NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
BEN FRANKLIN STATION, BOX 7672, WASHINGTON D.C. 20044 - PHONE 202-566-2788
INTERNET
http://www.nteu280.org
E MAIL
evans.bill@epa.gov
DESCRIPTION NEWSLETTER CURRENT ISSUES PRESS RELEASES LINKS MEMBERS PAGE HISTORY SITE INDEX
Inside The Fishbowl
Official Newsletter of NTEU 280
March
2007 Volume
22 - Number 10
PRESIDENT Bill Evans (202)566-2789
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Dwight Welch (202)566-2787
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT Diane Lynne (202)566-2786
CHIEF STEWARD Rosezella Canty-Letsome (202)566-2784
Bill Hirzy (202)566-2788
Anne-Marie Pastorkovich (202)343-9623
Diane Rains (410)305-2908
Dr. Freshteh Toghrol (410)305-2755
SECRETARY Jeff Beaubier, Ph.D. (202)564-7642
TREASURER Dr. Bernard Schneider (703)305-5555
EDITOR Diane Lynne (202)566-2786
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
Link
to NTEU Membership Form:
https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf1187.pdf
Table
of Contents
*1.
Message from the President, Bill Evans
*2.
NTEU Legislative Conference and Hill visits
*3. The Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2007
*4.
Laboratory Closings and Reducing Science at EPA
*5. MANAGEMENT PLUS OR MINUS By Dwight
Welch, Exec V.P.
*6.
Library Closings
* 7.
EPA’s IG Office Threatened with RIFs
*8.
Obituary: Daljit Sawhney,
Retired EPA Toxicologist and Union Executive Board member, dead at
69.
*9. ADVENTURES IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY By
Dwight Welch
Part
3: Adding Solar Energy To a Battery
Backup System
*10. Ask the Lawyer Column
*11. Congressman Al Wynn’s Global Climate
Change Symposium – April 16th , 7-9pm, Montgomery College, Germantown Campus, Globe
Hall
Important Note about PARS: We’ve said
it before – There is no quota system for the PARS ratings scale. If any manager has told you that there is a
forced distribution system, please let us know who is saying this, so we can
pass the names to Luis Luna (AA OARM) and get that office straightened out!!!
Thanks for your help.
*1.
Message from the President, Bill Evans
What Could Management Do to Make a
“Stronger” EPA?
Last month, on a Friday afternoon, (February 16, to be
exact), the EPA Unions were asked to comment on a draft “Stronger EPA” Proposal
put together by many high level managers.
We were asked to give our responses by noon the following Tuesday
(Monday was a holiday). That alone
makes me believe that management has already made up their minds on this
initiative. However, this president
spent the best part of the weekend going over the proposal and had a lot of
comments. While I can not address all
comments here, I would like to highlight a few that I believe should be of some
interest to us all.
The proposal called for the establishment of a permanent
SES candidacy program and voluntary rotations for SES managers. My comment to this proposal was that the SES
program was first established under the Carter administration and the intent of
the program was to improve government efficiency by offering higher salaries
commensurate with the private sector.
SESers who did not perform to standards were to be removed from their
positions. I asked them how many EPA
SESers have been removed from their positions since the establishment of the
program? And if they are to remain as
public servants, why shouldn’t their success be evaluated by the staff as well
as management?
In the area of strengthening EPA's recruitment and hiring
process and how EPA could compete with the private sector to retain the “best
and brightest”, I commented on the difficulties of promoting the “best and the
brightest” (best qualified) to the current pool of the GS-14 and GS-15 grade
levels. By-in-large, NTEU does not believe that there are too few senior level
positions, however, NTEU believes that many of these positions are not filled
with the best qualified candidates.
There are many highly qualified experts in their field who have earned
both titles and experience and yet are robbed of promotions by their colleagues
with less academic credentials and experience simply because they do exactly as
management requests. A
large number of senior scientists currently have not earned a PhD and have been
passed over for promotions by less experienced candidates. In addition, many non-technical positions at
EPA at the GS-14 and 15 levels do not even require a high school diploma. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see this
list? In fact, let’s examine this
scenario even further. How much of our
management, at all levels, are staffed with managers with little or no academic
credentials or experience in science and make decisions everyday on what they
believe to be “sound science”? If EPA
is to truly make itself stronger and able to uphold the Principles of
Scientific Integrity that it bought into, perhaps they need to re-evaluate
current staffing and establish a policy which will set academic and professional
standards which meet the goals of the positions which it intends to fill - be
they managerial or technical. One way
to do this would be to offer to finance higher education and repayment of
student loans. Many agencies currently
do this, and as a matter of fact, Article 58 of our Collective Bargaining
Agreement provides for the repayment of Student Loans. In this regard, NTEU is ready to negotiate
any time.
Finally, another area which the proposal considered was the
addressing of workforce suggestions for improving morale. I thought that EPA:
Should empower staff to be involved in policy decision
making (both technical/scientific and administrative) as outlined in the
Principles of Scientific Integrity
Allow all staff to evaluate all their levels of
supervision, and actively remove or demote all supervisors which do not show a
majority approval by their immediate subordinates
Should allow all employees (including management) the
opportunities to work at home or other alternative work locations during and in
preparation for “issues of National Significance”
To be fair, management’s proposal did indicate that PARs
should be improved to make it more credible and equitable. On this we couldn’t agree more. We would welcome your opinions about these
comments. You may send them directly to
the editor of Inside the Fishbowl
Lynne.Diane@EPA.GOV or to me
at evans.bill@epa.gov.
Did You Get the Award You Deserve?
Ever wonder how decisions to distribute awards are made in
your organizational unit? The process
seems to lack clarity and consistency and, in most cases the information for
these awards (especially the monetary awards) are guarded in secrecy. Wouldn’t it be grand if all of us knew
where the award money went and what we have to do to get them ourselves? There is a way that NTEU can do this. We are in the process of obtaining
information through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Specifically, we are requesting the
following information from the FOIA office for all EPA HQ employees.
1. Employee Name
2. Type of Award (Q (Quality Assurance); QSI
(Quality Step Increase); S (Superior Accomplishment); OTS (On the Spot
Accomplishment); TO (Time OFF Award); T (Team Award)
3. AA ship and office Identification to branch
level (eg. AA/Office/Division/Branch)
4.
Grade/Series/Step
5. Position Title
6. Amount of Award
With
this information you will be able to see where all the money is going in your
branch or office. You can then press
your supervisor to find out how you get your fair share of the awards. It has always been a mystery to me why most
managers are afraid to fairly recognize employees who they award. In addition to the monetary awards,
recognition is the least they can do for the employees. Employee recognition,
at least at the first line supervisor level is the one action that makes this
whole process transparent. We will let
you know when these reports are available.
*2. NTEU Legislative
Conference and Hill visits
NTEU Chapter 280 Participates in
Legislative Days Conference
Members of Chapter 280 attended the National NTEU
Legislative Days Conference held on February 27 through March 1. The conference kicked off with a speech from
House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer who has long been an ardent supporter of
Federal employees. Teams were set up and Senators and Representatives and their
staffs were visited to promote NTEUs position on important issues concerning
all federal employees. See more
information on this at the National NTEU website: www.nteu.org. Chapter 280
representatives visited their respective representatives with NTEUs platform
and also gave out information about planned laboratory
consolidations/closures. The
information was well received and one congress person stated that since the
last election, the climate on the hill has changed and he would be looking at
our issues more closely. The closing
speech was from Representative Chris Van Hollen who spoke of continuing support
for Federal Employees from this last election to the next Presidential
election.
EPA UNION LEADERS MEET WITH HILL STAFF AND
PUBLIC INTEREST REPS
On February 26, EPA union leaders met with Grant Cope,
Majority Counsel, Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee and David
Mustra of Committee Member Senator Hillary Clinton’s staff, along with Jeff
Ruch, Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
(PEER), and research staff members Timothy Donaghy, Karly Kaufman and Eileen
McClellan of Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to open discussions on how EPA
unions can work together with Congressional staff and public interest allies on
issues of mutual concern. Eric Olson, Senior Counsel EPW, and Greg Dotson,
Majority Counsel, House Government Reform and Oversight Committee were invited,
but unable to attend and were briefed by Grant Cope on the meeting outcome.
Union representatives present were Dwight Welch, as labor
co-chair of EPA’s Partnership Council, Charles Orzehoskie, President of the
AFGE council of EPA labor unions, Dave Christenson, President of AFGE Local
3607 (Denver) and his executive board member Maureen Kiely along with Bill
Hirzy of NTEU Chapter 280’s executive board. John O’Grady, President of AFGE
Local 704 (Chicago) was also invited but bad weather caused him to miss the
meeting. Dave and John were the leads on recent union initiatives expressing
employees’ concern over EPA’s organophosphate risk assessments and global
warming activities.
Union representatives spoke about why they wanted to work
in conjunction with Congress and groups such as USC and PEER on ways to help
EPA accomplish its missions while providing job satisfaction and security for
Agency employees they represent. The
underlying basis for the union’s approach was the document the labor coalition
submitted to Assistant Administrator Luna titled “Ways to Make EPA Stronger.”
The unions covered, among other items, our recommendations
for EPA to require managers supervising scientists to have doctorates, to
require doctorates of candidates for Senior GS 14/15 positions, to adhere more
closely to our Principles of Scientific Integrity, and to implement employee
evaluations of supervisors.
In addition, threats implied in the Lyons Gray budget memo
of June 8, 2006 to “consolidate” (for which read: “close) some EPA
laboratories, and dismantle EPA’s public information capabilities through
library closings were high on the union list of issues. Risk assessment and
control measures applied to organophosphate (OP) pesticides were discussed, as
were EPA’s drinking water standard review process for fluoride and the lack of
interest shown by the Agency in following up on union complaints about the
cover-up of the epidemiology study published by Elise Bassin showing a strong
link between water fluoridation and a large increase in risk of osteosarcoma in
young boys. Both these programmatic concerns were couched in terms of
questionable scientific integrity in the Agency’s approaches to the OP and
fluoride issues.
PEER and UCS discussed plans and past efforts to survey EPA
employees, particularly about perceptions of scientific integrity within the
Agency.
Wynn Holds Administrator Johnson Accountable at Subcommittee EPA
Budget Hearing
Following NTEU’s legislative
visit, which included a Chapter 280 Board member, Congressman Albert R. Wynn (MD-4), Chairman of the Environment
and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, released the following statement from the
Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's
Fiscal Year 2008 budget.
"Overall, there are
concerns that EPA funding is insufficient to meet its mission to protect the
environment, and the public health. The
number of Superfund and Brownfields clean-ups are declining. States face increasing
pressure to pass costs on to consumers, drinking water infrastructure continues
to deteriorate in the face of declining funding and the American public
continues to face health risks from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks all as a
result of chronic under-funding of EPA's core health programs. Meanwhile the EPA under this Administration
is expending resources on voluntary programs with little oversight or
accountability," stated Wynn.
*3. The Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2007
On Wednesday, March 14, the House overwhelmingly passed a
package of sunshine in government laws that included the Whistleblower
Protections outlined below. It is very significant that this Act extends
whistle blower protections to government scientists for the first time.
The Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) issued
this press release following the Bill’s passage:
Pesticide Action Network North America Applauds
Representative Waxman for Whistleblower Protection Law
Pesticide
Action Network North America (PANNA) applauds the passing of the House of
Representatives Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which protects
federal scientists and contractors from political interference in their
scientific work.
Representative
Henry Waxman, Chair of the Oversight and Government Committee told reporters,
"It is important that employees who see such examples know that they are
eligible for whistleblower protection, and that our science-based agencies get
the clear message that retaliating against these employees is unacceptable.”
Kathryn
Gilje, executive director of PANNA, says “We admire the courage of the
scientists at EPA, FDA, and other federal agencies who are speaking out in the
face of intimidation and industry pressure. Their dedication to our public
health and environmental protections is a great service to our nation and our
families.”
“Those of us
working on environmental health and toxics issues across the country are
grateful to the federal scientists for challenging harmful decisions within the
agencies,” says Kristin Schafer, Campaigns Director for PANNA. “We ask Congress
to listen carefully to these men and women, and to ensure that the 2008 budget
retains staff scientists, protects our federal laboratories, and rejects
‘outsourcing’ chemical review decisions to industry experts.”
For more
information:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1172
Expert Contacts:
• Dr. Bill Hirzy, Staff Scientist, EPA (on sabbatical with American University, yet very active in these issues) 202-566-2788, Hirzy.John@epa.gov
• Jeff Ruch,
executive director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility,
assists government whistleblowers 202-265-7337, jruch@peer.org mailto:jruch@peer.org
• Francesca
Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director of Scientific Integrity Program, Union
of Concerned Scientists 202-223-6133, fgrifo@ucsusa.org
mailto:fgrifo@ucsusa.org
• Dr. Margaret
Reeves, Staff Scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America, on
human testing and organophosphate issues, 415-981-1771,
mreeves@panna.org mailto:mreeves@panna.org
H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2007, was introduced by Reps. Waxman, Platts, Van Hollen,
and T. Davis on February 12, 2007. It includes the following provisions:
Protecting
National Security Whistleblowers. H.R. 985 gives whistleblower protections to
federal workers who specialize in national security issues. These are federal
government employees who have undergone extensive background investigations,
obtained security clearances, and handled classified information on a routine
basis. Our own government has concluded that they can be trusted to work on the
most sensitive law enforcement and intelligence projects. This bill would
finally give these courageous individuals the protection they deserve.
Protecting
Contractor Whistleblowers. H.R. 985 ensures that employees who work for
companies with government contracts are protected when they report waste,
fraud, and abuse of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Existing legal protections for these
employees are deficient, and often they fear that reporting an abuse of
taxpayer dollars will cost them their jobs.
Protecting
Scientific Whistleblowers. H.R. 985 includes a clarification regarding
disclosure of actions that threaten the integrity of federal science. Over the
last few years, the politicization of science has been rampant. It is important
that employees who see such examples know that they are eligible for
whistleblower protection, and that our science-based agencies get the clear
message that retaliating against these employees is unacceptable.
Protecting
All Whistleblowers. H.R. 985 responds to court decisions by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit limiting the scope of disclosures protected
under current law. H.R. 985 clarifies that “any” disclosure regarding waste,
fraud, or abuse means “without restriction as to time, place, form, motive,
context, or prior disclosure” and includes formal or informal communication.
The bill also provides that a whistleblower can rebut the presumption that a federal
official performed his or her duties in accordance with the law by providing
substantial evidence to the contrary. The Federal Circuit has required a higher
standard, irrefutable proof, to rebut this presumption. Furthermore, H.R. 985
allows whistleblowers access to federal district courts if the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB) does not take action on their claims within 180 days.
On the Union for Concerned Scientists website, Francesca
Grifo, senior scientist and director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the
Union for Concerned Scientists, is quoted as saying, “Today both Republicans
and Democrats stood up to protect the brave scientists who expose political
interference in their work. The resounding
bipartisan support for this bill should embolden the Senate to pass similar
legislation and send it quickly to the president’s desk. Censoring scientists undermines our
democracy and threatens public health.
One stunning example: Vioxx: Fifty-five thousand Americans died because
scientists at the Food and Drug Administration couldn’t speak out. If this law had been in place at the time,
those people might be alive today.”
As you can see, from this excerpt of the House Committee on Science and Technology press release dated March 9, 2007, the Federal Scientist Whistleblower legislation is unfortunately, a very necessary law.
For Immediate Release
March 9, 2007
Gordon, Miller Seek Explanation on
Continued Censoring
of Federal Climate Scientists
(Washington, DC) In a letter today to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, House Committee on Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon
(D-TN) and Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Brad
Miller (D-NC) asked for an explanation as to why federal scientists - this
time at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - are being prohibited from
discussing the issue of climate change.
In an article by Felicity Barringer in the New
York Times today, it was reported that the USFWS scientists had been
instructed not to speak of global warming in relation to efforts to save Arctic
species - such as polar bears - whose survival is threatened by the warming
Arctic environment.
This "appears to be the latest effort by the Bush Administration to block a full and free discussion of issues relating to climate change by the scientific community, despite the President's recent acknowledgement that global warming was an issue that needed to be addressed," wrote the Chairmen in their letter to Secretary Dick Kempthorne.
4.
Laboratory Closings and Reducing Science
Breaking News from the Laboratory Front:
Thursday, March 15, 2007, all BEAD Laboratory employees
were called together for a teleconference meeting with Richard Kiegwin (BEAD
Division Director). Rick relayed that
Administrator Steven Johnson has promised that laboratories will not be closed
or any jobs lost while he is Administrator of EPA. The laboratory infrastructure review will be revised to identify
efficiencies or "best practices" with each other to reduce costs
wherever possible. An example given was
at the Region 3 Laboratory at Fort Meade, costs of heating and cooling were
saved by adjusting the thermostat in the summer and winter. A committee of four senior managers will
conduct the survey. Later there is a
plan to hire outside consultants to assess capabilities, identify needs and
build a plan for infrastructure. Need
to set goals to be sure we can support agency mission in the next 10-20 years.
byline: Diane
Rains, Chair, Laboratory Issues Committee
Editors Note: At the March labor/management meeting with
Luis Luna, (AA for OARM), NTEU, Chapter 280 Executive Board members requested
involvement in the laboratory infrastructure review as the best way to protect
our bargaining unit members. Representatives of EPA management assured us that
Administrator Johnson has pledged that no EPA labs would be closed as long as
he is Administrator. Since all indices are pointing in this direction, the
Administrator’s statement could be construed in the short term as defining
consolidation as something separate from closure, although it has the same
effect. In the long term, by the time the lab review is completed,
Administrator Johnson will be gone, although he will have begun the chain of
events that will prompt lab consolidation (closure) for his successor.
Microarray Research Laboratory Continues It’s Fight For Survival
The
EPA Microarray Laboratory at Ft. Meade, has requested an FTE to continue the
unique research of using cutting edge technology to advance the science of
understanding the mechanisms of antimicrobials on a genetic level. This laboratory with only one FTE and a
couple of IPAs has published 5 papers in top journals in its short three and a
half year existence. Requests for a
single additional FTE to aid in succession planning and continued high level of
output has gone to Marty Monell and met with no attempts to find a
solution. It is very hard to understand
the position of management over a single FTE when the health of the American
public and homeland security issues, an EPA priority, are at stake. Current
statistics from the CDC are that 90,000 people die in hospitals every
year from hospital acquired infections and the cost of treating them and
the 2 Million people who get sick and survive is over 6.5 Billion
dollars! We have been told that
managers know best. With over 850 OPP
employees (management’s count) it is very hard to understand their reluctance
to back up their verbal praise for this laboratory’s work with a single FTE.
EPA Looking at Labs By
Mollie Churchill, OMB Watch 3/20/07
(Reprinted by Permission – Thank you, OMB Watch!)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun a
review of its laboratory network that may result in significant closures,
according to some early agency plans. In response to budget cuts, EPA intends
to reduce costs at least 20 percent by 2011. According to EPA officials in a
phone briefing on March 15, the review is to assess the efficacy of the lab
network, eliminate duplicative programs or efforts, and increase overall
efficiency. Given the FY 2007 and 2008 budget cuts to research and development,
there is concern that the review and potential closures of labs are budget
driven rather than reflecting a substantive management plan to create a more
effective EPA.
One review plan, introduced to the House Committee on
Science and Technology's Subcommittee of Energy and Environment during a
hearing on March 15, proposes consolidating 39 agency laboratories. According
to the Bureau of National Affairs, Dr. George Gray, the Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development, pledged that no laboratories would be closed
"during the tenure" of EPA administrator Stephen Johnson. However,
how long Johnson, appointed by President Bush, will remain in his position
remains to be seen. The review is expected to take up to three years to
complete, although details are unclear, as no official plan has been finalized.
A June 8, 2006, EPA memo indicated that an early plan
unquestionably included significant closings. In the memo,
www.peer.org/docs/epa/06_13_9_cfo_memo.pdf , released in September 2006 by
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Chief Financial Officer
Lyons Gray directed agency officials to cut laboratory infrastructure costs by
at least 10 percent by 2009 and another 10 percent by 2011. Closing, relocating
and consolidating labs were highlighted as core components of the plan. The
more than 2,000 scientists employed at EPA labs would also be subject to staff
buy-outs and targeted attrition. According to EPA's Gray's March 15 remarks to
both the House subcommittee and to interested stakeholders in a phone briefing,
laboratory consolidation does remain part of the plan.
The budget cuts and potential consolidation of labs strikes
chords very similar to the EPA's
recent scandal of closing regional libraries. In response to severe FY 2007
budget cuts, five (out of 27) EPA libraries were closed, documents with no
other copies were destroyed, and access to EPA materials has been limited.
Though Congress intervened and halted any subsequent closings pending their
review of EPA's plans, the president's FY 2008 budget calls for even larger
cuts at EPA, making reductions to research and information facilities
increasingly likely.
Using budget purse strings to discreetly implement a
political agenda may be part of the strategy at work in the EPA labs review.
For instance, even though climate change is currently the most prominent
environmental issue, the current administration's budget cuts appear to be
undermining efforts to address this emerging threat. EPA's own Science Advisory
Board observed
that the proposed FY 2008 budget will focus research programs "more on
yesterday's issues and less on new and emerging environmental problems."
Given the increasing scrutiny that EPA and other agencies are under for
politically motivated manipulation of science, such a result from budget
changes must be questioned. At a hearing on March 19, the House Committee on
Government Oversight and Reform continued
its investigation into whether the current administration pressured
scientists to minimize the importance of climate change.
EPA's libraries and laboratories are crucial to
understanding and addressing a myriad of health and environmental issues
currently facing our country, including climate change. Strong science requires
an arena free from political pressures, and with sufficient funding for
strategic, not just reactive, research. OMB Watch will be closely following EPA
actions on its management of agency libraries and laboratories to ensure that
their "efficiency improvements" do not impede important scientific
progress.
Press Release from the House Science Committee :: March 14, 2007
Subcommittee Questions EPA Budget Cuts
Members of the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Energy
and Environment Subcommittee today questioned the effects of projected federal
budget cuts to environmental research programs at the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
The President’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08)
reduces the agency’s overall budget to $7.2 billion, a 5.5 percent cut compared
to FY 06.
The overall spending by EPA’s research programs has been declining
for several years, with a 5 percent reduction four years ago, and a 2 percent
cut in FY06. Between 2004 and the
proposed 2008 budget, the overall support for Research and Development at EPA
has declined by 25% in inflation-adjusted terms.
During the hearing, Energy & Environment Subcommittee
Chairman Nick Lampson (D-TX) expressed concern that these cuts will prevent
the agency from adequately supporting the research and development needed to
creatively solve our country’s environmental problems.
"It’s not about partisanship. I don’t know if my kids are going to grow up to be Democrats or
Republicans, but I want them grow up healthy," Lampson said. "Unfortunately, for the fourth
consecutive year the proposed budget falls short when it comes to enabling our
nation to achieve further success in environmental protection."
Subcommittee Ranking Member Bob Inglis (R-SC) spoke of the
importance of R&D in developing environmental regulations, saying
"Research from the Office of Science & Technology Policy and the
Office of Research & Development is used to improve the regulatory
framework of the EPA. I trust that the
objective of that research is the use of science to achieve continual
improvement in the regulatory framework.
By investing in EPA’s scientific research and development today, we can
get better regulations for tomorrow."
Critics of the budget, including EPA’s Science Advisory Board,
have argued that EPA’s core research programs are being eroded in ways that
will limit understanding of the environment and hamper the agency’s ability to
formulate sound policies.
Specifically, the Administration’s FY08 budget request for Science
& Technology programs:
•
Eliminates both the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program and the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program –
each of which support developing and testing innovative technologies to cleanup
hazardous substances.
•
Merges the Air Toxics program with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards program to form the Clean Air program which will focus on
multi-pollutant effects, instead of individual pollutant sources.
•
Contains a 31 percent reduction to the human health research
program which focuses on risk intervention and prevention strategies that aim
to reduce human risk associated with exposure to environmental hazards.
The Administration’s budget plan would also cut $10 million from
the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant program, which provides research
grants and graduate student fellowships.
While the bulk of the program’s remaining funds have been allocated to
competitive research grants in targeted mission-critical areas, a smaller
amount is going toward fellowships and exploratory research on the next
generation of environmental challenges.
"Cuts to the STAR grant and fellowship program not only
reduce funding for research, they reduce essential funds for training the
environmental scientists of the future," Lampson said.
Lampson and Members of the Subcommittee heard from four witnesses
at this afternoon’s hearing: Dr. George Gray, Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. M.
Granger Morgan, Chair, Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory
Board; Dr. Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Health and Environment
Program, Natural Resource Defense Council; and Dr. Bruce C. Coull,
Carolina Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Dean Emeritus, School of
Environment, University of South Carolina.
"Without investment in science and in scientists, there can
be no science-based decision making," Coull said. "In real dollar terms, EPA’s funding of
science is nearly unchanged since at least 1990, and has been steadily
declining since FY 2004."
The Administration has argued the EPA S&T funds have been
focused on emerging priorities, while programs that are not as pressing or
effective have been scaled back. EPA is
one of two agencies that are cut in the President’s FY08 request for federal
spending.
###
#110-039
News from the House Science and Technology
Committee
5. MANAGEMENT PLUS OR MINUS
By Dwight Welch
Management Plus
Frank Sanders, Director Antimicrobial Division, OPP and
Marty Monell, Deputy Director of Office of Pesticide Programs - Problem
Solvers.
The Union received
a complaint from a member in AD. In
order to preserve the confidentiality of the employee, I will not get into
specifics. The complaint was NOT
against Mr. Sanders, however, Mr. Sanders, or so we thought, had the authority
to grant the relief requested. This
Union has had a long productive relationship with Frank Sanders, so we
attempted to resolve the complaint without filing a grievance. In less time than it would have taken to
resolve a grievance, the complaint was resolved. Part of the issue involved buy in from the Office level. We all met with Marty Monell and in the
spirit of problem solving (as opposed to confrontation) the issue was
resolved.
Editor’s note: But see this story under the closing Labs
section: “Microarray Research Laboratory Continues It’s Fight For Survival.”
Marty Monell could resolve another grievance and help the Agency meet it’s
Homeland Security priorities by assigning a single additional FTE to this lab,
yet Ms. Monell refuses to do it. We
would love to write up Marty Monell as a manager plus in this situation, but
unfortunately, for the Microarray Research Lab she remains a Manager Minus.
Management Minus
Mike Hamlin, Labor Relations and Ken Venuto, Director
Office of Human Resources - Union Stiffed on Information Requests; Grievance
Turned Down by Two Levels
In order for the Union to resolve problems, it needs access
to the information necessary to resolve these problems. This has been a long running problem with
Labor Relations; they just don’t want to share information. Such information is especially necessary if
potential or actual disciplinary action against an employee is involved. It is a long American tradition that the
accused have the right of discovery.
Apparently EPA Labor Relations and OGC feel it is exempt from the U.S.
Constitution and case law.
In the last issue of INSIDE THE FISHBOWL, under Management
Minus I discussed the withholding of information requested under 5 USC Section
7114(b) by Labor Relations’ Melissa Hatfield in accordance with the denial memo
authored by OGC’s Nancy Dunham. Not only is Office of Human Resource management
unwilling to give the Union the requested information, they are unwilling to
even try to develop some standard operating procedures to get information in
the future!
For Step One of the grievance, I met with the acting Labor
Relations Director Mike Hamlin.
Initially, Mr. Hamlin missed the deadline for responding to the
grievance and we had escalated it to Step 2.
Mr. Hamlin called me and asked if he could still have a shot at
resolving this issue, and the Union gave him a do over. At the face to face meeting I explained to
Mike the necessity of the union’s having access to the full disciplinary
investigation which took place in connection with a disciplinary action against
an employee, rather than the one page “cherry-picked” version we were supplied.
Our discussion fell on deaf ears. Our
grievance was dismissed out of hand and the written denial did not appear to be
written by Mr. Hamlin, but rather appeared to be drafted by OGC, who was not
present at the meeting. The analysis was apparently endorsed by labor relations
as Melissa Hatfield signed the denial.
Prior to the official Step Two meeting with Mr. Ken Venuto,
Director of the Office of Human Resources, Diane Lynne, Sr. VP and I met with
Mr. Venuto to discuss the importance of NTEU being able to review ALL portions
of ALL affidavits gathered in conjunction with the greivant’s disciplinary
investigation. Ms. Lynne went even
further, posing the suggestion that LR and the Union need to develop some
standard procedures for handling such requests in the future.
At the Step Two grievance level, I met with Mr. Ken
Venuto. Normally, Step Two grievances
are handled strictly at the local level; however, Ethan Balsam, our National
Field Representative, attended the meeting for the purpose of assisting me with
obtaining the withheld information. We made a similar presentation; discussing
the need of this information in order for the union to provide fair
representation to the employee.
We also reiterated the need for some standard procedures in
handling requests for information. Mr.
Balsam reiterated the strong need for this information and explained that the
material in question does not constitute guidance, advice, and/or counsel
between management officials. In
essence, Mr. Balsam insisted that Mr. Venuto disclose the requested
documentation; thereby enabling the union to properly evaluate the facts and
circumstances surrounding the grievance. Once again, the union's discussion
fell upon deaf ears. The grievance was
dismissed and the denial response was standard legalese.
The grievance is now advancing to Mr. Luis Luna, Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Administration and Resource Management for Step
3. Mr. Luna prides himself in
partnering and having an open dialogue with the unions. So it will be interesting to see if the
Union gets the information it requests; it will be interesting to see if there
are any standard procedures for obtaining information collected, or will the
Assistant Administrator stubbornly march in lock-step with his minions and
continue to stiff the Union.
6.
Library Closings
For a
comprehensive look at the EPA library situation, see
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS22533.pdf, the link to the CRS
report summarized below:
1
71 Federal Register 54986.
Updated January 3, 2007
Restructuring EPA’s
Libraries:
Background and Issues
for Congress
David M. Bearden and
Robert Esworthy
Resources, Science, and
Industry Division
Summary
The closing of several libraries
administered by the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has raised numerous issues.
The President’s FY2007 budget included a $2.5 million reduction for EPA’s
libraries, $2.0 million of which was attributed mainly to these closures. EPA reports that the
closings are part of its efforts to restructure its libraries to respond to the increasing
use of the Internet to access its collections. Although EPA plans to digitize certain
materials, some items may be archived ordiscarded. Members of Congress, library
professional associations, and public interestgroups have questioned the continued
availability of EPA’s collections as the agencyrestructures its libraries. The closing
of EPA’s libraries received increasing attentiontoward the end of the 109th Congress, including a request for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine
the agency’s library restructuring plan. However, the funding and operation of the
libraries were not mentioned in the FY2007appropriations bill that would have
funded EPA (H.R. 5386). This report examinesEPA’s plan to restructure its libraries
and discusses relevant issues.
7.
EPA’s IG Office Threatened with RIFs
In a March 22, 2007 letter to Bill Roderick, EPA Acting
Inspector General, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, John
Dingell notes that “the President’s FY2008 Budget request for the IG represents
a $5.1 million decrease from the FY06 enacted level, which may cause a loss of
approximately 30 FTEs.” The letter goes on to state that “on February 5, 2007,
four days after the President submitted the FY08 Budget, you notified all OIG
employees that it was ‘very likely we will have to close facilities and/or
conduct a reduction in force to meet our ’08 budget target and prepare for
operating at a continually reduced level over the long term.”
The letter continues to question a buyout initiative that
would require staff to sever service as early as April 30, 2007. Since Congress
has not approved the requested OIG budget cuts, the buyout initiative could be
disruptive to operations. Chairman Dingell continues, “On its face, it appears
that you are trying to make the FTE reductions proposed in the President’s FY08
budget a fait accompli prior to any Congressional action or approval. We urge
you not to proceed in this manner.” The
letter requests a citation for buyout authority, a briefing, and an assurance
that no plans will be initiated to close IG field offices without a 60 day
advance notice.
Inside EPA addressed
the proposed IG budget cuts in a March 6, 2007 article in which they quote an
EPA source: “The source adds that the cuts would mean “less auditing, and less
oversight” of EPA because it would reduce the quality and quantity of IG
investigations at the regional level. The source believes that a number of
regional IG offices are at risk of either significant staffing cuts or complete
closure, with the leading candidates thought to be Boston, Denver, Dallas and
Cincinnati.”
*8.
Obituary: Daljit Sawhney,
Retired EPA Toxicologist and Union Executive Board member, dead at
69.
Dr. Daljit Sawhney, Toxicologist, helped
establish risk assessment at U.S. EPA
By Jim Murphy,
Former President NTEU Chapter 280
On February 10, 2007, a truly international group gathered
in Annandale, Virginia, with his family to remember our friend and colleague,
Dr. Daljit Singh Sawhney. Daljit was
born on November 6, 1938, in a part of India that now belongs to Pakistan. He was graduated from Government College in
Ludhiana and received a degree in veterinary medicine from the Punjab College
of Veterinary Science. There he taught
and practiced veterinary medicine, specializing in the diagnosis and treatment
of reproductive problems in farm animals.
Political tensions led to the partition of India and the
creation of Pakistan on the west and eventually Bangladesh on the east, and may
have been a factor in his decision to come to the United States as an
instructor of veterinary medicine at the University of Nevada, which awarded
him a Master of Science degree. Dr.
Sawhney moved to New York State as director of research and development for
Agway in the food industry. Again he
led in identifying and treating nutritional and microbial diseases in local
farmers’ livestock, with a particular interest in aflatoxins.
This interest led him to further graduate study at Cornell
University, from which he received a Ph.D. degree for studies on mycotoxins,
including aflatoxin. Dr. Sawhney was an
international expert on mycotoxins, a subject of intense controversy in the
debate over “yellow rain” in Asia. In
the mid-1970s, after six years in Ithaca, NY, with wife Pat, daughter Larisa,
son Inderjit and brother Amarjit, Daljit moved to Washington to accept a new
position at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a
toxicologist/pathologist, where he investigated the estrogen receptor as a
target for toxic substances.
After four years at the FDA, Daljit joined the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as senior toxicologist to implement the new
Toxic Substances Control Act. He hired
many of us at EPA for the Risk Assessment Team or kindred organizations. In 1981, Dr. Sawhney became one of the first
toxicologists at EPA to be certified as a diplomate by the American Board of
Toxicology. His recent work at EPA was
on “high-production-volume” chemicals, with manufacture or import volumes of
more than a million pounds a year. He
served NTEU as an executive board member from 1988-1989.
Daljit retired from EPA in 2005. He was a scientist and a man of faith. His memorial service on February 10 was held at the Immanuel
United Methodist Church, where he and Pat were members, and included both
Christian and Sikh prayers and hymns, with both communities represented in
large numbers. He was gentle and
considerate, a fine example of a scientist and a man of faith. We miss him.
--J. Beaubier contributed to this report.
9. ADVENTURES IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
By
Dwight Welch
Part 3:
Adding Solar Energy To a Battery Backup System
This is the fun part of the series, adding solar panels to
the battery powered emergency backup system.
The parts you will need will be solar panels, mounting racks, a charge
controller, and if you are running more than one string of panels, a collector
box with circuit breakers. You will
also need miscellaneous parts such as UV resistant wire (or conduit), lightning
arresters, a temperature sensor, and if your power panel didn’t come with one,
a DC breaker for your solar panels.
First a Word About Batteries
I mentioned this in the last article. If you are interested in merely an emergency
battery backup, then a battery bank of twice your anticipated outage need is
all you will require. This is also true
if you only have a few panels to trickle charge your batteries which you will
only be discharging during power outages.
In these cases a well maintained battery bank will last 10 years or
more. However, if you plan to collect
enough electricity to use your battery bank on a daily basis, you should
calculate a battery capacity that will allow only a 10% to 20% discharge if you
want the battery bank to last 10 years.
I will get into this in part 4 of this series where I will outline
mistakes I made, so that future solar power user can benefit from my mistakes.
While I will get into it more in the next installment, if
you bought a battery backup system and now have changed your mind and want to
go solar in a big way, one thing I learned is that all batteries must be of the
same type, amp hours, and AGE. If you
try to add new batteries to an aging system, the old ones will “drag” the new
ones down. If you have one bad battery,
it is wisest to replace them all! It is
important to keep the batteries as equal as possible not only by type, amps,
and age, but with connections and temperature.
The Solar Panels
There’s a lot of crap out there so beware. However, by following a simple guideline,
you can stay out of trouble and the only decision you have to make is which
brand offers the most watts per dollar.
The simple guideline is to stick to panels of 100 watts or more. The good panels come in three
categories. Some are made by brand name
Japanese electronics companies such as Kyocera, Mitsubishi, Sharp, etc. Others are sold by oil companies! That’s right, oil companies like BP and
Shell. The third group, the only
American made non-oil company panels are made by Evergreen.
Most companies have varying advertising angles, but it is
mostly hype. For instance Mitsubishi
advertises that their panels contain no lead solder. Hello, none of the other name brand panels do either. You can’t buy lead solder in the U.S.,
Japan, and other first world countries anymore; they now use tin. You may encounter lead in Chinese panels
however. (See below, “Panels to
Avoid.”) Some panels are
mono-crystalline, others poly-crystalline.
Manufacturers make varying claims as to how long their panels will meet
specs. As I understand it,
poly-crystalline degrade somewhat while mono-crystalline will not. However, poly-crystalline perform above
specs when new, and then degrade somewhat down to the specifications. All good panels can be expected to meet or
exceed specs almost indefinitely.
Again, stay with name brands, keep above 100 watts, and you can’t go
wrong; just look for the best watts per dollar price.
All good panels contain the following. Underneath is generally a plastic
backing. On top of this layer, is a
layer of a number of silicon dioxide disks (solar cells) soldered in a series;
there will be several to many to a series.
One exception is Evergreen which uses a silicon ribbon. Overlaying the solar cells should be a
covering of tempered glass. Tempered
glass won’t yellow over time like plastic and is fairly impact resistant but
not indestructible. (You can’t walk on
them.) These are all bordered by an
aluminum frame. On the back of the
panel is a junction box. The junction
box should contain a number of diodes.
These are necessary so that the batteries won’t heat up the panels at
night, and for when part of the panel is in shade and part in sun. The diodes act like a one way water,
anti-backflow valve, not only keeping the electricity from flowing in a reverse
direction at night, but to keep the shaded cells from being overheated by the
sunny cells during the day.
One big difference, sometimes occurring even within brands,
are junction boxes vs. MC connectors.
The MC connectors are better than the J connectors. The junction boxes of the MC connectors are
already sealed against the elements and have two wires coming out of them. The plug on the end of one is male; the
other female. Simply connect male to
female until you have the voltage that you need, and you’re done. (E.g. 5 - 12v panels in a series will give
you 60 volts.) With “J” style panels
you have to carefully wire to the correct polarity within the junction box,
connecting positive to negative, until you have your string. You must also seal the openings with good
quality silicone sealant. “MC” panels
are definitely worth paying a bit extra for.
Panels to Avoid
With panels below 100 watts you run the risk of Chinese and
other junky panels which may contain lead and not have a long service
life.
Avoid thin film or “roll-up” panels. These may be OK for an occasional camping
trip, but won’t do well in long term service.
The plastic glazing will yellow and the solar cells are not well
protected against breakage and becoming disconnected from each other.
There are also various warnings about “solar
shingles.” These are relatively new and
don’t have the extensive history as conventional panels and it is difficult to
predict their longevity. With solar
shingles on your roof, you won’t be able to walk on them: they will break. Also, there should be one to, ideally,
several inches underneath any solar panel to allow them to cool. As a solar panel gets hot, electricity
production drops. While it may seem
counter-intuitive, a cool panel under full sun produces more electricity than a
hot panel under full sun. As the panel
heats, electrical resistance increases and thus electric flow decreases.
The Solar Panel Rack
A good rack should be able to withstand high winds. My Two Seas racks supposedly can withstand
125 mph winds. Racks are generally
aluminum with stainless steel hardware.
If the racks aren’t aluminum or stainless, galvanic corrosion will
happen at the interface of the aluminum panel frame and, let’s say, a steel
rack.
Roof Mount or Ground Mount?
If space in your yard is at a premium, then a roof mount
may be necessary. It may also be an
aesthetic call. Some advantages of roof
mounts are more exposure to the sun, more difficult to steal. There are however, many disadvantages to
roof mounts overcome by ground mounts.
With a roof mount you should have a least a couple of inches under the
panel, many roof racks don’t give an ideal cooling air space. With a roof mount, it is difficult to
impossible to adjust the angle seasonally.
Making seasonal adjustments of the panel angle to the sun, makes for
more yearly production of electricity.
The pitch of the roof may be wrong for ideal collection. For instance with a gently sloping roof, the
back ends will have to be raised, reducing aesthetic appeal and making them
more prone to ripping off with a strong north wind. Roof mounts attract lightning.
While both roof and ground should be attached to an 8 foot grounding
rod, roof mounts require a special ground fault circuit, otherwise your house
is more likely to burn down in the event of a lightning strike. Another problem is snow. I’ve discovered that even a quarter inch
will cut electricity production down to zero.
However, on a sunny day following a snow, once I brush the snow off, the
panels perform at top capacity.
(Reflection from the whitened environment adds a bit to electricity
production.) Anytime you pierce the surface
of a roof, such as with bolting down a rack, you have potential for leakage of
water and rotting of the wood underneath.
Such bolt down points on a roof should be checked and caulked yearly.
Tracking vs. Fixed Mounts?
There are two major brands of tracking mounts on the
market: Zomeworks and Watt-Sun.
Zomeworks tracks the sun using two canisters of freon, one on either
side of the rack, connected by a tube.
If the sun is hitting one canister and not the other, the freon is
driven to the shaded canister causing the rack to tilt towards the sun, until
the canisters are balanced. This causes
the panels to track the sun, keeping them at ideal electricity production
throughout the day. The Watt-Sun racks
use photoelectric eyes and a motor connected to a battery. While the trackers claim to get 40% more
electricity, and no doubt they do, if you were to invest their additional
expense into additional panels, you would at least break even or better in
terms of watts per dollar. The
Zomeworks have been in service for decades and have a good reliability
record. However, they may be blown off
track in high winds and take a while to reset to the East in the morning. The Watt-Suns fare better in the wind, reset
automatically, however, you must maintain an additional battery (or more) which
is (are) generally charged with an extra solar panel. The Watt-Suns are more expensive. Both require a pole in a big hole (deep and wider than a post
hole digger) filled with concrete.
Galvanized steel water pipes can be used 2 inches for the smaller
trackers 3 and 4 inch diameters for larger ones. If the pipe is insufficiently secured, it may over time, rotate
in the concrete. If the pipe is not
large enough, the pipe may bend over in high wind.
Tracking mounts do have some advantages over fixed mounts. If the space you have to put the solar panels is at a premium, then trackers will allow you to get more power out of less panels. Trackers also supply a more even distribution of electricity. Consider tracking mounts with less panels vs. fixed mounts with more panels, each producing the same overall amount of electricity per day. The fixed array will produce a higher spike during the mid-day hours, while the trackers will distribute the same amount of power spread out over more hours of the day. The latter situation will be easier on your battery bank, allow for direct use of the produced electricity during a longer period of the day, and in the case of very high power systems, may allow the use of less char