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
Hirzy.John@epa.gov
DESCRIPTION NEWSLETTER CURRENT ISSUES PRESS RELEASES LINKS MEMBERS PAGE HISTORY SITE INDEX
Inside The Fishbowl
Official Newsletter of NTEU 280
July 2007 Volume 22 - Number 13
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.
Mid-career
Background Investigations and Medical Releases
*2. Federal Pay Raise for 2008 (3.5%) Gets Closer to Approval and
Contracting Out Update
*3 All Eyes on OPEI:
Will Reorg Stifle Innovation?
*4. National
Partnership Council Meeting
*5. Your Official
Personnel Folder (OPF):
You can ask for a full copy of your OPF before
it’s –shipped off-site for scanning
– Another note on how to easily get your copies through the Official e-mail
address.
*6.
Drug Testing
at EPA
* 7. GAO
Issues Report on EPA Mishandling of Katrina
*8. Retiring? Better use up your Flexible Spending Account
*9.
Membership Counts: Insurance advantages for NTEU Chapter 280 Dues Paying
members
_____________________________________________________________
*1. Mid-career
Background Investigations and Medical Releases
You may be surprised to discover that
after perhaps ten years as an EPA employee, a lateral move to another office
may trigger a new background investigation known as a NACI. The NACI, or
National Agency Check and Inquiries was part of Presidential Order 10450 signed
by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953. A member complained to us and was
especially alarmed that EPA security was requesting a medical release as part
of that investigation.
Here is what we found out. In pre-911
days, EPA security, (now known as PSB, EPA’s Personal Security Branch) was not
especially well staffed and initial hiring background investigations were not
conducted comprehensively. Now, any personnel action routinely passes through
security, where they check to see if you had a background investigation, and if
so, whether you had an investigation that comports with your current position.
Mid-career EPA employees, like all Federal employees, have to have a background
investigation appropriate to the risk or sensitivity level of the position they
occupy. This is a requirement,
Government-wide, under Executive Order 10450 and 5 CFR 731. If an EPA employee moves to a higher risk
position through promotion, assignment of other duties, detail, or
reassignment, PSB must check to see if he/she has the appropriate level
background investigation on record. If
not, the employee has to undergo a new investigation at the higher level.
Although members have been told that risk
levels are grade related, security tells us now that risk levels,
Government-wide, are determined based on position duties and a position’s
potential to adversely affect an Agency’s integrity, efficiency, and
mission. Risk levels are not based on
GS grade levels.
EPA Security, not the Program Office,
determines whether a new investigation is required. The Program Office pays the
fees set by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and OPM conducts the
investigation. The investigation can cost the program office from $1000-$2000,
for each additional check.
Before the investigation is initiated, the
employee must complete and submit an OPM security questionnaire. The questionnaire for many current employees
needing a higher level investigation is the SF 85P. Employees needing access to classified national security
information complete the SF 86. EPA
Security informs us that EPA has no authority to alter either form and that
both forms include an “Authorization for Release of Medical Information.”
EPA Security informs us that you do not
need to sign this medical release in conjunction with the SF 85P form for those
background checks. The online Quick Guide to Completing the SF 85P(http://intranet.epa.gov/oa/smd/pdfs/filling-out-sf-85p.pdf;
available on the PSB forms page at http://intranet.epa.gov/oa/smd/hqsecurity/pss.htm#forms)
makes that clear. The Quick Guide link
is included in all emails advising employees to complete the SF 85P.
Now, in response to NTEU Chapter 280’s
request, EPA Security will also include a new line in the e-mails advising
employees not to complete the medical authorization.
You may decline to sign these forms with no impact whatsoever on your
background investigation.
What if you have already signed the
medical authorization? EPA Security advises us that they were not forwarded to
OPM for action. According to OPM, the medical release forms are good for only
one year from the date of signature. Anyone who signed these forms and wants
them back should provide their name, phone number and program office to PSB
staff member, Gretna Davis-Gould (202-564-7912). Ms. Davis-Gould’s email address is in the lotus notes directory.
The medical release is used for those
investigations that require security clearances (access to classified
information). For the types of
investigations required for those in question (NACIs), a medical release would
not be required because those types of checks (medical records) are not part of
the investigation.
A completed medical release form could be
required for those completing the SF-86, Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (those that require a security clearance at the SECRET or TOP SECRET
levels). For instructions on when to
complete the medical release form, Security provides a guide to filling out
SF-86. In that Guide, Question 21 instructs, “Go back 10 years. Even if you answer yes, don’t provide
additional information if the consultations involved only marital, family, or
grief counseling, and were not related to violence committed by you. If your counseling involved other issues,
provide the requested information and sign the “Authorization for Release of
Medical Information.”
Both security clearances and NACI checks
do check credit history.
While the NACI check is typically a quick
process, depending upon your background, in some cases, OPM can take over a
year to complete the investigation. According to EPA Security, as soon as
PSB receives the required security paperwork, they release the employee’s SF
52, Request for Personnel Action. That
means the individual can occupy the higher risk position immediately while
waiting for OPM to complete the investigation.
So, if you are being stalled from your new
job or higher grade while the check is on-going, be certain to let your
management know that they do not have to wait for OPM in order for you to start
your new position.
New Government-wide IDs
Even if you are not facing a personnel
action that would flag security to reevaluate your level of background
clearance, eventually, you will be issued a smart card government-wide ID card
which carries a computer chip. These new cards will not only identify you and
give you access to government buildings, but include access to government
computer networks. This new card is the result of a 2004 Presidential
directive. Unions have expressed concerns about the requisite background
checks, and several NASA scientists have written Congressmen Rush Holt (D-N.J.)
and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich) to express concerns about threats to privacy.
Here’s how HSPD-12, the smart card
directive, comes in. To qualify for a
smart card badge, every eligible Federal and non-Federal worker must have at
least a NACI background investigation on record. The vast majority of Federal employees satisfy this
requirement. However, some Federal
employees do not have such a record.
The most common explanation is OPM’s record retention schedule. OPM keeps investigative records for 15 years
for cases without adverse findings; EPA retains some records for longer.
Any employee without an investigative
record must undergo a new investigation to comply with E.O. 10450 and to
qualify for a mandatory smart card badge.
According to EPA Security, the concerns quoted from the June 12 Washington
Post article below, are really about the basic OPM investigative process,
not the smart card initiative.
While the minimum background investigation
requirement for the Smart Card is a NACI, the investigation will still need to
meet the requirements of your position.
Therefore, you may still be required to undertake a background investigation
that is more stringent than the NACI. If you are concerned about whether or not
your program office will pay for a required background check, security tells us
that since this is a Federal mandate, they don’t anticipate that any program
will refuse to pay for the required background investigation.
According to The Washington Post,
“Federal Diary” Column (June 12, 2007), the cards will be issued to federal
workers and government contractors, “who must provide fingerprints and disclose
financial, medical and other personal data.
The forms filled out by employees and contractors are matched against
databases to verify the information.
For employees holding sensitive jobs, agents are sent to interview
neighbors.”
*2. Federal Pay Raise for 2008 (3.5%) Gets
Closer to Approval and Contracting Out Update
On July 10, the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee approved a 3.5% federal pay raise for 2008. The Administration
proposed a 3% pay raise. NTEU President Colleen Kelley has lobbied hard for
this extra amount in light of meager pay increase that federal workers received
last year. On June 28th, the House of Representatives approved the
2008 pay raise at 3.5%, and President Kelley was quoted as saying that the pay
raise represents a small, but important step in closing the pay gap between
public and private sector employees, estimated at about 13%.
Contracting Out Update
In the same legislation approving the 2008
pay raise, the House approved legislation leveling the playing field in federal
contracting out competitions, despite an attempt on the floor to remove the
provisions from the bill. The attempt was defeated 268 to 158. It expands
federal employee appeal rights in A-76 procedures, giving them the same rights
presently enjoyed by private contractors to appeal agency decisions privatizing
federal work. NTEU has long argued that federal workers should have the same right
to appeal to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) – as an independent
decision-maker – that private contractors have. Under present contracting
rules, federal employees are limited to an appeal within their agency; the same
agency which makes the A-76 decision in the first place.
The bill’s language also precludes private
companies from reducing employee health benefits, or offering inferior
retirement benefits, in order to reduce costs on their final contract bid.
Finally, the legislation mandates that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) cannot require or direct agencies to undertake A-76 competitions. The
bill makes these provisions permanent changes in law.
*3. All Eyes on OPEI: Will Reorg Stifle Innovation?
EPA has many reorganizations in process,
but few have attracted the attention that OPEI has generated. OPEI, or the
Office of Policy, Economics & Innovation, is being folded into an Office of
the Administrator (OA) reorganization. The restructuring plans include
increasing the number of OPEI Offices from three to five by disassembling the
current National Center for Environmental Innovation (NCEI) into two separate
Offices and creating a new Office of Performance Management to conduct in house
performance evaluations akin to Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock’s penchant
for performance measurements.
The Office of Environmental Policy and
Innovation (OEPI is one of 3 offices that comprise OPEI), is the office most
affected by the planned reorganization and has been afforded no adequate
opportunity to share its concerns and participate at either staff or management
level with the senior-level management's proposed change.
OEPI has been described as a boutique
office that operates as an innovations "change-agent" for EPA. OEPI's basic mission is to test, evaluate,
and disseminate innovation via a variety of means, such as, training,
information-sharing, innovative and voluntary program support, and various
creative networks. In carrying out its mission, OEPI partners with a breadth of
diverse stakeholders: EPA HQ and regional program offices, state environmental
agencies, NGOs, and a variety of other external local, national, and
international entities.
Under the proposed plan, a new Office of
Cross Media Programs would oversee the three current NCEI multi-media programs
(performance track, sectors strategies and smart growth), and only two thirds
of the existing innovation policy shop would comprise the re-named NCEI even
though technically, voluntary program coordination remains a function of
NCEI, and not the cross media program office.
The new Performance Management Office
would shift staff and resources from NCEI's innovation work and NCEI would no
longer be a unifying factor for the innovation work done by both the policy shop
and the multi-media programs. The planned cross media program office would
shift a key innovative division (namely the Evaluation Support Division) and
the management of the IAC (Innovation Action Council) from OEPI, along with
OEPI's experienced evaluation and front office staff, to the new Office of
Performance Management.
The advantage of having a combined Center
that unifies programs and activities of the two Offices is to better leverage
partnership opportunities and more effectively work within EPA and with outside
interests to advance new ways to achieve environmental results. Both offices share common long term goals of
building a more performance-based regulatory system, promoting environmental
stewardship and advancing a culture of creative environmental problem solving.
Currently, OEPI operates uniquely as a
matrix-managed office, that is, OEPI staffs projects by teaming expertise from
across the office. OEPI is responsible for many niche innovative programs and
activities, such as staffing and managing the IAC (senior-level federal (EPA
DRAs and DAAs) and state environmental leaders), Environmental Results Program,
State Innovation Grants Program, Program Evaluation Network and Competition
(grant program), and many other cutting edge developments (stewardship, lean
manufacturing, integrated permitting research of the EU/UK system). By carving out the essential evaluation
function from the office, it appears that this proposed reorganization is
opening OEPI up to possible dissolution – leaving it in "name" on
paper (while severely diminishing its administrative and professional
staff/FTE).
NTEU Chapter 280, is very concerned that
the reorganization process itself appears to have been carried out "behind
closed doors". NTEU is concerned
that while OEPI staff specifically requested clarification and explanation of
the details, as well as requesting a collaborative, transparent process, that
has not been implemented. It appears to NTEU that top management have been
reluctant to share detailed information and arguably have been dismissive of
specific concerns voiced by OEPI employees.
Certainly, with dissension being voiced
across the entire organization, OPEI management could have removed this office
from the on-going OA reorganization. They could have taken the time to
implement a reorganization that would strengthen innovation at EPA, instead of
pushing to expedite the formalization of a reorganization that is widely
believed will have the opposite effect.
Is this a way to kill NCEI – while leaving
it in existence on paper (albeit, without sufficient resources and support
staff?)
NTEU Chapter 280 has requested a briefing
on the OA reorganization proposal in accordance with the terms of our
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Inside EPA wants to know…Reporter Adam Saravo is
looking for comments on this reorganization.
He can be reached at 703-416-8516.
*4. National Partnership Council Meeting
NTEU Chapter 280 participated in the
annual National Partnership Council (NPC) meeting which was held in Washington,
D.C. at the American Institute of Architects in June. The NPC was co-chaired by our Executive Vice President, Dwight
Welch who passed the gavel to AFGE’s Mark Coryell as the new co-chair. NTEU Chapter 280 was additionally represented
by President Bill Evans and Vice President Bill Hirzy.
Once each year, the 22 Unions representing
all EPA employees nation-wide meet with management from all AAships to discuss
issues affecting their well-being on the job.
This year the Unions and management agreed to discuss the “Stronger EPA”
initiative, an update on Smart Cards, DFAS, the EPA leave Bank, the Human
Capital Survey, and streamlining Requests for Information, 7114 (b) Union
requests. This meeting was organized by
topic, in that various managers made presentations followed by opportunities
for Union representatives to comment and ask questions.
While the meeting was informative and
collegial, it highlighted many problems for OARM Assistant Administrator, Luis
Luna and the presenters. Union representatives were all very concerned about
the lack of pre-decisional negotiations concerning the implementation of
changes pursuant to the issues listed above. Management rarely let Unions
negotiate in advance of a management decision. If Unions could begin
negotiations early on, labor and management could develop negotiated positions.
All Unions expressed the opinion that they would like to see much more
Interest-Based bargaining as we work through these issues. Although management seemed to echo the same
sentiment, the outcome from this meeting remains to be seen.
*5. Your Official Personnel Folder (OPF):
You can ask for a full copy of your OPF before
it’s –shipped off-site for scanning
– Another note on how to easily get your copies through the Official e-mail
address.
You can ask for a full copy of your OPF before
it’s –shipped off-site for scanning
The
contractors who copy the OPF for you have been swamped with requests since our
April article and May follow-up article came out in the Fishbowl. Rather than
contacting any individual contractors, please send your e-mailed request to
“Official Personnel Folder Request Team.” Yes, this is an address in the lotus
notes directory. If you send the e-mail directly to an individual contractor,
your request will take longer to process, as more steps are required.
USEPA / ASRC
Management Services
1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Ariel Rios
North, Rm. B318 (Open from 9-3 M-F)
Washington,
D.C. 20460
Ph:
202-564-0690
Fax:
202-564-9914
You may also
fill out a form in person from 9am -3 pm at Ariel Rios North, Rm B318. If you
have chemical sensitivity problems, you need not pick up the copies, as they
can be FED EXed to you at no cost, provided you have a mailing address and not
just a Post Office Box. If you have any
questions, feel free to call the OPF team directly at 202-564-0690.
If you missed
April’s Fishbowl article, by Maureen Kiely, EPA Region 8, this is why we are
suggesting that you get a copy of your OPF:
The EPA plans to convert employees’ Official Personnel Folders from a
paper to an electronic format. Nearly
all of the local Unions representing EPA employees have demanded to bargain
over this proposal.
Your OPF contains the entire record of
your career at EPA, as well as some very personal information, such as your
social security number, your spouse’s social security number, the designated
beneficiaries on your life insurance policy, etc
A key reason that the Unions have all
asked to bargain is that we want to protect EPA employees in two ways:
1.We want make certain that all of the
important documents currently in your paper OPF actually make it into the
electronic version. Loss of some
documents, for instance, could adversely affect your retirement.
2.We also want to make sure that all of
your personal information is not stolen during the scanning/digitization
process; or once the electronic-OPFs are “launched” on the Agency’s intranet.
These labor-management negotiations are
still in progress. However, it is
possible that within the next month or two, EPA will begin shipping all the
Official Personnel Folders to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) contractor
in Virginia, to begin the scanning and digitization process.
You have a right under the Privacy Act to
see all of the personnel folders that EPA retains for you. This includes your OPF, as well as other
folders containing material that should not be in your OPF.
*6. Drug Testing at EPA
We have heard from members who have been
targeted for random drug testing and wanted to know how they were selected.
These Q’s and A’s are from 1998, but still apply, and can be found at http://intranet.epa.gov/rmpolicy/hr/drugfree.htm#7b.
According to Donald Vereen, M.D., Medical
Officer and Special Assistant to the Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, the
active ingredient in marijuana is fat soluble, rather than water soluble, which
means the drug is slow to leave your body. You could test positive for
Marijuana for about four days after smoking it (although other variables can
influence the timeframe.) The good news is that since it leaves the body so
slowly, it does not have the addictive effect that a water soluble drug, such
as methamphetamine has.
Q. WHY ARE WE DRUG TESTING IN EPA?
A. Because we, like every federal agency,
are required by Executive Order 12564 to have a drug-free workplace plan, and
drug testing is a mandatory part of the plan.
Q. IS EVERYONE GOING TO BE TESTED?
A. No. We will test a random sample of
approximately 15 percent a year from a pool of approximately twelve hundred
employees who occupy testing-designated positions (TDP). All successful
applicants (internal and external) for TDP are also subject to testing.
Q. WHO WILL BE PLACED IN THE POOL FOR
RANDOM DRUG TESTING?
A. Employees who fall into one of several
categories: Presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation; employees
who possess a National Security Clearance at the secret level or above;
employees who carry a firearm while on duty or are authorized to do so;
on-scene coordinators; members of emergency response teams; and EPA drivers who
(1) carry passengers as a regular part of their duties, (2) operate vehicles
weighing more than 26,001 pounds, or (3) operate vehicles transporting
hazardous materials.
Q. WHAT ARE THE DRUGS THAT WILL BE TESTED
UNDER THE AGENCY PLAN?
A. We will test for marijuana, cocaine,
opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine (PCP).
Q. WHAT ABOUT ALCOHOL?
A. No.
Q. WHAT ABOUT AIDS?
A. No.
Q. AFTER THE EMPLOYEES ARE NOTIFIED, HOW
SOON DO THEY HAVE TO REPORT FOR TESTING?
A. Generally, within two hours
Q. WHERE WILL EMPLOYEES GO TO REPORT FOR
TESTING?
A. Employees will go to designated
collection sites near EPA locations throughout the country.
Q. WHAT METHOD OF TESTING WILL BE USED?
A. Urinalysis. Employees will provide a
urine sample under controlled circumstances. The urine samples will be
initially screened for the presence of drugs. Any specimens testing positive
(indicating the presence of drugs) will be subjected to a gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC/MS) test. This is a very sophisticated technique that
virtually eliminates the possibility of an incorrect test result.
Q. WILL EMPLOYEES HAVE TO GIVE URINE
SAMPLES IN THE PRESENCE OF AN OBSERVER OR A VIDEO CAMERA?
A. No. There are unobtrusive ways of
making sure that samples are not altered or substituted.
Q. WHO WILL DO THE ANALYSIS?
A. Laboratories certified by the
Department of Health and Human Services will do the collection and analysis.
Q. HOW WILL EPA PREVENT SPECIMENS FROM
GETTING MIXED UP?
A. We are required to have a strict
"chain of custody" throughout the entire testing procedure. Only
qualified contractors who have proven experience in administering drug testing
under the federal program are used.
Q. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE TEST IS POSITIVE?
A. The test result is sent to the Medical
Review Official, who is a licensed physician trained in substance abuse. The
medical review official will consult with the employee to determine if there
are legitimate reasons to explain the test result. Employees will be given
every reasonable opportunity to provide supporting medical documentation.
Q. CAN YOU TEST POSITIVE BECAUSE YOU WERE
IN THE PRESENCE OF SOMEONE USING A DRUG EVEN IF YOU DID NOT USE IT?
A. No. The test threshold for detection is
too high.
Q. HOW LONG AFTER USE WILL A DRUG BE
DETECTED BY THE TEST?
A. It can range from days to weeks. There
are too many variables (the drug used, the amount and frequency of use, body
size, etc.) to be more specific.
Q. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE MEDICAL REVIEW
OFFICIAL DETERMINES THE POSITIVE TEST IS THE RESULT OF ILLEGAL DRUG USE?
A. That determination will be sent to EPA
and the employee will be subject to the full range of disciplinary action. Such
disciplinary action will be determined on a case-by-case basis, be consistent
with the Executive Order and EPA's Drug-Free Workplace Plan, and may range from
a reprimand to removal. Any employee found to be using illegal drugs will be
referred to the Employee Counseling and Assistance Program.
Q. WHAT IF AN EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO TAKE THE
TEST?
A. The employee will be subject to the
full range of disciplinary action. Each situation will be decided on a
case-by-case basis.
Q. WHAT HAPPENS IF AN EMPLOYEE ENTERS A
REHABILITATION PROGRAM BEFORE TESTING?
A. The employee may be exempted from
random testing for the duration of the rehabilitation if approved by EPA's
Employee Counseling and Assistance Program Administrator or designee. However,
the employee will be subject to follow-up testing for one year after finishing
rehabilitation.
Q. BESIDES RANDOM SAMPLE TESTING, WHAT
OTHER TYPES OF DRUG TESTING ARE THERE?
A. In addition to random testing, there
are five: (1) Employees may choose voluntary testing by having their names
added to the random sample pool. (2) Employees in the pool who have undergone
rehabilitation are subject to follow-up testing for one year. (3) Reasonable
suspicion testing may be required of any employee in any position in the Agency
when there is reasonable suspicion of illegal drug use. Specific procedures are
followed to ensure that employees' rights are not violated. (4) There is
applicant testing. All successful applicants, internal and external, for a
position that is in the random sample pool will have to take a test and receive
a negative result before appointment. The testing requirement will be on the
vacancy announcement. (5) Employees involved in on-the-job accidents or who
engage in unsafe on-duty, job-related activities that pose a danger to self or
others, or who hamper the overall operation of the Agency, may be subject to
testing.
Q. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TEST RESULTS?
A. They are treated as confidential
records and may be released only as authorized by law or regulation.
Q. ONCE I HAVE BEEN TESTED AND PASSED, AM
I EXEMPT FROM FURTHER TESTING?
A. No. As long as you are in a drug
testing-designated position, you are subject to random sample testing.
Q. WHAT IS MY WORK STATUS IF I SHOULD BE
SELECTED FOR TESTING?
A. You will be in a duty status during the
testing and while traveling to or from the testing location.
Q. WHO PAYS FOR THE TESTING?
A. EPA.
Q. IF I DECIDE TO GET MY OWN TEST AFTER
BEING TESTED BY EPA, WHO PAYS FOR IT?
A. You do.
Q. WILL I BE IN A DUTY STATUS WHILE I GET
MY OWN TEST?
A. No. You will have to take leave.
*7.
GAO Issues
Report on EPA Mishandling of Katrina
A June 25 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report indicates the U.S. Environment
Protection Agency (EPA) failed the public post-Katrina. The report was issued
following a June 20th Senate Hearing and a June 25 House hearing
that focused on EPA’s public communications failures following 911.
The GAO report, Hurricane Katrina:
EPA's Current and Future Environmental Protection Efforts Could Be Enhanced by
Addressing Issues and Challenges Faced on the Gulf Coast, found inadequate
monitoring for asbestos around demolition and renovation sites. Additionally,
the GAO investigation uncovered that "key" information released to
the public about environmental contamination was neither timely nor adequate,
and in some cases, easily misinterpreted to the public's detriment.
Hurricane Katrina was the first
implementation of the National Response Plan (NRP), created in 2004 as result
of the difficulties responding to the 9/11 disaster. Under the NRP, EPA is the
federal emergency support coordinator for collecting, monitoring and effectively
dealing with hazardous materials, specifically authorized to regulate asbestos
emissions and maintain the National Priorities List of Superfund sites. By the
time Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005, EPA had already put air
monitoring stations in those prioritized sites and coordinated state efforts to
double their air quality sampling elsewhere.
However, according to the report, EPA
failed to effectively monitor the air quality around New Orleans neighborhoods
as they engaged in demolition and renovation, most notably the Ninth Ward.
Merely conceiving of the agency's role to assist state and local officials to
do the actual work, EPA only maintained the expanded air monitoring program for
the first few months, shrinking back to its pre-Katrina scope by July 2006.
EPA also used its authority to suspend
certain air quality laws via "no action assurance letters" to allow a
faster building demolition process without requiring asbestos testing and
removal. Though the regulation relaxation to speed demolition may have been
reasonable, the failure to aggressively test for asbestos with known heightened
risks was not. More worrisome, the July 2006 program reduction was due, in
part, to not having found asbestos sampling concerns, but these lack of
findings may have been due to the lack of aggressive testing.
While EPA made a significant effort to
inform the public about environmental health risks, the report showed that it
failed to do enough in this area. The first environmental assessment took three
months to complete and contained information with confusing and sometimes
contradictory messages. The GAO report details one instance in which the most
common flyer stated that only buildings built prior to 1970 were an asbestos
risk, while EPA's website used 1975 as the cutoff year, with the disclaimer
that more recent buildings could also contain asbestos.
Echoing the 9/11 situation, EPA subtly
manipulated information to portray New Orleans' air quality more positively
than people might have concluded from the complete facts. For example, EPA's
December 2005 assessment stated the "majority" of sediment exposure
was safe. But eight months later, the agency revealed that this measure was for
"short-term" visits, such as to assess immediate exposure damage, not
to live near or in the area. Additionally, the 2005 assessment used data from
outside sediment to generalize the safety of both outdoor and indoor areas, a
dangerous assumption as buildings can act as traps collecting contaminants.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, EPA
was presented with an enormous task, and limitations imposed upon it by the
National Response Plan made its job even more difficult. Disturbing parallels
with 9/11, however, are apparent: misleading the public through
over-generalized and insufficient information and avoiding responsibility by
blaming other agencies or local governments. In her response to the president
about lessons learned from Katrina, Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend wrote, "The response to
Hurricane Katrina fell far short of the seamless, coordinated effort that had
been envisioned by President Bush when he ordered the creation of a National
Response Plan." (Thanks to OMB Watch for permission to reprint. See
|
Published on 07/10/2007 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3905/1/{category_id}
|
*8.
Retiring? Better
use up your Flexible Spending Account
A Note from NTEU National:
Getting ready to retire? If so, be sure to
spend all of the unused funds in your Flexible Spending Account (FSA).
While federal workers have two-and-a-half
months after the end of the plan year to use money set aside in their FSAs,
retiring employees have no grace period in which to spend unused dollars from
the time of their separation. FSA funds can only be used for expenses incurred
when a federal employee is considered active. For example, federal employees
may use their remaining balances to pay for doctor visits made before their
retirements--even if the claims are submitted after the employee has
retired--but visits that occur after the separation date are not eligible.
NTEU fought hard for the creation of and
improvements to the FSA program, which permit federal employees to set aside
pre-tax income to pay medical and dependent care expenses. Because the money is
deducted up front, the employee’s taxable income is lower and overall income
taxes can be substantially reduced.
*9.
Membership
Counts: Insurance advantages for NTEU Chapter 280 Dues Paying members
NTEU contracts with Colonial Insurance to
provide dues paying members with an assortment of insurance options. You may
want to review the offerings on this website: www.coloniallife.com/NTEU. One of
the benefits listed is disability insurance which helps protect part of your
income in case of accident or serious illness. Members seeking answers to
specific questions or wishing to enroll can contact Colonial by or through
e-mail using this website.