Reflections on the Evolution of ORD with NPDs

1. Joel D. Scheraga National Program Director Global Change Research and Mercury Research Programs Office of Research and Development January 24, 2006 Reflections onthe Evolution of ORD with NPDs

2. Themes • Opportunities • Challenges • Program-specific insights

3. Executive Council Corporate Decisions: What we do and how we do it • Decision Inputs • Feedback from ORD scientists • Feedback from Programs & • Regions • Results of independent • evaluations (e.g., BOSC) • OMBfeedback (PART) • Revised MYPs • Administration priorities • Congressional mandates • SAB, NAS, other external advice L/C Directors How we do the work, Who does the work, and What we are accountable for NPDs What research area-specific work we do and when we do it The ResultResearch contributions to EPA decisions & outcomes that reflect an evolved program with enhanced quality, relevance, performance, and leadership The New ORD Structure (Theory)

4. Opportunities • Focus on “right science” • Program-wide objectives • Identification of best ways to achieve program goals • Identification of appropriate Lab/Center to conduct each component (see “Challenges”) • Not a “bottom-up” process • Implications for evolution of MYPs • Unified teams with unified objectives across ORD • Improved planning and budgeting • Increased focus on true programmatic priorities • Enhanced focus on client needs from programs

5. Opportunities (cont.) • Flexibility when world changes (e.g., 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule) • Better coordination to represent programs, e.g., • BOSC • PART • Regions • Placement of NPDs in IOAA • Faithful representation of ORD corporate interests • Opportunities to leverage all expertise

6. Challenges • Culture change • Appreciation and respect for roles and responsibilities of different entities (theory vs. practice) • Appreciation of challenges faced by all programs • NPDs (representing programs) • Lab/Center Directors (representing needs of mission-specific laboratories) • Scientists • Better and regular communication • Between Lab/Center Directors and NPDs (individually and collectively) • Between NPDs and scientists

7. Challenges (cont.) • Representation of NPD views within Executive Council • “Gang of 8” and Management Team working together to remedy • Contrast with Science Council • Imperative of getting work done • Particularly when products/outcomes require inputs from multiple Labs/Centers • Timeliness • Nature of products (implications for GPRA) • Programmatic needs to shift resources between Labs/Centers • Unilateral changes by any one management entity not appropriate (e.g., shifts of FTEs between MYPs)

8. Challenges (cont.) • Interactions across programs • Workload for NPDs • Ensuring adequate support (e.g., ORMA; OSP) • Ensuring responsiveness of ALDs/ACDs (given their own workloads) • Implications for NPDs’ own research

9. Program-specific insights • NPD role critical when Congressionally-mandated interagency coordination body exists • Example: US Climate Change Science Program • NPD is EPA’s Principal Representative to CCSP • Must represent EPA’s mission in CCSP • Must represent Administration and CCSP priorities in EPA and ORD planning and budgeting processes • CCSP makes budget recommendations to OMB • Influences Agency’s passback • Must communicate CCSP priorities to, and coordinate with, Program and Regional Offices

10. Program-specific insights (cont.) • Communication of importance of cross-cutting, multimedia environmental issues (e.g., climate change) to EPA and ORD • Coordination with critical international processes • State Department’s Bilateral Initiatives (Global) • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Global) • UNEP (Mercury)