Systems
In designing a regional laboratory system which will be effective
and responsive to regional needs we have followed several ground rules:
(l) The regional laboratory staff must be large enough to
provide a "critical mass" of expertise and skills to effectively
implement national environmental programs.
(2) Economy of scale must be considered in laboratory operations.
(3) Quality control is enhanced by centralizing routine
analyses performed in the regions.
(U) Non-routine complex analyses can be performed only in a
laboratory which is well equipped and well staffed.
Highly specialized laboratory operations such as neutron
activation and electron microscopy should be provided by
national laboratories to prevent acquisition of costly equipment
which would be underutilized by regional programs.
(6) Data collection for enforcement actions is a short-term
effort in most locations; other means of data collection can be
used if long term studies are required ( such as data collection
by contractors).
(7) Mobile facilities such as boats, trailers, and aircraft,
should be utilized to avoid duplication of permanent facilities
at temporary sites.
(8) Unless the advantages of having permanent or semi-permanent
laboratory facilities at two or more locations can be clearly
demonstrated on cost-effective or programmatic grounds, similar
operations should be consolidated in one facility.
-------
1.1.0 Region I, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, has its
laboratory in Needham Heights, Massachusetts (l.l.l).
1.1.1 Needham Heights, Massachusetts, a Boston suburb, is the present
site of the Central Regional Laboratory (CRL) of Region I. The
Laboratory is currently located at 2l|.0 Highland Avenue in a
former motel, and is both overcrowded and unsafe for most
laboratory operations. The building is occupied under a GSA lease
which expires in PY 197U- The S&A Division staff totals $0, and
all are assigned to the Needham Heights Facility. Laboratory
staff currently totals 33» (including six chemists, two micro-
biologists, two biologists, and three technicians).
Conclusion
t Relocation of this facility to a safe and adequate
site is required at an estimated annual increase in
lease costs of $330»000- This project has been
assigned high priority. Negotiations are currently
underway to lease space in the Boston area.
1.2.0 Region II, headquartered in New York, New York, has three
laboratories within its geographical boundaries. The Central
Regional Laboratory is located in Edison, New Jersey (1.2.1),
and it has a satellite laboratory in Rochester, New York (1.2.2).
A regional pesticide products analysis laboratory is located in
New York, New York (1.2.3).
1.2.1 Edison, New Jersey, is the site of a combined Region II Central
Regional Laboratory and an associated research laboratory of
NERC-Cincinnati. Both laboratories are located in EPA-owned
facilities on Voodridge Avenue in the former Raritan Arsenal.
The S&A Division staff totals 72, of whom JL are laboratory
personnel (fifteen chemists, three microbiologists, four biologists,
and nine technicians). Approximately 9 positions have been recently
transferred from the Rochester facility.
1.2,2 Rochester, New York, is the site of an associated regional
laboratory located in EPA-leased space on the University of
Rochester campus. Personnel assigned total 17, of whom 2 are
laboratory personnel working on samples analyses in support of
regional programs in the Great Lakes basin.
8
-------
1.2.3 New York, New York, is the site of sun KPA potitioidon
chemistry laboratory located in a GSA-ovmed building
at 201 Varick Street. Personnel assigned total 10.
Under the supervision of the Surveillance and Analysis
Division of Region II, this laboratory supports pesticides
enforcement efforts in Regions I, II, III, and V.
Conclusion
• Facilities at Edison require some modifications
to meet OSHA and EPA safety standards for
certain existing hazardous laboratory operations
at an estimated cost of $200,000.
1.3.0 Region III, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
presently has no Central Regional Laboratory. Three secondary
facilities are providing laboratory services for regional
programs; these are located in Charlottesville, Virginia
(1.3.1); Annapolis, Maryland (1.3.2); and Wheeling, West
Virginia (1.3.3).
1.3.1 The Charlottesville, Virginia, laboratory at 111(0 River Road
is housed in a converted boat storage building under GSA lease.
The facility is unsafe for most laboratory operations. Present
S&A Division staff assigned consists of 8 persons, 6 of whom
are laboratory personnel (four chemists and two biologists).
1.3.2 The Annapolis, Maryland, laboratory is located in a GSA-leased
office building in an industrial park. The facility is over-
crowded and unsafe for most laboratory operations. There are
26 S&A staff assigned, of whom 12 are laboratory personnel (six
chemists, three biologists, one bacteriologist, and four
technicians).
1.3.3 The Wheeling. West Virginia, laboratory at llth and Chapline
Streets, is housed in GSA-leased space in the Methodist Building.
There are 32 S&A staff assigned, of whom 16 are laboratory
personnel (six chemists, four biologists, and six technicians).
Conclusions
• The Charlottesville facility with only eight positions
is less than optimally designed to meet regional needs.
It is unsafe and geographically unsuitable. The
facility will be closed. All personnel will be trans-
ferred to Annapolis or Wheeling.
-------
• The Annapolis facility must be relocated, prefer-
ably in Annapolis, to meet functional requirements
at an estimated annual increase in lease costs of
$75,ooo.
t The \ftieeling facility will maintain its functional
programs. The facility requires some modifications
to meet OSHA and EPA safety standards for certain
existing hazardous laboratory operations. GSA will
be requested to have the lessor make the required
modifications at an estimated annual increase in
lease costs of $25,000.
l.U.O Region IV, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, has its Central
Regional Laboratory located at the Southeast Environmental
Research Laboratory, College Station Road, Athens, Georgia.
I.U.I The Athens, Georgia, facility is owned by EPA and is managed by
the Office of Research and Development with the S&A Division of
Region IV being co-occupant. The S&A Division staff assigned is
77 persons, of whom Ul are laboratory personnel (fifteen chemists,
eleven biologists, three microbiologists, and twelve technicians).
• Fourteen other regional personnel are assigned to Athens. Research
! and Development personnel number 100. The Region IV S&A Division
1 is also supporting a temporary field site at Pensacola, Florida,
• which is staffed with 11 persons including eight laboratory persons
[ (one chemist, two biologists, one microbiologist, and four
[ technicians). The current space allocated to regional activities
| at Athens is very overcrowded, and the regional S&A staff is
! expected to increase substantially in the next few years. Addi-
i tional space is urgently required to adequately house the present
staff, as well as the personnel assigned to the Pensacola field
i site when it is closed out within the next year.
i
Conclusion
t The alternative solutions for Region IV's Central
Regional Laboratory (CRL) space needs are:
1. CRL in Richard Russell Agriculture Research
Laboratory facility in Athens.
2. CRL in leased space in Atlanta.
10
-------
To provide safe and adequate space for the CRL,
either funds of approximately $U50,000 lump sum
would be needed for facilities modifications if
space is available in the Richard Russell
Agricultural Research Laboratory (RRARL) or
approximately $500,000 per year would be needed
for leased space in Atlanta if no space is avail-
able in the RRARL.
1.$.0 Region V, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, has a CRL and
five separate district offices: Chicago, Illinois (1.5.1);
Grosse lie, Michigan (1.5-2); Cleveland, Ohio (l.5«3)»
Minneapolis, Minnesota (l.5«U); and Evansville, Indiana
(l.5.5)« Each district office has a small laboratory whose
staff carries out analyses and provides technical support for
the regional programs.
1.5.1 The Chicago, Illinois, Central Regional Laboratory is located in
a GSA-owned building at 1819 W. Pershing Road. The S&A Division
staff assigned to the Laboratory totals 26, of whom 21 are
laboratory personnel. In addition, 17 people from the Illinois
District Office currently reside at the facility.
1.5.2 Grosse lie, Michigan, laboratory is located in the EPA-owned
Michigan District Office. The District Office staff assigned
totals 15 S&A Division positions, of whom six are laboratory
personnel (four chemists, one biologist, and one microbiologist).
Nine Research and Development personnel are also assigned to Grosse
lie.
1.5.3 Cleveland, Ohio, has a small laboratory staff in the GSA-loaaed
Ohio District Office. There are 22 assigned S&A Division personnel,
of whom three work in the laboratory on time dependent samples
analyses.
1.5.U Minneapolis, Minnesota, laboratory has a reduced staff in the
GSA-leased Minnesota-Wisconsin District Office. Of the 13 S&A
Division positions, there are three laboratory personnel, who work
on time dependent samples analyses.
1.5.5 The Evansville, Indiana, laboratory is in the GSA-leased Indiana
District Office. Of the 20 S&A Division positions, only three are
laboratory personnel working on time dependent samples analyses.
Conclusions
t GSA, Chicago, has determined that the Federal building
in which the CRL is located is grossly under utilized
and is surplus to the Government's needs. GSA has
11
-------
recommended EPA relocate the CRL to another Federal
building adjacent to the present location at an
estimated cost of $2,000,000.
• Facilities at all the District Offices require some
major modifications to meet OSHA and EPA safety
standards for existing hazardous laboratory operations
required for time dependent samples analyses. Estimated
costs for these modifications are:
Cleveland $10,000/yr increase in lease costs
Minneapolis $10,000/yr " " " "
Evansville $10,000/yr " " " "
Grosse lie $200,000 lump sum (See 2.3-7)
1.6.0 Region VI, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, currently has it
regional laboratory resources located in three facilities in
Ada, Oklahoma (1.6.1), Houston, Texas (1.6.2), and the
Mississippi Test Facility (MTF) (1.6.3).
1.6.1 Ada, Oklahoma, is the site of the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory which houses 30 regional employees, including
six laboratory personnel (three chemists, two biologists, and
one general scientist). The facility is owned by EPA and managed
by the Office of Research and Development, with S&A Division staff
of Region VI being a co-occupant.
1.6.2 The Houston, Texas, Laboratory is located in EPA-leased space at
6600 Homwood Drive, Houston, Texas. Current S&A Division staff
consists of 21 employees, of whom nine are laboratory personnel
(six chemists, one biologist, one microbiologist, and one
technician).
1.6-3 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, Laboratory is located in the NASA-owned
Mississippi Test Facility (MTF). Current S&A Division staff at
that Facility consists of 12 employees, of whom five are laboratory
personnel (two chemists, two biologis.ts, and one technician).
Conclusion
t A centralized regional laboratory (CRL) operation is urgent-
ly needed in the Dallas area in close proximity to the
Regional Office. Acquire leased space at an estimated
cost of $300,000 to accommodate CRL personnel who will
12
-------
be transferred from MTF and Houston as the space
becomes available and as commitments in those
locations are met or phased out.
1.7.0 Region VII, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, has its
laboratory in Kansas City, Kansas, across the river from the
regional office.
1.7.1 The Kansas City, Kansas, Central Regional Laboratory is located
in a GSA-leased building on Funston Avenue. The S&A Division staff
consists of 5>2 employees, of whom 19 are laboratory personnel
(seven chemists, five biologists, two microbiologists and five
technicians). The space is barely adequate for current needs.
Conclusions
• The CRL space is currently inadequate for bioassay
laboratory work. A request for a small shop main-
tenance building is being forwarded through proper
channels. The existing shop maintenance area would
be converted to a bioassay room at an estimated
annual increase in lease costs of $20,000.
• The facility requires some modifications to meet OSHA
and EPA safety standards for certain existing
hazardous laboratory operations. GSA will be
requested to have the lessor make the required
modifications at an estimated annual increase in
lease costs of $$0,000.
1.8.0 Region VIII, headquartered in Denver, Colorado, has its laboratories
in Denver.
1.8.1 The Denver, Colorado, regional laboratory, now located in the
Denver Federal Center at Lakewood, Colorado, supports the
analytical requirements of the Region. The Federal Center is a
government-owned complex housing numerous government agencies.
OEGC also has a laboratory (NFIC) in the Federal Center, and
this laboratory is located in a modern facility in Building #5>3.
The NFIC provides technical support on a quick-response basis for
enforcement of field investigations. In addition, the Region has
a pesticides products analysis laboratory which develops for
Regions VII and VIII analytical data for use in surveillance and
enforcement of regulations for pesticides. As indicated above,
there is currently no permanent regional laboratory in Region VIII.
13
-------
The Region occupies-, a small amount of temporary laboratory
space. The temporary laboratory apace doe 15 not meet Of>HA
and EPA safety standards. Space is available for renovation
at the Denver Federal Center to house a Central Regional
Laboratory in the same building as EPA's National Field
Investigation Center Laboratory.
The Regional S&A Division numbers U2 employees, of whom
19 are in laboratory skills (six chemists, six biologists,
two microbiologists, one other scientist, and four technicians).
Conclusion
t Proceed without delay to provide permanent,
safe and adequate facilities for the CRL in
the Denver Federal Center in the same build-
ing presently occupied on a temporary basis
by the Region CRL. Estimated cost of space
renovations to meet current CRL requirements
is $560,000.
1.9.0 Region IX, headquartered in San Francisco, California, has its
laboratory in Alameda, California. The regional pesticides
products analysis laboratory serves Regions IX and X.
1.9.1 Alameda, California, is the site of Region IX1 s laboratory at
620 Central Avenue. The staff carries out analyses to support
Region IX1s program. This facility, a converted wooden barrack,
is owned by GSA, and does not meet OSHA and EPA safety standards
for some laboratory operations. The S&A Division personnel
employed at Alameda total 16, of whom 12 are laboratory personnel
(three chemists, two biologists, two microbiologists, and five
technicians). There are an additional 37 Regional S&A personnel
housed at other locations.
1.9.2 The San Francisco, California, pesticides products analysis
laboratory is located at £0 Fulton Street in GSA-assigned space
in a building essentially used for offices. The space which
currently houses a staff of 7 personnel is considered unsafe for
some laboratory operations. GSA has expressed its desire to have
EPA include the consolidation of this laboratory into the re-
location plan fox the Alameda laboratory.
Conclusion
• GSA has been requested to find suitable leased space in
which to consolidate Region IX laboratory operations
into a CRL in San Francisco in close proximity to the
1U
-------
Regional Office. Estimated costs of space
renovations to meet current space require-
ments is $700,000.
1.10.0 Region X, headquartered in Seattle, Washington, has an interim
regional laboratory in Redmond, Washington, a suburb of Seattle.
1.10.1 The Seattle, Washington, laboratory is located in a facility
shared with the Washington State Department of Ecology at
1$3U5 N.E. 36th Street in Redmond, a suburb of Seattle. The
space leased by EPA from the State is not adequate to
accommodate even the small laboratory staff currently employed
by the region. Further, it will no longer be available to EPA
after June 1, 1975- The present laboratory staff housed at
Redmond consists of eleven personnel (five chemists, one micro-
biologist, one biologist, and four technicians). The lack of
suitable space has prohibited the Region from devoting additional
existing personnel resources to a Central Regional Laboratory
(CRL) operation. With suitable facilities, it is planned to place
a total of 32 existing positions in the CRL activities.
Conclusion;
• Provide the required amount and type of space for
the Region X CRL by constructing previously author-
ized laboratory facility at Manchester, Washington
for approximately $1.9 millions, including planning
costs. New facility would incorporate the existing
Region X shellfish bioassay operations at Manchester
and the CRL operations at Redmond, Washington into
one expanded operation on the EPA-owned site at
Manchester. Facility will also be used to support
EPA research efforts in the fate of pollutants in
marine waters on the West coast.
-------
2.0.0 NATIONAL LABORATORIES
The National laboratories are divided into two distinct categories—
the Research Laboratories and the Program Support Laboratories. The
National Environmental Research Centers (NERC'o) are charged with
conducting research which supports EPA's environmental mission. EPA's
research laboratories have been in existence for some time. The
concept of National Centers, however, was developed by Office of
Research and Development (ORD). There are four Centers—one in
Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina; one in Cincinnati, Ohio;
one in Corvallis, Oregon—each of which has associated laboratories
reporting to it. The fourth center in Las Vegas, Nevada has no
associated laboratories. Each Center was developed on a "thematic
basis" consistent with the expertise and functions available to the
Center at the time of its conception. The theme for NERC-RTP is
health effects research; for Cincinnati, engineering and control
technology; for Corvallis, ecology; and for Las Vegas, monitoring.
Although programs are not strictly limited to the themes, each Center
serves as a nucleus for an effective research effort.
The Program Support Laboratories conduct national programs which are
not research-oriented. Examples include:
(l) . the automotive testing laboratory managed by the Office
of Air and Water Programs at Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is
operated to meet the requirement of the Clean Air Act of 1970
to conduct studies on some research and develop emission standards
for motor vehicles.
(2) the National Field Investigation Center of the Office of
Enforcement and General Counsel in Cincinnati, Ohio, which
conducts field investigations for the purpose of supporting
pollution enforcement cases.
The portions of this plan which deal with the National laboratories
were based upon the following assumptions:
-Research laboratories having single-medium, single-pollutant
programs often are less responsive to EPA needs than multi-
media, multi-pollutant laboratories.
-Some laboratory studies are best carried out only in certain,
uniquely-suited geographical locations.
-By consolidating small, fragmented programs having similar
research objectives in one central location, the laboratory
support becomes more effective and responsive.
-Expansion of existing EPA facilities or use of other Federal
facilities is preferred to construction of laboratory facilities
in new locations.
16
-------
2.1.0 Research Triangle, North Carolina, is the site of a complex
of EPA facilities. EPA is currently leasing space in 1$
buildings; most of them are located in Research Triangle and
several others are located in Durham and Chapel Hill. The
majority of the 11$0 EPA personnel are located in leased space
in the Research Triangle Park, the site of the National Environ-
mental Research Center. Programs in the area, conducted by the
Office of Research and Development (ORD), the Office of Enforce-
ment and General Counsel (OEGC), the Office of Air and Water
Programs (OAWP), the Office of Planning and Management (0PM), and
a Region TV Pesticides Inspector are designed to develop the
scientific "basis for control of environmental pollutants adversely
affecting human health and welfare and for control of air pollutant
emissions from all sources. As part of an overall DHEW Master Plan
completed in 1971, EPA was assigned, for construction of a permanent
facility, approximately 144. acres of land in a 509-acre tract owned
"by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) at Research
Triangle Park. Plans are to consolidate all EPA personnel from the
15 buildings into 5> leased buildings within the next two years.
Pour of the buildings are in the Research Triangle. One building
will be used to house a large wind tunnel too large to put in any
of the other buildings. None of these leased buildings meet OSHA
and EPA safety standards for hazardous laboratory operations.
However, the newly leased buildings in which the most hazardous
operations will be conducted on an interim basis are considered
safer than the main research building of the NERC.
Conclusions
• Permanent facilities that meet OSHA and EPA safety
' standards for existing hazardous laboratory opera-
tions must be obtained in the Research Triangle Park
area. These new facilities would provide safe and
adequate facilities for the highest risk activities,
namely, the chemistry, biological laboratory, and
engineering operations. Approximately $2,000,000
from available previously appropriated funds will be
used for site planning and facilities design. The
increase in annual lease costs after these new
facilities are obtained is estimated at $2,UOO,000.
t Funds of 1300,000 are needed to modify existing
facilities to accommodate immediate laboratory needs
occasioned by the recent consolidation of the Research
Triangle Park of three affiliated labs, formerly in
Chamblee, Georgia; Perrine, Florida; and Montgomery,
Alabama.
17
-------
2.2.0 Cincinnati, Ohio, is the site of one of the four NERC's and one
of the National Field Investigation Centers (NFIC's). The
facilities are shared "by OAWP, ORD, OEGC, 0PM, and OHMC. Solu-
tions to a broad spectrum of environmental programs of air and
water pollution, and radiation are sought. The complex is composed
of eight buildings scattered throughout the city. The majority of
the EPA programs and of the staff of approximately 700 EPA personnel
in Cincinnati will be consolidated into the new facility, which
is scheduled for occupancy in fiscal year 19?6. The rest of the
programs and associated personnel will be accommodated in the EPA-
owned Taft Laboratory facility, with any remaining vacant space in
the Taft Laboratory being offered to other Federal agencies.
Conclusions
• The new EPA facility is on schedule for completion
by mid-FY 1976 well within the original estimated
construction cost of $28 millions.
• The Taft Laboratory facility needs some modifications
to meet OSHA and EPA safety standards, as well as to
accommodate program occupancy changes, at an estimated
cost of $800,000.
2.2.1 Edison, New Jersey, is the site of the Industrial Waste Treatment
Research Laboratory (IWTRL), and the Region II Central Regional
Laboratory. The IWTRL, an associated laboratory of the NERC-
Cincinnati, develops and demonstrates innovative and advanced
techniques for handling a veriety of water pollution problems
including oil and hazardous material spills, storm and combined
sewer overflows, waste discharges of selected industries, wastes
from vessels and other mobile sources, and wastes at recreational
sites.
Conclusions
t See Conclusions under Section 1.2.0
2.3.0 Corvallis, Oregon, is the site of one of the four NERC's. This
NERC develops the scientific basis for determining the ecological
consequences of environmental pollution. This is the location of
the National Ecological Research Laboratory (formerly at NERC-RTP),
and the Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory
(formerly the Pacific Northwest Water Quality Laboratory), along
with the Lake Survey Program as a component assigned in late 1972.
The facility is EPA-owned and is located adjacent to the Oregon
State University campus. OHMC also has a laboratory at this site
which supports the National Program for Pesticides Registration.
The present mix of offices and hazardous laboratories in one
18
-------
"building is not compatible with OSHA standards. The facility
has become severely overcrowded necessitating the procurement
of leased portable buildings and house trailers for office use.
An interagency agreement with the Agricultural Research Service
for use of a portion of their greenhouse facility is due to
expire in December of 197U. The research programs are of high
priority because of the need for a scientific basis for setting
water quality standards. The work being done at this location has
long-term research objectives and a broad national economic impact.
Conclusions
• Existing facilities require some modifications to meet
OSHA and EPA safety standards for certain hazardous
laboratory operations at an estimated cost of $37!?>000.
• A safe and adequate greenhouse facility needs to be
constructed on the NERC-Corvallis site at an estimated
cost of $500,000.
• Satisfactory office space needs to be provided at an
estimated annual lease cost of $100,000.
2.3.1 Narragansett, Rhode Island, is the site of the National Marine
Water Quality Laboratory (NMWQL), a government-owned facility
adjacent to Narragansett Bay. This facility was the former
Northeast Water Hygiene Laboratory and was taken over to meet
part of the needs of the NMWQL when the Water Hygiene Program
was consolidated in Cincinnati, Ohio. The NMWQL staff develops
the scientific basis for setting water quality standards for
marine and estuarine waters. The NMWQL facility does not meet
OSHA and EPA safety standards for certain hazardous laboratory
operations; in addition, it is overcrowded and inadequate for
the program being conducted.
Conclusion
• Existing NMWQL facilities at Narragansett must be
expanded and upgraded to provide safe and adequate
space to meet program needs as well as OSHA and EPA
safety standards at an estimated cost of $3«0 millions.
A $2.8 million expansion project for NMWQL is now in
the architectural design phase.
2.3.2 Gulf Breeze, Florida, is the site of the Gulf Breeze Environmental
Research Laboratory (GBERL), a government-owned facility on a
l6-acre man-made island in Santa Rosa Bay. The GBERL staff
develops the scientific basis for setting water quality standards,
19
-------
particularly for the effects of pesticides and other toxic organic
compounds on marine life. The facility is a complex of wooden
buildings and does not meet OSHA and EPA safety standards for
certain existing hazardous laboratory operations. Thin situation
can be corrected by moving the high hazardous lab operations out
of the Administrative Building into a new facility. The programs
are of high priority because they have long-term research objectives
for marine water and pesticides work as well as a broad national
economic impact. An adequate and safe wet lab facility is needed
for marine waters bioassay work to meet these objectives.
Conclusion
t Facilities need to be constructed to house high
hazard laboratory operations presently located in
the Administrative Building and to provide the bio-
assay programs with an adequate and safe wet laboratory
at a total estimated cost of $750,000.
2.3.3 College, Alaska, is the site of the Arctic Environmental Research
Laboratory (AERL). The AERL staff conducts research programs con-
cerned with municipal wastewater treatment and the fate and effects
of pollutants peculiar to cold climates. These programs include
the Alaska Village Demonstration Project. The facility is leased
from the University of Alaska.
Conclusions
f Overhead and operating costs are inordinately high
at this installation. The status of this site is
reassessed at periodic intervals to insure that
increased costs have not reduced the return for
resources invested to an intolerable point.
• The facility requires some modifications to meet
OSHA and EPA safety standards for certain existing
hazardous laboratory operations at an estimated
annual increase in lease costs of $30,000.
2.3'U Athens, Georgia, is the site of an EPA-owned laboratory facility
which houses the Southeast Environmental Research Laboratory (SERL),
and the Region IV Central Regional Laboratory (l.^.O). The SERL
staff conducts four principle programs: fate of pollutants in
fresh waters, agricultural runoff research, heavy industrial sources,
and methods development for identification of pollutants. Existing
space would be adequate for SERL laboratory operations if sole oc-
cupant, but is severely overcrowded with the Region IV CRL as a
co-occupant.
20
-------
Conclusions
• To alleviate crowded conditions, relocate Region IV
CRL to new space in Athens or Atlanta. (Seo l.L|.0-
Conclusions)
• SERL facilities need some modifications to meet OSHA
and EPA safety standards for certain existing
hazardous laboratory operations at an estimated cost
of $300,000.
2.3-5 Duluth, Minnesota, is the site of an EPA-owned laboratory building
which houses the National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL). The
NWQL staff develops the scientific basis for establishment of water
quality standards for freshwaters by conducting studies to determine
safe concentration of various pollutants for fresh water fishes,
other fresh water life, and wildlife. Associated field stations
are the Western Pish Toxicology Station, Corvallis, Oregon, and the
Newtown Pish Toxicology Station, Newtown, Ohio.
Conclusion
t Funds of $390,000 are needed for wet laboratory
addition at Newtown. Requirements are ready for
submission to an A&E.
2.3.6 Ada, Oklahoma, is the site of an EPA-owned laboratory facility
housing the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
(RSKERL) and the Region VI Central Laboratory personnel (See
1.6.1). The staff develops the scientific basis for treatment
and control of groundwater pollution problems, heavy industrial
sources, petroleum production and refining wastes, petrochemical
wastes, animal feedlot wastes, irrigation return flows problem,
and mining wastes.
Conclusion
• Facility requires some modifications to meet OSHA
and EPA safety standards for certain hazardous
laboratory operations at an estimated cost of
$300,000.
21
-------
2.3-7 Grosse lie, Michigan, is the site of an EPA-owned laboratory
facility which houses an associated field station of NERC-Corvallis
and the Michigan District Office of Region V (Soo 1.5-2). ORD
staff conducts research and technical development ntudies relating
to the quality of the waters of the Great Lakes in three areas:
large lakes, industrial wastes, and dredging.
Conclusion
f Facility requires some modifications to meet OSHA
and EPA safety standards for certain existing
hazardous laboratory operations at an estimated
construction cost of $200,000.
2.U.O Las Vegas, Nevada, is the site of one of the four NERCs. This
NERC focuses on the problems associated with environmental
monitoring. It consists of three co-located laboratories,
Monitoring Operations Laboratory, Monitoring Systems Research
and Development Laboratory, and Technical Support Laboratory.
These carry out research and development programs in monitoring
network design, remote sensing techniques, aerial monitoring, the
National Eutrophication Survey, and radiation pathways research.
In addition, they provide off-site radiation safety monitoring
for AEG nuclear explosives testing activities and quality assur-
ance programs in the field of radiation measurements. This NERC
has one field station, the Environmental Photographic Interpre-
tation Center at Vint Hill Farm Station, near Warrenton, Virginia.
NERC-LV occupies four leased and one Government-owned building
on the University of Nevada's Las Vegas campus, leased space in a
downtown commercial office building, a leased warehouse on the
outskirts of Las Vegas, a leased aircraft hangar facility at
McCarran International Airport, and an AEC-owned experimental farm
120 miles away on the Nevada Test Site. The Office of Radiation
Programs also operates its technical support program in these
facilities. The existing initial 10-year lease on our complex on
campus ends on June 30, 1976. EPA has an option to renegotiate for
an additional 10-year period. The aircraft hangar facility is
inadequate in space to hangar the aircraft and lacking in space to
accomplish aircraft maintenance.
Conclusions
f A study is underway to identify space requirements
for the period 1976 - 1986 and to explore possible
methods of achieving requirements established.
• The hangar expansion, necessary to meet OSHA and EPA
safety standards and to house the expanded aerial support
activities will cost an estimated additional $20,000 per
year.
22
-------
• Facilities on U. of Nev.-LV campus need some
modifications to meet OSHA and EPA safety
standards for certain hazardous laboratory
operations at an estimated annual increase in
lease costs of $100,000.
2.5-0 Ann Arbor, Michigan, is the site of the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Laboratory and houses the mobile source pollution control programs
of OAWP. The facility, built to government specifications and
completed in 1971, is under a 20-year lease. It was designed to
meet the laboratory requirements necessary to fulfill sections of
the Clean Air Act of 1970 and to carry out development of advance
automotive power systems. The programs are legislatively mandated
and are of high priority. Additional space is needed (l) to con-
solidate office activities now split between the Laboratory facility
site and in leased commercially space (2) to house a real-time
computer system now on order.
Conclusions
t Laboratory facility needs some modifications to meet
OSHA and EPA safety standards for certain existing
hazardous laboratory operations at an estimated
increase in lease cost of $25,000.
f Provide required additional office and computer
space at an estimated annual increase in lease costs
of $50,000.
2.6.0 Montgomery, Alabama, is the site of EPA-owned buildings housing
the Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility (EERF) of the Office
of Hazardous Materials Control (OHMC). The EERF performs sur-
veillance and technology assessment of installations using
radioactive materials or non-ionizing radiation sources to determine
if discharges of radioactive materials or radiation levels are
within prescribed standards, including review of environmental
impact statements covering the design, construction and operation
of proposed facilities which would produce ionizing or non-ionizing
radiation. The facility consists of 26 small buildings, most of
them of wooden-frame construction. A number of these buildings do
not meet OSHA and EPA safety standards for certain existing hazardous
laboratory operations.
Conclusions
t Erect temporary non-combustible structure to house
high hazardous laboratory operations on existing
EERF site at an estimated cost of $50,000.
23
-------
t Acquire safe and permanent new space for the EERF
in the Montgomery area at an estimated annual
lease cost of $900,000. Provide new laboratory
furniture and additional laboratory equipment at
an estimated cost of $300,000.
2.7.0 Beltsville, Maryland, is the site of Pesticides Programs (OPP),
Office of Hazardous Materials Control, housed in l£ separate
USDA-owned buildings on k different sites at the Agricultural
Research Center. The OPP staff performs laboratory services
in the fields of pharmacology, chemistry, microbiology, plant,
animal biology, and entomology in support of the pesticides
standards and criteria setting responsibility of the Agency.
Two of the buildings, housing pharmacology and chemistry, do
not structurally meet OSHA and EPA safety standards for those
high hazard laboratory operations. The other buildings require
some modifications to meet OSHA and EPA safety standards for
certain other existing hazardous laboratory operations.
Conclusions
• Chemistry and microbiology activities will be
transferred to safe and adequate space to be
made available in EPA-owned facilities in
Cincinnati, Ohio.
• Space presently occupied by pharmacology and
chemistry will be turned back to USDA as surplus
to EPA needs.
• The other EPA-assigned facilities need to be
modified to meet OSHA and EPA safety standards,
as well as program requirements, for existing
plant and animal biology, and entomology activities
that will remain at the Center. Estimated cost of
these modifications is $100,000.
2.8.0 Bay St. Louis. Mississippi, is the site of the Mississippi Test
Facility (MTP), formerly NASA's Mississippi rocket proving ground.
The NASA programs were reduced drastically, and this made available
prime laboratory space in government-owned structures. Five
government agencies (USGS, NOAA, DOD, NASA, and several southern
universities took advantage of NASA's facility. The complex of
buildings is located on 1^2,000 acres. Out of a total of 21,000
square feet made available to EPA, 7>000 square feet are assigned
to OHMC for the National Soils Monitoring program, [4.,000 square
feet to OHMC for its Pesticides Chemistry Laboratory program, and
10,000 square feet to Region VI for laboratories.
-------
Conclusions
• EPA is assigned more space than is required for
its present and foreseeable needs at this location.
EPA will conduct a thorough space utilization study
and will notify NASA officials of space excess to
EPA needs.
• Facilities need some modifications to meet OSHA
and EPA safety standards for certain existing
hazardous laboratory operations at an estimated
cost of $300,000.
2.9«0 Washington, D. C., is the site of a pesticide chemistry laboratory
housed in TJSDA's South Agricultural Building. The laboratory staff
performs analyses for establishing safe tolerance levels for
pesticide chemicals on raw agricultural commodities. The EPA
laboratory is a minor tenant in what is essentially a large office
building. The facility does not meet OSHA and EPA safety standards
for the high hazard laboratory operations being conducted at its
present location. TJSDA and GSA have both requested return of the
laboratory space for conversion to office use.
Conclusion
§ The laboratory program will be transferred into
safe and adequate space to be made available in
EPA-owned facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio.
-------
u
April 29, 1974
EPA REGIONAL LABORATORY FUNDING PLAN
(all figures x 1000)
REPAIR & IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AGENCY SUPPORT
NEW CONST.
(LAB PLAN) CARRYOVER FY 1974 FY 1975 FY 1976 FY 1973 FY 1974 FY 1975 FY 1976
FFY
REGION I CRL
H (Needham Heights)
REGION II CRL
A At Edison
^ At Varick St., NYC
n At Rochester
REGION III CRL
A At Annapolis
x
'•- At Wheeling
A (Charlottesville)
A'••,- REGION IV CRL
$ 80
$ 75
$200
75
$ 10*
$200 (E) $300 (R) $400 (R) $400/yr (R)
$ 68 (R) 65 (R) 16 (R) - -
124 (R) 130 (R)
3 (R)
(R)
104 (R) 110 (R) 125/yr (R)
130 (R) 132 (R) 132/yr (R)
125 (R) 200 (K) 125/yr (R)
100 (R) 100 (R) 100/yr (R)
30 (R)
143 (R) 260 .(5) 50Q/yr (R)
Lagend P - Planning E - Equipment R - Rent, GSA reimbursement, intei-.-sgency use agreements, etc.
C - Construction FFY - Future Fiscal Year
-------
NEW CONST.
(LAB PLAN)
REGION V CRL
A" At
A At
- At
•A At
Chicago
Cleveland
Evansville
Minneapolis
REPAIR & IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AGENCY SUPPORT
CARRYOVER FY 1974 FY 1975 FY 1976 FY 1973
$855
24
33
26
29
(C)
(R)
(R)
(R)
(R)
FY 1974
$ 35
$1,100
33
26
29
(R)
(C)
(R)
(R)
(R)
FY 1975
$410
102
60
48
(R)
(R)
(R)
(R)
FY 1976
$500
150
60
48
(R)
(R)
(R)
(R)
FFY
$ 500/yr
150/yr
60/yr
50/yr
(R)
(R)
(R)
(R)
*"* At Grosse lie
REGION VI CRL
1/4 At Ada
/*£ (Houston)
}}& At Dallas
REGION VII CRL
REGION VIII CRL
/> At Denver
A (Golden)
500 (C)
80 (R) 80 (R) 80 (R)
300 (R) 300/yr (R)
230 (R) 230 (R) 300 (R) 300 (R) 300/yr (R)
63 (P) 10 (P) 88 (R) 90 (R) 90/yr (R)
50 (C)
4 (R) 6 (R) 6 (R)
-------
NEW CONST.
REPAIR & IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AGENCY SUPPORT
(LAB PLAN) CARRYOVER FY 1974 FY 1975
REGION IX CRL
A
' At San Francisco - $400 (C) -
A
^ (Alameda) - - - -
REGION X CRL
?At Seattle $1,800 (C) - -
(Redmond) - -
REGION TOTALS $2,300 $480 $75 $275
FY 1976 FY 1973
$300 (PC)
32 (R)
-
24 (R)
$1,895 $
FY 1974 FY 1975 FY 1976 FFY
$200 (E) $220/yr (R)
32(R) $219 (R)
98 (P) 300 (E) _
22 (R) 27 (R) 13 (R)
2,157 $2,588 $3,648
-------
EPA NATIONAL LABORATORY FUNDING PLAN
(all figures x 1000)
NEW CONST.
REPAIR & IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AGENCY SUPPORT
(LAB PLAN)
If EPA /RTF $ 1,900
fy- Cincinnati 27
I,? Corvallis
. (Newport)
A Narragansett 2
ft Bears Bluff
A Gulf Breeze
A College
A
0 Athens
,A Duluth
fi Newtown
A Ada
A Grosse lie
,000(PCE)-/'
500 (PC)
-
,800 (PC)
-
750(PC)
-
-
-
390
-
-
CARRYOVER
100
$311
275
-
200
100
10
-
158
106
110
108
115
FY 1974
-
$ 50
55
-
30
75
65
-
80
40
-
30
-
FY 1975
-
-
$350
-
-
170
200
-
70
110
75
150
-
FY 1976
-
$600*
100*
-
*
*
*
-
50*
100*
*
50*
200*
FY 1973 FY 1974
$1,680(R) $2,000(R)
75(C)
2(R) 2(R)
-
4(R) 8(R)
22 (R) 22 (R)
-
-
200 (R) 90 (R)
-
-
-
-
-
FY 1975
$3,350(R)
2,162(R)
60 (R)3-/
6(R)
lll(R)
-
-
90 (R)
-
-
-
-
-
FY 1976
$3,100(R)
1,500(R)
100 (R)
-
lll(R)
-
-
120(R)
-
-
.
-
_
FFY
$5,500/yr(R)i/
25/yr(R)
100/yr(R)
-
-
-
-
120/yr(R)
-
-
-
-
.
I/ $3,100/yr(R) thru FY 1977; $5,500/yr by FY 1980 (all x 1000)
27 Approximately $25,000 has been transferred to GSA (x 1000)
3_/ Leased office space for NERC.
-------
NEW CONST.
REPAIR & IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AGENCY SUPPORT
(LAB PLAN) CARRYOVER FY 1974 FY 1975 _ FY 1976 FY 1973 FY 1974 FY 1975 FY 1976
FFY
frlf Las Vegas
A Ann Arbor
Montgomery -?
NA Beltsville 45
FA Pest.Lab(Wash.)
NL TOTALS $33,385
$ 50 A
55
$1,698 $ 425 $1,125
*
300*
$ 361(R) $ 456(R) $ 526 (R) $ 600(R) $600/yr(R)
1,700(R) 1,720(R) 1,798(R) 1,900(R)l,9007yr(R)
300(E) 900^yr(R)
^—-
54
60(R) 60/yr(R)
100 (E)
$37969
$4,373 $8,157 $7,891
* FY 1976 R&I Program has not been established; any dollar figures represent minimum known needs for
safety modifications.
------- |