|
NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS DESCRIPTION NEWSLETTER CURRENT ISSUES PRESS RELEASES LINKS MEMBERS PAGE HISTORY SITE INDEX
|
|
Inside The Fishbowl MARCH 2006 Volume 22 - Number 3 PRESIDENT Dwight Welch 566-2787 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Dr. James J. Murphy 566-2786 SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT Seth Thomas Low 566-2789 CHIEF STEWARD Rosezella Canty-Letsome 566-2784 VICE PRESIDENTS Linda Barr (703) 605-0768 Dr. Arthur Chiu, M.D. 564-3296 Al Galli 343-9771 Dr. Bill Hirzy 566-2788 Dr. Freshteh Toghrol (410) 305-2755 SECRETARY Jacqueline Rose 566-1232 TREASURER Dr. Bernard Schneider (703) 305-5555 EDITOR Seth Thomas Low 566-2789 MAIN UNION NUMBER (202) 566-2785 UNION FAX NUMBER (202) 566-1460 NTEU Chapter 280 Website: www.nteu280.org NTEU National Website: www.nteu.org (202) 566-2789 Note: Articles indicating authorship reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor, Editorial Board, or NTEU Chapter 280. Table of Contents In Memoriam: NTEU Chapter 280 Vice-President Al Galli Quote of the Month EPA to Offer Defibrillator and CPR Training Author Integrity For Fishbowl Articles About NTEU National and its Chapters Chapter 280 at NTEU National Training PARS Success Story - OSWER’s Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office Drops Draft “CJE” on Professional Conduct and Development Second PARS Success Story - OSWER’s OUST Director Apologizes to Staff and Removes CJE on Professional Conduct and Development From Executed Staff Performance Plans Defamation and Disciplinary Actions - Some Illustrative Cases NTEU National Handbook on Chapter Communications - How to Avoid the Big Three: Libel, Privacy and Copyright Laws Scientific Integrity Activities Fluoride Report Issued by NRC Validates Union’s Work on the Issue Sierra Club Official/Columbia Riverkeeper Lauds Union Work on Fluoride In Memoriam: NTEU Chapter 280 Vice-President Al Galli As you may have heard, NTEU Chapter 280 Vice-President Alfred Galli succumbed to a massive heart attack recently while at work. His Union colleagues are seeking to collect memories of Al's contributions to the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as to the mission of the National Treasury Employees Union and to our work life here. If you have stories or recollections of Al that you would like to share, please provide these to Senior VP and Editor Seth Low by e-mail by Wednesday, Fridayl 28, 2006. The Chapter intends to present a compilation of the responses that we receive to those we know he held dear. Editor’s Note: I recently received from one of Al’s colleagues an EPA poster with a picture of Al in a ORD Peer Review Division staff setting. That poster gives information on peer reviews which is the process of reviewing scientific or technical merit by competent persons with no unresolved conflicts of interest. A copy of the poster is attached at the end of the Fishbowl to acknowledge part of the legacy that Al leaves at EPA. It was an honor and privileged to work with Al. I only knew him from the union meetings we had together and he struck me as a warm and very thoughtful person and I respected him very much. He was always calm and considerate in his discussions and never took personal offense if a colleague should disagree with him on a particular point or issue. I miss him. I come from a musical family and after much thought about Al two tunes came to mind, the Hymn “Goin’ Home” (which can be heard at http://www.usafband.com/recording.cfm?start=37 by scrolling down to Hymns and clicking on the icon) and the musical show song "The Impossible Dream", the ending stanza of which is featured as the Quote of the Month. Quote of the Month “And the world will be better for this That one man, scorned and covered with scars Still strove with his last ounce of courage To reach the unreachable star.” Ending lyrics from “The Impossible Dream.” The full lyrics may be found at http://www.reelclassics.com/Actors/O'Toole/impossibledream-lyrics.htm By clicking on the music icon, you can hear Peter O’Toole singing the song. EPA to Offer Defibrillator and CPR Training The EPA Office of Administrative Services’ Safety Health and Environmental Management Division has published a series of dates for training in use of the Agency’s Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) at headquarters, together with training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Please call Bruce Franklin or Tangie Brown-Cook at (202) 564-1640, if you are interested. The training sessions are 8-hours long, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. At the Federal Triangle, some classes have already been held, and others are scheduled for April 25, May 9, 18 and 23, June 8, August 1, 10 and 22, October 12, 19 and 24, and November 7. Classes at EPA’s new location at Potomac Yard in Crystal City (Arlington), Virginia, are set for June 20 and 27, and September 12, 21 and 28. Please encourage your co-workers to take the classes even if you, yourself, are not interested. The life they save may be your own. Author Integrity For Fishbowl Articles Editor’s Note: Please note that before the Fishbowl Table of Contents is the statement that: ”Articles indicating authorship reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor, Editorial Board, or NTEU Chapter 280.” What this means is that for such articles the Editor and Editorial Board, in their capacity as representatives of NTEU Chapter 280, do not generally conduct a “peer review” or fact finding exercise before such articles are published in the Fishbowl. Instead, these Chapter representatives (President, Executive Vice President, Senior Vice President, Chief Steward, Vice Presidents, Secretary, Treasurer, and Editor) consistent with the Principles of Scientific Integrity, such as Honesty, Accuracy, Recognition, Responsibility, and Open-mindedness, rely on the integrity of the author. In the event that the reader believes that authorship identified articles or other articles may contain statements that are inaccurate, or are misrepresentations, or are based on misinformation, such readers are encouraged to contact the Editor for corrective action. About NTEU National and its Chapters The Mission Statement of the National Treasury Employees Union is "To organize federal employees to work together to ensure that every federal employee is treated with dignity and respect." The National Treasury Employees Union represents some 150,000 workers in 30 government agencies, making it the largest independent non-postal federal employees union. The union specializes in representation of non-supervisory federal employees in every classification and pay level in civilian agencies. NTEU has worked for over 65 years to expand the scope of federal employee protections, rights, and benefits. Here is some background on the history of NTEU. In 1938, the National Association of Employees of Collectors of the Internal Revenue (NAECIR) was established to improve working conditions, and ensure fair wages and job security for federal revenue officers. When the revenue collection agency was re-organized as the Internal Revenue Service in 1952, NAECIR broadened its scope to include all IRS workers, and adopted a shorter name--the National Association of Internal Revenue Employees (NAIRE). NAIRE received its charter as a federal employee union in 1967. In 1973, the union expanded again to include members throughout the Treasury Department. The organization's name was updated to the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) to reflect the change. In 1975, NTEU merged with the National Customs Service Association, which brought in the first non-IRS members. In 1977, members voted to strengthen the union by moving beyond the Treasury Department to organize employees in other federal agencies. In 1978, employees of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) became the first members outside the Treasury Department. Today, local NTEU chapters operate in every state, Canada, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. According to the NTEU national web-site (www.nteu.org), NTEU's every action is geared toward creating an employee-centered workplace that produces high quality public services. This includes: recognition of the value of federal service; respect for employee rights as workplace participants and as citizens; professional development and employee growth; and employee involvement in all workplace decisions. • NTEU believes in the value of federal employees, and their work in the federal service. • NTEU is leading the fight against wholesale contracting out of federal jobs. • NTEU continues to win strong support in Congress for higher federal pay raises than those proposed by the administration. • NTEU fought for and won the right for federal employees to make pretax insurance payments. • NTEU protects current employee rights and secures new rights at the bargaining table. • NTEU is an acknowledged leader in setting the standards for excellence in federal courts. • NTEU consistently wins more than 80 percent of the arbitrations it handles on behalf of NTEU members. What can you do to help NTEU fight for your rights? At a minium, be active in your local chapter and report to the union your concerns and workplace issues that affect you or colleagues. Chapter 280 at NTEU National Training The National Treasury Employees Union held a three-day training session for Union leaders, as they do every year in various locations around the country. This year’s training was held in the Holiday Inn in Rosslyn, Virginia, on March 21-23, 2006. Four training sequences included Stewardship, Representation, Leadership, and Seminar on Chapter Administration. Chief Steward Rosezella Canty-Letsome, Stewards Bill Evans, Pat Jennings and Diane Rains, and Executive Vice-President Jim Murphy attended from Chapter 280. The new NTEU web site (at and web-enhanced representation, competitive sourcing, appraisal grievances, case law update, Hatch Act and legislative action, stewardship, managing RIFs, and what “duty of fair representation” means, were among the subjects presented and discussed. National President Colleen Kelley, National Executive Vice-President Frank Ferris, Director of Legislation Maureen Gilman, NTEU Librarian Mark Faherty, and Field Representative Will Igoe participated prominently in various sessions and were available for discussions between meetings. PARS Success Story - OSWER’s Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office Drops draft “CJE” on Professional Conduct and Development by the Editor Here is an example of how the PARS process should work. In this case, the Director of OSWER’s Federal Facilities and Reuse Office provided to his staff draft CJEs and asked them for review and comment. My home office is FFRRO and I provided comments, the jest of which were, that professional conduct and development is not a CJE. In response, that draft “CJE” was dropped from the final performance plans of FFRRO staff. It is important to note, this is how the PARS process is suppose to work, with employees having meaningful input into the development of their CJEs. So if you think a draft CJE is not appropriate, speak up and let your manager know. When you do, to the extent possible, reference the PARS guidance and other relevant documents, such as any new NTEU PARS agreement that may have been negotiated between NTEU and EPA, that supports your comments. That’s exactly what I did in my comments to FFRRO management. As an example, here’s the text of my comments to my Office Director: “Thanks for the e-mail regarding CJEs for FFRRO: I do have some concerns with the draft CJEs, as there appears to be a need to do some wordsmithing. In addition, I question the Draft text for the CJE entitled, professional conduct and development (copy included at the end of my e-mail). As written, I'm not sure it supports the PARS cascade approach to CJEs and also seems to conflict with various agency policy, such as peoplesplus which provides certain agency protections regarding staff errors when making entries into peopleplus. It also seems to be aimed at conduct, not individual accomplishments and outcomes. The PARS Cascade method is stated, on page 5 of Part III, Establishing PARS Appraisal Documents, as follows: "This is the method the Agency uses to show how the critical elements and measures for every employee, at each organizational level link to the next level and ultimately to one of the Agency's strategic goals." It then goes on and shows the following cascade: "Agency Strategic Goals ------ "Organizational Goals and Objectives" -------- "Work Unit Accomplishments and Outcomes" --------- "Individual Accomplishments and Outcomes" In order for staff to set their CJE's, I have heard Agency officials state at numerous PARS briefings that I have attended, that staff need to see the performance plan of their supervisor and also of their AA. This is consistent with the PARS guidance documents. See pages 18 - 30 of Part III, mentioned above, There is also a PARS Work Sheet that starts on page 31, that lists eights steps that should be followed for staff to draft their CJE's. If you do not have a copy of that document, please let me know and I will provide it to you and FFRRO. Also, it is important that the CJE document any assumptions that may impact a person being able to carry out the CJE. Normally, things that are beyond the control of the person, should be mentioned in the assumption section. You should also be aware that the NTEU Chapter 280 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provides the following: “The individual employee and supervisor should agree on the plan by both signing and dating the plan. However, if the parties cannot agree, the plan will still be established. The date the employee signs, or refuses to sign, the plan is the beginning date of the minimum period of performance. If the employee refuses to sign the plan, then the supervisor annotates the disagreement and date in the employee signature block. If the employee disagrees with the plan, the employee may attach his or her statement of concern to the performance plan. An employee’s initials on a plan, where provided for, indicates only that the plan has been received, not an employee’s agreement with the performance plan. The supervisor keeps the original plan and the employee receives a copy." (Emphasis added). Thanks for sending me the draft PARS CJEs for FFRRO staff. I look forward to the next draft. Best regards, Seth Thomas Low Senior VP and Editor NTEU Chapter 280 (202) 566-2789 Text of draft CJE is noted below, as follows: Performance Element: Professional Conduct and Development - Follows EPA’s and OSWER’s organizational policies and procedures. - Respects others’ positions in various organizations. - Cooperates with others to effectively and efficiently accomplish work. - Helps create and maintain good working relationships. - Maintains open effective communications with all individuals. - Handles conflict in calm, professional, unemotional ways. - Remains calm in tough situations. - Provides assistance and back-up to peers when necessary. - Cooperates with immediate supervisor to accomplish work effectively and efficiently. - Provides work status through regular entries to the FFRRO biweekly; through monthly meetings with the Deputy Office Director or Office Director as appropriate; and on an ad hoc basis as needed. - Time Card entries (People Plus) are complete appropriately every pay period. - Arrives punctually to work and scheduled meeting. Works required hours. - Accepts responsibility for actions and/or accomplishments. - Handles criticism well, admits mistakes and makes corrections. - Shares success appropriately with others. - Required Agency training (e.g., ethics, computer security, etc.) taken appropriately. - Participates in formal or informal training programs, takes advantage of other educational opportunities, or reads professional publications to stay current on new developments and methods related to subject area. - Maintains and applies necessary technical knowledge and mechanical skills required for the subject area.” The bottom line is that you have rights and you should exercise those rights. Second PARS Success Story - OSWER’s OUST Director Apologizes to Staff and Removes CJE on Professional Conduct and Development From Executed Staff Performance Plans by the Editor As a direct result of one of the recent PARS “lunch and learn” that NTEU National presented in Virginia, an employee in attendance handed to me a document with the exact same Professional Conduct and Development “CJE” as FFRRO, except it referenced OSWER’s Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST). In response, I contacted OSWER’s front office and requested that such CJE be dropped. As it turned out OUST had already put that “CJE” in effect and all OUST staff had that CJE in there performance plans. To the credit of OSWER senior management, OSWER agreed that such CJE would be dropped from those OUST performance plans. I understand that the OUST director apologized to his staff for the extra work caused by them having to redo their performance plans. Again, the bottom-line is that you have rights and it is important to speak up. Defamation and Disciplinary Actions - Some Illustrative Cases Here are some illustrative cases regarding defamation and disciplinary actions. As the cases demonstrate, you can be fired for defamation. Krennrich v. United States, 340 F.2d 653, 654 (Ct. Cl. 1965), sustained dismissal of an employee who sent anonymous letters disparaging others in the workplace: Plaintiff's first contention is that she could not be disciplined or removed on this charge unless the agency determined that the statements in her letters were in fact false. We reject this argument. The sending of anonymous letters of this type to superiors, to fellow employees, and certainly to the wife of a fellow employee, is, in itself, good cause for removal under the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, 5 USC § 652 (a), regardless of whether the anonymous accusations, phrased as these were, have any element of truth. These were not open or responsible accusations of official misconduct, properly and temperately made to the cognizant persons, but were snide and intemperate name-calling attacks in unsigned letters-one of them to the wife of a fellow employee plaintiff accused, in effect, of breaking his marriage vows. Such communications have no place, no sanction, and no privilege in federal employment. It promotes the efficiency of the government service to discipline employees using these methods. . . . The Federal Aviation Agency's Employee's Handbook permitted removal as a consequence of "making false, vicious, or malicious statements concerning another officer or employee of the Government," and we cannot say that the Agency abused its discretion in imposing that penalty on plaintiff. Grubb v. Dept. of Interior, 96 MSPR 377 , 394-95, ¶ 40 (2004), sustained a charge of unprofessional conduct when, in response to a request for a critique of an agency official's presentation, the appellant "crossed the line when she used language that was insulting and name-calling in nature." Memos questioning the competency of a coworker, determined to be clearly libelous and having possible repercussions on the employee, coupled with six months of loud and disruptive behavior showing an inability to get along with coworkers, warranted removal. An employee is expected to comport himself in accordance with acceptable workplace standards. Zara v. Dept. of Labor, 24 MSPR 693 , 698 (1984); see Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). Creating anonymous cartoons and other writings lampooning supervisors, and then lying about the authorship of those drawings during an investigation, warranted removal. Martinez and Gomez v. Dept. of Justice (Fed. Cir. 1987 nonprecedential No. 87-3001); cf. Wittenberg v. USPS, 12 MSPR 617 , 620 (1981) (as to an adverse action taken against an employee who circulated a newsletter about the agency and certain named members of management: "[T]here is a clear difference between this general 'puffery' language commonly engaged in by unions and the content of appellant's 'newsletter' which contained willful, disparaging, and demeaning attacks upon named supervisors with whom appellant is in daily contact"). NTEU National Handbook on Chapter Communications - How to Avoid the Big Three: Libel, Privacy and Copyright Laws NTEU National has a communication handbook that is provided to NTEU Chapters highlighting tips regarding communication and the law so as to avoid libel, privacy and copyright pitfalls when communicating by publications, web sites and e-mails. Generally avoidance is accomplished by respecting the rights of those mentioned in the communication. These rights are established by laws on libel, privacy and copyright. Although the handbook is directed at Chapter communications, the tips discussed may be useful to others as well. The Big Three: Libel, Privacy and Copyright Laws Any written communication can trigger issues of libel, privacy and/or copyright. Keep the following tips in mind when writing newsletters, creating and updating web sites and drafting e-mails or letters. Libel: A written publication of a false statement of fact that is defamatory, tending to harm the reputation of a particular person or deter others from dealing with that party. Tips to avoiding libel: Do not use words connoting dishonesty, lack of integrity, immorality, criminal behavior, bigotry, professional incompetence, or other undesirable traits that would tend to lower a community’s estimation of any identifiable person. Do not needlessly write something that tends to harm the reputation of others when your purpose is served by criticizing events. Do not decide to print controversial facts assuming that you can disguise them as opinion. Although the First Amendment protects “pure” opinions that do not imply fasle facts, a court would read a statement like “in my view, he lied” as a factual assertion rather than protected opinion. Do not repeat uncorroborated facts obtained from anyone having a motive to misrepresent or distort the truth. Do take great care when reporting controversial facts about persons who are named or identifiable from the context of the story; state such facts accurately and fairly without embellishments or inflammatory language. Do level any criticism on events, rather than named or identifiable people. When an indispensable part of a story tends to harm someone’s reputation, include that person’s own version of events. Do focus on the positive aspects of your chapter and workplace, rather than negative stories about named or identifiable persons. Avoid controversial facts that tend to harm someone’s reputation unless they are of a legitimate interest to chapter members. Do assess the reliability of those providing you with information. Corroborate all facts obtained from a suspect source. Invasion of Privacy: Communication of even truthful information about someone’s private life constitutes ‘invasion of privacy’ if the facts are so intimate that a reasonable person would be highly offended by its disclosure. Tips for avoiding privacy problems: Do not publish information that is private in nature rather than newsworthy. Do not disclose even true information that is so intimate that most people would expect such information to be kept private. Do publish only information that is genuinely newsworthy and deserving of public dissemination. Do avoid disclosing information relating to a person’s sexual activity, health, financial condition, or long-ago transgression such as youthful indiscretions. Copyright: Copyright laws protect original works (such as articles, books, drawings, movies and songs) that are fixed in some manner in any tangible medium (written or otherwise recorded) and are not in the public domain. The protection lasts for the duration of the author’s life plus 70 years thereafter. When the copyright of a work has expired, the work is said to be “in the public domain” and is fair game. Documents produced by the government are also typically in the public domain as soon as they are produced. Unauthorized copying or publication of a copyrighted work not in the public domain is known as copyright infringement. Tips for avoiding copyright infringement: Do not republish creative works such as newsletters, articles, cartoons or songs (other than those you know to be in the public domain) without obtaining permission in the manner specified by the copyright holder. Do not quote or replay so much of an original work so as to deter prospective sales of the work. Do not reproduce without authorization commercial versions of government works such as statutes, regulations, and court documents from publishers (West, LEXIS, BNA, for example) who hold the copyright to editorial content like formatting and annotations. Do not assume that a work is in the public domain, and therefore is fair game for copying without permission just because it has not been published, registered with the copyright office, or identified with the copyright symbol. Responding to Libel, Privacy or Copyright Complaints When someone complains that a chapter communication is defamatory, an invasion of privacy, or infringes a copyright: Be polite and respectful of the person’s concerns, rather than defensive or dismissive of complaints, but don’t admit error before further investigation. Seek assistance from your NTEU national field representative. To ensure that you understand the complaint properly, try to restate it to the satisfaction of the complaining parties and promise to get back to them shortly after further investigation. If a complaint has merit, an appropriate response might include any of the following: Remove the offending material from any web site where it appears; Writing a prominent correction or clarification ; and Publishing a letter to the editor submitted by the complaining party (editing only as necessary for space limitations or to avoid injury to others.) Scientific Integrity Activities by Bill Hirzy Over the past six weeks I have been involved in a number of activities spreading the word of Chapter 280’s work – and the work of other EPA unions – in the area of scientific integrity. I was invited to appear on three broadcasts from stations in Monterey, California (The Dr. Stan Monteith Show). On all of these radio shows I spoke mainly about the scientific basis of the letters signed by Presidents of eleven of EPA’s labor unions across the country and sent to Administrator Johnson and to key Committee Chairmen in Congress (See Fishbowl Splash, August 2005). The letters dealt with the apparent cover-up of an epidemiology study showing a 7-fold increased risk of osteosarcoma among pre-adolescent boys who drank “optimally” fluoridated water. The National Public Radio station in Los Angeles (“Which Way LA,” with Brian Almay) also invited me to appear with Dr. Jonathan Fielding and Dr. David Nelson, two promoters of water fluoridation, in a discussion of the science issues. When Fielding and Nelson were informed by the show’s producer an hour before air time that they would be discussing fluoridation with me, they refused to go on the show. That was typical of pro-fluoridationists – refusal to engage in a public discussion of the pros and cons of their pet scheme. You may recall that Chapter 280 arranged to schedule a debate on fluoridation as part of EPA’s Science Forum 2004, and got Roberta Baskin, then with the Bill Moyers NOW show on National Public Television, to be the moderator. We arranged to have Professor Paul Connett of St. Lawrence University and Director of the Fluoride Action Network to represent the con side the fluoridation issue, and EPA tried - in vain – to get anyone to represent the pro side. No one, from the Surgeon General to local dentists, had the courage to engage Dr. Connett in a discussion of what would unavoidably had been centered on the toxicity of fluoride and its lack of efficacy as a systemic treatment modality for dental caries. On February 28, I met with Catharine Ransom and Caroline Ahearn, of the minority staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, following up on the 11-unions letters referred to above. Ms. Ransom indicated that it was unlikely that a hearing specifically devoted to fluoridation would take place in the near term, but that hearings were planned on the Safe Drinking Water Act, and that these would look into the National Research Council’s report to EPA on the adequacy of EPA’s standards for fluoride in drinking water. I delivered to them and discussed a draft bill calling for a moratorium on water fluoridation that had been circulated for comment among the 11 unions and our executive board; a moratorium was asked for in the 11-unions letter, along with an investigation into possible violation of federal law by Chester Douglass, the research director of the epidemiology study. Douglass had reported to the funding agency, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, that there was no association between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma at the same time that he signed off on the dissertation/epidemiology study that showed the 7-fold increased risk. Ms Ahearn was also interested in the use of hydrofluosilicic acid in most fluoridation systems and the fact that the acid is contaminated with significant levels of arsenic and appears to contribute to elevated risk of increased blood-lead levels in children drinking water containing it. On March 14 I and members of ActionPA, a Pennsylvania environmentalactivist organization, visited with members of the Pennsylvania state legislature about a bill that would mandate state-wide fluoridation there. The Action PA folks spoke mostly about the history of similar attempts to fluoridate their state, and I addressed the science issues, emphasizing the 11-unions letters on the subject. Representative Leach, a co-sponsor of the mandate bill, was especially impressed with our presentation and asked if we would be willing to debate the subject. Of course we jumped at the suggestion, and he asked his chief of staff to see if a debate could be arranged. Later in the day we discovered that the bill would be on the floor that evening or the next day, so a debate would be moot. But the next day, March 15, while on the floor the bill was “suspended,” meaning it would not come again to the floor before April – possibly not even until next year. We shall have to see whether the Pennsylvania legislature will be any more successful than EPA in persuading proponents of fluoridation to debate. On a separate scientific integrity matter, scientists in Region 8, along with our own Brian Dementi (and possibly others) have been interviewed by representatives of the Inspector General in connection with how EPA is administering the Food Quality Protection Act. Of particular concern is whether EPA has the necessary tools to adequately address the issue of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) of organophosphates. We understand that the Office of Pesticide Programs is engaged in a dialogue with the IG on this subject, but the view of some of our toxicologists is that the subtle decrements in cholinesterase that have been observed in some DNT studies may cause adverse behavioral or cognitive effects, especially in the young, while those same decrements are too small to be observed in standard neurotoxicity tests. I am working with these toxicologists on a way to bring their professional concerns to bear on this important public health issue that is consistent with EPA’s Principles of Scientific Integrity and our Civil Service oath of office. Fluoride Report Issued by NRC Validates Union’s Work on the Issue by Bill Hirzy The National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Nation Research Council (NRC) released its report, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards,” on March 22, and it was a vindication of this union’s concerns about fluoride toxicity dating back to 1986. When EPA issued its primary drinking water standards for fluoride in 1986, the union, which then was Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees and was led by Dr. Robert Carton, told the public that the standards were not protective of public health. That is exactly what the NRC panel of independent scientists said in its 450 page report. The panel recommended that EPA lower its standards from 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter (mg/L) to an unspecified lower level. The report calls severe dental fluorosis, which occurs in a significant fraction of people drinking water at 4 mg/L, an adverse health effect, something the union has been saying for twenty years. In contrast, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control, while pushing to increase the public’s exposure to fluoride through nation-wide fluoridation of drinking water supplies, have always referred to the condition as a “cosmetic” effect. The NRC now joins our union in pointing out that this was an invalid propaganda ploy by those whose devotion to promoting water fluoridation overrode their obligations to protect public health. The union got involved in this fight in 1986 as a matter of scientific integrity and to protect the right of EPA employees to live up to their Civil Service oath, which binds them to defend the Constitution. The union believes that in violating the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986 by failing to set the MCLG at a level to protect against the adverse health effect of severe dental fluorosis, EPA management perpetrated an assault on the Constitution. The NRC panel also found that it was likely that there is an increase in bone fractures and increased risk of Stage II skeletal fluorosis among people drinking water at the 4 mg/L level. Again, our union has been saying this for years as its representatives have traveled around the United States helping citizens fight off efforts of the ADA and the CDC to add more fluoride to their water supplies and diets. Furthermore, the panel expressed concerns similar to those of the union over adverse effects on the brain and central nervous system, as well as endocrine disruption, including effects on thyroid function. The panel report also cautions against assumptions - put forward by proponents of fluoridation – that there is no evidence that fluoride can cause cancer. Two members of the NRC panel also expressed their beliefs, which parallel those of the union, that water fluoridation itself, while not specifically addressed by the panel, may pose a public health risk. An Oregon newspaper reports, "NAS panel member Kathy Thiessen, a former senior scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory who has studied fluoride for the EPA, said the report showed 'the potential is there' that water fluoridation is unhealthy. As for the studies finding that higher levels damage children's IQ, she said it's possible water fluoridation levels may have a similar, albeit reduced effect ... the research suggests 'most people should minimize their fluoride intake' -- which includes avoiding fluoridated water." "NAS panel member Robert Isaacson, a distinguished professor of neurobehavioral science at the State University of New York in Binghamton, agreed, saying that the possible effects on endocrines and hormones from water-fluoridation are 'something that I wouldn't want to happen to me ...,'" reports the Portland Tribune. Former union President, Dr. Robert Carton, who led the union’s efforts studying fluoride toxicity starting in 1985 and without whose leadership we would never have gotten into the issue, also weighed in on the panel’s report. "This report is misleading by suggesting that the problem has to be studied to death before decisions can be made. The safe drinking water act requires the federal government to act if there is any indication of possible or anticipated adverse health effects in order to protect the most vulnerable subsets of the population. Furthermore, why wasn't there a minority report? Fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day. With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male, according to the report." Sierra Club Official/Columbia Riverkeeper Lauds Union Work on Fluoride by Bill Hirzy I received a message of congratulations about the NRC report and the union’s involvement in the issue from attorney Brent Foster of the executive committee of Oregon chapter of the Sierra Club. I responded with thanks, and he then sent the following, more detailed message that shows the kind of impact the union has had, of which we were not even aware. Mr. Foster’s message suggests that there are probably lots more friends of the union out there who became such because of our fluoride work. His message also vividly illustrates that the union is helping in a very tangible, measurable way to promote the mission of the Agency through our work of this kind. “Well I’ll throw back a big thank you to all of you great EPA folks for being willing to take a stance on the fluoride issue. When I first had to research the fluoride issue from a salmon toxicity perspective for a client several years ago seeing the EPA union’s concerns about fluoride was really influential in changing my assumptions about fluoride. “A year after first reading the EPA D.C. union’s position papers/testimony on fluoride I wrote a ballot measure and managed a campaign that prohibited the addition of any industrial waste byproduct or other substance that would cause the water to exceed EPA’s Max. Contaminant Level Goals to the City of Hood River, Oregon’s water. The measure didn’t even mention the word fluoride (which drove the dentists nuts) but passed with almost 60% of the vote and defeated a 15 year effort to add fluoride to our drinking water. “EPA’s position was also a key factor in encouraging our executive committee for the Oregon Chpt. Sierra Club to oppose mandatory fluoridation bills in Oregon last year and was cited by the Chair of Oregon’s Senate Environment Committee as a major reason why he refused to pass a mandatory fluoridation bill out of committee. “Thanks again for your leadership and integrity on this issue- it’s greatly appreciated and I believe it will be remembered as one of the key factors which changed the way we think about water fluoridation. |