EPA/600/R-92/246
January 1993
EPA Organization for Environmental Research:
The Third Decade
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
APR 14 1993
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Honorable Louis Stokes
Chairman
Subcommittee on Appropriations
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed is a report developed in response to the directives
in the FY 1993 House Appropriations Bill Report, entitled: "EPA
Organization for Environmental Research: The Third Decade."
This report reviews the history and current configuration of the
research laboratories in the Office of Research and Development
and highlights a number of organizational issues confronting ORD.
The requirement for this report appears on page 53 of H.R. 102-
710.
The new administration will be taking steps to review the
roles and the organization of ORD in carrying out these steps.
This report provides excellent background information on the past
history and the recent progress in ORD and will be valuable to
the new appointees.
• ' i-' * _,*••-,/•.•%:••
It is my hope that this report will' seifvfe as points of
departure for ongoing deliberations with Congress.on significant
issues and options for environmental research organization and
management. . , ,: ,, --....
Sincerely yours,
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Research and: Development
Enclosure
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR I 4 1993
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Honorable Barbara Mikulski
Chairman
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
U. S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Madame Chair:
Enclosed is a report developed in response to the directives
in the FY 1993 House Appropriations Bill Report, entitled: "EPA
Organization for Environmental Research: The Third Decade.s •.
This report reviews the history and current configuration of the
research laboratories in the Office of Research and Development
and highlights a number of organizational issues confronting ORD.
The requirement for this report appears on page 53 of H.R. 102-
710.
The new administration will be taking steps to review the
roles and the organization of ORD in carrying out these steps.
This report provides excellent.background information on the past
history and the recent progress in ORD and will be valuable to
the new appointees. .... _,:. .
It is my hope that this report will serve as points of
departure for ongoing deliberations with Congress on significant
issues and options for environmental research organization and
management. ' -
Sincerely yours,
rtfi-
3/L Foley
ActingAssistant Administrator
for Research and Development
Enclosure
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Preface
This report has been developed in response to therequest of the House Appropriations
Committee.
"The Committee is very concerned with the status of EPA's research
laboratories. Recently, the Inspector General found a number of contract-
ing and other problems in the Agency's facilities. It is the understanding
of the Committee that the serious deficiencies found at the Duluth
Laboratory represent only initial indications of broader EPA laboratory
problems that must be addressed. In addition to the problem identified by
the Inspector General, the Committee is concerned with the current EPA
laboratory structure. Therefore, a study should be undertaken reviewing
the current organizational structure of research laboratories. The study
should address the optimal alignment of resources and mission, and
include options that will ensure the most efficient and effective delivery
of science and information is available to the Agency. This report should
be submitted by February 1, 1993." (Page 52 - House Appropriations
Report - FY '93)
To respond to this request in a meaningful way, analysis of EPA environmental
research must extend beyond the simple (yet significant) organization of field laboratories.
Consideration must be given to the unique requirements created by the environmental
regulation responsibilities of the Agency, the competing values that shape the science roles
and responsibilities within EPA and ORD, and the fact that almost 70% of ORD's research
funding is deployed in complex extramural programs of grants, cooperative agreements and
procurement contracts.
This report provides an analysis of the historical antecedents of the present laboratory
mission configuration and a description of the roles, responsibilities, management pro-
cesses and customer linkages designed to serve EPA's environmental research needs in the
third decade and beyond.
11
-------
Contents
Preface
Chapter
1 Strategic Overview
2 Evolution of the Office of Research and Development
3 Specialized Laboratory Missions - Areas of Scientific Concentration
4 Research Program Design and Accountability
5 Extramural Program Strategy
6 Management of Major Cross-Cutting Programs
Appendix
A Organizational Changes in the Research Program (1970-1992)
- • • • ir-1 ....
B Chronological Changes in ORD Laboratories and Held Facilities
C Environmental Research and Development: Strengthening the Federal
Infrastructure, A Report of the Carnegie Commission, December 1992
(Excerpt) ' . -
D Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions, Report
of the Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA, March 1992
(Excerpt) ~
111
-------
Work Group Contributors to This Report
Participants
Thomas L. Hadd
Gregory Kew
Jack Durham
Stephen Jackson
Karen Morehouse
Nancy Wentworth
Gary McKee
Ann Alford-Stevens
Calvin Lawrence
Robert Edgar
Carol Grove
Ann H. White
Patrick Burke
Patricia Edwards
Tom Miller
Mary Wigginton
Office
ORPM
OHEA
OEPER
OEETD
OER
OMMSQA
EMSL-C1NC
CERI
OHR
OTTOS
IV
-------
Chapter 1
Strategic Overview
In the two decades since the creation in 1970 of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Presidential Reorganization Authority, the scien-
tific mission and structure of EPA laboratories and
headquarters offices have experienced a turbulent
evolution. The first decade (roughly 1970-1980)
was characterized by significant organizational tur-
moil as EPA science managers tested a range of
design concepts attempting to shape an environ-
mental research organization within a media-ori-
ented regulatory agency, while absorbing 42 dis-
parate scientific/bureaucratic entities spread across
the nation. However, not all scientific organiza-
tions moved to EPA were included in what was to
become ORD. Some were placed in program of-
fices.
The second decade witnessed continuing ef-
forts at rationalization of laboratory structures and
missions and resulted in the present field structure
of 12 research laboratories and 5 field facilities. The
policy context of the decade reflected significant
contradictory pressures: expanding program de-
mands (Superfund, TSCA, pollution prevention);
shifting priorities (e.g. reductions in energy related
funding, increased Superfund related research and
demonstration, increased interest in global climate
change, "pollutant of the month," etc.); significant
fluctuation in EPA research funding; and reduction
in ORD scientific staffing. In response to media
office and Congressional demands, a new structure
of Research Committees and processes was estab-
lished for defining research needs of media offices
and promoting ORD accountability in meeting these
needs. Investment in laboratory facilities continued
to be marginal, and almost no new scientific equip-
ment was purchased in the period 1981-86.
The geographic dispersion of 12 relatively small
ORD research laboratories and the requirement for
specialized scientific expertise for focused research
add further complexity to science management in
ORD. As noted by the National Academy of Public
Administration in 1990, the laboratories represent a
"confederation" of independent units, each with a
distinct image, reflecting a high degree of stability in
federal staffing. These factors have significant in-
fluence on the success of efforts at mission realign-
ment, establishment of new scientific capabilities,
implementation of new science management and
accountability .processes, and recruitment and hir-
ing of wpmen£nd minorities in the science program.
During thefirst 1,5 years, policy leadership in the
Office of Research and Development lacked stabil-
ity. Tenure .of Assistant Administrators was under
two years* punctuated by extended periods of "Act-
ing" officials without clear policy charters.
Nearing the end of the second decade the single-
media, single-chemical focus of EPA regulations
and related science received significant challenge
from external environmental interests, the EPA Sci-
ence Advisory Board, special science advisory pan-
els and Congressional leaders. The credibility of
EPA science was again challenged, both as to its
quality and its relationship to program office regula-
tory decisions.
Major competing perspectives identified in the
first years of the Agency continue to shape debates
-------
on ORD missions and organization; a firm agency-
wide consensus has not been achieved. The debate is
fueled by the following issues:
• Whether research should be oriented to single
environmental media (aligned to respond to
legislative mandates) rather than to a multime-
dia perspective.
• Whether there should be individual EPA me-
dia office research programs or a single, com-
prehensive scientific research organization.
• What should be the relative emphasis applied
to basic knowledge development vs. regula-
tory support research vs. technical assistance
and information dissemination to private in-
dustry and the inter governmental commu-
nity?
• Whether the principal focus should be on the
effects of environmental pollution on human
health rather than on total ecosystems.
• How EPA should balance the scientific capa-
bilities of federal staff (intramural) with those
of the extramural research community (uni-
versities, industry)?
• What is the role of ORD in assuring the quality
of science across EPA?
• Whether ORD should operate within a fo-
cused R&D strategy, outlining major objec-
tives, priorities, and roles of ORD components
vs. a confederation of offices, field laboratd^
ries and other field facilities with individual
mission perspectives. ;,
Current Initiatives
In response to these challenges and the increas-
ing expectation for ORD leadership to shape the
national environmental research agenda, significant
management actions were started across ORD and
EPA in the past four years. These include:
• Development of a risk-based research agenda
with alignment of research program design
around cross-cutting environmental issues,
rather than specific media.
• Initiation of a process to sharpen the focus of
ORD laboratory missions and target the ef-
forts of federal scientists on high impact areas
of the environmental research program.
• Adoption of strategies to more effectively en-
gage the national scientific community in the
EPA environmental research program.
• Significant strengthening of ORD oversight
and management of support contracts and re-
duction in reliance on broadly focused "level
of effort" procurement contracts.
• Increased reliance on open, peer-reviewed
competition in the extramural program.
• Significantly increased emphasis on recruit-
ment and hiring of minorities and women in
scientific and management positions.
• Increased funding for scientific equipment
Future Issues
These recent enhancements in planning, organi-
zation and management, if fully implemented, will
strengthen the ability of ORD to effectively support
the environmental management agenda of the 1990's
- ORD's third decade.
At the same time, the demands of new issues and
opportunities will require a capability for continu-
ous, objective assessment and introduction of ap-
propriate changes. Continuing national interest in
environmental issues will keep EPA in the policy
limelight The proposed elevation of EPA to Cabi-
net status as The Department of the Environment
could have significant implications for the organiza-
tion of environmental research both within the new
Agency and in other federal organizations.
Similarly, meproposal for a National Institutes
of the Environment, currently being evaluated by
the National Academy of Sciences, has potentially
sweeping implications for ORD. The breadth of
policy interest in environmental research is further
evidenced by recent reports of the American Asso-
ciation for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
and the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technol-
ogy and Government
-------
Thus, ORD must remain flexible and open to
consideration of new strategic directions. However,
a number of specific organizational and manage-
ment issues remain to be addressed in the near term
to sustain the pattern of continuous improvement of
the past four years. These include:
• Implement throughout EPA the issue-oriented,
risk-based research planning process.
LJI
• Expand capability for effective transfer of
environnaentaJ technologies.
• Refinement of the specific missions of each of
the ORD|aboratories and definition of strate-
gic hiring programs to enhance the needed
federal scientific research staff, including con-
tinued efiiphasis on hiring minorities jjnd
women. >r
• Continuing evaluation of the number and role
of non-federal personnel (contractors/coop-
erators) e/igaged on-site in ORD laboratories.
• Strengthening and further professionalizing
the management capability at each operating
location, especially in regard to finance, hu-
man resources, information management and
acquisition management (procurement, assis-
tance, interagency arrangements).
-""•5
• Evaluation and strengthening of techniques for
providing technical assistance and support to
program offices.
•s
• Strengthening the agency-wide quality assur-
ance program for environmental measure-
ments, including assessment of the leadership
role and related organizational questions of
ORD. ?
~»-
AT
• Assessment of the role of ORD management
and scientific staff in assuring the quality of
science in EPA and in support of the network
science advisors being established across the
Agency.
. • Assessment of alternative management ar-
rangements for ORD laboratories (e.g., the
Carnegie Commission has recommended inte-
gration of existing ORD laboratories into four
functionally defined laboratories).
• Evaluation of the ORD leadership and man-
agement responsibilities in the agency-wide
Senior Environmental Employee (SEE) hu-
man resources program.
:' —• Assessment ofthe structure and orientation of
the£)RD exfrarfiural research program in light
-^ of the Carnegie Commission recommenda-
tions for the creation and support of six new
Environmental Research Institutes.
• Promotion of the development and use of
^ innovativeenvironmental technologies in or-
der to reduce the cost of compliance with
environmental standards at home and to im-
prove the competitiveness of American indus-
try in the world market.
• Assessing the physical condition of the re-
search laboratories and determining the most
cost-effective strategies for improvement
Additional issues and opportunities may be ex-
pected to arise « the national debate on environ-
mental preservation and enhancement proceeds. The
optimal organizational solution of today may be-
come the bureaucratic constraint of tomorrow. Sci-
entific excellence, organizational and management
stability, and flexibility with continuous improve-
ment are goals that should guide ORD's responses
to challenges of its third decade.
-------
-------
Chapter 2
Evolution of the Office of Research
and Development
The Early Years
EPA was created in December of 1970 in re-
sponse to growing concerns for the nation's envi-
ronmental problems. A total of 15 organizations
from various agencies and departments were com-
bined to form the headquarters operation, bringing
with them 42 field units located at sites across the
country.
The inherited organizations forming EPA in-
cluded several components of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, specifically, seg-
ments of the Food and Drug Administration, as well
as the National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion, the Bureau of Radiological Health, the Bureau
of Sob'd Waste Management, and the Bureau of
Water Hygiene. The Department of the Interior
transferred components of the Federal Water Qual-
ity Administration. Also included were pesticides
activities from the Agricultural Research Service in
the Department of Agriculture, radiation criteria and
standards activities from the Atomic Energy Com-
mission and Federal Radiation Council, and the
ecological research component of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
As initially constituted, the research function for
EPA had only a headquarters component, headed by
the Deputy Assistant Administrator (DAA) for Re-
search and Environmental Assessment EPA also
had a separate DAA for Monitoring, which was a
headquarters only function as well.
In April 1971, a study was initiated to consider
consolidating these functions. The study involved
the DAAs for Monitoring and Research and Envi-
ronmental Assessment, as well as the Assistant
Administrator (AA) for Air and Water and the AA
for Media Programs. At issue was consolidation of
the program offices' respective research and moni-
toring divisions. All of the 42 laboratories and field
stations EPA inherited were under consideration for
becoming part of the research office.
On July 28,1971, the Administrator proposed an
order establishing an AA-level Office of Research
and Monitoring (ORM), consolidating those exist-
ing DAA-ships and the research and monitoring
functions from Air and Water and Media Programs.
The AA for Media Programs did not concur on the
decision package, citing the lack of a mission state-
ment for the new office to address its service respon-
sibilities to the other program offices.
On August-Hi 1971, Administrator Ruckelshaus
published the final order creating the Office and
naming Stanley M. Greenfield the first AA for
Research and Monitoring.
As initially constituted, all laboratories and field
stations reported directly to the AA for R&M. The
AA also had a staff of Special Assistants, made up of
an Assistant for Health Effects, an Assistant for
Technology Transfer, and an Executive Assistant
for Administration and Support
After a little more than a year of operation
(December 1972), headquarters staff was reorga-
nized and renamed (11 of the 13 divisions changed
at least their names). Significant among the changes
were creation of a Quality Assurance Division and
-------
an Advanced (Monitoring) Techniques Division.
Also created was a system of four National Environ-
mental Research Centers (NERCs) to serve as inter-
mediaries or coordinators between the AA and the
individual labs and Meld stations assigned to ORM.
The NERCs were located in Research Triangle Park,
Corvallis, Cincinnati and later, Las Vegas and served
to unite the labs, which were dispersed by geo-
graphic area. The majority of laboratories did not
have a well defined mission and competition for
research assignments was promoted.
Six months after the division-level reorganiza-
tion at headquarters, another headquarters reorgani-
zation was proposed (May 25,1973). In an attempt
to improve responsiveness and liaison with the pro-
gram offices, regional and other Agency staff, a
DAA for Program Integration was proposed. This
was to be the contact through which program offices
made their research needs known.
This reorganization also involved changing the
Office's name from the Office of Research and
Monitoring to the Office of Research and Develop-
ment (ORD). Also, the Washington Environmental
Research Center (WERC) was created. Located in
Arlington, VA, jhe WERC focused on socioeco-
nomic and cost-benefit analyses. Among numerous
other changes the AA for R&D created a Science
Advisory Board to provide independent advice to
the Office. Less than a year later the WERC was
reorganized (April 1974). Stanley Greenfield left
the Agency in early 1974 and was replaced by
Wilson K. Talley in late 1974. Albert Trawbowski
served as acting AA during the interim.
At about the same time that ORD's leadership
was changing three reports were issued relating to
ORD management:
1.) Senate Committee on Public Works (October,
1974).
2.) National Academy of Sciences.
3.) Internal EPA Task Force (Breidenbach).
Major findings included that there were signifi-
cant inadequacies in ORD's research strategies and
priorities; the research planning system needed
major revision; headquarters organization and staff-
ing needed major change; the planning system
needed to be simplified and re-oriented toward the
Agency's legislative mandates; and that ORD goals
and objectives were too diffuse.
In April 1975, the new AA for R&D imple-
mented a reorganization to clarify the lines of re-
sponsibility between headquarters and the labs. The
NERCs and the WERC were abolished Laborato-
ries were assigned to specific DAAs in Washington
to which they reported directly. The four D AA-ships
with programmatic responsibility were retitled to
better reflect the types of products they produced
The rationale behind the reorganization was to make
the organization more responsive to environmental
problems by making headquarters responsible for
policy, planning and program review, and the labs
more directly responsible for program implementa-
tion, including conduct of the extramural research
program. Abolition of the NERCs removed a layer
of management between policy-making headquar-
ters offices and its implementation by the laborato-
ries. A Regional Services Staff was created to serve
as a focal point for coordinating the research needs
for the 10 EPA regional offices. A parallel reorga-
nization consolidated a number of science advisory
functions across the Agency into a Science Advi-
sory Board (SAB) located in the office of the Ad-
ministrator.
The media program offices had significant res-
ervations about this hew organization, especially
regarding the lack of an organizational focus for
making their research needs known and seeking
redress when their needs were not met Overall there
was concern that ORD was not recognizing its
responsibility to respond to their needs.
In August 1975, an additional change was made
when the Office of Technology Transfer (later re-
named the Center for Environmental Research In-
formation, CERI) was moved out of Washington to
Cincinnati and assigned to the Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory. This last move com-
pleted implementation of the AA's decision to limit
headquarters responsibilities to budgeting, planning
and review, while moving all operational functions
to the field A period of organizational calm took
place from the fall of 1975 through the spring of
-------
1977. In April 1977, the Carcinogen Assessment
Group (CAG) was established in the Immediate
Office of the Assistant Administrator (IOAA). Its
purpose was to provide a single source of advice and
analysis for the Agency's programs on the impacts
of suspected carcinogenic chemicals.
By May 1977, the cumulative effect of a number
of earlier studies and evaluations of ORD were felt
when the Committee on Environment and Public
Works issued a report accompanying the Environ-
mental Research and Development Act of 1977
(extending research authorization through 1978).
The report, known as the Culver Committee Report,
identified several serious deficiencies and called for
major changes in ORD.
Among the problems identified by the Commit-
tee were ORD's lack of long-term, anticipatory
research and the lack of coordination between ORD
and the program offices.
By way of punctuating its desire to see improve-
ments, the Committee concluded by stating that a
Bill was being considered for 1978 that would put
60% of research dollars- under control of the pro-
gram offices, 25% would be available for base ORD
activities and the remaining 15% would either go to
the program offices also or be available for ORD to
conduct long-term research.
Wilson Talley resigned on July 1,1977. Stephen
Gage was appointed AA September 8,1977.
The Research Committee Years
One of the first actions by the new AA was to
appoint a task force to examine the options for
improving ORD's performance in the areas cited by
the Culver Committee and to consider a possible
reorganization.
One of the task force's major findings was that
there was a great deal of confusion and general
dissatisfaction with the separation of responsibility
for planning and review from financial and budget
management Although a number of specific defi-
ciencies were cited, the consensus of the DAAs at
the time was that consolidation of these two func-
tions would offer considerable improvement for
coordinating ORD's research planning and priority-
setting with program implementation. It was as-
sumed these functions should remain staff functions
at headquarters and be distinct from the line func-
tions served by the DAAs over the labs. To imple-
ment this decision, in April of 1978, the Office of
Planning and Review was combined with the Office
of Financial and Administrative Services to create
the Office of Research Program Management
(ORPM).
A June 1978 Report to the President and Con-
gress addressed most of the remaining Culver Com-
mittee concerns. Although no additional reorgani-
zation was planned, several significant management
changes were announced. Specific changes included
the following:
• Identification of specific planning units or
environmental issues around which research
would be planned
• Establishment of a group of standing research
committees, composed of ORD, program of-
fice and regional staff members, whose func-
tion was to develop multi-year research strat-
egies and budgets, resolve issues and conduct
program reviews for each of the planning
units.
• Linking of ORD's planning and management
process to those of the rest of the Agency -
specifically, to the Agency's budget process.
Planning units and research committees were
envisioned as a six-month pilot study which began
in March of 1978 and was due to end that September.
A significant change at headquarters took place
in October of 1978 when, building on the capital
CAG, the Office of Health and Environmental As-
sessment (OHEA) was created to centralize respon-
sibility for the Agency's health and risk assessment
In January of 1979, in a letter from the Admin-
istrator to the chairman of the House Subcommittee
on the Environment and the Atmosphere, the Re-
search Committee system was praised as having
significantly improved ORD's relationship with the
regulatory offices. Plans to expand it were believed
to offer the mechanism for eliminating the percep-
-------
tion that ORD did not support the Agency's regula-
tory mission.
The question of the adequacy of the Agency's
long-term and anticipatory research program re-
mained unresolved. Although additional resources
had been sought to support an expanded program,
the 1979 appropriation for this program was drasti-
cally reduced. The associated Committee Report
chastised ORD for failing to create a distinct organi-
zational entity responsible for planning and imple-
menting long-term research. In response, ORD cre-
ated the Office of Exploratory Research (OER) that
same year.
Beginning in March of 1979 and continuing
through August, the AA pursued a realignment of
ORD's headquarters offices and the laboratories. It
was designed to group the laboratories and head-
quarters by scientific discipline. This realignment
was viewed as a streamlining of the organization to
improve organizational functioning through logical
groupings, as well as improve support to the regula-
tory programs
With the exception of Monitoring and Technical
Support, all of the DA As' offices at headquarters
were renamed as part of this realignment, reducing
the media and problem focus and splitting health
from ecological effects. The Office of Energy, Min-
erals and Industry became Environmental Engineer-
ing and Technology; Air, Land and Water Use
became Environmental Processes and Effects; and
Health and Ecological Effects became the Ofiice-of
Health Research.
In September of 1979, the AA announced a new
research planning process that altered the nature of
headquarters. Each of the line office DAAs was
designated a "primary research planning official"
and was responsible for overseeing the activities of
specific research committees. Other key changes
included:
• Making research committees responsible for
generating portions of theResearch Outlook, a
five-year plan updated and submitted to Con-
gress annually.
• Structuring research planning units (decision
units) to coincide with the units of the operat-
ing budget (program elements) to facilitate
integration of research planning with budget
development and execution.
The organization and management structure in
place by 1979 became the basis for ORD's operation
until the present time. The organization of line and
staff offices at headquarters changed little. Although
one additional staff office was created in 1985, the
organizational names and responsibilities identified
in 1978 have remained almost unchanged. The role
of headquarters as the focus of research and program
planning persisted The DAAs for line offices, later
retitled Office Directors (ODs), continued their role
as the primary research planning officials, while
also continuing to exercise management responsi-
bility over their associated laboratories. The re-
search planning process built around the research
committee system became the center of ORD's
program and research planning. Moreover, the early
indications of its success in satisfying the Agency'*
need for input into research planning were 'con-
firmed in the ensuing years. However, the research
committees failed to develop effective multi-year
research strategies and programs.
With the change in Administration to take place
in 1981, Gage left ORD at the end of 1980. A
replacement AA was not appointed until late 1983.
During this period, ORD had three acting AAs
serving in four distinct time periods., Courtney
Riordan served first, last and longest for almost two
of the two plus years covered, with Richard Dowd
and Andrew Jovanowich serving several months
each.
Bernard Goldstein was appointed AA for ORD
in August 1983, following the return of William
Ruckelshaus as Administrator. Although several
reorganizational options were considered during the
next two years, only one significant change was
made during that period. This change was part of a
larger reorganization package that was deferred for
the incoming AA. It involved creating a regulatory
analysis staff assigned to the AA's Office. The
purpose of this group would be to stay abreast of
changes in ORD's and EPA's authorizing legisla-
8
-------
tion, as well as coordinate ORD's participation in
the Agency's development of regulations.
Goldstein resigned from EPA August 2, 1985;
Donald J. Ehreth was appointed Acting AA the next
day. Although plans for a formal reorganization
were deferred, ORD began operating with a regula-
tory support staff as part of the IOAA in 1985. This
group was later called the Office of Regulatory
Support and Scientific Analysis (ORSSA).
In 1986, Administrator Lee Thomas created the
Risk Assessment Forum to serve as the Agency's
referee and coordinator for risk assessment and
located the function in OHEA.
Vaun Newill was named AA for Research and
Development in October 1986.
Two significant organizational changes were
implemented during NewilFs two years.
1.) In April 1988, ORSSA was abolished and its
mission included as part of the new Office of Tech-
nology Transfer and Regulatory Support (OTTRS).
Also included in OTTRS was the Regional Services
Staff (RSS) and Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI), located in Cincinnati. Both of
these organizations were formerly part of ORPM
and were consolidated with the regulatory support
activity in order to better integrate ORD's Agency
outreach functions.
2.) The Support Service Office (SSO) in Cincinnati
was reorganized and expanded to create the Office
of the Senior ORD Official (OSORDO) to coordi-
nate ORD common services and outreach activities.
It was announced in June of 1988 and made pan of
the IOAA in Washington. The same was done to the
SSO in Research Triangle Park in March of 1989.
Vaun Newill resigned in November 1988. Erich
Bretthauer was immediately named Acting AA and
remained so until his confirmation as A A in March
1990. He served in that position until January 1993,
thereby serving longer than any other AA for ORD.
In April of 1991, the Risk Assessment Forum
was moved to the IOAA to increase its visibility with
EPA.
In July of 1992, the Ecological Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) was constituted as an
organizational entity and made part of Office of
Modeling, Monitoring Systems and Quality Assur-
ance.
Current Headquarters Structure
Current headquarters staff can be broken into
three groups - the Immediate Office of the AA
(IOAA), staff offices and line offices.
The IOAA is made up of the AA and Deputy,
five special assistants, the Risk Assessment Forum,
and the Control Correspondence Unit As of Octo-
ber 1,1992, it had 27 staff members (unless other-
wise stated, all staffing references are to staff on-
board as of 10/1/92).
Although the Senior ORD Officials at both RTF
and Cincinnati are technically assigned to the Of-
fice, neither is located at headquarters.
The staff offices at headquarters are those whose
functions are restricted to headquarters and do not
oversee the operations of either laboratories or field
stations. These consist of:
• The Office of Exploratory Research (OER),
which is responsible for planning, administer-
ing and managing EPA's exploratory research
program through investigator grants and re-
' search centeY support It has a staff of 16.
• The Office of Research Program Management
(ORPM), which is the principal administrative
staff office* has 51 staff members. ,r ..
• The Office of Technoldgy Transfer and Regu-
latory Support (OTTRS) leads ORD's involve-
ment in Agency regulatory development, en-
sures transfer of ORD's research products to
user groups both within and outside the Agency
and performs liaison with EPA's regional of-
fices. It has 34 staff members.
• The Center for Environmental Research Infor-
mation (CERI) is assigned to OTTRS but is
located in Cincinnati. Its authorized ceiling is
32 positions.
-------
In 1992, ORD began implementing two major
management changes that significantly altered the
research and line management structure established
in 1978. The first consolidates the financial allow-
ance holder responsibility for all of ORD into one
account to be managed by ORPM on behalf of the
Assistant Administrator. To support this new con-
solidated function, nine positions were moved from
the line offices to ORPM, bringing its authorized
ceiling to 53 positions. The second change consoli-
dates management responsibility for research plan-
ning in OTTRS. It becomes the coordinating arm of
the new issue-based planning system through cre-
ation of a new staff organization with an additional
11 positions (which will be taken from the line
offices). Also, the Office, OTTRS, is to be renamed
Office of Science, Planning and Regulatory Evalu-
ation (OSPRE). OSPRE headquarters will have an
authorized ceiling of 44 positions (not including
CERI).
The line offices at headquarters are those charged
with planning and coordinating the research con-
ducted in their respective laboratories. Distribution
of resources among the labs is conducted by head-
quarters as is oversight of their administrative func-
tions.
The specific offices are:
• The Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems
and Quality Assurance (OMMSQA) with a
staff of 28 (includes 7 for QAMS). .
• The Office of Health Research (OHR) with a
staff of 13. ~
• The Office of Environmental Engineering and
Technology Demonstration (OEETD) with a
staff of 26.
• The Office of Environmental Processes and
Effects Research (OEPER) with a staff of 26.
The Office of Health and Environmental As-
sessment is a hybrid organization in that it has no
laboratories, but is organized into four functional
groups. Two of these, the Human Health Assess-
ment Group and the Exposure Assessment Group,
are located at headquarters and including its admin-
istrative component, have a combined staff of 60.
The remaining two groups are the Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Offices in Research Tri-
angle Park and Cincinnati.
Agency-wide Support Functions
ORD provides policy leadership and operational
support to two significant agency-wide functions:
(1) quality assurance/quality control related to envi-
ronmental measurement and (2) the Senior Environ-
mental Employee (SEE) human resources program.
The Quality Assurance Management Staff
(QAMS) has historically been placed as a compo-
nent of the Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems
and Quality Assurance. However, both ihe functions
and the agency regulations and standards apply to all
intramural and extramural environmental measure-
ment activities.
The SEE program has evolved from a Depart-
ment of Labor pilot program of the early 1970's and
is currently housed in the Office of Exploratory
Research. The SEE program provides a vehicle for
employment of retired persons through EPA coop-
erators to work in EPA in support of environmental
programs. Currently across EPA 1400-1600 SEE
enrollees support offices in headquarters, the re-
gions and ORD laboratories. .
10
-------
Chapter 3
Specialized Laboratory Missions - Areas of Scientific Concentration
Within the EPA, laboratories provide much of
the scientific and technical information that sup-
ports regulatory development, enforcement, and
evaluation of the "state of the environment" Many
organizations across the Agency contain laborato-
ries — the Office of Research and Development,
other Program offices, and the Regional offices.
Each of these laboratories supports the specific
needs of its client community. ORD has made a
concerted effort to refine the missions of its labora-
tories balance to the technical support, applied re-
search and fundamental research needs of the Agency.
Organizationally ORD is composed of 8 head-
quarters offices, 12 field laboratories, and 5 other
field facilities. ORD is a confederation of offices and
laboratories, each of which operates with consider-
able independence, establishing necessary relation-
ships, pursuing a research agenda, and defining an
operating style in the process.
ORD's confederative nature is fostered by the
fact that ORD cannot alone determine the total R&D
agenda. It is driven to a considerable extent by EPA's
regulatory priorities. This confederative nature also
exists because ORD is a multi-faceted research
organization and the laboratories are not expected to
be in lock step with one another. Each laboratory and
field facility presents a distinct image in several
dimensions.
Some facilities are involved in scientific re-
search with a long-term focus; others' research and
development activities are to solve short-term prob-
lems, with some staff in an immediate response
mode of operation.
Operational styles differ. Some laboratories are
heavily oriented to bench research. Others are staffed
primarily by contract managers of research or engi-
neering activities. A few are desk research organiza-
tions that review the research products of others to
determine if they are relevant to EPA concerns. Still
other laboratories have developed discrete types of
interdisciplinary research team approaches that use
federal and non-federal staff in different configura-
tions.
These distinctly different operating styles have
created different skill requirements among the labo-
ratories. Some require traditional scientific researcher
skills; others a blend of scientific researcher and
contract manager, a number need both sets of skills
and a" high order of general management talent to
coordinate interdisciplinary teams.
Academic disciplines also differ among the labo-
ratories. Some are staffed largely by engineers
others by health scientists, others by chemists. Within
each academic discipline unique specialization de-
velops within and among laboratories.
There is also a significant difference among the
laboratories in terms of the federal/non-federal on-
site workforce. For example, the Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory at Research Tri-
angle Park is 76% federally staffed, while Corvallis
is nearly the reverse, with 69% of the on-site staff
from contractor organizations and universities.
11
-------
The following discussion will outline the basic
scope of each of the Agency's laboratories.
Office of Research and Development
ORD research laboratories are distributed among
four headquarters program offices. These laborato-
ries are not rigidly structured organizations with
fully independent management They are geographi-
cally dispersed, as shown in Figure 1. Many of die
laboratories are free-standing facilities, and require
specialized support and technologies for their re-
search operations. The unique requirements of the
laboratories are not solely facility-related — the
scientific specialties and skills needed to fulfill the
laboratories' varying research needs are critical to
the success of the research, and are often not inter-
changeable among laboratories or research areas.
ORD has processes in place to manage the priorities
and resources required to operate this disperse
workforce. The distribution of ORD research labo-
ratories in relation to the environmental research
process is displayed graphically in Figures 2 and 3.
According to the 1990 National Academy of
Public Administration report EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development: Leadership and Staff for
a New Agenda, 47% of the federal ORD staff is in
science and engineering functions; an additional
11% of the staff provides technical support to
science functions. The ORD report, Worliforce 91
indicates that 75 % of the ORD staff has bachelor's,
master's, or doctoral degrees. No similar data exist
for the other program office or regional laboratories.
In the following presentation the FV91 funding
levels do not include ORD headquarters or agency-
wide overhead funding.
Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems and
Quality Assurance
OMMSQA and its three laboratories are respon-
sible for research on the characterization, transport
and fate of pollutants that are released into the
environment; development and demonstration of
techniques and methods to monitor human and eco-
logical exposure and to relate ambient concentra-
tions to exposure by critical receptors; research,
development, and demonstration of new detection,
identification and characterization techniques for
pollutants at the source and in the ambient environ-
ment and for use as references to standard monitor-
ing methods; development and provision of quality
assurance methods, techniques and materials, in-
cluding validation and standardization of analytical
methods, sampling techniques, quality control meth-
ods, standard reference materials, and techniques
for data collection, evaluation and interpretation;
and establishment, coordination and oversight of the
Agency-wide quality assurance program.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las
Vegas, NV
FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obligations: S38.446.784
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
157
355
TTT
EMSL-LV conducts basic and applied research
and technology transfer on the measurement and
monitoring of pollutants in all parts of the environ-
ment, including quantifying human and ecological
exposure to environmental pollutants on a local to
global scale. The laboratory supports the Depart-
ment of Energy's Nevada Test Site's radiological
monitoring programs. EMSL-LV maintains a field
station at Wartentpn. YA.. .^ r,
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH
FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obtigatkmr S14.593.17*
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
116
90
206
EMSL-CINC conducts research on the develop-
ment and application of analytical methods, quality
assurance procedures and reference materials for
environmental assessments, including emerging bio-
12
-------
Figure 1. ORD Laboratory and Field Sites
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
CS2 HEADQUARTERS
LABORATORY
FIELD SITE
SORDO/CINC
CERI/CINC
EMSL/CINC
RREL/CINC
ECAO/CINC
RUGulf Breeze
xERL/Narragansett
V I N..H«*»>**
HQ Offices
EAG
HHAG
SQRDO/RTP
REAL/RTP
AEERURTP
HERL/RTP
ECAO/RTP
-------
Pollution
Source
Figure 2. Environmental Research Framework
Distribution of EPA Laboratory Roles & Missions
OMMSQA Labs
Monitoring and Assessment
i«
£
Air
Aquatic
Terrestrial
Marine/Estuarine
Subsurface
OEPER Labs
1
w
V
D8
8*
W W
Human
Exposure
OHEA Croups
I m m m m m m m m\m m m m m ,
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Health Risk
Assessment
Dose Effect
OHRLab
OTTRS Croup
OEETDLabs
User
Community
Technology Transfer
Prevention/Control
-------
Figure 3. Environmental Research Framework
Distribution of EPA Laboratory Roles & Missions
OMMSQA Labs
-•O
Monitoring and Assessment
Atmospheric Research at Exposure Assessment Lab
Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab -Cincinnati
Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab "Las Vegas
Pollution
Source
Air
Atmospheric Research at Exposure Assessment Lab
Aquatic
Environmental Research Lab - Duluth
11
N
J]
Terrestrial
Environmental Research Lab - Corvallls
Marine/Estuarine
Environmental Research Lab • Nanagansett
Environmental Research Lab - Gulf Breeze
Subsurface
R. S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab • Ada
It
».
OEPER Labs
I
«M
w
o
0
3 6
£5
5 o
OHEA Croups
Ecological £
| Risk "?
V Assessment .§
.0
3
§ Health Risk §
9 . K
g Assessment f
| i5
£
Human Health
'Assessment Croup
Dose Effect
Human
Exposure
Health Effects Research Laboratory
OHRLab
OTTRS
Croup
OEETD Labs
User
Community
Technology Transfer
Center for Environmental
Research Information
Prevention/Control
Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
Air A Energy Engineering Research Lat
-------
technological research on the occurrence, transport
and fate of microbiai pathogens in environmental
media.
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC
FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obligations: $43.724.962
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
168
121
349
ARE AL conducts research, technical assistance
and technology transfer on the chemical and physi-
cal processes in the atmosphere, including mobile
source and biogenic activities; ecological exposure
from climate and the atmosphere; and models, mea-
surement, and monitoring studies needed to support
research and regulatory activities involving the air
media.
Office of Environmental Engineering and
Technology Demonstration
OEETD and its two laboratories are responsible
for research, development and demonstration of
cost-effective methods and technologies to control
environmental impacts associated with energy, min-
erals and other resources and industrial processing
and manufacturing facilities; control of environ-
mental impacts of public sector activities, including
waste water treatment, drinking water treatment, solid
waste management; providing innovative technolo-
gies for response actions under Superfund and tech-
nologies for control of spills of oils and hazardous
wastes; efforts to characterize, reduce and mitigate
indoor air pollutants; and efforts to characterize,
reduce and mitigate acid rain precursors from sta-
tionary sources.
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, NC
FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obligations: $26.018.643
AEERL conducts research to identify and de-
velop emission reduction approaches for stationary
air pollution sources, which pose risks to public
health and the environment, including emission es-
timating techniques.
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH
FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obligation*: $73,163.566
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
261
389
RREL conducts research to develop and demon-
strate engineered approaches and technologies for
the prevention, treatment, and control of wastes,
contamination in drinking water, and pollution in
surface waters and on the land. RREL maintains a
field station in Edison, NJ.
Office of Environmental Processes and Effects
Research
OEPER and its six laboratories are responsible
for developing and applying ecological risk assess-
ment methods to ecosystems; developing scientific
and technological methods and data necessary to
understand ecological processes and predict broad
ecosystems impacts; develop methods to monitor
the entry, movement and fate of pollutants into the
environment and the food chain and the effects of
pollutants upon non-humari organisms and ecosys-
tems; monitoring the'causes and effects of acid
deposition and related pollutants; reducing the un-1
certainty in the scientific understanding of the causes
and effects and corrective measures for acid deposi-
tion phenomenon and performing policy-relevant
assessments of the scientific findings on acid depo-
sition and related pollutants; and increasing scien-
tific understanding of the global climate change
phenomena and the role of radioactive gases in the
phenomena.
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
99
48
147
16
-------
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
Ada, OK
FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obligations: $11,630.979
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth. MN
FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obligations: $12.172341
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
60
71
131
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
The Robert S. Kerr ERL conducts and manages
research and provides technical assistance and tech-
nology transfer on the chemical, physical, and bio-
logical structure and processes of the subsurface
environment, biogeochemical interactions, and link-
ages to other environmental media.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA
FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obligations: $14.051468
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal 77
Non-federal 93
Total 170
ERL-Athens conducts and manages research
and provides technical assistance to predict the
transformation, speciation, and transport of chemi-
cals across and within environmental media in order
to assess potential human and ecological exposures
and risks.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR •.
FY-91 Intramural and ' -::"
Extramural Obligations: $23,266.104
Federal
Non-federal
Total
90
112.
202
ERL-Duluth conducts cause/effect research in
aquatic toxicology and ecology in lakes, streams,
wetlands and the Great Lakes, including predicting
and assessing the effects of pollutant and polluting
activities oh freshwater ecological resources. ERL-
Duluth supports a field station in Grosse DC, MI.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Guy Breeze, FL
FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obligations: $12.839.977
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
56
J2.
123
ERL-Gulf Breeze conducts and manages re-
search on the near-coastal environment with empha-
sis on coastal wetlands and estuaries, including the
study and modeling of lexicological, disease, and
microbial processes.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rl
FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obligations: $13,406.004
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
73
227
300
ERL-Corvallis conducts and manages research
on terrestrial, watershed, and landscape ecology,
terrestrial exotoxicology, ecological statistics, and
comparative ecological risk assessment
. FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
82
J21
207
ERL-Narragansett conducts and manages ma-
rine, coastal, and estuarine ecological risk assess-
ment research, including die study of the effects of
estuarine and marine disposal and discharge of com-
plex waste, dredged materials and other wastes.
ERL-Narragansett maintains a field station at New-
port, OR.
17
-------
Office of Health Research
OHR and its laboratory are responsible for plan-
ning, implementing and evaluating a comprehen-
sive, integrated human health research program
which documents acute and chronic adverse effect
on humans; develops test systems and associated
methods and protocols, such as predictive models to
determine similarities and differences among test
organisms and man; develops methodologies and
conducts laboratory and field research studies; and
develops interagency programs which effectively
evaluate the health impact from exposure to envi-
ronmental pollutants.
Health Effects Research Laboratory, Research Tri-
angle Park, NC
FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obligations: $44.475,462
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
240
216
456
HERL conducts and manages lexicological, clini-
cal, and epidemiological research on the human
health effects resulting from exposure to environ-
mental pollutants and to provide related technical
support and technology transfer, including biologi-
cal assays, predictive models, and extrapolation
methods for health risk assessments.
Office of Health and'Environmental Assessment
OHEA and its four components are responsible
for the development of health criteria, health effects
assessments and risk estimation.
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, OH
Total HQ and field OHEA FY-91 Intramural and
Extramural Obligations: $21,620,033
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
41
!
50
ECAO-CINC assesses and interprets scientific
information for risk-based regulatory decision-mak-
ing related to health and environmental effects of
single chemicals and complex exposures, including
chemical mixtures.
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Research Triangle Park, NC
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal
Non-federal
Total
29
40
ECAO-RTP assesses and interprets scientific
information and support of risk-based regulatory
decision-making by the EPA Administrator, espe-
cially for air-related standards and issues.
Exposure Assessment Group, Washington, DC
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal 16
Non-federal 1
Total 17
EAG provides state-of-the-art methodology,
guidance, and procedures for exposure determina-
tions; ensures quality and consistency in the Agency's
scientific risk assessments; and provides indepen-
dent assessments of exposure and recommenda-
tions.
Human Health Assessment Group, Washington, DC
FY-91 On-Site Staffing:
Federal 32
Non-federal 3
Total ~3T
HHAG assesses and interprets scientific infor-
mation in the health risk assessment process, includ-
ing preparation and review of health risk studies on
environmental agents 'that are suspected carcino-
gens, mutagens.'br reproductive or developmental
toxins, and development of new risk assessment
methodologies. >
Interagency Coordination
ORD and its laboratories have established
interagency relationships with the Departmenrof
Energy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the Department of
Commerce. The Department of Energy, through an
interagency agreement funds approximately 60 EPA
positions in EMSL-LV; these resources are used to
support the environmental monitoring of the Ne-
vada Test Site and environs. AREAL in RTF in-
cludes 48 NOAA employees that support the atmo-
18
-------
spheric research program in areas such as develop-
ing global, regional, local, and micrometeorological
computer models of the transport of air pollutants
and their exposure to humans and ecosystems. These
NOAA employees operate within the Department of
Commerce supervisory system.
National Program Offices
There are six non-ORD program offices that
support laboratories. These offices require analyti-
cal support to assist in regulatory development and
enforcement
National Enforcement Investigations Center
The National Enforcement Investigations Cen-
ter, Office of Enforcement, has an Office of Labora-
tory Services which is located in Denver, CO. This
laboratory provides, on a nation-wide basis, analyti-
cal services for all environmental media for enforce-
ment case preparation and assists in assessing and
developing information, evidence and technical tes-
timony in support of EPA enforcement programs.
The Division develops and improves analytical tech-
niques and provides consultation services on these
matters upon request to Headquarters, Regional
Offices, and to the Office of Research and Develop-
ment. It also maintains specialty expertise in the
areas of laboratory instrumentation, mutagenicity
testing, health and ecological effect analytical tech-
niques, pesticide products formulation testing, and
handling and processing of toxic and carcinogenic
substances.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan-
dards, Office of Air and Radiation, has a laboratory
as pan of its Emission Measurement Branch. The
Emission Measurement Laboratory is located in
Durham, NC. This laboratory contains analytical
equipment to support in-house emission measure-
ment capability, calibration of field sampling and
analytical equipment, development and evaluation
of new sampling and analytical methods, and train-
ing of staff for new methods and protocols.
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Wa-
ter, Office of Water, has a laboratory within its
Technical Support Division, located in Cincinnati,
OH. This laboratory supports the development and
implementation of drinking water regulations, pro-
vides technical assistance to Regions, states and
local entities. The laboratory obtains critical infor-
mation required for the development of regulations,
such as the occurrence of contaminants in ground
water or drinking water. It also assists in regulation
implementation by providing technical assistance to
laboratories in analyzing water samples for regu-
lated contaminants and by managing the drinking
water laboratory certification implementation pro-
gram.
Office of Mobile Sources
The Office of Mobile Sources, Office of Air and
Radiation, supports the National Vehicle and Fuel
Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, ML
This laboratory has as its primary function the test-
ing of emissions from motor vehicles and engines
under a variety of environmental and use conditions
and using various fuels. NVFEL also supports the
development of State Implementation Plans for
ambient air quality, focusing on vehicle inspection
and maintenance programs and transportation con-
trol programs. The laboratory administers the motor
vehicle emissions certification and fuel economy
programs. The laboratory also analyzes fuel and fuel
additives in support of the fuels enforcement pro-
gram, performs critical analyses of certain exhaust
compounds, designs and conducts special fuel test-
ing programs to support rule making, enforcement
actions and test development
Office of Pesticides Programs
The Office of Pesticides Programs, Office of
Pesticides, Prevention and Toxic Substances, sup-
ports three laboratories, one in Bay St Louis, MS,
and two in Beltsville, MD. These laboratories pro-
vide analyses to detect pesticide traces in environ-
mental media, and to characterize complex chemi-
cal formulations. They also determine contaminants
in pesticide products for consideration in registra-
tion decisions, validate food tolerance methods and
environmental chemistry methods prior to their adop-
tion as residue methods or use as enforcement tools,
19
-------
develop comprehensive methods and assurance ca-
pabilities for pesticides, and provide accurate chemi-
cal standards to support the testing needs of OPP and
the Regions. There is also minimal laboratory capa-
bility to perform selected efficacy testing for anti-
microbial pesticides.
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
The Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Office
of Air and Radiation, supports two laboratories: the
National Air and Radiation Environmental Labora-
tory (NAREL) in Montgomery, AL, and the Las
Vegas Facility in Las Vegas, NV. NAREL has full
radio analysis capability, including wet chemistry
and counting equipment, capability for electromag-
netic field measurement, and radon exposure cham-
bers and radon detection and measurement capabil-
ity. The Las Vegas Facility has site-assessment
capability for radiation-contaminated sites, includ-
ing mobile sampling and analyses capability, radon
exposure chambers, radon detection and measure-
ment capability and indoor air ventilation assess-
ment capability. Both laboratories have fully trans-
portable analytical and communications capability
to support emergency response operations that are
more proximate.
Regional Offices
The Agency has divided the country and territo-
ries into ten regions. Regional offices are respon-
sible for the direct implementation or oversight of
State implementation of the Agency's programs,
e.g., drinking water, waste water and hazardous waste
permitting and compliance, ambient monitoring of
air and surface waters, etc. Nine of these ten regions
have analytical laboratories; the tenth has a facility
under construction at this time. Although the orga-
nizational titles vary slightly, the laboratories are
generally part of the Environmental Services Divi-
sion (ESD).
The ESDs were originally established to provide
the regions with the technical expertise necessary to
carry out the environmental program mandated by
Federal legislation. The ESDs have capability to
conduct monitoring of the ambient environment;
conduct compliance or oversight inspections and
monitoring to determine conformance with regula-
tions and permits; respond to environmental emer-
gencies; collect samples, transport the samples, per-
form laboratory analyses and data evaluation; and
provide policy guidance and technical assistance to
other federal, state and local agencies. Within this
structure of responsibilities, the ESDs have analyti-
cal laboratories that are relied on by the Agency to
provide environmental data of the quality needed to
sustain enforcement actions, verify compliance with
permit conditions, and monitor the ambient environ-
ment.
Relationship to Contractor Laboratories
The Agency has a number of laboratories that
can be utilized for varying tasks. However, the
Agency laboratories are quite specialized in-pur-
pose, and are not designed as production laborato-
ries, i.e., providing large volume, standardized analy-
ses for a multitude of clients. Much of the analytical
data produced for the Agency, particularly in the
federal-lead Superfund program, is generated in
laboratories to which EPA has only a contractual
relationship. There is no current estimate of the total
value of analytical work that is contracted; estimates
for the Superfund approach $100M/year.
References
Office of Research and Development, Workforce
91, EPA/600/9-91-029.
National Academy of Public Administration,
EPA's Office of Research and Development: Lead-
ership and Staff for a New Agenda, 1990.
Office of Research and Development, "Sum-
mary Analysis of Financial Activity FY1989-1991"
20
-------
Chapter 4
Research Program Design and Accountability
For much of the past two decades, EPA was
basically a "reactive" agency. EPA saw its mission
largely as managing the reduction of pollution and,
in particular, only that pollution that was defined in
the laws that it administered. The tools EPA tradi-
tionally used to reduce pollution were limited, in
general, to the emissions controls it could force
polluters to apply through regulatory action.
This reactive mode, understandable when seen
in its historical context, also guided research efforts
of the Office of Research and Development (ORD).
Over the last several years, however, ORD has made
substantial changes in its research program to meet
environmental challenges of the future and to re-
spond to deficiencies identified in the past Today,
ORD's report card registers high marks for design,
implementation and growth in new areas that have
been identified as the major responsibilities of a
science program in an environmental regulatory
agency.
The research program has evolved over the
years in response to changing problems and needs of
the times. ORD's current goals respond to new
problems and different priorities in light of 22 years
of experience, data, and technology development
The major steps taken over the years to redesign the
research program to make it more responsive to past
needs have taken several forms that are described
below.
ORD's First Planning System (EROS/
ROAPs)
ORD developed its first program planning and
reporting system in 1972 to assist the Office in
meeting the research requirements of the Agency
and the Nation. A formal process, adapted from that
used by NASA, was implemented to identify re-
search needs, define specific research objectives,
and develop detailed plans to accomplish these
objectives. This system also addressed the establish-
ment of priorities and assignment of resources and
responsibilities for executing approved plans. It
included a "needs system" for obtaining documented
inputs of the regional and program offices' research
requirements and their priorities and for assuring
visibility of ORD's responsiveness to them.
The planning system was designed to meet the
planning requirements of the Agency and special
requirements of ORD with minimum burden. The
basic principles upon which the system was de-
signed were that:
• Candidate research objectives could be identi-
fied from many sources, including specific needs
provided by other offices.
• Program objectives chosen for consideration
could be explicitly defined with identifiable end
points as Environmental Research Objective
Statements (EROS).
• A specific plan to meet each objective, a
Research Objective Achievement Plan (ROAP),
could be developed.
• Each ROAP could be developed for complete
attainment of the objective and would not have
to be re-prepared annually—only the tasks to be
completed in a given year would be included in
a program plan.
The impetus behind this plan was to allow ORD
to conduct its program planning in an open manner
to provide adequate opportunity for the various
21
-------
operating programs of the Agency to participate in
the planning process. This allowed them, if neces-
sary, to appeal any research decisions they consid-
ered unfavorable in light of their documented re-
search requirements and priorities. This interaction
was accomplished in several ways, beginning with
participation in the development of ORD's Re-
search S trategy documents. These documents corre-
sponded to EPA's programs: water, air, pesticides,
solid wastes, radiation, toxic substances and noise,
and to two additional cross-cutting areas, monitor-
ing and environmental management The strategies
made it possible to assess the degree to which the
research program addressed the environment, both
holistically and as made up of discrete media.
Fundamental to the development of the total
research program was adherence to the concept of
"Planning by Objective." Research objectives were
determined by ORD Headquarters Division Direc-
tors, designated as Program Area Managers (PAMs)
who were responsible for managing all activities
within a program area. Research objectives were
determined by PAMs through a structured process
to identify needs. Needs were actively solicited from
regional and headquarters personnel and from state
and local environmental regulatory programs, but
they had to be sponsored by senior Agency officials,
i.e., Administrator, Deputy Administrator, Assis-
tant Administrators and Regional Administrators,
who prioritized and forwarded them to PAMs for
consideration in ORD's program. Once selected, a
detailed program plan describing how things would
be accomplished, was developed by a Program Ele-
ment Director (PED), the Director of the ORD field
Laboratory that would perform the work.
Planning interaction occurred at four defined
points of direct interface during each annual plan-
ning cycle: two at the policy level and two at the
technical level. In addition to the points of direct
planning interaction, the program planning system
also incorporated an information "feedback" loop to
program managers and regional administrators who
depended on support activities from other program
elements. Decisions relating to objectives, priori-
ties, and timetables were made available to Agency
and ORD managers and "need sponsors" on a peri-
odic basis. Such "feedback" was to assist in assuring
that ORD research activities were responsive to the
needs and priorities of the Agency and that interre-
lated programs within ORD were effectively coordi-
nated It was firmly believed that Agency-wide
scrutiny would help to produce the most effective,
efficient, and responsive research program that was
possible.
Limitations of the System
The research planning system proved to be cum-
bersome for the Agency to deal with. It was orga-
nized on the basis of broad media and provided no
cross-linking with Agency programs. No cohesive
description of the research in each major regulatory
subject area existed because tasks were written from
a disciplinary rather than regulatory perspective.
There were no built-in mechanisms for mid-course
corrections and no direct customer participation in
determining research priorities.
Like the line management structure of ORD, the
budget also was organized around scientific disci-
plines. It contained over 60 decision units, and
because of its fragmentation and science discipline
orientation it was not easily relatable to ORD's most
important constituencies: the regulatory arms of die
Agency, the Office of Management and Budget, or
the Congress. The system eventually was criticized
as being unresponsive to-regulatory and Agency
needs.
The Zero-Based Budget
The mid 1970s brought reorganization and, with
a new administration in 1977, the advent of a new
government-wide planning, budgeting and tracking
system. Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) required that
all government spending be justified from the zero
percent level Research planning, in reality, reversed
from a top-down to a bottom-up system. Each year
every dollar of every program had to be defended in
five levels of funding: 0 to 75%, 75 to 85%, 85 to
100%, 100 to 110%, and 110% and above. New
initiatives and new programs were inserted at the
100% level in increments as appropriate. The deci-
sion-making process entailed assembling all the
22
-------
Office and Laboratory Directors to prioritize all
projects by increment. The most attention and dis-
cussion were focused on the budget line for FTEs
and dollars. Each office would defend /justify its
items just above and just below the line with the
ORD Assistant Administrator making decisions as
the meeting progressed. Initiatives were identified
as the segments just below the final line. As a
consequence, most attention was directed to secur-
ing funds for existing programs at the expense of
formulating and defending new initiatives.
Need for Change
In mid 1977, it had come to the attention of
Congress that there was a problem with the relation-
ship between ORD and EPA's regulatory arm. ORD's
budget request was headed for trouble because of
growing criticism that the research program was not
sufficiently supportive of the regulatory effort The
Congress saw ORD as being, unresponsive to the
Agency's major mission. At that time, legislation
was drafted that broke up ORD and moved the
research function (and resources) to the regulatory
program offices. After much discussion, ORD was
granted a "stay of execution" with the proviso that an
EPA-wide task force be formed to examine research
planning and management and to propose means of
making it more responsive to Agency needs.
Two intra-agency groups were formed to deter-
mine the causes of ORD's operational problems and
to develop specific corrective measures to alleviate
these problems and assure the most effective use of
the Agency's research and development resources.
Through the improved coordination among the many
components of the Agency, a program was devel-
oped that both answered the most immediate re-
search needs and allowed a significant expansion in
longer-term anticipatory research.
Research Committee Planning System
The result was the Research Committee plan-
ning system. The planned programs for FY 79 and
80 reflected the best effort EPA had made during its
first decade both to integrate research and regulatory
programs and to provide for a longer-term anticipa-
tory research program. A program of meetings was
initiated between research personnel and the regula-
tory program office staffs to determine tnutually-
agreed-upon strategies, research needs, and the pri-
orities of those needs. Final priorities, across all
programs, were established through the ZBB sys-
tem. The criteria used for ranking programs were
considerations such as:
• The impact of the program on human health
and safety.
• Its importance toward enabling the Agency
to accomplish its mission.
• Its contribution to meeting legislative dead-
lines or court orders.
• Cost-effectiveness.
In its initial stages, the ZBB system was aug-
mented by the creation of five pilot Research Com-
mittees charged with, among other things, providing
input into the content of the EPA research program
in five areas — drinking water, industrial wastewa-
ter, mobile source air pollutants, pesticides, and
respirable particulates. Each of these committees
included representatives from program offices, re-
gional offices and ORD, and input was obtained
from non-EPA individuals with scientific expertise
in relevant fields. Although there were some ques-
tions about the means of conducting such joint
planning efforts, a workable mechanism was evolv-
ing to improve planning of the research program.
The success of the pilot project led ORD to
expand the number of committees from five to
twelve. The budget was structured to consist of 12
decision units that corresponded to the 12 research
committees that were established in 1979 (a thir-
teenth energy research committee was later created
to address the portions of the energy program that
were multimedia, such as synthetic fuels). Within
each decision unit, sub-programs corresponded to
ORD's line management structure and thus to broad
scientific disciplines, e.g., health effects, engineer-
ing, environmental processes and effects, monitor-
23
-------
ing and risk assessment In addition, special sub-
program line items were provided for high interest
special programs like acid rain or the Chesapeake
Bay Study.
Research Committee* and Corresponding Program Office*
(1979)
Office of Water and Waste Management
1. Municipal Wastewater and SpHI Prevention
2. Industrial Wastewater
3. Water Quality
4. Drinking Water
5. Solid Waste
Office of Toxic Substances
6. Testing and Assessment
7. Pesticides
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
8. Radiation
9. Mobile Source Air Pollution
10. Oxidants
11. Gases and Particles
12. Hazardous Air Pollutants
Based directly on the research committee struc-
ture, the new budgetary format went a long way
toward strengthening ties with the regulatory pro-
gram and toward communicating effectively with
those concerned with the research programs. It inte-
grated research program presentations with those of
EPA as a whole; provided a coherent, balanced mix
of scientific activities for each major regulatory
area; and provided for clear tracking and reporting
by both regulatory subject area and scientific disci'
pline. Consequently, it dramatically simplified the
presentation of ORD programs to non-ORD people,
and it simplified ORD's internal resource manage-
ment and accounting.
The new structure, in place for preparation of the
FY 82 budget, was well received by the rest of the
Agency, OMB, and the Congress. The format inte-
grated fully the ORD and the regulatory programs
and demonstrated that, with good planning and
management, ORD could conduct a research pro-
gram that both supported and guided regulatory
efforts and promoted and supported good science.
Cause for Change to Current System
Anticipatory Research
From its inception, EPA recognized a need to
balance near-term research objectives in support of
regulatory programs with a longer-term program to
stimulate advances in environmental sciences. How-
ever, the Agency was driven by legislation to sup-
port short-term regulatory deadlines. Because of
resource constraints and new legislative mandates,
these regulatory responsibilities created an atmo-
sphere that required a significant portion of the
research program to be oriented toward short-term
problems.
Reports of the National Academy of Sciences
and the Congressional Office of Technology As-
sessment in the late 1970s focused attention on this
problem. In reassessing the role of long-term re-
search in EPA, it was recognized that all research
and development activities needed to have some
inherent long-term component and that the various
stages of the research and development process,
fundamental, applied and development activities
must cross-fertilize and link with one another.
The problem has been recognized at least since
1978. At that time, several possible remedies were
examined: federal contract research centers, a na-
tional laboratory system, and a "centers program" at
selected academic institutions. The "centers pro-
gram" and the exploratory grants program were
implemented as solutions to the need for an adequate
long-term research program.
Ten years later the same problems persisted.
Mounting evidence suggested that we were facing a
new generation of environmental problems —prob-
lems that threaten not just isolated areas, but global
ecological resources; not just the health of certain
individuals, but perhaps, even our ability to sustain
life on this planet Coping with these problems
required a fundamental change in our approach to
environmental protection. We needed to develop
24
-------
our capabilities to anticipate and prevent pollution,
rather than simply control and clean it up after it is
generated.
Some of the basic scientific questions that we
could not answer without fundamental changes in
our national environmental research agenda included
the following:
• What is happening to our ecosystems?
• How quickly are the changes occurring?
• Are we causing irreversible damage?
• What are the impacts of these ecological changes
on human health?
EPA's Science Advisory Board in 1988 called
research "the most fundamental of the tools that
promote environmental quality." It recommended
that EPA "reshape its strategy for addressing envi-
ronmental problems in the next decade and beyond
and plan, implement, and sustain a long-term re-
search program" to support this new strategy.
Based on these recommendations, a major new
core research program was established to generate
knowledge essential to all areas of environmental
decision-making, not just the immediate and indi-
vidual regulatory needs of EPA's program offices.
This core research program required not only
strengthening and expansion of existing efforts, but
substantial new initiatives in critical areas too long
neglected. Also, it required a commitment to sustain
long-term research projects that may take years to
complete and to maintain a steady core of expertise
and resources to provide the continuity essential for
effective basic research.
Program Presentation
It became clear in the early 1990's that the
research program could not be easily explained to all
of ORD's constituencies. The traditional approach
to research planning — oriented to organizational
structure and scientific discipline— was not flex-
ible enough to relate to emerging environmental
concepts and cross-media concerns. Though the
system was meaningful to researchers in the Agency
it required additional translation to be understood by
others. Equally perplexing were problems in com-
municating research priorities to constituents who
weren't familiar with ORD's programs. The effects
of such things as resource reductions or increases
were not translatable to specific impacts on environ-
mental protection. Thus, a common language was
needed that had meaning to both ORD and non-
ORD people.
Current Planning Process (Issue
Planning)
There has been a convergence of thinking over
the past few years about the directions science
should take at EPA. The Agency's Science Advi-
sory Board (SAB) has emphasized the role of sci-
ence at EPA in two reports: Future Risk: Research
Strategies for the 1990's (Sept 1988) and Reducing
Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environ-
mental Protection (Sept. 1990). Most recently, the
Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA, set up
by Administrator William Reilly, explained the im-
portance of sound science in its 1992 report, Safe-
guarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible
Decisions:
Science is one of the soundest investments
the nation can make for the future. Strong
science provides the foundation for cred-
ible environmental decision-making. With •
a better understanding of environmental
risks to people and ecosystems, EPA can
target the hazards that pose the greatest
risks, anticipate environmental problems
before they reach a critical level, and de-
velop strategies that use the nation's, and
the world's, environmental protection dol-
lars wisely.
In response to these influences, the ORD has
developed a strategic plan to guide its decisions
about research. The plan focuses on broad, cross-
media environmental issues and identifies seven
goals for its research program:
1.) Forge a center of scientific excellence. Many of
today's environmental problems are technically com-
plex. Finding the appropriate solutions to protect
25
-------
environmental quality requires a sound understand-
ing of the underlying science. ORD is working to
expand its role as a nationally and internationally
recognized center of scientific excellence.
2.) Ensure that the research program reflects the
highest risk areas. ORD is changing the process by
which research is planned to ensure that efforts
focus on those areas with the greatest probability of
significant risk reduction or on those areas of high
risk for which significant information or data are
lacking.
3.) Improve methods for determining relative risks.
Consistent and high-quality risk assessments are
critical for setting priorities for national environ-
mental policy as well as for controlling exposure to
individual pollutants. ORD's risk assessment re-
search will improve the science and knowledge base
needed for reducing the uncertainty associated with
risk assessments and will develop better methods for
comparing different types of risks.
4.) Place greater emphasis on ecological research
and ecological risk assessment. Currently, we un-
derstand relatively little about how pollution or
other anthropogenic stressors affect complex eco-
systems over time. ORD's research program will be
restructured to emphasize work oh understanding
environmental impacts at the ecosystem level. ORD's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Pro-
gram (EMAP) is gathering information on the
nation' s ecological condition ..This information, our
"national ecological report card," is critical for the
Agency's efforts on risk reduction projects that are
focused on a geographic basis.
5.) Examine innovative approaches to risk reduc-
tion, both for pollution prevention and pollution
control. Research in this area will improve our
understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of
pollution control, develop "order-of-magnitude"bet-
ter innovative control technologies, and continue
ORD's critical support for the Agency's pollution
prevention program.
6.) Provide information to all segments of society.
As pan of the Agency's strategy for education and
outreach, ORD will enhance its sharing of technical
and research information to all segments of society,
including industry, academia, states and local com-
munities, the general public, and other countries.
7.) Collaborate with other federal agencies, indus-
try, academia, and other countries. It is important for
EPA to include the spectrum of experience and
expertise that exists in the broad scientific commu-
nity. In order to use this expertise most effectively,
ORD will expand its cooperative research with other
research organizations.
As ORD considered ways to achieve these seven
goals, ir became clear that a new way of planning
research was needed. In the past, the kinds of envi-
ronmental problems that EPA scientists studied were
largely determined by the short-term regulatory
needs of the Agency. As a result, the research was
not easily adaptable to cross-media issues, to antici-
pating future problems, or to providing continuity
for studying particularly difficult environmental
problems. Therefore, ORD developed a new process
for planning research that implements the new re-
search goals while continuing to support research on
regulatory priorities.
ORD's issue-based planning process is highly
interactive. Each step of the process involves both
ORD and EPA's Program and Regional Offices, as
well as the scientific community outside of EPA.
Strategic direction is provided by ORD senior man-
agement and the Research Strategy Council, made
up of EPA's Assistant Administrators and chaired
by the Deputy Administrator. Specific research ar-
eas and approaches are proposed by ORD laborato-
ries in collaboration with scientific and technical
staff from across EPA.
In identifying the set of topics that would consti-
tute the research program, ORD aimed for an "envi-
ronmental problem" orientation. Organizing the re-
search program around specific environmental is-
sues enables ORD to:
• Design research programs that focus on spe-
cific environmental problems.
• Increase focus on high-risk environmental
• problems.
26
-------
• Support the Agency's new emphasis on com-
prehensive, multi-media approaches to envi-
ronmental protection.
• Clearly communicate the research program to
EPA's Program and Regional Offices, other
federal agencies, Congress, the scientific com-
munity, and other interested individuals and
organizations.
• Simplify the research planning process to im-
prove the links between planning, budgeting,
and implementing the research program.
The ORE) research program is divided into 12
theme areas that together contain 38 specific re-
search issues. The new research themes are different
in concept than the previous structure of the research
program, which used environmental statutes as the
organizing framework. The new themes are multi-
media and multi-disciplinary and provide an inte-
grated research program to support EPA programs.
Many of the research issues address the high-
risk environmental problems identified by the SAB
in its Reducing Risk report. Additionally, many of
the research issues focus on the knowledge gaps
identified in ORD's strategic goals—ecological risk
assessment methods, environmental monitoring and
assessment, human health risk assessment, pollu-
tion prevention, innovative technologies, and tech-
nology transfer. Other research issues address needs
of the regulatory programs, cross-cutting scientific
issues, and the infrastructure for the research pro-
gram.
ORD has developed an issue strategy to describe
research goals and areas of research for each issue.
Taken together, the strategies describe EPA's re-
search agenda and ORD's entire program. The strat-
egies are a framework for broad, open discussions
about EPA's research agenda and the directions for
that research program. The issue strategies have
been reviewed both within the Agency and by die
SAB. EPA will continue to refine these strategies
over the next year.
Each issue strategy, developed by a senior ORD
manager called an "issue planner," is to include
consideration of fundamental research, applied re-
search, technical assistance and technology transfer.
The mix of these components will vary depending
on the needs in each issue area. For example, some
issues will carry on ORD's core research program of
basic research in environmental science that EPA
will need in the future to address environmental
problems. Other issues will emphasize applied re-
search and technical assistance in support of the
Agency's regulatory programs. Each strategy dis-
cusses the following:
• Description of the environmental problem.
• EPA's strategic goals for the research.
• Status of current research efforts.
• Research topics to be addressed.
The strategies provide a framework for develop-
ing the research plans and enable ORD to better
explain the substance of the research and how differ-
ent pieces of the program fit together. As the strate-
gies have been a mechanism for defining environ-
mental research priorities within the Agency, it is
hoped that they will do the same in the national and
international environmental scientific communities.
With the strategies in place, the next step was to
prepare five-year research plans for each issue.
Agency-wide groups, which were led by the issue
planners and included representatives from EPA
programs and Regions, have developed draft plans.
These plans expand the information in the research
strategy and include detailed descriptions of the
scientific questions needing research; the specific
areas in which EPA will conduct research; products
and schedules; and technology transfer activities.
The drafts are being reviewed widely—within
the Agency, by the SAB, and by professional scien-
tific societies. Reviewers have been asked to evalu-
ate the plans for science quality, relevancy to the
Agency's mission, how well they meet Congres-
sional directives, and whether they can be imple-
mented within given resources and time constraints.
This broad-based, open process for planning and
implementing research links directly to the Agency's
planning process and brings together all Agency
offices. As it simplifies planning, the process also
promotes better communication in order to include
27
-------
the nation's best scientific thinking into the ORD
research program.
Accountability
Accountability has been built into each of the
planning processes described above as a way to
communicate ORD's research agenda to its clients,
track progress and accomplishments, and link the
planning processes to the resource management
processes. The goals of the various management
systems, used in conjunction with the planning pro-
cesses, generally were consistent through the years:
• Involve ORD clients in the planning process in
order to solicit their research needs.
• Bridge the terminology and division of work
among ORD's laboratories to the Program
Office and Regional missions.
• Ensure that the research products that had been
committed to were completed.
• Communicate to Congress how the research
fit into the Agency's mission.
The hierarchy for ORD's first planning system
(1972) divided the research into:
Environmental Research Objective
Research Objective Achievement Plan
Tasks
The hierarchy for the accountability system un-
der the Research Committee process was:
Media (Decision Units)
Issue
Planned Program Accomplishment
Project
o
An application of this hierarchy might be:
Media = Air
Issue = Hazardous Air Pollutants
Planned Program Accomplishment =
Health Assessment Documents for
Coke Oven Emissions
Project = Exposure Assessment
The hierarchy for the accountability system un-
der the Issue Planning System is:
Research Issue
Sub-issue
Project Area
Project
Products
An application of this hierarchy is:
Issue = Indoor Air
Sub-issue = Source Characterization
Project Area = Source Research
Project = Indoor Source Management Options
Products = Source Emission Model Organic
Vapors
In all three instances resources were assigned to
the lowest level of the hierarchy once the operating
plan was in place. The hierarchy also enabled all
parties involved, including laboratory staff and cli-
ents, to track progress.
Initially, under the Research Committee plan-
ning process, ORD used the Program Management
System (PMS) to facilitate tracing of program mon-
ies. PMS was one of two major sub-systems of the
ORD Information System (ORDIS). The other
major sub-system was the Budget Tracking System
(BTS). Each system was designed to organize
budget data for different purposes: BTS financially,
and PMS programmatically. During the 1980's the
Agency established the Strategic Planning and Man-
agement System (SPMS) to track majorproducts for
all Agency AAships. The deliverables itemized for
SPMS were also added to PMS as Project Descrip-
tions. The combination of Research Committees,
PMS, and Deliverables continued through to 1989
along with the Congressional reporting requirement
of the "Research Outlook," an annual progress re-
port on Issues from the Research Committee chair-
man.
28
-------
Administrator Reilly de-emphasized deliverables,
and as a result, the SPMS was abandoned as a
Agency-wide management tool. ORD also de-
emphasized deliverables. However, PMS was still
used for internal management and the research com-
mittees continued functioning throughout this pe-
riod. They remained the primary means of commu-
nication with research clients and the process by
which resources and projects were tracked at
microlevels. Through the individual committee pro-
cess and interactions, ORD laboratories and pro-
gram offices continued planning and budgeting for
research at the working level.
During the Fall of 1990, ORD established a task
force to consider ways to improve communications
and accountability for ORD's research products and
activities. Several steps, utilizing the Research Com-
mittees, were suggested for implementation that
required the active support and commitment of staff
at all levels and from many parts of the Agency.
These recommendations were being implemented
when ORD moved to the Issue Planning Process;
and many of the Task Force's recommendations are
being incorporated into the redesign of the Research
Committee functions.
Under the Issue Planning System, there are two
major efforts underway to improve communications
and accountability of ORD's research program:
1.) Redesign of Research Committee functions.
2.) Consolidation of Allowance Holder.
Research Committees will be organized as be-
fore by media: air, water, toxics, and hazardous
waste. The specific objectives include:
• Translating the results of multi-media research
programs into media-oriented products for the
programs and regions.
• Tailoring the design and delivery of specific
products for the upcoming fiscal year to en-
hance the usefulness and effectiveness of re-
search results.
• Communicating regularly with the programs
and regions throughout the year to update
them on research progress and completed prod-
ucts.
• Encouraging discussion within program and
regional offices on their future research needs
to ensure that each office is prepared for meet-
ings of the Agency's Research Strategy Coun-
cil.
• Recommending approaches for allocating Con-
gressional or Administration budget reduc-
tions to minimize impacts on program and
regional priorities.
• Reporting to senior management on the rel-
evancy of the research issues to the needs of
the programs and regions.
By consolidating allowance holders, ORD will be
able to track all resources applied to research activi-
ties. As ORD executes the first year of Issue Plan-
ning, it will track and monitor resource, program,
and management information essential for opera-
tions and planning. An integrated database is under
development that will track resources from planning
through expenditure to produce the information
required for a single, open set of resource reports for
Issue Planning, contract management and acquisi-
tion strategies. Included in plans for the system
design are reports and tracking of financial informa-
tion, a budget module for the operating plan, a
planning module for the Issue Planning cycles, ac-
quisition management plans and expenditures, off-
budget plans, and research products planned and
accomplished.
References -
EPA Science Advisory Board, Future Risk:
Research Strategies for the 1990s, Sept 1988,
EPA Science Advisory Board, Reducing Risk:
Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmen-
tal Protection* Sept 1990,S AB-EC-90-021.
Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA,
Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science,
Credible Decisions, March 1992, EPA/600/9-91/
050.
29
-------
30
-------
Chapter 5
Extramural Program Strategy
ORD interacts extensively with the extramural
research community and is committed to expanding
and improving this interaction during the next few
years. It is well understood within the organization
that collaboration and cooperation among all inter-
ested research institutions is essential if answers are
to be found to the complex and intractable environ-
mental problems facing the world today. Tradition-
ally, this interaction has taken several forms, includ-
ing a competitive grants and centers program, per-
sonnel exchanges, interagency cooperation, spon-
sorship and active participation in conferences and
workshops, on- and off-site contractor support, and
laboratory-based cooperative agreements. This chap-
ter describes the philosophies, operation, size, and
organizational implications of these extramural pro-
grams.
As its responsibilities have evolved over the
years, ORD has had to rely more on support from
outside sources in its research efforts. Recognizing
the need to maintain an appropriate balance between
its intramural and extramural activities; ORD has
initiated several actions, including a policy review
of the management of ORD's extramural programs
and establishment of an executive-level position to
oversee acquisitions within the organization. These
actions are discussed more fully later in the chapter.
The following table shows the distribution of
ORD's extramural resources for FY'91, the most
recent year for which data are available. Fund totals
include resources received from other EPA pro-
grams.
Contracts
On-site $92,842,076
Off-site 86,705,803
Subtotal $179,547,879
Grants/Cooperative Agreements
On-site $ 11,572,897
Off-site 110,154,089
Subtotal
$121,726,986
Interagency Agreements
On-site $ 4,133,442
Off-site 18,373,988
Subtotal ,:, $22,507,430
Government Furnished
Equipment
Total
3,074,775
$326,857,070
Support to Academia
Since its inception, EPA has provided support to
the academic environmental research community
through research grants andfellowships. Originally,
all assistance awards to universities for research
were managed by the ORD laboratories. In 1979, in
response to Congressional urging, responsibilities
for the award and management of research assis-
tance agreements were split between ORD laborato-
ries and a newly formed office whose mission was to
provide long-term support to exploratory, anticipa-
tory, and basic academic research on environmental
31
-------
issues.
Office of Exploratory Research
In 1977, Congress formally expressed interest in
dedicating a portion of EPA's research and develop-
ment funds to support what has been variously
termed long range, anticipatory, exploratory, funda-
mental, and basic research. Congress was concerned
that with the continued pressure placed on ORD's
laboratories to use their resources in support of
projects with immediate applicability to the solution
of current regulatory problems, there may be insuf-
ficient motivation within the laboratories to protect
resources for either long-term studies of intractable
environmental problems or exploratory research
into fundamental concepts such as the thermody-
namics of environmental or biological processes or
physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms in-
volved in the formation, transport, or fate of pollut-
ants. The Senate Report accompanying ORD's au-
thorization act for that year stated that:
"...To assure a comprehensive anticipa-
tory perspective, this bill would authorize
$10 million and additionally would ear-
mark 15 percent of all program-related
research and development funds for long-
range research by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency..."
In 1978, Congress expressed its desires in stron-
ger terms, first by including its concerns in the
authorization act itself and, second, by making es-
tablishment of a new program mandatory.
"The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall establish a sepa-
rately identified program to conduct con-
tinuing and long-term environmental re-
search and development. Unless other-
wise specified by law, at least 15 percent of
any funds appropriated to the Administra-
tor for environmental research functions
created by subsection (a) of this section.
[sic]"
EPA was slow to respond to this requirement so
in the House Report accompanying the 1979 autho-
rization act, the following language appeared:
"Public Law 95-155 directed the Agency
to establish a separately identified pro-
gram of long-range research, and specified
that at least 15 percent of the program-
related research funds support long-range
research. The Committee notes that such a
program has not been identified. The
Agency is requested to promptly identify
the 15 percent that is to be in the long-term
program and explain how it intends to
manage this program."
As a result of these requests, the Office of
Exploratory Research (OER) was created in 1979.
OER was established as an entity separate from.the
discipline-oriented ORD offices which support in-
house laboratories, in order to protect long-term,
innovative, and basic research. It was also charged
with the responsibility for supporting only research
grants that were selected through a competitive peer
review process. With the establishment of OER,
authority for the award of research grants became
limited to that office. ORD's laboratories, which
were still encouraged to support academic research,
were henceforth precluded from authority to award
grants and were limited to the award and manage-
ment of cooperative agreements and contracts which
are directly relevant to the mission of the laboratory.
There are two primary components to OER's
research program, the competitive grants program
and the environmental research centers program.
The primary duties of the staff are to solicit for grant
and center applications, conduct extramural peer
reviews of applications, serve as project officers on
all grants and centers, and prepare and disseminate
annual reports, bibliographies, and related informa-
tion.
Although not designed with this notion in mind,
the competitive grants and centers programs provide
an effective and positive link between EPA and the
extramural research community, as well as with
potential users of research. This linkage is accom-
plished both through representation on peer review
panels and membership on center advisory commit-
tees. To be eligible to serve either as a peer reviewer
32
-------
or advisory committee member, an individual must
be well-known and respected in his or her technical
field, and may be affiliated with an academic insti-
tution, industry, public interest group, private re-
search or consulting organization, or state, local, or
federal agency. Through these affiliations, research-
ers become familiar with EPA's needs and interests,
meet EPA employees who have compatible techni-
cal interests, apprise EPA of activities or opportuni-
ties of interest, and serve as informal conduits to
advertise EPA-sponsored activities.
Competitive Research Grants
The competitive investigator-initiated research
grants program emphasizes research proposals that
are innovative in approach and more basic in orien-
tation than the Agency's regulatory support research
efforts. Each year, a solicitation for applications is
issued by OER and notices of grant availability are
published in the Federal Register, Science, and
selected trade publications. The solicitation is auto-
matically mailed by ORD's Center for Environmen-
tal Research Information to approximately 4,500
university departments across the country. During
the course of the year, OER sends out roughly an
additional 12,000 copies of the solicitation.
Periodically, the Agency elects to target certain
areas of research that may represent emerging en-
vironmental issues or might require considerable
study before decisions can be made. In these cases,
OER will issue a Request for Applications (RFA)
that specifies the kind of research that will be funded.
Examples of recent and pending RFA topic areas
include: (1) effects of ultraviolet-A and ultraviolet-
B radiation on human health and the environment,
(2) in situ bioremediation techniques, and (3) eco-
logical response indicators.
Under the general solicitation, research has tra-
ditionally been supported in five areas: health, envi-
ronmental biology, air chemistry and physics, water
and soil chemistry and physics, and environmental
engineering. Beginning in FY*91, a new area, socio-
economics, was added. Health research was elimi-
nated as a general solicitation area in FY'92, al-
though health-related topics may continue to be
funded periodically under RFAs.
OER employs a peer panel system of review.
Until 1993, reviews were conducted using panels
convened by one of six review panel chairmen
selected by EPA (corresponding to the six topical
areas of research such as environmental biology,
socio-ecpnomics, etc.). A panel chairman served for
three years, during which time he was not eligible to
receive any EPA resources other than his remunera-
tion for selecting reviewers and conducting review
meetings. All reviewers were chosen by the panel
chairmen to serve on ad hoc panels, based on the
reputations of the individuals and the skills mix
required to provide sound review of the applications
received.
Beginning in 1993, OER will conduct all of its
peer reviews under contract arrangements. The con-
tractors will have sole responsibility for recruiting
panel chairmen and other reviewers, setting dates
for meetings, making all logistical arrangements,
providing secretarial and other clerical support, and
preparing summaries of the panel's findings.
Typically, grants funded under the exploratory
grams program do not exceed three years, with an
average duration of just over two years. Funding
levels range from approximately $40,000 to $250,000
annually, with average annual awards equalling
approximately $100,000. After subtracting the rc-
. sources needed to fund the second and third years of
: ongoing awards, OER generally has about $8 mil-
lion each year to make available for new projects.
During the first four years of the program, approxi-
mately 100 new grants were awarded annually
through OER's Research and Development appro-
priation. Between 1984 and the present, the number
of new grants each year has ranged from a low of
only four in 1988 to over 150 in 1990. Over the
lifetime of the program, the average number of new
grants awarded per year is 70.
Each year, the grants program publishes a book
of abstracts and a bibliography. Beginning in 1993,
the abstracts will be keyworded and both abstracts
33
-------
and bibliographies will be available electronically
through the Exploratory Research Management In-
formation System (ERMIS), maintained by OER.
Exploratory Environmental Research
Centers Program
The Exploratory Environmental Research Cen-
ters (ERC) Program is one of two competitive re-
search centers programs administered by OER. The
purpose of the program is to provide stable, long-
term support to research in key environmental areas
in which there is a lack of understanding about basic
mechanisms of action or for which serious technical
obstacles persist in thwarting efforts at prevention or
mitigation. The ERC program was initiated in 1979,
as a result of negotiations within the Agency and
between EPA and Congress. After consulting with
Congress, EPA selected eight research themes and
established university-based centers in those areas.
Most of these centers were chosen competitively.
The eight original centers and their topic areas were:
1.) The University of California at Los Angeles —
intermedia transport of pollutants.
2.) Cornell University — ecosystem research.
3.) The University of Illinois — advanced environ-
mental control technology.
4.) Illinois Institute of Technology — industrial
waste elimination.
5.) Louisiana State University — hazardous waste
research.
6.) The University of Pittsburgh — environmental
epidemiology.
7.) The University of Rhode Island—marine ecol-
ogy.
8.) Rice University (lead), The University of Okla-
homa, Oklahoma State University — ground water
research.
These centers were phased in over a two-year
period beginning in 1979. Each center received
annual base funding of approximately $540,000
from EPA that they were required to match with at
least a 5% contribution from non-federal sources.
Some centers also received periodic supplemental
funding from EPA laboratories. All of these centers
were phased out between July 1990 and January
1993.
Based on lessons learned from the first iteration
of the centers program, as well as information gath-
ered during an exhaustive review of other federally
sponsored research center programs, OER over-
hauled the ERC program in 1990. The most signifi-
cant changes are itemized below:
• Annual base funding increased to $ 1.0 million
percenter.
• Matching requirement raised to 20% of total
center resources.
• EPA does not pre-determine research topic
areas.
• All centers chosen competitively.
• Both administrative management and project
officer responsibilities reside within OER.
• Increased emphasis on the importance of the
center's external Science Advisory Commit-
tee.
• Coordination and dissemination functions of
center emphasized.
Four new centers were established in 1992,
following a rigorous peer review process. The four
hew centers are:
1.) Center for Airborne Organic* — concentrating
on the sources, atmospheric transformation, fate,
and control of airborne organic pollutants
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (lead)
• California Institute of Technology
• New Jersey Institute of Technology
2.) Multiscale Experimental Ecosystem Research
Center — linking mathematical modeling and ex-
perimental approaches to identify and solve the
problems of scale-dependent ecosystem responses
to environmental perturbation
• University of Maryland.
3.) Center for Clean Industrial and Treatment Tech-
34
-------
nologies—focusing on pollution prevention through
identification of alternatives, balanced assessment,
and targeted research and development
• Michigan Technological University (lead).
• University of Wisconsin.
• University of Minnesota.
4.) Center for Ecological Health Research — ana-
lyzing ecosystems under multiple stresses from toxic
compounds and other anthropogenic influences
• University of California at Davis.
Recipients are strongly encouraged to use their
base EPA funds as seed money to attract other
contributors to the centers. Each center must estab-
lish a Science Advisory Committee (SAC) compris-
ing a well-balanced mix of relevant technical disci-
plines, with members coming from the public and
private sectors, academia, industry, and environ-
mental groups, as appropriate. The EPA project
officer is an active, but non-voting member of the
SAC. The SAC meets at least twice annually and is
charged with overseeing the technical direction and
quality of all research supported by the center.
An annual report is published by OER which
includes general information about the structure,
mission, and direction of each center, key personnel,
identities of advisory committee members, abstracts
and status reports on all active projects, statistics on
the number and kind of students involved in the--
center, and bibliographies. Beginning in 1993; the
project abstracts and bibliographies will also" be
keyworded and indexed and will be available on
ERMIS. ""•"- " r"
-i •
The peer review process for establishing centers
begins in a similar fashion to that of the grants
program. However, the centers selection process
also requires that finalists be site visited. No new
solicitations for centers are planned in the immedi-
ate future.
Hazardous Substance Research Centers
Program
The second centers program administered by
OER is the Hazardous Substance Research Centers
(HSRC) Program, which was sanctioned by Con-
gress in the 1986 re-authorization of Superfund.
Five million dollars were provided in the 1988
Appropriation Act for EPA to establish fiveHSRCs,
provided that they be competitively awarded, uni-
versity based, and equitably distributed around the
country. These centers perform basic and applied
research oh hazardous substance-related problems
that are of significance in the geographic area in
which the centers are located but which also have
national importance. The research conducted by the
five centers includes combustion, stabilization,
bioremediation, and transport and remediation of
contaminants in sediments, soils, and ground water.
The centers are also charged with maintaining an
active technology transfer program.
These centers were established through a peer
review process similar to the one previously de-
scribed for the ERCs and have identical funding
requirements except that the HSRCs are obligated to
devote 10-20% of their resources to technology
training activities. Each center maintains an active
Science AdvisoTyComminee as well as a similarly
involved Training and Technology Transfer Advi-
sory Committee. Reporting requirements are the
same as for the ERC program.
The five centers and their primary areas of
specialization are:
1.) Northeast Hazardous Substance Research Cen-
ter — focusing on thermaL.treatment and. in situ
treatment technologies.
,_„ • New Jersey Institute of Technology (lead).
"••** Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Princeton University.
• Rutgers University.
• Stevens Institute of Technology.
• Tufts University.
• University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey.
2.) Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic Hazardous Sub-
stance Research Center—bioremediation and sup-
portive engineered systems.
• The University of Michigan Qead).
35
-------
• Howard University.
• Michigan State University.
3.) South and Southwest Hazardous Substance Re-
search Center—contaminated sediments research.
• Louisiana State University (lead).
• Georgia Institute of Technology.
• Rice University.
4.) Great Plains/Rocky Mountains Hazardous Sub-
stance Research Center — contamination of soils,
especially by organic residues, metals, and mixed
wastes.
• Kansas State University (lead).
• Montana State University.
• University of Iowa.
• University of Missouri.
• University of Montana.
• University of Nebraska.
• University of Utah.
5.) Western Region Hazardous Substance Research
Center—ground-water cleanup and site remediation,
with emphasis on biological systems.
• Stanford University (lead).
• Oregon State University.
ORD Laboratory Programs
As mentioned above, ORD laboratories have
been providing support to the extramural environ-
mental research community since the establishment
of the Agency in 1970. For the last decade, this
support has been largely in the form of on-site
contracts for program support activities and coop-
erative agreements to nearby universities. Over time,
each laboratory evolved its own policies and proce-
dures regarding the use of cooperative agreements
within the general legal framework provided by the
EPA Assistance Regulations.
In March 1992, the Assistant Administrator for
ORD announced a new policy regarding ORD's
extramural resources. Effective the beginning of the
1993 fiscal year, all ORD laboratories established
goals to reduce their reliance on level-of-effort con-
tracts, particularly those that provide direct support
to the in-house research programs, by approximately
35%. These resources were to be reallocated to
competitively awarded off-site cooperative agree-
ments or competitive contracts.
To ensure that all of the 12 laboratories employ
the same procedures for competing cooperative
agreements and that these procedures accomplish
the goals of promoting fair and open competition
among all eligible institutions, an ORD-wide policy
was issued on October 1,1992. This policy places
particular emphasis on the competitive award of
research cooperative agreements.
Near-Site Institutional Cooperation
Another activity which was addressed by the
October 1, 1992, interim guidance is institutional
cooperation between ORD laboratories and univer-
sities located nearby. All of ORD's laboratories are
located in close proximity to institutions of higher
education. In some cases the rationale for siting the
laboratories where they are included the benefits
that could be derived from collaboration and coop-
eration with these neighboring institutions.
Several such relationships have existed for years
in ORD. One illustration of near-site cooperation
involves the University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill (UNC) and the Clinical Studies Branch of
ORD's Health Effects Research Laboratory in Re-
search Triangle Park, NC. Many years ago, when it
was determined that ORD should build expertise in
human clinical studies, particularly on criteria air
pollutants, an arrangement was made between EPA
and UNC to locate the facility on the campus of the
university near the medical school. This was a ben-
eficial arrangement for all concerned. First, the
facility could not easily have been accommodated
within the limited space available in EPA's com-
pound. Second, for safety reasons, it was prudent to
have the inhalation facility located near the medical
center in case of emergency. Third, being located on
the campus made it easier to recruit young, healthy
volunteers to participate in the controlled experi-
ments needed by the Agency. Fourth, with its loca-
tion proximal to the medical school, it was easy for
UNC researchers and EPA scientists to develop
collaborative projects or to establish chains of inde-
36
-------
pendent projects that built upon each other's work.
Other illustrations of such successful partnerships
with nearby institutions exist.
With any such close relationship, however, it is
necessary to guard against abuses by either party and
to provide adequate and continuing project over-
sight. It is these aspects of institutional cooperation
that are addressed in the interim guidance document
To ensure that ORD undertakes and continues only
those long-term cooperative ventures that prove
mutually beneficial and that represent advantageous
uses of federal funds, the interim guidance estab-
lishes headquarters oversight of the establishment
and maintenance of these relationships.
Support from Contractors
In its 1990 and 1991 reports required by the
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, ORD
identified contract management as a major weak-
ness and the Assistant Administrator began investi-
gating options for improving ORD's contract man-
agement policies. In October 1991, the Assistant
Administrator appointed an ORD Acquisition Ex-
ecutive charged with developing a comprehensive
Acquisition Management Improvement Initiative.
The initiative addresses the contract management
practices of each ORD laboratory and identifies
areas for improvement, including staff development
needs.
Federal Interagency Arrangements »»
ORD has numerous formal cooperative relation-
ships with other federal agencies, ranging from
general policy agreements to individual projects that
transfer human, financial, or technical resources
between agencies. As with MOU's between EPA
and non-federal agencies, federal MOU's are de-
signed to articulate the level and kind of cooperation
intended between the partners and to lay out any
ground rules for cooperation and resource exchanges.
They are not, themselves, vehicles for such ex-
changes and if resource exchanges are desired, the
agencies must put an Interagency Agreement (LAG)
in place. One illustration of an influential MOU
exists between EPA and the Department of Energy,
as a result of a mutual desire to share research and
technological information and enhance collabora-
tion. Several LAGs have resulted from the MOU
with DOE. Other lAGs have different purposes. As
mentioned earlier, EPA participates in personnel
exchanges with both DOE and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration through IAG ar-
rangements.
ORD also,enjoys numerous informal relation-
ships with other federal agencies. For example, the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office
of Exploratory Research (OER) regularly share in-
formation about grants awarded, changes in review
procedures, and evaluation criteria. Representatives
from these organizations are commonly invited to
sit in on site evaluations and peer review sessions.
Similar, though less extensive relationship alsoexist
between OER and the Department of Defense (DOD)
and the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS).
_. ORD habitually consults with technical experts
at other agencies, such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the National Air and
"Space AdmlnistraTion, and others. In addition, nu-
-rtiercmsfufhoa task groups have been formed over
the years involving individuals from several federal
agencies to assist ORD in refining, articulating, and
accomplishing jt££oals. Similarly, ORD personnel
are often called upon to serve on such committees to
assist other agencies.
References: *,-'•-
••«•-•. .
Office of Research and Development, "Summary
Analysis of Financial Activity FY 1989-1991"
37
-------
38
-------
Chapter 6
Management of Major Cross-Cutting Programs
The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) was established within the Office
of Research and Development in response to a 1988
Science Advisory Board recommendation that the
Agency initiate a program to monitor ecological
status and trends and to identify, through scientific
analysis, problems that pose the greatest environ-
mental risk. The program has four strategic objec-
tives:
1.) Estimate the current status, trends, and changes
in selected indicators of the condition of the nation's
ecological resources, on a regional basis, with a
known confidence.
2.) Estimate the geographic coverage and extent of
the nation's ecological resources with known confi-
dence.
3.) Seek associations between selected indicators of
natural and anthropogenic stresses and indicators of
the condition of ecological resources.
4.) Provide annual statistical summaries and peri-
odic assessments of the nation'secological resources.
EMAP takes a holistic perspective of the envi-
ronment to address basic questions about ecological
conditions. This represents a major technical and
administrative transformation in environmental pro-
tection by recognizing the importance of long-term
monitoring to detect trends, observe chronic disor-
ders, and examine subtle responses to both stress and
mitigation. EMAP takes a multiple resource ap-
proach because species and ecological resources do
not act in isolation; rather they interact with one
another through complex associations. The EMAP
approach provides an integrated perspective, incor-
porating air and deposition monitoring and land-
scape characterization with resource monitoring, to
derive integrated assessments of resource condition
across all regions of the nation.
The breadth of the program requires substantial
internal Agency coordination. EMAP is a compo-
nent of the Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems
and Quality Assurance, and receives support .from
the Office of Environmental Processes and Effects
Research; eight laboratories from these offices are
involved in the implementation of the EMAP moni-
toring efforts.
EMAP is progressing through all stages of sam-
pling design, resource mapping, indicator develop-
ment, building interagency coordination, and em-
barking on field pilots and demonstration projects to
test monitoring and analysis methodologies. These
activities are organized by the eight major ecosys-
tem resource groups, with implementation sched-
ules determined for each group by available EPA
resources, commitments with cooperating institu-
tions, and the ability to integrate the results with
other EMAP activities. The eight ecological re-
sources being assessed are:
1.) Near-Coastal Waters.
2.) Great Lakes.
3.) Inland Surface Waters.
4.) Wetlands.
5.) Forests.
6.) Arid Ecosystems.
7.) Agroecosystems.
8.) Integrated Landscapes.
39
-------
EMAP is truly an interagency program, includ-
ing the nation's best scientists from the federal
government, states, and the academic community.
Presently the program has the participation of 12
federal agencies, 35 states, and 40 universities. The
active participation of personnel from other ecologi-
cal research and monitoring programs provides a
critical mass of expertise. Additionally, the close
interaction among programs minimizes duplication
of effort. The major interagency activities include:
• Department of Agriculture, Forest Service —
EMAP efforts in forests and arid ecosystems.
• Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service —coordination with terrestrial moni-
toring and soil indicators research.
• Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration — EMAP
efforts in Great Lakes and near coastal waters.
• Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management—monitoring activities and gov-
ernment-wide coordination.
• Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service — wetlands monitoring, landscape
characterization, and wildlife indicator devel-
opment.
• Department of the Interior, Geological Survey
— landscape characterization, inland surface
waters.
Global Climate Change Program
Global climate change is such an encompassing
program that no agency or country can solve the
problem alone. ORD is working closely with other
federal agencies as pan of the National Program for
U.S. Global Change Research (USGCRP). The U.S.
research program is the largest one in the world
directed at the problem. The budget for FY'93 is $ 1.4
billion.
The central goal of the USGCRP is "to establish
the scientific basis to support national and interna-
tional policy making on natural and human-induced
changes in the global Earth system". The USGCRP
was established by a Presidential initiative in FY
1990 and became a National Program in 1992. An
important feature of being a Presidential Initiative
and a National Program is the development of an
interagency coordinated budget for submission to
the Office of Management and Budget
The international and national management
occurs through the following organizations:
• Office of Science, Technology, and Policy in
the White House.
• Federal Coordination Committee for Science,
Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET). The
EPA Administrator is a member.
• FCCSET's Committee for Earth and Environ-
mental Sciences (CEES). The EPA Assistant
Administrator for ORD is a member.
The USGCRP was developed by the CEES, in
cooperation with the U.S. and international scien-
tific communities, through the National Academy of
Sciences, and is linked internationally to other gov-
ernment agencies, to the relevant intergovemment
organizations of the United Nations, and to other
governmental and non-government organizations.
Subcommittee for Global Change Research
(SCGR) coordinates the research program. The ORD
Director of the Office of Environmental Processes
and Effects Research (OEPER) is a member.
Interagency program direction, monitoring, and re-
porting occurs through four work groups:
- Measurements and Monitoring Work Group
- Processes Work Group
- Modeling Work Group
- Assessment Work Group
Three OEPER science managers represent ORD
on these four work groups.
The ORD Global Change Research Program
(GCRP) is managed in headquarters by Dr. Courtney
Riordan, who is the Director of OEPER. This pro-
gram has aFY^S budget of $26 million, which is 2%
of the budget of the National Program. In headquar-
40
-------
ters, Dr. Riordan has a staff director and three senior
science managers to assist him in program manage-
ment The ORD program is not a stand-alone pro-
gram; rather it is components of the federally coor-
dinated program. However, ORD'sprogramis within
its areas of expertise and closely focused on the
assessment activities of the Intergovernmental Panel
for Climate Change (IPCC), especially the Second
Assessment Report of 1995 and subsequent bian-*
nual assessments.
Laboratory participation in program planning
and budgeting is obtained through an informal ma-
trix management group of five 'Technical Direc-
tors" who are responsible for the interlaboratory
projects. These projects consist of multiple tasks,
which are implemented through the various labora-
tory directors, with their oversight for attaining
project goals, budget, quality assurance, and timeli-
ness of results. The projects and tasks are assigned
among ORD's laboratories in accordance with their
missions and capabilities. The specific projects and
assignments are:
• Anthropogenic methane/RTTG emissions re-
search.
Assigned to AEERL, whose mission in-
cludes emissions research and inventories.
• Tropospheric chemistry; Stratospheric ozone
depleting chemicals and chemical effects.
Assigned to AREAL, whose mission in-
cludes atmospheric chemistry and modeling;
AEERL is also involved in related emissions
components.
• Assessment of Biospheric Carbon Pools and
Fluxes; Climate-Induced Biospheric Feed-
backs.
Assigned to ERL-Athens, ERL-Corvallis,
and ERL-Gulf Breeze whose missions include
the dynamics of soils, forest/agro, and marine
systems, respectively.
• Monitoring of forest conversion and biomass
burning.
Assigned to ERL-Corvallis and EMSL-Las
Vegas, whose missions include dynamics of
forest/agro-systems and analysis of space im-
agery. OEPER Headquarters also contributes
through interagency agreement with NASA.
• Earth system modeling analysis research.
Assigned to ERL-Athens, whose mission
: includes ecological dynamics. Includes par-
ticipation of AREAL (atmospheric sciences)
and ERL-Corvallis (forest dynamics).
• North American landscape characterization.
Assigned to EMSL-LV, whose mission in-
cludes the analysis of space imagery.
• Effects of global changes on rice system yields.
Assigned to ERL-Corvallis, whose mission
includes agro-ecological dynamics.
• Micro- to macro-scale ecosystem responses to
climate change.
Assigned to ERL-Corvallis, ERL-Duluth,
and ERL-Narragansett, whose missions in-
clude vegetative, freshwater, and marine eco-
system dynamics, respectively.
• UV-B monitoring for human exposure.
Assigned to AREAL, whose mission in-
''''"'' eludes atmospheric meteorology andchemistry.
,,,...• Early signal detection of global climate change.
This initiative is presently being formulated.
The GCRP is organized to be strongly respon-
sive to national and international global climate
change assessment needs. Chief among these in the
immediate future is to play a major role in develop-
ing the biospheric portion of the Second Assessment
Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). The IPCC in developing its First
Assessment Report for the negotiations leading to
the Framework Convention on Climate Change
(FCCQ signed at the Rio UNCED meeting by over
ISO countries, was instrumental in helping to find a
41
-------
consensus to start serious international consider-
ation of climate change. The IPCC Second Assess-
ment Report will play a major role in framing the
negotiations among the signatory parties of the
FCCC to develop concrete steps to combat global
climate change. Preparing this second assessment
report will be more challenging than the first be-
cause it is necessary to include within the second
report a detailed understanding of biospheric effects
to climate change and the feedbacks of the biosphere
to the physical climate system. The GCRP will be
contributing substantially to this process.
References
Our Changing Planet: The FY-1994-1998 Bud-
get Recommendation. The U.S. Global Change Re-
search Program (CEES, September, 1992).
U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program:
Strategic Plan (August, 1992).
U.S. EPA Global Change and Stratospheric
Ozone Research Programs: 1991 Annual Report
(July, 1992).
42
-------
Appendix A
Organizational Changes in the Research Program
(1970-1992)
•
1970 - As EPA was established, research was administered by a Deputy Assistant Administrator
(DAA) for Research and Environmental Assessment and a DAA for Monitoring.
1971 - On August 17, 1971, the EPA Administrator established the first Assistant Administrator for
Research and Monitoring (ORM) by consolidating the two DAA-ships.and adding the research
and monitoring functions from the Air, Water and Media Programs (Figure A-l).
1972 - By December 1972, headquarters staff at the division level was reorganized and renamed. A
system of four National Environmental Research Centers (NERCs) was created to coordinate
activities between the AA, ORM and the individual laboratories and field stations assigned to
the Office (Figure A-2).
1973 - Another headquarters reorganization brought about a name change for the Office, from Re-
search and Monitoring to Office of Research and Development (ORD). Additionally, the
Washington Environmental Research (WERC) was created to better distinguish the planning,
management, development and coordination functions of headquarters from operation of the
laboratories. The Agency's Science Advisory Board, was, created and assigned to QRD in the
AA's Office. The DAA-ship for Research was divided to create two new offices, Environmen-
tal Engineering (including a Technology Transfer Staff) and Environmental Sciences (Figure
A-3).
1975 - A reorganization was approved in April 1975 to clarify lines of responsibility between head-
quarters and the laboratories. The "NERC and The WERC were abolished so that labs reported
directly to specific DAAs to improve responsiveness of the organization to environmental
problems and program office needs. The four DAA-ships with programmatic responsibility
were renamed to better reflect the environmental issues they addressed. A Regional Services
Staff (RSS) was created to coordinate research needs of the regions (Figure A-4).
Later in 1975, an additional change was made when the Office of Technology Transfer was
moved out of Washington to Cincinnati (the group was later renamed the Center for Environ-
mental Research Information, CERI) and assigned to the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory. In 1977, several changes took place: the Carcinogen Assessment Group was
established in the Immediate Office of the Assistant Administrator (IOAA), all budget prepara-
tion and management functions were consolidated in the Office of Financial and Administrative
A-l
-------
Services (OFAS), and the Office of Planning and Review (OPR) was created to unite all policy
and planning activities.
1978 - OFAS and OPR were combined to form the Office of Research Program Management
(ORPM). The Office of Health and Environmental Assessment (OHEA) was established to
centralize responsibility for the Agency's health and ecological risk assessment
1979 - A realignment of headquarters offices was initiated by the AA to group the labs and offices by
scientific discipline and to split health from ecological effects, thus, improving organizational
functioning and reducing a media and problem focus. The Office of Energy Minerals and
Industry became Environmental Engineering and Technology; Air, Land and Water Use be-
came Environmental Processes and Effects; and Health and Ecological Effects became the
Office of Health Research. The DAAs for line offices were later retitled Office Directors
(ODs). The Office of Exploratory Research (OER) was created to assume responsibility for the
planning and implementation of long-term research (Figure A-5).
1985 - The Administrator created the Risk Assessment Forum and located the function in the OHEA.
A regulatory support staff became pan of the IOAA. This group was later renamed the Office
of Regulatory Support and Scientific Analysis (ORSSA). In 1988, ORSSA, RSS, and CERI
were included in the new Office for Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support (OTTRS). In
1988 and 1989, the Support Services Offices in Cincinnati and Research Triangle Park were
reorganized to create offices for a Senior ORD Official (OSORDO) at each site, which reported
to the IOAA in Washington.
1991 - The Risk Assessment Forum was moved out of OHEA and made part of IOAA to increase its
visibility within EPA. July 1992 saw the creation of the Ecological Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program (EMAP) as a organizational entity, which became part of the Office of Model-
ing, Monitoring Systems and Quality Assurance.
1992 - The current ORD organization is shown in Figure A-6. A chronology of key ORD events is
listed in Table A-l, followed by a graphical summary of ORD total resources and personnel
(1971 through 1992) in Figure A- 7. Table A- 2 provides a list of ORD total resources and
personnel.
A-2
-------
Office of Research
1 1
Environmental
Processes and
Effect*
Division
1
Special ,
Programs
Division
Environmental
Protection
Techniques
Division
Environmental
Protection
Implementation
Division
Office of Monitoring
1 1
Monitoring
Coordination
Division
Monitoring
Support
Division
1 1
Monitoring
Techniques
Division „„.
Monitoring
Analysis
Division
Office of Program
Operations
1 1
Research
Programming
Division
1
Research
Information
Division
Programs
Coordination
Division
1
Laboratory
Operations
Division
Environmental
Study
Center
Laboratories
Figure A-1. Immediate staff of assistant administrator for Research and Monitoring (8/7/71).
Assistant Administrator
for
Resesrch and Monitoring
Assistant for Health Effects
Assistant for Technology Transfer
Executive Assistant
Deputy Assistant
Administrator
for Research
Process and
Effects
Division
Implementation
Research
Division
•-{Special Project
Technology
Division
Environmental
Studies
Division
Deputy Assistant
Administrator
for Monitoring
• Staff
Planning and
Review
Divieton
1
Quality
Assurance
Division
Advance
Techniques
Division
• -
.-?
..-v.
Deputy Assistant
Administrator
for Program Operations
. • Program
Management
Division
•:
Research
-.. Information
Division -
Laboratory
Operations
Division
Extramural
Programs
Division
National Environmental Research Centers
Research Triangle Park
CorvalUa
OndnnaM
Las Vegas
| Field Laboratories]
Figure A-2. Organization chart for Office of Research and Monitoring (12/7/72).
A-3
-------
Assistant Administrator
for
Research and Development
Deputy Assistant
Administrator
for Program
Integration
1
Municipal Pollution
Control Division
Deputy Assistant
Administrator for
Environmental
Engineering
Technology
Transfer
Staff
1
—
Industrial Pollution
Control Division
Non-Point Pollution
Control Division
Air Pollution
Control Division
OfflM of Principal
Science Ad visor
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Environmental Science*
Special Assistant
for Water
Supply Raaearch
1
Deputy Assistant
Administrator
Planning and
Review Staff
Health
Effects
Division .
Ecological
and Effects
Division
J.
Quality
Assurance
Division
Washington
Environmental Research
Center
Equipment
and
Techniques
National Environmental Research Centers
Cincinnati Las Vegas
Corvallls Research Triangle Park
I Associated Laboratories
Figure A- 3. Immediate staff of assistant administrator for Research and Development (1973).
A-4
-------
Office of Pfenning
andRsvlsw
Office of Flnanclsl
snd Administrative
Services
Assistant Administrator
far
Research snd Dovelopfnont
Assoeists Assistant
Administrator
Office of the
Advisor
Office of SpseJal
Projects
Offlcs of Monitoring snd
Tschnlesl Support
Regional Services Stsff
Headquartara Tsehnleal
Division:
Monitoring Tsehnology
Tsehnleal Support
Tsehnleal Information
Laboratories:
Environmental Monitoring
snd Support,.RTP
Environments! Monitoring
snd Support,
Cincinnati
Environments! Monitoring
and Support,
Las Vegas
Office of Energy, Minerals,
snd Industry
Headquarter* Technical
Division:
Energy Processes
Industrial snd Extractive
Laboratories:
Industrial Environmental
Research, RTP
Industrial Environmental
Research, Clndnnstl
Office of Air, Land, and Water
Headquarters Tsehnleal
Division:
Media Quality
; Management - >
Waste Management
Agriculture andtfen- .
Point Sources
Management
Laboratories: :.
Munldpal Environmental
Research, Cincinnati
Environmental Sciences
Research, RTP
Environmental
Resesreh, Athens
Robert S.Kerr
Environments!
Research, Ada
Office of Health ana
Ecologies! Effects
•leadquarters Technical
Division:
Heslth Effects
Ecological Effects
Criteria Development
^ and Seedai Studies
Laboratories:
Heslth Effects Resesreh,
RTP
Heslth Effects Research,
Clndnnstl
Environmental Research,
CorvalUs
Environmental Research,
Duluth
Environments! Research,
Narrsgansett
Environmental Research,
Gulf Breeze
Figure A-4. Orgsnlzstion chsrt for Office of Resesreh and Development (4/24/75).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Assistant Administrator for Research end Development
Associate Assistant Administrator
Office of Research
Program
Management
Office of Monitoring
and Technical
Support
Office of
Environmental
Engineering and
Technology
Office of the
Principal Science
Advslsor
Office of
Environmental
Process and Effects
Research
Office of Health
Research
Office of Health snd
,... Environmental
Assessment
Office of
Exploratory
Resesreh
Operations Office |
Technical
Information Office
Figure A-5. Organization chart for Office of Research and Development (1979).
A-5
-------
Office of Research
Program Management
Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development
Office of (Modeling.
Monitoring Systems
and
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance
Management Staff
Program
Operations
Staff
Modeling and
Monitoring
Systems Staff
Environmental
Monitoring and
Assessment
Program
Headquarters
Field
Office of Environmental
Engineering and Technology
Demonstration
Program
Development
Staff
Proprsrn
Management Staff
Office of Technology
Transfer & Regulatory
Support
Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects
Research
Program
Opera torts
Stan
Terrestrial and
Ground Water
Effects Staff
Marine.
Freshwater and
Modeling Staff
Office of Health
Research
Office of Health and
Environmental
Assessment
Program
Operations
Staff
Program Liaison
Staff
Technical
Information
Staff
Atmospheric
Research and
Exposure
Assessment Lab,
RTP. NC
Environmental
Monitoring
Systems
Lab
Las Vegas. NV
Environmental
Monitoring
Systems
Lab
Cincinnati, OH
Air and Energy
Engineering
Research
Lab
RTP, NC
Risk Reduction
Engineering Lab
Cincinnati, OH
Environmental
Research
Lab
Corvaflis.OR
Environmental
Research
Lab
Afcens.GA
R.S. Ken-
Environ mental
Research Lab
Ada. OK
Office of Senior
ORD Official
RTP.NC
Office of Senior
ORD Official
Cincinnati, OH
Environmental
Lab
DuMh, MN
Environmental
Research
Lab
Narragansett. Rl
Environmental
Research
Lab
Gulf Breeze, FL
Figure A- 6. Organization chart for Office of Research and Development (1992).
Exposure
Assessment
Group
Washington. DC
Human Health
Assessment
Group
Washington. DC
Environmental
Criteria
A Assessment
Office
RTP.NC
Environmental
Criteria
a Assessment
Office
Cincinnati, OH
Center for
Environmental
Research
Information
Cincinnati, OH
A-6
-------
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Event
EPA created
AA for Research and
Monitoring Created
First HQ. reorganization;
NERCs created
ORM became ORD;
WERC created; SAB created;
DAAs for Engineering
and Env. Sciences Created
WERC Reorganized
NERC A WERC abolished;
labs assigned to DAAs;
DAAs Ofcs. renamed;
Ofc. of Tech Transfer
moved to Cincinnati
-
CAG established;
Culver Committee Report
ORPM created;
Research Committees
created; OHEA created
OER created;
Hq. DAAs realigned
and renamed:
DAAs named primary
planning officials
-
-
-
OADEMQA created
Regulatory Support Staff
(ORSSA) began functioning
inlOAA
RAF created
-
AA for RAD
Stanley Greenfield
Stanley Greenfield
Stanley Greenfield
Albert Trakowtld
(Acting)
Wilson Talley
Wilson Talley
Wilson Talley
Wilson Talley
Stephen Gsge (Aaing)
Stephen Gage
Stephen Gage
Stephen Gage
Richard Dowd (Acting)
Andrew Jovmowka (Acting)
Courtney Riordan (Acting)
Courtney Riordan
(Acting)
Courtney Riordan
(Acting)
Bernard Goldstein
Bernard Goldstein
Bernard Goldstein
Donald Enroll (Acting)
Donald Ehreth (Acting)
VaunNewifl
Vaun Newdl
Administrator
William Ruckelshaus
William Ruckelshaus
WUH« Rucked
William Ruckelshaus
Russell Train
Russetf Train
RusseS Train
Russell Train
t
Douflai CoiUe
Dfrllffllf f^nartl*
" "gjj""
Douglas Conk
. WJ "'
Douglas Costle
AaneGonuch
AnaeGormch
J 1" - : . ; . ~ ' : ' •
Anne Gormen
W£ffiam*Dckdshaus
Wiffiam Rockelshaus
" ' Lee Thomas
Lee Thomas
Lee Thomas
Prendent
Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Gerald Ford
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
• Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
(continued)
A-7
-------
Year
1988
Event
ORSSA.CERI
RSS combined to
fonn OTTRS: Acid
AA for RAD
Vaun Newell
Erich Breohauer
(Acting)
Administrator
\ »» Thomas
Prerideoi
Ronald Reagan
Dep. moved 10
O£PER;OSORDO
created for Cincinnati
1989
1990
1991
1992
OSORDO
created for RTF
Contolidatian of fin«iri»l
allowance holders;
revision of planning system
Erich Brenhauer
(Acting)
Erich Bicohaoer
Erich Breahauer
Erich Breohaoer
William ReiDy
WiffiaraReaiy
Wiffism ReiDy
William ReiDy
George Both
George Bosh
George Bosh
George Bosh
A-8
-------
Appendix B
The Chronological Changes in ORD Laboratories and Field Facilities
ORD Laboratories and Field Facilities in December 1972
NERC-Cincinnati
Advanced Waste Treatment Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH
Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH ;,
Blue Plains Pilot Plant, Washington, DC
Bureau of Air Pollution Sciences, Cincinnati, OH
Environmental Toxicology Research, Cincinnati, OH
Gulf Coast Marine Hygiene Laboratory, Dauphin Island, AL
Lebanon Pilot Plant, Lebanon, OH
Manassas Field Site, Manassas, VA
Marine Sea Resources (Gig Harbor) Laboratory, Purdy, WA
National Shellfish Sanitation Laboratory, Kingston, RI
Norton Pilot Plant, Norton, WV
Piscataway Field Site, Piscataway, VA
Pomona Pilot Plant, Pomona, CA ••..••.*•-.r-.- >.,.,,,...
Radiation Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH - -----'•-•.-.•,,-.
Robert A. Taft Water Research Laboratory, Cincinnati; OH i .-: - - ., . r. r.
Solid Waste Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH •_;;;<:! >: .-••-.•.-..•
Water Quality Research, Edison, NJ (formerly Hudson-Delaware BasiriYOffice)
• •••:-••>- ;-. •. : ••!. :..::• .^, i.v "•
" • - • . --.t(!<:
-------
NERC-Corvallis (continued)
Grosse He Field Station, Grosse He, MI
Gulf Breeze Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL
National Marine Water Quality Laboratory, Narragansett, RI
Newtown Field Site, Newtown, OH (under Duluth laboratory)
Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, Corvallis, OR
Roben S. Kerr Water Research Center, Ada, OK
Southeast Water Laboratory, Athens, GA
Western Fish Toxicology Field Site, Corvallis, OR (under Duluth)
NERC-Las Vegas
Western Environmental Research Laboratory, Las Vegas Nevada
Changes in ORD Laboratories and Field Sites — 1971—1992
1971 Air research programs moved to RTF, Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory created
1972 Pomona Pilot Plant closed.
1973 Field sites at Dauphin Island, AL, Gig Harbor, WA, and Kingston, RI, closed; people moved
to Cincinnati
Solid Waste Treatment Laboratory (Cincinnati) moved to Washington; some people transferred to
Water Supply Research Laboratory (Cincinnati)
Perrine Primate Laboratory closed; people moved to RTP.
Monticello Field Station built; part of Duluth, MN, laboratory.
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center established at Warrenton, VA
1975 NERC concept abolished.
Health Effects Research Laboratory (HERL)-Cincinnati formed from part of Water Supply Research
Laboratory.
Analytical Quality Control Research Laboratory became Methods Development and Quality
Assurance Laboratory at Cincinnati (MDQARL).
Municipal Environmental Research Lab (MERL) and an Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory (IERL) formed at Cincinnati.
Seven organizations under NERC-RTP organized into four laboratories: Quality Assurance and
Environmental Monitoring Laboratory (QAEML), Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory,
HERL-RTP, and ffiRL-RTP. =
Names of laboratories at Ada, Athens, Corvallis, Duluth, Gulf Breeze, and Narragansett changed to
Environmental Research Laboratories.
New Environmental Research Center dedicated in Cincinnati.
1975-6 Wenatchee, WA, field station closed; people transferred to RTP.
1976 Blue Plains Pilot Plant closed.
1977 Environmental Research Information Center moved to Cincinnati and named Center for
Environmental Research Information.
B-2
-------
1978 Alaska Water Laboratory closed; people moved to Corvallis; building given to University of
Alaska.
1978-9 Two Environmental Criteria and Assessment Offices created, one in Cincinnati and one at
RTF
1979-1980 QAEML became Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory at RTF and MDQARL
became Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory at Cincinnati.
1980 Lebanon, OH, Pilot Plant closed; new Test and Evaluation Facility dedicated in Cincinnati.
Marine division of Corvallis laboratory moved to Newport, OR.
1981 Bears Bluff field station closed; people transferred to Gulf Breeze. HERL-Cincinnati became
division of HERL-RTP.
Water Supply Research Laboratory became Water Engineering Research Laboratory.
1982 Newtown Field Station became part of EMSL-Cincinnati rather than ERL-Duluth
1984 EERL-Cincinnati and MERL were reorganized to form Water Engineering Research Labo-
ratory and Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory.
IERL-RTP became Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory.
Function of Newport, OR, personnel transferred to ERL-Narragansett from ERL-Corvailis;
personnel remained in Newport
1986 Western Fish Toxicology Field Station closed.
1988 Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory created from former Water Engineering Research
Laboratory and Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory.
HERL-Cincinnati division moved to RTF.
EMSL-RTP and ESRL combined to form Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory.
1990 New building constructed in Newport, OR.
ORD Laboratories and Field Facilities in December 1992
Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, OH
Center for Environmental Research Information
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Cincinnati
Risk Reduction Engineering Research Laboratory
Field Site: Releases Control Branch, Edison, NJ Office of Senior ORD Official
Environmental Research Center, Research Triangle Park, NC
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
B-3
-------
Health Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Senior ORD Official
Las Vegas, NV - Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Field Site: Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center, Warrenton, VA
Ada, OR - Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada
Athens, GA - Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada
Corvallis, OR - Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada
Duluth, MN - Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada .
Field Site: Ecological Research Station, Monticello, MN
Field Site: Large Lakes Research Station, Grosse De, MI
Gulf Breeze, FL - Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada
Narragansett, RI - Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada
Field Site: Pacific Ecosystems Branch, Newport, OR
B-4
-------
1972
NERC-CInc
Environ. Tox.
Anal. QC Lab.
Solid Wast*
g*ton
i,NJ
ockvill., MD
Lab-Athma
i.CharoblM
Bluff, SC
Imat* Ub
rrlna
1975
EMSL/CInc
lERL'Clne
MERL
HERL-Clne
~ ) i
A i ^
ERL-Corfvallla
iton,
EMSL-RTP
IERL-RTP
ESRL
HERL-RTP
BMrsBhrff.SC
B-5
-------
1992
SORDO-CInc
CERI
EMSUCInc
RREL
iMtt
FS
itonFS
SORDO/RTP
AREAL
AEERL
HERL
ECAO/RTP
.-K.- -T 'if-
B-6
-------
Appendix C
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT
STRENGTHENING THE
FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DECEMBER IQQ1
- • - - *"- . •
A Report of the
CARNEGIE COMMISSION
ON SCX2N<3. TBQfNOUXJY.
C-l
-------
5
STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL R&D
INFRASTRUCTURE
Our federal environmental R&D system is broad, diverse, and highly de-
centralized. Led by the intramural programs of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey, and complemented by the ex*
tensive extramural programs of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences and the National Science Foundation, the principal federal environ*
mental R&D infrastructure is comprised of programs in numerous depart-
ments and agencies, each with a different mission and a different set of
strengths and weaknesses. The recommendations below are aimed at strength*
ening the individual and collective R&D efforts of these organizations, as
well as their ability to contribute to the evaluation and implementation
of environmental policies.
• The federal environmental R&D infrastructure should be
strengthened by improving and streamlining EPA's existing laboratory
organization, by supporting a group of nonfederal Environmental Research
C-2
-------
STRENGTHENING THE R*D INFRASTRUCTURE 6)
Institutes, by organizing a new U.S. Environmental Monitoring Agency and
a National Center for Environmental Information, and by enhancing R&D
capabilities in several key federal agenda.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ~
NEW NATIONAL LABORATORIES
• The Environmental Protection Agency's existing laboratory structure, now
comprised 0/11 laboratories, should be consolidated to create a National
Ecological Systems Laboratory, a National Environmental Monitoring Sys-
tems Laboratory, a National Environmental Engineering Laboratory, and
a National Health Effects Research Laboratory.
The efforts of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
are critical to achieving the nation's environmental protection objectives.
Since its inception, EPA has struggled with the optimal organization of the
research units within the ORD and the agency as a whole. Several yean ago
William D. Ruckelshaus, EPA's first administrator, described the challenges
the agency faced when it was first organized in 1970:
Our efforts to establish the scientific hue presupposed by the environmental
laws were hindered by the difficulties of managing the six different scientific
establishments that EPA had inherited. Our scientific resources were housed
in $6 separate laboratories scattered across the country. From the first, it was
extremely difficult to convey to EPA's scientific cadre the urgency of our need
for authoritative findings to support the regulations we were obligated to turn
out to the beat of those timetables in the legislation.41
If a Department of the Environment is established, the conflict be-
tween the need for information to support regulatory needs and the neces-
sity to support long-term basic and applied research will remain. It will be
critically important to achieve the proper balance between the two. Our
recommendations below were developed with this concern in mind.
In recognition of the need to improve the scientific basis of its reg-
ulatory decisions, EPA has recently taken a number of steps to enhance the
quality of its R&D programs. In responding to a recent report by an expert
advisory panel, EPA is working to develop a more coherent science agenda,
expand the use of science advisors within the agency, attract and retain out-
standing scientists and engineers, and improve its interactions with other
agencies and with academic and industrial research organizations.44 These
are important initiatives, and we applaud and support them. However, we
believe that organizational innovations are also needed to advance EPA's
R&D efforts. In addition, funding for ORD remains a chronic problem.
C-3
-------
64 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
In 1984, the leaden of ten major environmental organizations and
the CEOs of five major chemical companies wrote to Congressman Edward
P. Boland, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA.
HUD, and Independent Agencies and strongly urged him to increase the
fiscal year 1985 budget to EPA's Office of Research and Development by $101
million more than the Administration's request. The group spoke of their
"deep concern that the scientific base on which the agency's regulatory de-
cisions are founded has been seriously eroded in recent years by severe cuts
in the research and development budget of the EPA."4' They pointed out
that as measured in constant dollars, the ORD budget for FY 198$ was 15
percent less than in 1973 when ORD was created, even though Congress
had passed several laws requiring additional R&D support during that period.
Today, severe funding constraints continue to limit ORD's effective-
ness.** Despite substantial increases in R&D responsibilities ORD's budget.
in constant dollars, has increased only modestly over the last decade, and
because of severe limitations on full-time equivalents, a disproportionate
share of the workforce at ORD laboratories is on-site contractors.47 Although
our report focuses on organizational issues, it is clear that organizational
changes alone will not lead to improvements in the scientific capacity of
EPA. Substantial funding increases will be required as well.
A. National Ecological System* laboratory - ,-
An EPA National Ecological Systems Laboratory (NESL) should be formed
by combining the six existing EPA RAD laboratories. A new headquarters
site would be established for the national laboratory; with some of the existing
laboratories continuing to operate as field sites under the direction of the
national laboratory (see Figures 4 an,oV$A pages 6g.anp!.'67)., TJieexisting
laboratories areJocated at CorvaJlis. Oregon; Duluth, Minnesota; Gulf Breeze.
Florida; Narragansett, Rhode Island; Ada, Oklahoma; and Athens, Georgia.
This organizational arrangement would offer numerous advantages.
First, it would create a critical mass of researchers and resources focused on
understanding how environmental insults propagate through ecosystems.
Research programs would be cross-media (air, water, terrestrial) and multi-
disciplinary in orientation.'
Through the creation of such a national resource, EPA's Office of
Research and Development should be able to attract a nationally prominent
scientist-administrator to direct the laboratory. The director should report
to the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development (or the As-
sistant Secretary for Research and Development in the proposed cabinet-
level Department of Environment).
By creating this laboratory and attracting a prom'inent director, EPA
C-4
-------
STRENGTHENING THE RAD INFRASTRUCTURE 65
would bring into existence a powerful counterbalance to the constant pres-
sure from the regulatory offices for continuous emergency response support.
Given the critical needs of the regulatory offices in dealing with science-
and technology-driven problems, it does not make sense to separate such
a national laboratory from EPA or a Department of the Environment. It
is necessary, however, to moderate the surges in demand for support from
the regulatory offices.
Because of its critical mass and its perceived greater importance,
a national laboratory should be better positioned to compete for limited
resources. At this time, each of the six small R&D laboratories must compete
individually for its funds and staff. Justification for increased support is
difficult, given each laboratory's limited mission.
Finally, because of its improved stature, such a national laboratory
would operate on a more equal footing with other major federal laboratories
and leading scientific organizations. - ,. , -
The major disadvantage of combining the six-EPA laboratories into
a national ecological laboratory is the geographical distribution of the existing
laboratories. This decentralization makes overall program management
difficult, and it will take some time for the several parts of a new national
laboratory to begin working in an integrated fashion. It will also require
leadership to develop a vision of a truly national laboratory.
This problem goes to the heart of the nation's environmental
dilemma —how to manage our national environmental resources while re-
specting the biodiversity encompassed in the nation. We think that it is
more important to fashion an integrated ecological research program under
a single administrative entity than it is to attempt to coordinate a highly
decentralized system. . . . -.
Some may argue that this experiment has already been conducted,
and that the attempt failed. In 1975, EPA?s Office^"Research and Devel-
opment reorganized all of ks laboratories into chxee National Environmental
Research Centers (NERO). One NERC, placed under the direction of the
Corvallis laboratory, encompasscd-monof the ecological erTeosand processes
laboratories identified above. Communications and coordinationajnong the
laboratories and between the NERC headquarters and the Washington-based
ORD headquarters were judged to be ineffective. In 197$., the NERCs
were abolished, and the ORD laboratory structure returned to its present
configuration. f,••••. . ._;,, . ,
In our opinion, the NERC experiment failed for several reasons. First,
too much was attempted at one time, and the entire ORD organization
was thrown into turmoil by the change. Second, the affected laboratories,
which had previously operated quite autonomously under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, had not been prepared to function as
C-5
-------
MonHocbig Sysiwn*. and
OuaWy Atsutanc*
Eipowir* A»Mssm«nl Lab.
Raaaareh Triangto Parti
EmlN
irtng
LMVagaa
SytfamaLab.
Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development
OMea d naiaarch
Program Managamanl
''•• -J
: 1
OMca of Envfeonmanlal
aortnQ Mid Tach
Damontlralion
Mr and Enargy
Engbwartng Lab.
Raaaarcfi Trlangla Parti
RWc Raducflon
Engineering Lab.
QndnnM
,t :.
•' 'i
-------
0
Ofhc* ol Eipkwttwy
Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development
QMic* ol Ruaafch
Ftiogiam.Manag«maf4
• . • j
OHM* ol Modeling.
MoralonnQ SyvlMnB, WIQ
'.-
Engmawmg [and Tadtnotogy
Mentoring Sy*«M
liboftftovy
';
'
':
.;.:
,d
F
- '
;.'
'• -1 .1 <:•
i
Timslw and RagulMory
Support
OHMM ol Haatth and
Environment*!
•
1
OlpC9 of EnvlrofwnMiid
PracnsM and Eltacis
ftoMarch
OlhnolHMm
SyvMins LiDOfMovy
i-
1
;'
i
NMhMMlHMMl
Uboratoiy
1
?
o
Flgur* S. Recommended Future EPA Office of Research and Development Organization
-------
68 ENVIRONMENTAL KESEAXCH AND DEVELOPMENT
a team. Third, appointing one of the "peer" laboratory directors as MERC
director exacerbated the competitive tendencies in the laboratories. The pro-
posal outlined above is designed to avoid these shortcomings, while trying
to achieve an integrated program.
A National Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
We propose that three laboratories in EPA's Office of Research and Devel-
opment devoted to environmental monitoring be combined to form a Na-
tional Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (NEMSL). The three
existing laboratories whose operations would be integrated are the Environ-
mental Monitoring System Laboratories in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Las Vegas,
Nevada, and the Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Labora-
tory in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. A headquarters site should
be established for the NEMSL with the existing laboratories continuing
to operate as field sites under its direction.
The NEMSL would likely enjoy important synergies in monitoring
technologies, analytical techniques, and statistical analysis, resulting in cost
reductions, especially in cross-media monitoring efforts. The laboratory would
also create a critical mass of researchers and resources focused on the tech-
nical foundations of environmental monitoring. " " ""
A significant challenge in combining the three EPA laboratories is
overcoming the cultural differences among the three groups of scientists
and engineers. Although the underlying chemistry is essentially the same,
the groups evolved under separate afrV water, and radiological pollution
agencies. These differences can be overcome in time, with many synergies
developing as operations are integrated. If a U.S. Environmental Monitoring
Agency is established, as recommended'later in this report, some or all of
the activities of the NEMSL should be integrated with those of, or trans-
ferred to, the new agency, •••< ; .rr. . --
A National Environmental Engineering Laboratory
We recommend that a single National Environmental Engineering Labora-
tory (NEEL) be established by combining the existing EPA Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Air and Energy En-
gineering Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The main
laboratory, in North Carolina, would focus on air and energy engineering,
and the Cincinnati component of the laboratory would focus on water-
quality-related laboratory research and risk reduction. The NEEL should
z r
C-8
-------
STRENGTHENING THE RAD INFRASTRUCTURE 69
work to advance the development of innovative environmental technologies
and should forge relationships with industry in advancing toward common
goals. The laboratory should work in conjunction with other federal depart-
ments and agencies to promote the development and diffusion of environ*
mental technologies through a federal interagency Environmental Technol-
ogies Program discussed later in this report (see page 78).
A National Health Effects Research Laboratory •••-•••• -
We recommend raising the EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory in Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina, to the same status as the other three pro*
posed EPA national laboratories. This would involve no significant change
in the mission or staffing of this laboratory. The National Health Effects
Research Laboratory should work closely with the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences in planning and implementing research efforts.
Leadership and Cooperation
Each of the four proposed EPA national laboratories should be directed by
an outstanding scientist or engineer of national stature who has the admin-
istrative skills necessary to direct programs of this scope. Every effort should
be made to attract outstanding scientists, engineers, and other personnel
to these organizations. Federal personnel should interact with individuals
in the proposed Environmental Research'Institutes (discussed in the next
section) and in academia. nongovernmental organizations, and industry.
In addition, it is essential that all four laboratories work closely with the
proposed Institute for Environmental Assessment (see page 59) in evaluating
environmental problems and alternative approaches to addressing them.
'np;% '
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTES " ""
• EPA should establish and support up to six major Environmental Re-
search Institutes (ERls) associated with academic institutions and nongov-
ernmental organizations across the country,, ;: ,^ .
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-provides support
to a set of four university-based Environmental Research Centers, or "centers
of excellence." Each center specializes in a particular research topic of in-
terest to the agency, receiving about Si million per year from EPA. The work
of the centers is severely limited by inadequate funding. Furthermore, they
C-9
-------
7° ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
are typically organized as a component of a university or college, which presents
both advantages and disadvantages.
EPA's Centers of Excellence program was initiated during the Carter
administration, when zero-based budgeting was used to prepare EPA's budget
submission to OMB. While there was some support for longer-term R&D
in the regulatory offices, there was also intense competition for resources
(both dollars and personnel) to meet the legislative requirements of the
Toxic Substances Control Act and other laws and regulations. In addition,
in the late 1970$ no one in EPA was advocating larger centers. The regulatory
offices viewed the use of funds for such centers as a diversion from the agency's
mission, and R&D staff generally felt the centers program was diverting money
away from the laboratories. The result was that the new-centers initiative
was approved but its budget was limited (about $3 million in 1979). This
funding was then used to establish multiple centers. Until recently, EPA
supported eight centers at a funding level of approximately $500,000 each.
In order for an environmental center of excellence to have significant
impact, it must have adequate resources. Annual funding of $500,000 is
woefully inadequate to support the high-quality research teams needed to
attack what are complex problems requiring multidisciplinary investigations.
Subcritical funding results in the all too typical university center model—a
few pan-time faculty researchers, a few postdoctoral researchers, and a few
graduate students. There are generally no full-time researchers and tech-
nicians, and equipment and instrumentation are shared, not dedicated.
To ensure its effectiveness in addressing the major environmental
challenges facing the nation and the world, funding for each ERI should
gradually rise to the level of $10 to $1$ million annually for at least five years.
In areas that require extensive support equipment, such as a research ship
or sophisticated analytical instruments, additional funding should be pro-
vided. A full-time director, with world class credentials, and full-time re-
searchers and technicians should make Mp ihvcorc of th^ rretmwe, wkh
faculty, postdoctoral students, and graduate students supplementing the
full-time core staff.
ERls should operate as EPA's principal extramural fesewoh units and
should be complemented by a strong, welkfcnded extramural grants pro*
gram. The ERIs should cooperate with the four EPA National Laboratories
described above. The ERIs should focus on problem-oriented themes that
require multidisciplinary research efforts that cut across the missions of the
intramural National Laboratories. The institutes would thus function as more
flexible, problem-oriented, multidisciplinary components of a Department
of the Environment, thereby complementing the structured, discipline-
oriented intramural National Laboratories. We envision a two-way flow of
C-10
-------
STRENGTHENING THE R&D INFRASTRUCTURE 7*
personnel between the National Laboratories and the ERIs. This would give
government scientists, engineers, and social scientists an opportunity to benefit
from the career growth and educational opportunities offered in the uni-
versity and nongovernmental setting. It would also enhance the National
Laboratories by bringing some of the best scientists and engineers in the
nation into government laboratories for extended periods.
After considering the views of a full range of experts within and
outside the federal government, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) should
make recommendations to the EPA Administrator regarding the missions
of the Institutes. The SAB should examine other similar research organi-
zations operating through the National Institutes of Health and the De-
partment of Energy and should make recommendations to EPA's Office of
Research and Development as to how the best features of these organiza-
tions can be incorporated into EPA's institutes. The ERIs should then be
awarded through a merit-based competition.
The ERIs' charter and organization are critical to their success. In-
stitutes of the size envisioned here cannot function as academic subunits.
While it is important for the institutes to have a dose affiliation with a uni-
versity (or with several universities), it is essential that they not operate as
a component of a university, especially not as a component of a single col-
lege or department. The institutes could report to the research vice pres-
idents or to the presidents of universities, or affiliated but autonomous not-
for-profit institutes could be established outside, but nearby, the universities.
A number of organizations have demonstrated that they can effec-
tively operate research institutes staffed with full-time employees under re-
search administrations separate from academic administrations. Faculty and
students move back and forth from the academic side to the research in-
stitute once the rules and expectations are negotiated and understood. The
success of this approach seems to be highly correlated with the culture of
the individual university.
A more recent trend is the establishment of affiliated not-for-profit
centers. Many of these organizations have been created in the last decade
as states have expanded their support of technology-driven economic de-
velopment. One distinct advantage of such centers is that proprietary work
with industry is greatly facilitated in the autonomous centers. Faculty and
students can still do nonproprietary work within these organizations, but
they would recognize that if they choose to work on proprietary projects,
publication of their work may be delayed or precluded. If an ERJ's mission
requires close cooperation with industry, then the not-for-profit approach
can operate in a typical business fashion, rather than following university
calendars and administrative procedures.
C-ll
-------
Appendix D
Safeguarding the Future:
Credible Science, Credible Decisions
The Report of the Expert Panel
on the Role of Science at EPA
to
William K. Reiiiy
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 1992
D-l
-------
ii
January 8,1992
Mr. William K.Reilly
Administrator
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Reilly.
Earlier this year, you asked us to help identify how EPA can meet the goal of using sound
science as the foundation for the Agency's policy and program decisions. You asked us to
recommend ways to: (a) ensure that EPA has up-to-date, objective scientific information for
decisionmakJng, (b) ensure that EPA's planning, resources, and leadership produce the
knowledge base needed to achieve the Agency's new vision, (c) ensure that the research and
scientific information needs of the programs and regions are met, and (d) enhance the stature
of science within EPA and among the many constituencies with which EPA interacts.
To accomplish this task, we interviewed more than 30 individuals who have experience with
these issues. We also held three public meetings that included individuals from various EPA
offices and programs, other government agencies, industry, environmental groups, and other
organizations. In addition, we requested written comments and received letters from more
than 25 individuals, primarily from the EPA regional offices. We were impressed that so many
people wished to help EPA find better ways to acquire and use sound scientific information.
A number of consistent themes emerged from the discussions and comments. Everyone who
spoke with the Panel agreed that EPA needs its own strong science base to carry out its
mission effectively. At the same time, the Agency needs to make certain structural changes to
improve the quality of its science and the way science is used in decisionmaking. In this
report, we have developed these themes as a series of findings and recommendations about
science at EPA. Included are suggestions for both short- and long-term measures to enhance
the use of sound scientific and technical information throughout the Agency.
We look forward to your serious consideration of these-findings and recommendations
and encourage you to take the necessary next steps as soon as possible. We appreciate the
opportunity to be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA
Raymond C Loehr, Chair
Bernard D. Goldstein
AnilNerode
Paul G. Risser
D-2
-------
Executive Summary
BACKGROUND *T»he mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to preserv
JL and improve the quality of the environment/ protect human health, and
safeguard the productivity of natural resources on which all human activity
depends. To achieve these aims, the Agency is committed to ensuring that
"national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available
scientific information communicated dearly to the public" (Strategic Direction foi
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: EPA...Presermng Our Future Today,.1991}
EPA ako is dedicated to "providing leadership in the nation's environmental
science, research, and assessment efforts." This includes:
• Gathering and analyzing the data needed to
evaluate environmental risks and trends, measure
environmental results, and inform the choices of
institutions and individuals throughout society.
• Promoting and supporting innovative
technological solutions to environmental
problems.
• Encouraging and conducting research that
improves our understanding of health and
ecological risks.
• Providing objective, reliable, and understandable
information that helps build trust in EPA's
judgment and actions.
• Sharing research findings and innovative
technologies with other nations.
In addition, EPA must be able to anticipate environmental problems caused by
new and existing technologies and by societal changes.
Several recent reports, including Future Risk Research Strategies for the 1990s (198,
SAB-EC-88-040) and Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmen
tal Protection (1990, SAB-EC-90-021), stressed that EPA must have a strong scienc
base to accomplish these goals. Scientific knowledge has assumed an increasingl)
critical role as the environmental issues faced by the nation and the world grow
in complexity and cut across all environmental media. The Agency must improv
the scientific data and analytical methodologies needed to make sound decision!
to set risk-based priorities for protecting health and the environment; to support
a new emphasis on protecting the health of the nation's ecosystems (such as
forests, lakes, and wetlands); and to contribute to international environmental
efforts.
D-3
-------
THE EXPERT PANEL
ON THE ROLE OF
SCIENCE AT EPA
APPROACH
In early 1991, EPA Administrator William K. Reilly established the Expert Panel
on the Role of Science at EPA as an independent advisory committee under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Expert Panel was charged with evaluating
how EPA can meet the goal of using sound science as the foundation for Agency
dedsionmaking. The four members of the Panel were
• Dr. Raymond CLoehr (Chair of the Panel), H.M.
Alharthy Centennial Chair in Civil Engineering,
University of Texas.
• Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein, Director, Environmental
and Occupational Health Sciences Institute,
Rutgers University and University of Medicine
and Dentistry of New jersey—Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School.
• Dr. Anil Nerode, Professor of Mathematics and
Computer Science, Goldwin Smith Chair and
Director, Mathematical Sciences Institute, Cornell
University.
• Dr. Paul G. Risser, Provost and Vice President for
Academic Affairs, University of New Mexico.
These individuals conduct extensive research programs and have had consider-
able experience with various EPA programs. In addition, they have served on
national committees evaluating scientific and technical programs.
Over a period of four months, the Panel held three public meetings and inter-
viewed more than 30 individuals from EPA, other government agencies,
industry, environmental groups, and other organizations. The Panel also
requested written comments and received letters from more than 25 individuals,
primarily from the EPA regional offices.
The Panel performed no other independent evaluation of science at EPA; it did
not review current research programs, visit EPA laboratories, or examine reports
and data generated by EPA program and regional offices. Given the short time
available for the Panel's review, the Panel determined that interviews and meet-
ings with knowledgeable individuals within and outside EPA would be a more
effective means of responding to its charge
The meetings and discussions focused on five topics that are crucial to obtaining
and using sound science for credible decisions:
• The mission and direction of EPA science
• The quality of science at EPA.
• The quality of scientists at EPA.
• How the budget process affects science at EPA.
• How EPA uses science in dedsionmaking.
D-4
-------
MAJOR FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall the Panel
affirms that EPA needs
its awn strong science
base to provide the
background required for
effective environmental
protection programs.
The Panel defined science as encompassing a range of activities, including
research and development, technical and regulatory support, monitoring, data
collection, review and interpretation of technical studies, and assessments of
health and environmental risk. The Panel intentionally included the science
activities carried out in EPA program, policy, and regional offices, since such
activities are part of the science EPA uses for decisionmaking. It also included th
quantitative social sciences, such as economics, in addition to the physical,
chemical, and biological sciences.
The Panel found that several consistent themes and concepts emerged from
the meetings, interviews, and letters. These are summarized in the findings
and recommendations presented in subsequent sections of this report. Overall,
the Panel affirms that EPA needs its own strong science base to provide the back
ground required for effective environmental protection programs. Currently, EP
science is of uneven quality, and the Agency's policies and regulations are
frequently perceived as lacking a strong scientific foundation. To remedy, these
problems, the Panel recommends that EPA leadership undertake a deliberate an
continuing effort to create the climate, culture, and incentives necessary to
encourage superior science. The Panel recommends several specific structural
changes to enable EPA to obtain and use the high-quality science it needs to
realize its mission. These changes address science throughout the Agency, not
only in the Office of Research and Development (ORD). The Panel's central
findings and recommendations are listed below.
FINDING: EPA does not have a coherent science agenda and operational plan t
guide scientific efforts throughout the Agency and support its focus on relative!
high-risk environmental problems.
RECOMMENDATION: The Agency has moved in the right direction with its
new issue-based planning process. EPA should further develop this process wit!
the overall goal of producing a broadly based, rational plan to acquire and use
the best scientific information. This planning process should apply to science
throughout the Agency. Through this process, EPA can break from the past and
shift toward the cross-media, anticipatory research needed to address complex,
long-term, and global environmental problems.
FINDING: EPA has not clearly conveyed to those outside or even inside the
Agency its desire and commitment to make high-quality science a priority.
RECOMMENDATION: EPA should send strong, dear signals to the scientific
community and the public about its commitment to develop and use the best
science for guidance and decisions. One immediate step to accomplish this coul
D-5
-------
The Panel recommends
that EPA leadership
undertake a deliberate
and continuing effort to
create the climate,
culture, and incentives
necessary to encourage
superior science.
be the initiation of regular science briefings for the Administrator by EPA an*4
non-EPA scientists on topics of critical concern to the Agency.
FINDING: The science advice function—that is, the process of ensuring that
policy decisions are informed by a dear understanding of the relevant science-
is not well defined or coherently organized within EPA.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administrator should appoint a "science advisor* t
ensure that credible scientific information for EPA guidance and decisions is
available from both EPA scientists and the broader scientific community. The
science advisor would implement a peer review and quality assurance program
for all EPA's science-based products, improve the Agency's responsiveness to th
science needs of EPA policymakers, play a key role in evaluating the professiona
activities of all scientists at EPA, and provide scientific advice to the
Administrator.
»
FINDING: In many cases, appropriate science advice and information is not
considered early or often enough in the decisionmaking process.
RECOMMENDATION: EPA should take steps to ensure that science enters the
decisionmaking process early and often. In regulatory development, EPA shoulc
implement a widely advertised, open process enabling the Agency to hear the
scientific opinions of all parties. In addition, the Agency should analyze how it
used science in developing one or more major regulations. The goal of this
analysis would be to determine the type of scientific and technical information
needed to ensure scientifically credible decisions, as well as the points in the
regulatory process at which scientific input is most effective. The analysis shoul
take into account the varying needs and decisionmaking processes of the
different EPA program offices.
FINDING: The development and nurturing of human resources are central to
improving science at EPA.
RECOMMENDATION: For ORD scientists, the Panel recommends continued
attention to appropriate science and science management career tracks. For
scientists in EPA program and regional offices, the Panel recommends
establishing a science career track similar to that in place for those providing
legal advice. The Agency also should enhance rotational opportunities that allo\
EPA scientists to participate in the broader scientific community and non-EPA
scientists to work more closely with EPA's science programs.
D-6
-------
FINDING: EPA requires that its scientific research products undergo peer review
However, the Agency does not have a uniform process to ensure a minimum
level of quality assurance and peer review for all the science developed in
support of Agency detisionmaking.
RECOMMENDATION: Quality assurance and peer review should be applied b
the planning and results of all scientific and technical efforts to obtain data used
for guidance and decisions at EPA, including such efforts in the program and
regional offices. Such a requirement is essential if EPA is to be perceived as a
credible, unbiased source of environmental and health information, both in the
United States and throughout the world.
FINDING: A number of outstanding externally recognized scientists work at
EPA. However, the Agency lacks the critical mass of externally recognized
scientists needed to make EPA science generally credible to the wider scientific
community.
RECOMMENDATION: EPA should recruit four to six research scientists or
engineers with world-class reputations and provide them with a significant,
long-term commitment of support These individuals should be national and
international leaders in scientific areas vital to the Agency's long-term strategy
and direction. They would serve as mentors for developing scientists and
provide access to networks of world-class scientists.
8 —
FINDING: For EPA to establish a reputation for having high-quality science to
support its decisionmaking, its science activities must become more widely
known. Academia, Congress, other federal agencies, industry, and the public
generally are unfamiliar with the work of EPA scientists.
RECOMMENDATION: The Agency should undertake a communications,
outreach, and education effort to publicize the activities and accomplishments o
EPA scientists.
D-7
-------
FINDING: EPA often does not evaluate the impact of its regulations. Implemei
tion of an environmental policy or regulation provides a unique opportunity tc
study the environmental response to changes brought about by regulations, su
as changes in the type and amount of pollutants.
RECOMMENDATION: The Agency should scientifically evaluate the environ-
mental improvements brought about by the major regulations it promulgates.
This will help EPA better understand the effectiveness of its regulator)' strategi
and how those strategies affect environmental processes.
10— :
FINDING: EPA science could benefit substantially from increased scientific
contact and openness with other organizations.
RECOMMENDATION: The Agency should encourage increased participation
its scientists in the activities of the scientific community. It should enhance
relationships with other federal agerities and appropriate industrial and
academic research organizations and promote the participation of EPA scientist
in the technical activities of professional societies.
11
FINDING; EPA has not consistently enlisted the nation's best scientists to
provide the research and technical information needed for dedsionmaking.
Problems in the Agency's approach to academic grants and centers have
discouraged many university-based experts from working with EPA. In additic
the program and regional offices and ORD laboratories often rely on contractor
mechanisms that prevent EPA from obtaining the best outside scientists to wor
on EPA issues.
RECOMMENDATION^ EPA should move quickly to bolster its grants and
centers program. The Agency also should implement a long-term plan to replac
contractual mechanisms that may be detrimental to obtaining the best possible
scientific information.
D-8
------- |