OOON87006
JVEWS FOH
ABOUT EF>^\ EMPLOYEES
Health Benefits
Awards
VOLUME 4
NUMBER II
NOVEMBER 1987
Health Benefits
The 1988 federal employees health
benefits program offers a mix of good
and bad news for federal workers.
Because of sharp increases in health
care costs and use, the average
premium for the non-postal federal
employee will rise by 31 percent. But
296 plans, primarily pre-paid health
maintenance organizations, will
actually cut enrollee premia. The
annual open season for federal
workers is taking place now and will
end December 11. Ninety-two new
pre-paid plans will be joining the
program. Two fee-for-service plans,
sponsored by the National Treasury
Employees Union and the
Government Employees Benefit
Association, will cease to offer high
option coverage in 1988 while
continuing to provide their standard,
low-option benefit package.
The maximum government
contribution for 1988 will increase by
32 percent. It will be $35.77 biweekly
for self-only enrollments and $77.48
biweekly for family coverage. The
maximum monthly government
contribution is $77.50 for self-only
and $167.88 for family. By law,
government cannot contribute more
than 75 percent of any premium.
Read the various brochures
carefully before you make your choice
of plans.!]
Carrying The Torch
for EPA
"It was a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity," commented Penn
Watkinson, HERL. Dr. Watkinson, a
research physiologist, and Claudia
Gunning, OARM, were two of many
volunteers who carried the Olympic
torch through Chapel Hill on July 16.
Lit from the Olympic flame that burns
on Pike's Peak, the 1987 torch arrived
in Wilmington on June 22, having
been carried 2800 miles through 400
North Carolina cities, and wound up
Cook Finishes
Triathlon
Mike Cook, 45 year-old Director,
Office of Drinking Water, finished
second in his cohort during the
National Ultra-Course Endurance
Triathlon held September 12 on Cape
Cod. He ran a marathon (26.2 miles),
bicycled 112 miles and swam 2.4
miles—seriatim.
Cook has been competing in
triathlons since 1985, and ran
marathons for several years before
that. By virtue of his second-place
finish, Mike is eligible to compete in
the Ironman Triathlon (considered the
toughest in the world) in Hawaii next
year. Although the distances for the
three events are the same as in the
National, the course is much more
strenuous. Cook has not yet decided
whether he will undertake this feat.
Cook joined EPA in 1973,
responsible for municipal treatment
works planning and for legislative
policy in EPA's multi-billion dollar
construction grants program. He
managed EPA's emergency response
programs from 1980-1981, including
early implementation of the new
Superfund, and served from
1981-1985 as Deputy Director of the
Office of Solid waste, which regulates
transport, treatment, storage and
disposal of the 274 million tons of
hazardous waste generated annually
in this country. G
in Raleigh on July 17. Depending on
the distance to be covered and the
number of volunteers available, the
torch was transported on foot and by
canoe, bike, parachute and hang
glider.
Watkinson runs 30 to 40 miles a
week. He feels that this exercise keeps
him fit for biking, soccer and skiing.
He also recommends running as a
means of dissipating stress. "Running
is an overall aerobic conditioner," he
declared. "I heard people say that the
Olympic Festival was the greatest
event in North Carolina since the
Wright Brothers learned to fly,"
Gunning added. She and Watkinson
are part of a running group in Chapel
Hill, the "High-View Harriers." She
manages 12 to 15 miles a week, and
notices a markedly beneficial impact
on her health. A contracts specialist at
EPA since 1970, Gunning has won
many medals, usually coming in first
or second in her age and gender
categories.
Runners' Caveat: Science News
reported on May 23 this year that
running more than 45 miles per week
chronically elevates stress hormones
that could be deleterious over the long
haul. Moreover, mileage in the 18-21
per-week range, according to both
Tufts and Berkeley Health Letters, is
more than sufficient to provide the
aerobic base for 8-10 years of
extended longevity, n
National Recognition
for Gearo
Joseph R. Gearo, Jr., an EPA staffer
for nine years, has received a 1987
Outstanding Young Man of America
Award in recognition of his
professional achievements, superior
leadership abilities and exceptional
services to his community.
Gearo has made significant
professional contributions as an
environmental scientist in the Office
of Drinking Water, working on
underground injection-well control
and public drinking water supply. He
is experienced in Superfund and air
enforcement compliance as well.
Gearo was lauded for his civic
contributions to the D.C. metropolitan
area. He is a member of the Institute
for Executive and Management
Development, and is a volunteer for
the Biblical Counseling Foundation,
specializing in marriage dysfunction,
depression and substance abuse.
Gearo earned an M.S. degree from
George Washington University in
environmental health and
epidemiology in 1980. He resides in
Alexandria, VA, with his wife, Beverly
Jean, n
-------
People
Special Act Awards
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
Charles Auer, Anita
Frankel, Jay Ellenberger,
Margaret Anthony, Matthew
Robbins, Sandra Lee, Kevin
McCormack, Zelma Taylor,
Lawrence Culleen, David
Kling, Robert McNally,
Susan Olinger, Stephen
Schanamann and
Terence Stanuch
Air and Radiation
Jernall Washington
Office of the General Counsel
Edward Gray, Joyce
Sanderlin, Lee Schroer, Earl
Salo, James Nelson and
David Rochlin
Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
Tracy Gipson, John
Schakenbach, Kevin
Golden, David Foster,
Joseph Lee, David Caulkins,
Bruce Rothrock, Andrea
Pearl, Michael Smith, Allen
Danzig, Laurence Groner,
Philip Gray and
Charles Breece
Research and Development
Antoinette Thomas, Charles
Nauman, Paul White,
Richard Moraski, John
Schaum, Richard
Walentowicz, John Signa,
Linda Walther, Jeffrey
Swartout, Mary Wigginston,
Virginia Kahn, Mary Alice
Bolten, Morris Altschuler,
Colleen Lentini, Cynthia
Holley, Jerry Blancato,
Seong Hwang, Michael
Dourson, Gregory Kew,
Thomas Miller, Mary
Gundlach, Lynda Ennoff,
Robbins Church, Terry
Clark, Robin Dennis,
Monifa Belfield, Steven
Bromberg, Ethel Bush,
Morse Davis, Anthony
Janetos, David Kelly, Duane
Lammers, Jeffrey Lee, Leon
Leigel, Sharon Beall, Dawn
Beall, John Malanchuk,
Dennis Trout, Lenora
Simms, Joyce Royal, Lowell
Smith, Dale Pahl, Clifford
Moore, Joanne Sulak,
Pamela Bassford, Michelene
Moore, Christopher DeRosa,
Linda Schwalgerle, Deana
McKendre, Heny Thacker,
Julie Gnau, James
Shackelford, John Wilson,
James McNobb, Linda
Jackson, Lorraine Inglis,
Brenda Gloster, Patricia
Edward, Beatrice Drakeford
and Fred Carman
Administration and Resources
Management
David Stuz, Carolyn
Anderson, Dale Roberson,
Harvey Patterson, Clark
Hening, Bernadette Dunn,
Alice Davis, Margaret
Berger, Pat Murphy,
Richard O'Mara, Steven
Jones, Connie Dwyer,
Richard Johnson, Barbara
Roth, Jean Sammon,
Cynthia Sayers, Evelyn
Spicer, Shirley Staton,
Gordon Schisler, Kerry
Weiss, Allan Clark, Jackye
Seldon, William Forrest,
Robert Swiatkowski, Gerald
Yetter, Geneva Gillespie,
Steven Young, Irvin Weiss,
Linda Smith, Clifford
Moore, Daniel Graves,
Robert Greenspun,
Christopher Lewis, David
Lindsey, Patricia Kruger,
Janice Kern, Barbara Jarvis,
Jerry Carrillo, David Cline,
Victor Cohen, Martha Cook,
William Topping, Pamela
Hurt, William Boone,
Richard Peterson and
Larry Hubble
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Loren Holloway, Glenn
David, Matthew Hale, James
McAlister, Edwin Pryor,
Susan O'Keefe, Donna
Gerst, Diane Batson,
Theodora McManus, Mark
Gilbertson, Wayne
Anthofer, Elizabeth
Cotsworth, Linda
Boornazian and Anthony
Diecidue
Office of the Inspector General
Garrette Clark, Joseph
Kruger, Karen Garnett,
Anna Hackenbracht, Lynn
Luderer, James Ewing and
William Colony
Water
Arnetta Davis, Linda
Burnside, Bridgette Holmes,
Sally Marquis and
Tina Layno
External Affairs
Linda Hyman
Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation
Sharon Von Meter
Sustained Superior
Performance Awards
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Edwin Abrams, Carolyn
Cunningham, Michael
Northridge, Pamela Boyd,
Larry Rosengrant, Bertha
Harvell and Beverly Cook
Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
Brenda Harris, Jacqueline
Cherry, Linda Thompson,
Janice Linett, Stephen Botts,
Ann Strickland, Helen
Keplinger, Evyonne Harris,
Amy Svoboda, Jonathan
Fleuchaus, Linda Flick,
Joseph Schive, Stuart Hunt,
David Van Slyke, Susan
Watkins, Annie Stubbs,
Arthene Pugh, Margie
Howard, Judith Katz, Alice
Mims, Elizabeth Ojala,
Burton Gray, Kenneth
Harmon, Carmelle Sanders,
Pamela Proctor, Susan
Sullivan, Charles Garlow,
Wanda Stevenson, David
Drelich, Alan Morrissey,
Larry Wilbon, Nancy Hunt,
Eugene O'Neil, Patricia
Miller, Horace Sneed, David
Batson, Debra Washington,
Alex Varela, Pamela Lott,
Virgie Wiley and Tai-Ming
Chang
Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation
Carl Koch, Garrette Clark,
Thomas Land, Anna
Hackenbracht, Joseph
Kruger, Karen Garnett and
Pamela Cooper
External Affairs
Priscilla Flattery
Air and Radiation
Janette Uno, Carlene
Stevenson and Mark Joyce
Water
Elizabeth Sunderland
Office of the General Counsel
Gerald Gleason, Maureen
Smith, Anthony Beyer,
Diane Weeks, Gregory
Foote, Sara Schneeberg,
Steven Silverman,
Jacqueline Cross, Maria
Diamond, Richard Collins,
Eumi Choi, Yvonne
Templemon, Samantha
Hooks, Aaron McDaniel,
Lashan Haynes, Ralph
Colleli, Dov Weitman,
Silvia Ghee, Howard
Hoffman, Bonita Follins,
Kimberly Baldwin, Susan
Schmedes, Nancy Hutzel,
Mary Alder, Nancy
Ketcham-Colwill, Sheila
Brown, Steven Neugeboren,
Patricia Embrey, Lee Tyner,
Marlyne Lipfert, Kathleen
Lewis, Edward Fitzmaurice,
Kendra Sagoff, Ernestine
Christian, Joseph Keller,
Erica Rosenburg, Joseph
Freedman, Patricia
Millhouse, Caroline
Wehling, Jane Roemer,
Barbara Bruce, Mary Clarke,
Karen Clark, Jacquelin
Brown, Cara Jablon, Philip
Ross, Barbara Morrison,
James Clark, Patricia
Roberts, Deborah Warrick,
Thressa Pearson, Carol
Bryant, Glenda Farmer,
Norma Jean Fazenbaker,
Stephen Pressman, Susan
Butler, Timothy Backstrom,
Edna Anderson, Charles
Breece, Rachel Holloman,
Beverly Horn, Paul Frazier,
Barbara Jones, Benjamin
Bochenek, Kevin Lee,
Nandan Kenkeremath,
Robert McLaughlin, Robert
Perlis, Pamela Savage,
Jacqueline Hawkins, Judith
Wheeler, Doris Washington,
Linda Murray, Margaret
Silver and Robert Friedrick.
-------
Non-Attainment Strategy
Lee Thomas recently addressed EPA's post-196/
nonattainment strategy for ozone and carbon monoxide at
length in a meeting with state representatives. Major
elements in the strategy include the desirability of
Congressional action to deal with long-term nonattainment
of the ambient standards, the need to focus on the
long-range transport of ozone and ozone precursors, the
importance of additional discretion in applying sanctions,
and the need to assure that areas continue to make
incremental progress towards attainment.
Thomas said EPA intends to propose federal measures
for and ask for public comment on the types of stationary
sources where support to the states, in the form of national
standards or guidelines, might be appropriate. The Agency
also intends to ask for comment on criteria which could be
used to select candidates for such additional national
action. He said EPA will expand its efforts to provide
better coordination among states in dealing with ozone
transport in the Northeast Corridor. The Agency will
emphasize that in the planning period states must
continue their current efforts and initiate new efforts to
implement additional control measures, and that the
opportunity for additional planning should not become an
excuse to "delay measures which actually improve air
quality." Finally, EPA will reiterate its views on areas
where Act amendments would be appropriate.
Despite these efforts, some differences will remain. State
representatives at the meeting argued that EPA's
nonattainment strategy was flawed in several respects. It
was charged that it emphasizes planning that will not
result in actual air-quality improvements, that it will not
satisfactorily address the ozone transport problem, that it
will not sufficiently increase the mandatory size of the
control area, that the application of sanctions under the
new strategy would be unfair and counterproductive, that
the strategy does not provide for an aggressive federal role
and places the greatest burden and risk upon the states,
and that states would be at least as well off without this
strategy as with it.
However, Thomas declared that one of the wisest
elements of the Clean Air Act is the importance it assigns
to planning. It is only through comprehensive advance
planning that a rational distribution of control burdens can
be achieved and public acceptance for shouldering those
burdens developed. Planning is resource intensive and
time consuming, but without it areas would not know
what actions must be taken in order to ultimately reach
attainment. Moreover, the costs of not planning are
enormous in terms of wasted efforts, unneeded
expenditures and public frustration.
Thomas agreed with the skeptics that planning should
not be used as an excuse for unreasonable delay in
executing mandates of the law. Accordingly, the policy
would require full implementation of existing SIPs during
the planning period, in addition to an annual three
percent emission cut beyond federal measures in long-term
nonattainment areas.
The problems associated with planning for ozone
attainment under the Act stem "not from any intrinsic
flaw in the roles assigned to federal, state and local
governments," Thomas maintained. "They result from an
unrealistically compressed set of deadlines by which state
and local governments were to plan to achieve an
extremely demanding outcome. The solution to these
problems is not to overthrow a joint state-federal planning
process, but to set realistic time frames for the process and
for the pace of emission reductions leading to attainment."
Thomas went on to say that EPA shares the concern of
states about the long-range transport of ozone and its
precursors. "Our sponsorship of the Regional Oxidant
Modeling—Northeast Transport (ROMNET) project is
evidence of this concern. However, the full results of this
analysis will not be ready for several years. In the interim,
continued progress can be made with the tools at hand."
This means that areas in the Northeast Corridor must
develop plans that use the best available information to
determine needed reductions. "We estimate that about
90% of the volatile organic compound emissions in the
Northeast Corridor will be addressed under the
requirements of our proposed policy." Given the
magnitude of the nonattainment problem in the Northeast,
it is likely that most, if not all, areas will need substantial
reductions if we are to attain the ozone ambient standard.
There is also a number of federal measures that will
impact transport substantially and will apply in
attainment areas (volatility, onboard, etc.)
ROMNET should help determine boundary ozone
transport conditions more precisely. Once this is done,
EPA's policy will provide for subsequent plan revisions to
make any necessary changes. This approach should
provide the right balance between the need to collect as
much information as possible and the need to move
quickly to implement sensible cuts.
In a clarification, Thomas said EPA policy does not
require states to limit the locations within the planning
area from which emissions must be reduced. It requires
the establishment of a particular planning area, but leaves
the choice of appropriate control areas to the states. Since
EPA is requiring a large planning area in the proposed
policy, it expects that most states will choose broad areas
of control instead of requiring more narrowly based but
more stringent standards. Neither does the policy limit a
state's ability to take any necessary action to demonstrate
attainment. Instead, by applying the percent reduction
requirement to the base inventory for the entire planning
area, the policy indirectly presses for controls outside the
core urbanized region.
Some states seemed to fear that EPA policy will not
prescribe a specific regimen of controls that would apply
nationwide or areawide, regardless of whether such
controls would be needed to address area nonattainment.
" In my view," Thomas said, "the Clean Air Act sets forth
requirements for a federal-state partnership to attain the
ambient standards. This implies a mutual, set of
responsibilities." EPA intends to do its part—appropriate
national standards, guidance for national consistency,
technical support and oversight. The states must also do
their part. The effects of control actions on the lives of
their citizens would seem to be reason enough for states to
want as much flexibility as possible in designing and
implementing their programs. Certainly that is the message
EPA hears from individual states when they must enforce
clean air requirements. Yet some felt that more mandatory
federal control measures, with little discretion for states,
are the only acceptable method for dealing with
nonattainment. From the Agency point of view, any
-------
strategy which does not properly balance federal and state
roles will fail, because those who must implement it will
feel no stake in its success. Instead, it will be just another
requirement imposed by "bureaucrats" in Washington,
reluctantly complied with at best. This would be a real
misfortune. "I believe that our proposed strategy will
strike the appropriate balance for sustained progress in
controlling both ozone and carbon monoxide."
The question of federal and state responsibilities,
Thomas continued, is also central to the sanctions issue.
Unfortunately, EPA is constrained by existing law. Its
inequities should be remedied by statute. In particular,
EPA needs additional discretion in applying the
"reasonable efforts" test to areas with nonattainment
difficulties. For instance, the construction ban should not
be mandatory when states are making reasonable efforts to
attain. EPA should have discretionary authority to seek
highway funding restrictions in areas with approved Part
D plans that have not attained or are not implementing
their SIPs and that are not making reasonable efforts. EPA
also needs flexibility to make sanctions available in areas
that contribute to nearby nonattainment. Finally, the duty
to promulgate Federal Implementation Plans should be
invoked only as a last resort, after sanctions have had a
chance to work.
Thomas wound up by challenging the assertion that the
states would be better off without the strategy. Honest
disagreements are possible on the substance of the policy.
"However, I find it hard to believe that state and local
governments would truly prefer the chaos of no policy to a
framework for reasonable action. Such a course would
leave the states and EPA at the mercy of litigation over
which neither would have much control. More
importantly, I regard such a course as irresponsible from
the standpoint of public policy. While I welcome
Congressional action on Clean Air Act amendments along
the lines I have outlined, EPA would be remiss if it failed
to set forth a policy that makes long-term sense. We have
no interest in adopting stop-gap measures that would only
perpetuate the illusion of action without the substance."
"instead," Thomas declared, EPA owes it to the states,
to Congress and to the public to offer its best professional
judgment on how the nation ought to address
nonattainment." With the exception of a few issues
(mostly involving sanctions), the policy reflects that
judgment. Congress may find this judgment useful in its
deliberations. The process of developing the strategy,
however, has raised the kinds of issues Congress will
ultimately have to deal with. For this reason, "I must
disagree with the assertion that the strategy deflects our
energies from the Congressional process." Indeed, the
development of EPA's strategy will probably focus this
process more than any other action could.
Thomas concluded by saying that the present dialogue
must lead to an even stronger mutual commitment to air
quality. D
Alternative Fuels II
The following paraphrases T.pe Thomas's
letter of September 30 to the House Subcommittee on
Health and the Environment on the issue of alternative
motor vehicle fuels.
Thomas stated that the automotive industry might be
able to provide a substantial number of methanol
flexible-fuel vehicles by 1991, but it was very unlikely that
manufacturers will have optimized, dedicated methanol or
natural gas vehicles available by that time. "We believe
this distinction between flexible-fuel and optimized,
dedicated vehicles is very important from an air-quality
perspective. We believe that industry might be able to
provide flexible-fuel cars and light trucks, but this would
take a major expedited developmental effort. The many
ramifications of such a broad mandate need to be
considered. For example, it is likely that each
manufacturer would be able to convert only a fraction of
its model lines to flexible-fuel vehicles, even with a crash
program.
Accordingly, while flexible-fuel vehicles could be
available in large numbers, they would not be available for
every product offering and many fleet operators would not
be able to obtain the vehicles best suited to their needs. It
is also important to note that any attempt to expedite
normal developmental programs entails certain risks. In
particular, we are not aware of any durability program to
assess the long-term reliability of the flexible-fuel concept
in real-world conditions. That implies important
air-quality ramifications given the relationship between
automotive fuel-delivery systems and emissions.
And what about the feasibility of heavy-duty vehicles
using alternative fuels by 1991? One specialized
application where we are very optimistic is transit buses.
Several manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, have
strong programs underway to develop methanol engines
capable of meeting the stringent bus emission standards of
1991.
Because these programs have not yet been completed,
and because the diesel fuel/trap oxidizer option may still
prove to be a more cost-effective way to reduce particulate
emissions, EPA would prefer to allow market forces to
guide the transit bus industry in meeting the 1991
standards. But should Congress pass a mandate, there is a
very good chance that transit bus fleets could comply. In
addition, certain light heavy-duty vehicles (such as large
pick-up trucks, delivery trucks, etc.) could perhaps adopt
flexible-fuel technology because the engines are either the
same as or very similar to those being developed for
passenger cars or light trucks.
However, it is critical to point out that for a very broad
range of engines throughout the medium to heavy-duty
vehicle class, there has been practically no alternative
fuels development effort. This is primarily because the
economics of alternative diesel fuels will always be worse
compared to gasoline; though methanol engines are more
efficient than the 4-cycle type, they are not yet more
efficient than two-stroke. Accordingly, with the exception
of transit bus engine development, being driven by EPA
emission standards, there has been little serious
developmental effort with vehicles that traditionally
utilize diesel engines. Thus, EPA does not believe that the
automotive industry would be able to provide engines to
meet the needs of all urban heavy-duty fleet operators
within the context of prospective legislation. o
------- |