3
Laboratory Science Capabilities
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laboratory enterprise has been defined or established not as an organizational entity but as an amalgamation of three distinct laboratory types that have distinct missions, drivers, and personnel: Office of Research and Development (ORD) laboratories, program office laboratories, and regional office laboratories.
The critical components of the laboratories, regardless of type, are the people, the physical facilities, and the equipment. This chapter focuses on the workforce and equipment. Physical facilities are being looked at in a separate activity (see Chapter 1). And the chapter does not attempt to assess the extent to which the functions and capabilities of EPA laboratories are synergistic or duplicative; this was not in the committee’s charge.
The importance of the quality and expertise of people in an organization cannot be overemphasized (NRC 2012b). The most reliable predictor of research and development (R&D) performance is the quality of the workforce. Of special importance for many R&D organizations is the presence of people who have substantial creative, scientific, and technical capabilities. An effective organization enables its staff to capture new skills that are required for a set of tasks while over the long term building the network required to make team members effective participants in organizationwide efforts to achieve overall goals. The workforce should also be nimble and adaptable so that it can address new challenges. The creation of such capabilities requires diversity of personnel expertise and work experience.
A snapshot of the scientific and technical disciplines of the scientists and engineers involved in the three types of EPA laboratories was provided by EPA and are what would be expected for the premier environmental and health regulatory agency that is EPA. An analysis of the current workforce disciplines and the ones that EPA believes that it will need in the future was initiated recently, and results are being implemented. Key tools that would provide EPA with flexibility with regard to achieving workforce expertise needed in the future are its postdoctoral program, its Title 42 Authority, and training grants. Finally, managing and acquiring equipment throughout the EPA laboratory system is considered.
The 2012 National Research Council report Best Practices in Assessment of Research and Development Organizations (NRC 2012b) provides a list of attributes that characterize an effective R&D organization and are considered to be good indicators of the eventual impact and relevance of the organization and the R&D that it performs (see Appendix D). Using those attributes, the present committee developed the following principles for the effective and efficient management of EPA’s laboratory enterprise to meet the agency’s mission needs and strategic goals:
Summary Principle 1: Every science institution is more effective if it has a vision of how its scientists, technicians, and other professionals can best contribute to the organization’s mission and goals.
Summary Principle 2: Essential laboratory capabilities are the ones that are relevant to the current mission and the ones that anticipate future mission needs. Priorities for laboratory capabilities should focus on work that is central to the agency’s mission rather than on small peripheral efforts.
Summary Principle 3: Laboratories should avoid internal redundancy or duplication of capabilities that are readily available externally.
Summary Principle 4: Recruiting, developing, and retaining an outstanding, committed scientific and technical workforce is crucial for maintaining outstanding laboratory capabilities.
Summary Principle 5: State-of-the-art facilities and equipment are essential if a laboratory enterprise is to be able to meet current and future mission needs.
Summary Principle 6: Effective management and appropriate flexibility enable an efficient and effective laboratory enterprise.
Summary Principle 7: Communication and coordination among the laboratories within an organization are essential for efficiency and effectiveness.
Summary Principle 8: Outstanding research and other science-related activities are the foundation for meeting current and future mission needs and for sustaining leadership in environmental science and applied research.
Summary Principle 9: A strong linkage to universities, industry, research institutions, and other federal and state government organizations enhances the laboratory enterprise and prepares it for the future.
As indicated in summary principle 4, recruiting, developing, and retaining an outstanding workforce is one of the keys to a successful laboratory enterprise. EPA indicated that 2,261 EPA personnel and 1,370 non-EPA personnel were working in agency laboratory facilities. Those EPA laboratory personnel made up 14.6% of all the agency’s personnel in 2013. Of the 2,261 EPA laboratory personnel, about 83% (1,871) were working in science and technology disciplines; the remaining 17% were administrative and legal personnel (see Figure 3-1). Of the 1,370 nonfederal laboratory personnel, about 74% (1,007) were working in science and technology disciplines (see Figure 3-2). The three largest components of the federal laboratory workforce were Biology & Health Sciences (22.3%), Chemistry (20.9%), and Engineering (13.1%); the three largest components of the nonfederal laboratory workforce were Science Support (34.7%), Chemistry (22.2%), and Information Science/Technology/Management (15.1%).
Budgetary constraints over the past few years have made it difficult for EPA to hire people with the necessary skills for addressing current and emerging complex problems. To realign its workforce in the midst of limited resources, EPA announced the availability of Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) initiatives in December 2013.1 The VERA process allows federal agencies to increase the number of employees who are eligible for retirement by lowering the age and service requirements temporarily. The VSIP process allows lump-sum payments to
_________________________
1For information on VERA, see http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforce-restructuring/voluntaryearly-retirement-authority/. For information on VSIP, see http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforcerestructuring/voluntary-separation-incentive-payments/.
be given to employees, who are in surplus positions or have skills that are no longer needed in the workforce, to induce them to separate from the government. Through the VERA/VSIP offering, EPA sought to enable the agency to reshape the workforce, build diversity, bring in new talent and move toward new models of performing work.
FIGURE 3-1 Total federal EPA-laboratory employees in all EPA laboratories. Numbers are numbers of FTE laboratory personnel in the identified disciplines. Source: EPA 2014d.
FIGURE 3-2 Total nonfederal EPA-laboratory employees. Numbers are numbers of FTE laboratory personnel in the identified disciplines. Source: EPA 2014d.
Instead of using VERA/VSIP agencywide, EPA invited offices to develop their own proposals for using the process. For example, laboratory personnel were addressed by a VERA/VSIP initiative of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution to aid in reducing the number of laboratories in its Biological Economic Analysis Division from 4 to 2. The Environmental Chemistry Laboratory of Prevention at Bay St. Louis, MS was closed because its primary work on dioxin analysis is no longer a priority. Also, the Microarray Research Laboratory located in Fort Meade, MD was closed because the research conducted at the laboratory has been completed (EPA 2014e).
Also as part of this VERSA/VSIP effort, ORD undertook a planning activity to identify gaps within its scientific workforce and approaches for addressing the gaps.
“Approximately 150 scientific disciplines representing the relevant specific skills and expertise in 11 broad workforce groups (e.g., biology, chemistry, engineering, and modeling and computer science) were identified to characterize both ORD’s current workforce as well as the skills that will be needed to fulfill ORD’s research commitments over the next three to five years…. A complete strategy for addressing the gaps is under development.” (EPA 2014e)
The committee has not reviewed the process by which EPA conducted its workforce evaluation, the timeframe needed to complete the analysis, or the outcome. Going forward, it will be important for EPA to complete such workforce analyses in a timely and transparent manner to enable planning, recruiting, and hiring to be successful.
EPA should continue and strengthen its characterization and evaluation of its laboratory workforce, establishing a defined timeline and being transparent in its processes for internal and external audiences. (Recommendation 3-1)
EPA should initiate or complete the development of a strategy for periodically addressing the composition of the workforce in the ORD laboratories, the regional office laboratories, and the program office laboratories, particularly after completion of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments/Voluntary Early Retirement Authority actions in 2014. The analysis should include an inventory of skills and training and demographic analysis (for example, projected retirements over the next 5 years) for strategic planning for the future. This information is essential for making sensible decisions in hiring, future reassignments, and offers of voluntary retirements. (Recommendation 3-2)
EPA should continue to cultivate an interdisciplinary scientific workforce at all levels of expertise throughout the laboratory enterprise that can engage in high-quality, collaborative, science activities aimed at transdisciplinary challenges. (Recommendation 3-3)
TOOLS FOR ACHIEVING WORKFORCE EXPERTISE
The committee did not review EPA’s recruitment or retention practices; such practices have been reviewed and recommended elsewhere (see, for example, NRC 2000, 2010). The committee focuses on the use of these recommended practices for its laboratory personnel to encourage strategic hiring and be more effective in filling vacant positions.
To “sustain leadership capabilities of its laboratory enterprise for environmental science and research”, per this committee’s Statement of Task (see Appendix A) EPA will need individuals with excellent, high-quality expertise in science, engineering, and other related fields. To the extent practicable under budget constraints, three tools that would provide EPA flexibility in achieving continuing workforce excellence are the agency’s training grant and fellowships programs, postdoctoral program, and Title 42 program. An important component of implementing each of these tools is periodic independent review to assess whether the efforts are meeting their intended objectives.
Training Grants and Fellowships
Building an EPA workforce for the future requires an adequate pipeline of scientists and engineers trained for and experienced in the work that EPA must do to satisfy its mission and reach its goals. Training grants offer the opportunity for gathering information or advancing the state of knowledge as opposed to solving an environmental problem with an established method. Such programs train scientists in environmental fields and increase public understanding of relationships between the environmental and human health. For example, EPA has recently listed fields of interest to ORD for such training: toxicology, pharmacokinetics, carcinogenesis, environmental epidemiology and clinical research, biostatistics and modeling, sustainability and systems thinking, risk and exposure assessment, emission estimation, life-cycle analyses, and risk management and mitigation (EPA 2014f).
The committee notes that EPA recently issued a request for proposals for a cooperative training partnership in environmental health sciences research. The objective of such a training partnership is aligned with the committee recommendation for enhancing and ensuring a pipeline of students trained in environmental disciplines needed for EPA’s future workforce (EPA 2014f). EPA should develop relationships with community colleges and universities to enable students to work in EPA laboratories as interns or student employees in an effort to develop future technicians and scientists who will conduct research and other laboratory functions related to EPA needs. (Recommendation 3-4)
EPA is offering Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) fellowships for undergraduate environmental study (EPA 2014g). In the past, it also offered Science to Achieve Results (STAR) graduate fellowships to support master’s and doctoral candidates in environmental studies. However, STAR fellowships are not being offered in 2014 (EPA 2014h) the STAR graduate fellowship program is planned to be transferred to the National Science Foundation (NSF). The change in the home of the program fails to recognize the differences in training between an EPA fellowship program focused on environmental science and technology and a basic Earth or physical science fellowship emphasized in NSF. EPA should continue, enhance, and expand its student training grant programs, such as GRO. The STAR fellowship program should be reinstated in EPA to support the research programs specific to EPA’s mission and goals. (Recommendation 3-5)
Postdoctoral Program
By using the federal postdoctoral research program,2 EPA can use early career scientists to address critical short-term research problems. More than 300 postdoctoral researchers participated in the program in ORD in 2001–2012 (see Figure 3-3). Young scientists—trained in the application of advanced and diverse research approaches—help to provide a scientific foundation of EPA’s decision-making. The program also provides postdoctoral scientists with a deeper understanding that may enhance their research futures, wherever their next professional positions may be. Under the guidance of mentors, the postdoctoral scientists gain experience in multiple facets of mission-driven applied research in the federal government. EPA should continue its planned hiring of postdoctoral researchers by ORD and expand it to other types of laboratories as appropriate. (Recommendation 3-6)
Title 42 Program
EPA needs tools for attracting and hiring the highest-quality scientists and engineers now and will in the future if it is to protect health and the environment effectively and efficiently. Title 42 authority was
_________________________
2The Schedule A, 213.3102(r) excepted service appointing authority (called R authority) can be used to fill positions in a variety of programs, including fellowship, internships, and residencies. Appointments under the authority may not exceed 4 years. Excepted service authorities enable agencies to hire when it is not feasible to use traditional hiring procedures.
granted to EPA in 20 6. Its goal is to recruit and retain world-class scientists and engineers who can strengthen EPA’s research and improve the application of science to address its regulatory responsibilities. The program is also aimed at addressing emerging research needs and filling critical gaps in EPA research capacity.
A 2010 National Research Council report that reviewed the initial years of EPA’s use of Title 42 authority found that the program was working well and that the appointments had the important effect of “strengthening of state-of-the-art science in fields that are primary to the agency’s mission to protect health and the environment” (NRC 2010, p.22). The report recommended that permanent Title 42 authority be granted to EPA, that the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors or Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) be asked to review the Title 42 program every 5 years to ensure that it is being used for the intended purposes, and that EPA be granted expanded authority to define the number of Title 42 positions on the basis of its programmatic needs and available budget. The report also noted that the use of Title 42 authority should continue to be restricted to recruiting and retaining highly qualified scientists and engineers.
In the FY 2014 appropriation, Congress provides the EPA administrator with the authority, for FY 2006–2015 and after consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, to employ up to 50 persons at any one time in ORD under the authority provided in 42 USC 209. (For FY 2009–2014, ORD had a ceiling of 30 persons.) The FY 2015 presidential budget request proposes extending ORD’s authority through FY 2017 with no limit on the number of persons.
The committee agrees with previous expert panels and committees that a science and engineering workforce that is capable of performing and conducting research at the highest level is essential for EPA if it is to protect public health and the environment. The committee notes that the number of Title 42 appointments is not limited in several other federal agencies that fill scientific positions by using Title 42 authority. According to the US Government Accountability Office, in 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had 929 Title 42 employees, the US Food and Drug Administration had 862, and the National Institutes of Health had 4,879 (GAO, 2012. The numbers of Title 42 appointments in those agencies are substantially larger than the number in EPA.
The committee agrees with the 2010 National Research Council report (NRC 2010), EPA should be granted permanent Title 42 authority and the expanded authority to define the number of Title 42 positions on the basis of its programmatic needs and available budget. In addition, EPA should use an independent body to review the Title 42 program every 5 years to ensure that it is being used for its intended purposes. (Recommendation 3-7)
FIGURE 3-3 Number of new postdoctoral scientists in EPA ORD by year, hired under R authority. No new postdoctoral scientists were hired in 2013. Source: EPA 2014i).
TOOLS FOR MEETING STRATEGIC SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL GOALS
As indicated in the National Research Council report Science for Environmental Protection (NRC 2012a), because “environmental problems are increasingly interconnected, EPA can no longer address one environmental hazard at a time without considering how it interacts with, is influenced by, and influences other aspects of the environment” (p. 152). That report also stated that “systems-level tools and expertise are needed for the systematic analysis of health, environmental, social, and economic implications of individual decisions.”(p. 110)
A 2012 report from EPA’s SAB found that science integration practices vary within the agency. Some managers actively promote science integration, but more could be done in most program and regional offices. The SAB also found that EPA has not developed a coordinated human-resources strategy for building the necessary science base for ORD and the rest of the agency (EPASAB 2012).
It is important for EPA to conduct its hiring in a strategic manner that seeks to anticipate needs. It is also important to develop and retain staff members who are experienced in interdisciplinary work and effective in leading and supporting teams. EPA needs a leadership-development program to ensure that early-career and midcareer staff can attain the leadership skills that will be needed as key team leaders and project leaders retire.
For efficiency and effectiveness, members of the EPA workforce must cover a broad array of disciplines, work effectively in teams, and have the flexibility to address both continuing projects and emergencies that need EPA expertise. In line with summary principle 7, EPA needs to create tools for communication to enable leaders and staff in all the various laboratories to be aware of the scientific expertise, available laboratory equipment, and project goals and approaches in the entire laboratory enterprise. Easy access to that information will enhance the flexibility and nimbleness of scientists and engineers who have the ability to work in interdisciplinary teams. The agency has risen to such challenges in the past, but it needs to establish processes by which such approaches can be routine. 3EPA is encouraged to continue taking steps to improve the transparency and cross-agency awareness of capabilities through enhanced communication regarding scientific and engineering staff expertise and laboratory equipment. (Recommendation 3-8)
The quality of facilities and equipment, including buildings and capital equipment, is an important element of the laboratory enterprise; the lack of infrastructure can stand in the way of even the highest-quality workforce (NRC 2012b). The committee does not have information on facilities and operating costs; that will come from EPA’s analysis of the current portfolio of laboratory facilities (see Chapter 1). Laboratory equipment is the main focus of our recommendations.
As summary principle 5 indicates, state-of-the-art facilities and equipment are essential for an outstanding laboratory enterprise to be able to meet current and future mission needs. In response to the committee’s request, EPA provided descriptions of various processes for managing and acquiring laboratory equipment (see Box 3-1).
ORD, program, and regional laboratories have various processes for managing and acquiring laboratory equipment, but the processes and inventory tools are not connected throughout EPA.
EPA should link inventory of equipment over $500,000 in all laboratories, without regard to mission, to an agencywide accessible process. Before investment in large capital equipment, laboratory equipment in other parts of EPA, other agencies, and universities that could be available for shared use should be explored. (Recommendation 3-9)
_________________________
3One such example is an exercise conducted in 2012 by EPA Regions 4, 5, and 6 and other federal agencies to facilitate the interactions of three national laboratory networks in the face of a combined public-health and environmental emergency. The three networks are the Environmental Response Laboratory Network, the Laboratory Response Network, and the Food Emergency Response Network (Hanley 2012).
EPA should continue taking steps to improve the transparency and agencywide awareness of all its laboratory science capabilities. (Recommendation 3-10).
BOX 3-1 EPA Processes for Managing and Acquiring Laboratory Equipment
Office of Research and Development Laboratory Equipment
The Office of Research and Development (ORD) capital-equipment management process provides a strategy whereby scientific equipment needs are subjected to identification, priority-setting, funding, and procurement. Each year, ORD organizations that have laboratory capabilities develop a priority list of capital-equipment needs with detailed justifications for each item. Priority lists are submitted to the ORD Capital Equipment Committee (CEC). The CEC then submits the lists to the ORD assistant administrator, who provides final approval of all capital equipment.
Program Laboratory Equipment
The Office of Air and Radiation’s (OAR’s) National Vehicle & Fuel Emissions Laboratory has several venues in which capital scientific-testing equipment needs are identified and then incorporated into OAR’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality’s (OTAQ’s) budgeting process, which balances equipment and testing investments against all other OTAQ programmatic priorities.
For OAR’s National Analytical Radiation Environmental Laboratory NAREL, laboratory improvements and investments for capital equipment are identified during the annual planning and priority-setting process of OAR’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. NAREL reviews the current capital-equipment status—taking into account programmatic needs, new technology options, and the age and reliability of existing equipment—and determines priorities for requesting new capital equipment. Decisions are made on where best to invest resources on the basis of programmatic needs.
The National Enforcement Investigations Center maintains an inventory of its scientific instrumentation in addition to the official agency property-management system. Every year, the branches update the list during a discussion of availability of new instrumentation and how it could be used to meet the agency’s enforcement needs. A priority list of potential purchases is developed. As funding becomes available through the year, instrumentation on the list is purchased.
The Office of Water does not have a budget specifically for laboratory capital equipment, nor does it have a unique or independent process for capital-equipment requests. Such purchases are funded out of the same budget that funds its extramural programmatic support, and the merits of requests for those purchases are judged in the light of competing requests for funds. Equipment needs are developed by the project officers responsible for the oversight of the laboratory work.
The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s (OCSPP’s) management reviews laboratory operating needs annually. All proposals for laboratory capital-equipment expenditures are linked to the OCSPP priorities and workplan. The purchase of laboratory capital equipment is intended to allow OCSPP to meet programmatic needs, support environmental analyses, and provide direct technical support for states, tribal entities, other federal agencies, and academe. Temporary personnel assignments through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act and interagency agreements foster sharing of facilities and equipment with partner agencies.
Regional Office Laboratory Equipment
Funds for capital equipment are distributed to the regions on the basis of their sizes (in full-time equivalents) and numbers of Superfund sites. Each regional laboratory develops a priority list of new equipment needs annually.
The 10 regional laboratories exchange information on new capabilities (new instruments and methods) through monthly conference calls among laboratory directors and calls among members of the laboratory technical information group for organic, inorganic, and microbiology. Before purchasing a new high-cost item, a laboratory evaluates whether its program need can be satisfied through an existing inventory or assistance elsewhere in the regional laboratory network. A laboratory can request assistance as needed from regions that have developed a particular capability or have available instrumentation and training or troubleshooting for the type of instrument in question.
Source: EPA 2014i.
