274 



Responses to Written Questions for the Record 



Q. 1: In general, we have heard suggestions that the organization of environ- 

 mental policy activities throughout the Federal Government could stand a good 

 scrub at the least and a wholesale reorganization at the most. This might include 

 placing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into the 

 new Department. What are your feelings about any such reorganization? 



A.l: I noted in my testimony one of the primary reasons for elevating EPA to cab- 

 inet status is to improve environmental policy integration and coordination among 

 Federal agencies. However, I would not envision a restructuring of environmental 

 programs from other Departments as part of the EPA Cabinet legislation. Major im- 

 provements in integration and coordination across Departments can be made 

 through better communication, information sharing, and joint problem solving. For 

 instance, I now meet personally on a monthly basis with the Secretary of the De- 

 partment of Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of 

 Energy, to foster this type of collaboration across the Executive Branch. In addition, 

 I now participate in weekly meetings with the Vice President, the head of the Na- 

 tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other agencies to discuss 

 issues of mutual concern. It is possible that restructuring the Federal Government 

 may ultimately be the most efficient way to make needed improvements. But it's 

 not clear to me at this time that there is any clear rationale — or consensus — for the 

 basis or form that such a major reorganization would take. 



Q. 2: With respect to the EPA itself, our bill requires a Commission to study, 

 among other things, environmental function organization within the agency. How 

 do you view such an effort? Also, what are your thoughts about the way the 

 Agency is organized now? Should we, for example, be contemplating a different 

 way to organize the assistant administrator function — instead of by media (air, 

 water, radiation, etc.) by source or sector of pollution (industrial, agricultural, 

 municipal, etc.) or some other formulation? 



A. 2: My view is that the Commission has a number of important things to consid- 

 er. I welcome its recommendations on how to make more efficient or effective envi- 

 ronmentally related programs. And I welcome its recommendations on prevention, 

 ecosystem, and multimedia approaches that would help to improve environmental 

 protection in this nation. Some of its recommendations would obviously have organi- 

 zational implications if the Department were to adopt them. However, I believe it is 

 the privilege of the Executive Branch to organize itself to meet its statutory and 

 other administrative requirements. I would look to the (Commission's report to help 

 frame the dialogue and issues related to how environmental work could most effec- 

 tively be achieved in the Department so that I could use that £is a springboard for 

 discussion and decision about the organizational implications. 



With respect to the way the Agency is organized now, I am aware of interest and 

 discussion both internal and external to the Agency on restructuring our work 

 along non-media lines. EPA's mission and legislative base are enormously complex, 

 particularly when viewed writhin the context of non-source pollutants, the adequacy 

 of science and research, the severity of old technological effects, and the ambiguities 

 of new technologies. 



As you well know, EPA was organized by media in the early 70's because it was 

 the easiest way to both blend disparate organizations from across the Federal Gov- 

 ernment into the new agency and to meet its media-specific statutory requirements. 

 Although the current media structure requires more effort in order to look at broad- 

 er environmental issues and impacts, I am not in a position at this time to state 

 whether or how the current structure should be revised. I am committed to making 

 the current organization in EPA responsive to the needs of our statutory mandates 

 and to the citizens of this country. Through cross-media programs like our policy 

 clusters and issue-based research program, by strengthening our risk-based and pol- 

 lution prevention policies, and through continued agreements with other Federal 

 agencies, I believe we can continue to address pollution problems from media per- 

 spectives, sector perspectives, ecosystem perspectives, and source perspectives. I 

 want to withhold judgment on a more formal restructuring away from a media ori- 

 entation until I can better assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current struc- 

 ture. 



Q. 3: Do you think the number of Assistant Secretaries allowed in the bill is ade- 

 quate and, if not, how many would you propose? 



A. 3: The bill currently provides me three additional Assistant Secretaries beyond 

 what I currently have. I believe this is an adequate number to provide me the flexi- 

 bility to reorient the Agency and its management structure in new ways. 



