167 



70 tNVlKONMtVTAL RLStARCH AND DE\'ELOPMENT 



arc 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 suppon 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 additi n, 

 in the late 1970s 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. Tlie 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 

 supponed 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 postdoaoraJ 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 cffcaivcness in addressing the major environmental 

 challenges facing the nation and the world, funding for each ERl should 

 gradually rise to the level of $10 to $15 million annually for at least five years. 

 In areas that require extensive suppon 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 up the core of the institute, with 

 faculty, postdoctoral students, and graduate students supplementing the 

 full-time core staff. 



ERIs should operate as EPA's principal extramural research units and 

 should be complemented by a strong, well-funded 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 



