161 



64 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 



In 19S4, the leaders of ten major environmental organizations and 

 the CEOs of five major chemical companies wrote to Gangressman Edward 

 P, Boland. Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, 

 HUD, and Independent Agencies and strongly urged him to increase the 

 fiscal year 198^ budget to EPA's Office of Research and Development by $101 

 million more than the Administration's request. The group sfwke 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."-"^ They pointed out 

 that as measured in constant dollars, the ORD budget for FY 1985 was 15 

 percent less than in 197J when ORD was created, even though Congress 

 had passed several laws requiring additional R&D suppon 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.-*" 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 Systems Laboratory 



An EPA National Ecological Systems Laboratory (NESL) should be formed 

 by combining the six existing EPA R&D laboratories. A new beadquaners 

 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 and 5, pages 66 and 67). The existmg 

 laboratories are located at Corvallis, 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 repon 

 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 prominent director, EPA 



