275 



Q. 4: It has been suggested that because EPA does not have a formal, overarch- 

 ing legislative mission but instead is guided by a dozen or so separate pieces of 

 environmental legislation, it has set up program offices that have tended to focus 

 solely on reducing pollution within a particular environmental medium for which 

 the office has responsibility. One solution to this problem might be to enact a uni- 

 fied environmental statute whose focus would be reducing overall emissions. What 

 are your thoughts about this idea? 



A. 4: EPA has four media-specific program offices. Our offices of Air, Water, Solid 

 Waste and Emergency Response, and Pesticides and Toxic Substances all share in 

 the responsibility of meeting the statutory goals and commitments contained in the 

 major environmental statutes under our purview. We also have a number of cross- 

 media offices, such as our Offices of Enforcement, Research and Development, and 

 Pohcy, Planning and Evaluation. Together, these program offices focus on prevent- 

 ing and reducing pollution across all media. There's no doubt that having an organ- 

 ic environmental statute in place which provided a clear legislative statement of 

 EPA's mission, goals and priorities would be beneficial in improving program effi- 

 ciency and intra-agency coordination. 



In its absence, however, the Agency has taken steps to address environmental 

 problems that warrant multi-media consideration. For example, the Agency's plan- 

 ning and budget development process considers comparative risk issues across and 

 vsdthin media; our regulatory development system allows for cross-media review and 

 analysis when it appears to be warranted our issue-based research program allows a 

 multi-media approach to define and set strategic directions for our research; and we 

 have applied a "clusters" management approach to key issues like lead, pulp and 

 paper, and contaminated media to assure cross-media deliberations. 



An organic environmental statute that would enable EPA to better set priorities 

 among different programs, that allowed EPA to compare the economic effects of all 

 programs with the reductions in risks to human health and the environment, that 

 facilitated pollution prevention across media, that allowed EPA to better address 

 multi-media environmental problems, and that supported our efforts to anticipate 

 and identify new environmental problems would be good for EPA. At this time, 

 however, it is not my top legislative priority. 



Q. 5: Some criticisms have been raised over the course of EPA's existence about 

 the way in which regional offices function and a perceived lack of coordination 

 and good communication between headquarters and the regions. Could you com- 

 ment on this and tell us how you think a Department will be able to better inte- 

 grate the functions of the regional offices with headquarters' mission objectives? 



A. 5: The relationship between Headquarters and the Regional offices is complex, 

 and does have some inherent tensions. The Agency strives for balance between pro- 

 viding a nationally consistent policy/ program, and allowing flexibility to address 

 var3dng needs. Inevitably, some conflicts wdll arise. New laws have required exten- 

 sive rule development while greatly increasing requirements on field offices (inspec- 

 tions, enforcement, permits, plan review, grant oversight, etc.). As a result, coordi- 

 nation and discussion between Headquarters and regional offices about the proper 

 allocation of responses and the allocation of limited resources is inherent to achiev- 

 ing workable solutions. 



Communications and interactions between HQ and the Regions are facilitated in 

 several ways. Each program area has an identified Lead Region, which provides HQ 

 with program advice on budget and policy issues from the regional perspective. 

 Senior managers across the agency meet on a regular basis to discuss priorities and 

 cross-cutting issues, and make adjustments to Agency direction if needed. 



Perhaps most important to our HQ/Regional integration are efforts underway to 

 articulate a set of overarching national environmental goals, from which EPA will 

 develop an integrated Agency plan for the future. Constructing a plan that will pro- 

 vide the flexibility to address unique and/or highest risk areas, while demonstrating 

 progress toward meeting national mandates, presents a tremendous challenge as 

 well as a singular opportunity for EPA. Agency goals and an integrated plan will 

 provide a common basis/ framework for making budget, policy, and future legislative 

 decisions that will guide the environmental agenda for the country. 



Q. 6: How well is the Agency currently organized, and how might this change 

 with respect to extramural and intramural Research funding and programs? Can 

 EPA do a better job in this area and do you have any specific organizational sug- 

 gestions for how this might be done? 



A. 6: EPA has reorganized its research and development activities several times 

 since the Agency was established over two decades ago. EPA recently reported to 

 our Appropriations Committees on this matter. 



