JVEWS FOR ^JVD ABOUT EPA. EA4PLOYEES
Inside:
• Open House
• Meetings
OOON88004
VOLUMES
NUMBER 7
JULY 1988
Barnes to the
Academy
Lee Thomas has announced the
imminent departure of Jim Barnes to
become Dean of the Indiana University
School of Public and Environmental
Affairs. "I certainly don't need to reiterate
the innumerable accomplishments Jim has
achieved while at EPA, first as Special
Assistant to Bill Ruckelshaus at the
beginning of EPA, and then as General
Counsel and Deputy Administrator during
the last four years. Indiana University is
gaining an outstanding administrator and
public-policy expert to lead its innovative,
far-reaching programs."
Fortunately for EPA, Thomas said,
Barnes will remain here into August to
wind up his varied duties, projects and
responsibilities. "Given the important
matters facing the Agency over the next
several months, his continued leadership
and advice will be particularly
appreciated." n
Money
Congress has decided to give federal
workers a four-percent pay raise—that
would be the biggest civil service boost
since 1984. This year federal employees
got two percent; in 1987 three percent. In
1986 there was no increase, and in 1985
they received 3.5 percent. For the average
white-collar, Washington-area civil servant
who is paid $33,360 a year, a four-percent
raise would be worth $51.32 per
paycheck, or $1,334 a year.
Since this is an election year, Congress
may exclude itself; that would temporarily
put the lid on members of the Senior
Executive Service, some Grade 16s and all
GS-17s and 18s, since by law neither
Congress nor senior bureaucrats can get a
raise unless both get one. But afterwards a
special commission will probably
recommend hefty 1989 raises for top
officials of the executive, legislative and
judicial branches. President Reagan would
then submit his own pay proposal to
Congress, effective automatically unless
Congress objects, a
Indoor Air
John Chamberlin, Director, Office of
Administration, has postponed installing
new carpets and partitions in Waterside
Mall until the Agency can determine their
effect on air quality and employee health.
"We are taking a number of actions
under a task force headed by Jack McGraw
and me to deal with this problem,"
Chamberlin said. The OSWER
Environmental Response Team is
monitoring air quality, the ORD
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory in RTF is studying these
materials in special chambers, a
mechanical engineer has been engaged to
evaluate selected air handling systems,
and the Agency is arranging for the
services of a special occupational
physician to consult with employees
whose health may have been impacted.
"Our preliminary analysis has not
identified any specific cause of the
problem," Chamberlin declared. "We will
continue our investigations and regularly
inform staff of our progress." Questions
should be addressed to David Weitzman,
Director, Occupational Health and Safety
Staff, 382-3640.
Chamberlin said he is confident "we can
resolve this problem in a way that will
provide a model for the nation. We will
then resume our renovations to provide
high-quality space without the kinds of
illnesses we have experienced in the
recent past."
Meanwhile, Local 2050 of NFFE has
taken the position that management
should remove the suspect carpet, recover
any losses from the manufacturer, and
flush the air system thoroughly.
Relocation of staff into the new area could
then proceed after, monitoring to assure
that no toxic residues remain. The Union
is preparing a cost-risk-benefit analysis,
and is asking the Agency to investigate
use of non-toxic materials for renovations
at headquarters.
Finally, a bill, S.1629, has been tossed
into the Senate hopper to ensure that any
new building constructed for use by EPA
as headquarters shall be "designed,
constructed, maintained and operated as a
model to demonstrate principles and
practices for protection of indoor air
quality." D
Politics and Public
Service
Most federal managers, far from being
stereotypical knee-jerk liberals, voted for
Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984,
according to a survey of 3,500 of them
released a few weeks ago.
The survey of mid- and upper-level
federal executives across the country by
Government Executive magazine found
that 65 percent voted for Reagan in 1980
and 60 percent for his reelection in 1984.
However, the survey confirmed the
widespread belief that the government has
suffered a brain drain and that morale has
fallen under Reagan to an all-time low.
Most federal managers would not
recommend a government career to young
people.
The magazine found that nearly
two-thirds of managers who responded
think the executive branch operates more
effectively under the Republicans than the
Democrats. At the same time, most believe
the Reagan defense buildup has produced
gargantuan waste. A surprising 45 percent
of the executives who replied believe
budget cuts have not gone far enough.
Nearly 60 percent are willing to entertain
such practices as contracting out and
imposing user-fees under certain
circumstances. Most think deregulation
should continue and that more
responsibilities should be handed over to
state and local governments.
But, conservative as they are on public
policy, federal managers are tigers on
changing the salary system.
Overwhelmingly, they favor the concept of
pay according to performance. Fully 75
percent feel the current pay system is
unfair and counterproductive. They are
eager for more scale experimentation,
higher pay in higher-cost areas, and
remuneration that reflects the going rates
in various occupations.
Charles Levine, professor of public
administration at American University and
deputy director of the National
Commission on the Public Service, said
the survey should help convince the next
president that "although top bureaucrats
are conservative in their policy
preferences, they are quite receptive to
reforms artfully designed and
implemented to revitalize the civil
service." D
Why Meetings Fail
Recent studies by scholars at the
Wharton School, Harvard, Yale and
Tubingen may compel executives in both
public and private sectors to change the
way they organize and conduct meetings.
It turns out that groups work best when a
Continued on next page
-------
Continued from page 1
productive balance is kept between
"monkey business" and task focus, when
the right people are excluded and when
fine-tuning and brainstorming are left to
creative individuals, not committees. Even
more important may be not calling
meetings at all—up to 30 percent are
supernumerary and can be handled by
memo or phone call.
The typical offender against
"conferential efficiency" is the manager
who repeatedly brings people together
even when their concerns are unrelated.
Each comments in turn; meanwhile the
others nap because they have no interest
in what's going on. Unless all participants
get something out of the meeting, not just
the leader, resentment builds up over
wasted time.
Problem-solving groups need a balance
between intellect, creativity and
pragmatism; attendees should be diverse
in technical background, so that fatal
flaws in group-think can be detected
before momentum builds behind
"obvious" but disastrous solutions.
Incompatible personalities, say the
experts, can be manipulated by structuring
groups whose members are roughly
equivalent on measures of assertiveness.
The power arena needs attention, because
nobody undermines success more than the
control-happy, eager-beaver type who
blasts everybody and tries to take over.
The "genius" won't fit in either unless
members have the confidence to welcome
and channel his idiosyncratic views.
One universal rule: keep groups limited
in size. The bigger they are, the worse
they do. A case in point: six-person juries
reach the same conclusions as 12-person
types, but they take only half as long to do
so and are less likely to hang up on small
points. When you consider that top
managers spend 23 hours per week in
meetings, small groups could liberate
them for more time on analysis, policy,
and planning, n
The Office of General Counsel (OGCJ support staff
sponsored a workshop entitled "Critical Elements of
Selling Yourself in (lie Job Market" on May 12, 1988. The
workshop was. conducted by Frank T. Davis, Special
Assistant to the Comptroller of the Government
Accounting Office, and assisted by Toni Jenkins. More
workshops are being planned for the near future. Bottom
row, 1-r: D. Anderson, S. Brown, C. Monroe, S. Ethridge.
Top row, 1-r: E. Christian, B. E//iot, K. Lewis, D. Warrick,
D. Washington, /. Cross, G. Earmer, /. Hawkins, F. Davis,
T. Jenkins, S. Butler, B. Follins, D. Hudson, C. Graham.
Photograph by Steve Delaney. a
Open House
The EPA Library recently celebrated the
second anniversary of its hazardous waste
collection and database with a highly
successful open house. A broad spectrum
of managers dropped by to observe
demonstrations of the waste database,
including a new user-friendly menu and
manual, a thesaurus of keywords, an
OSWER electronic bulletin board and an
online Superfund encyclopaedia.
Hazardous waste videotapes were also
screened continuously for an intrigued
audience of managers and outside guests.
Monique Currie, Beth Ann Kyle, and Jim
Keys organized the open house and hope
to follow up with additional programs.
Win Porter, AA for OSWER, is shown
below checking to see how the flexible
new system can help managers keep track
of the action in the waste and Superfund
arenas. For additional information on
services, call Jim Keys, 475-8236. n
NSAC Officers
A new slate of officers assumed
leadership of EPA's National Secretarial
Advisory Committee at its spring
conference in Atlanta, Georgia, May 3-5.
Joan Price of ORD's Environmental
Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia,
will serve as chairperson, Evelyn Wray of
headquarters as vice chairperson, and
Cheryl Klebenow of Region 5 as recording
secretary. Communications contacts will
be Martha Isaac of Region 2 for Regions
1-5, Dina Granado of Region 6 for Regions
6-10, Robin Shoemaker of EMSL-Las Vegas
for the West Coast labs, Kit Chappell of
AEERL-RTP for East Coast labs, and
Shirley Waugh of the Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances for headquarters, n
The EPA Times is published monthly for EPA employees. Readers are encouraged to submit news about themselves or
fellow employees, letters of opinion, questions, comments, and suggestions to the editor, The EPA Times, Office of
Public Affairs (A-107). Telephone: 475-6643. Items selected for publication may be edited to accommodate space
available. Editor: Don Bronkema
-------
Committee On Global Climate
To provide an interagency forum for the development of
response strategies, EPA will establish an Interagency
Policy Committee on Global Climate Change, reporting
through the Working Group on Energy and Natural
Resources to the Domestic Policy Council of the President.
The Committee will comprise all agencies with an
interest in global climate, including the Departments of
Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, State and Energy, plus
the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Council on
Environmental Quality, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), and EPA. The Department
of Justice has asked for status as an observer. Because of
EPA's statutory responsibility for policy development and
submittal of reports, the Committee will be chaired by the
Administrator of EPA.
The purpose of the Committee will be to ensure that
policy options are developed jointly with all interested
federal agencies and precede any legislative or regulatory
action, and that domestic and international activities are
fully integrated.
In addition, the Committee will oversee interagency
coordination of reports on global climate issues
submissible to Congress. These include effects and
stabilization studies currently under way in EPA and
planned for completion by December 1988, as well as
reports EPA and State are required to prepare under the
Global Climate Protection Act of 1987.
The Department of State will chair a subgroup of the
Committee to prepare a report on U.S. efforts to develop a
strategy seeking international cooperation to limit climate
change, and take responsibility for the domestic and
international interfaces of the issue.
State and EPA are also required to prepare an
international assessment of climatological research. The
Committee will seek to avoid duplication and ensure that
the expertise of NASA, NOAA, NSF, USGS and others is
utilized. Any relevant work in conjunction with the
UNEP/World Meteorological Organization Science
Assessment could also be included as part of this Global
Climate Protection Act report. The Committee on Earth
Science (CES) will continue to serve as the coordinating
body among federal agencies for global climate research
issues; the new Policy Committee and CES will collaborate
to ensure that scientific programs support policy-makers
who must evaluate the impacts of climate fluctuation and
response strategies, a
Minimizing Waste
In a follow-up to testimony, Jim Barnes has informed the
House Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism and
Hazardous Materials that the nation needs to develop a
waste-minimization ethic. EPA clearly has an important
role to play in the evolution of such a value system. The
Agency is willing to make this commitment and seek
support from Congress to ensure its success. First, H.R.
2800 currently mandates the establishment of an
independent Office of Waste Reduction at EPA with an
Associate Administrator directly responsible to the
Administrator. The Agency shares Congressional concern
that waste reduction activities be pursued in all media
offices and address all media. However, Barnes said, "we
strongly urge the Committee to allow the Administrator
flexibility in organizing a management structure that best
meets the needs of waste minimization as well as EPA's
many other mandates. The Agency is considering a
number of organizational arrangements to meet these
objectives."
Second, H.R. 2800 requires an annual waste-
minimization report for each chemical reported on
the Toxic Release Inventory required under Section 313 of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). The Agency is currently collecting a first round of
waste-minimization data under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and SARA Section 313. EPA's
recent generator survey under RCRA collected a sample of
minimization data from 1985 and 1986 for the specific
purpose of targeting opportunities for minimization in
certain industry categories or processes.
The 1987 RCRA biennial report also requires waste
minimization data from hazardous waste generators for the
purpose of monitoring national trends. The SARA Section
313 form currently includes an optional minimization
component that provides important multi-media data
useful for raising awareness in industry and among the
public. Together, they will give EPA an important first cut
on how to collect multi-media data, how to target
opportunities in industry and how to monitor national
progress.
EPA strongly recommends that the Subcommittee allow
the Agency flexibility in collecting, analyzing and
evaluating these data and in developing and implementing
a more comprehensive multi-media data-collection
program. That would allow the Agency time to establish
cross-program links among its many data sources and to
document minimization trends in detail.
"We also recommend," said Barnes, "that the Agency
report to Congress on these issues biennially instead of
annually in order to reduce the frequency of reporting for
industry and EPA, and to provide sufficient time to collect
and analyze data and prepare a comprehensive report
before beginning a new one." Q
Ozone and CO Attainment
In a letter to the House Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, Lee Thomas has clarified EPA's position
that although more mobile-source controls are needed for
ozone attainment, "we do not believe that tighter
tailpipe-emission standards for new vehicles are a high
priority on the list of possible further solutions." The
Agency believes that gasoline volatility and refueling
emission controls, better I/M programs, and longer-lasting
emissions equipment are more significant, clearly feasible,
and should enjoy primacy.
For carbon monoxide (CO), the EPA attainment tables
are based on current law and regulations. Many areas will
attain the CO NAAQS without tighter mobile source
controls. "I note," Thomas said, "that the recent report by
the American Lung Association does not dispute this
point." ALA's assumed growth in travel mileage would
eventually bring CO emissions back up to current levels
and produce equivalent non-attainment. However, "ALA
admits this will not happen until sometime after the year
2010, even with ALA's assumption of growth rates higher
than EPA predicts." a
-------
Anti-Fraud Legislation
Three laws have been recently passed by Congress that
significantly expand the power of federal agencies to deter
fraud. EPA managers, employees, and contractors must be
aware of these laws and how they can be used to recover
fraudulently obtained funds. First, a little history.
The False Claims Act of 1863 established a civil liability
for:
• The submission of false claims.
• The submission of false statements in support of a claim.
• A conspiracy to defraud the government regarding a
claim.
The law allowed the government to recover double
damages sustained by reason of a false claim or statement,
and to recover a $2,000 penalty for each violation.
In addition to existing provisions, the False Claims Act
Amendment of 1986 also prohibits the submission of a
false record or statement to "conceal, avoid, or decrease an
obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the
government." Fraud involving programs operated by
non-federal entities, but funded in whole or in part by
EPA, are now subject to this law.
Violation now renders the culprit liable to the
government for triple damages. However, if a contractor
discovers fraud before the government does and cooperates
with the investigation, the contractor would be eligible for
a possible reduction from triple to double damages.
The amount of the civil penalty has been increased from
$2,000 to between $5,000 and $10,000 per violation. Also,
a person submitting false claims is now liable to the
government for the cost of a civil action brought to recover
damages, and the government has up to 10 years to bring a
suit.
In addition, the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of
1986 authorizes agencies to recover, by administrative
adjudication, double damages and civil penalties for
small-dollar frauds not economical for the Department of
Justice to bring to district courts. This law also provides
for the imposition of a civil penalty for false statements
unrelated to a claim for payment, if it is made in the
context of, say, an employment application.
However, before an agency can seek administrative
adjudication of a case, it must refer it to the Department of
Justice for civil action. The Department may bring the case
to court under the False Claims Act. If, after a 90-day
review of the case, the Department decides not to bring an
action, it will give the agency approval to proceed. The
government may recover up to double the amount of a
false claim and a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for
each separate claim. However, only individual claims up
to $150,000 are subject to this provision.
Under the 1863 Act, if a person paid a kickback to an
employee of a government prime contractor, it was
"conclusively presumed" that the cost of the payment was
passed on to the government. However, this was only
applicable when the contract was a "cost-plus" type and
the purpose of the payment was to obtain a subcontract
under the prime contract. The Anti-Kickback Enforcement
Act of 1986 applies to any government contract type and
any favorable contract action, such as extension of
delivery schedules, cost adjustments, and changes in
specifications. It requires that prime contractors establish
reasonable procedures designed to prevent and detect
violations of this law.
Any knowing participant in a kickback scheme is liable
for double the amount of the kickback and up to a $10,000
civil penalty for each violation. In addition, the agency
may offset the amount of a kickback from monies due to a
prime contractor, but only on the tainted contract.
Employees must make continual efforts to detect and
report fraud. If you suspect fraud or wrongdoing in any
element of a contract or performance of a contract for EPA,
contact the Office of Inspector General at Headquarters or
the closest Divisional 1C. The hotline number is FTS
382-4977 or toll-free 800-424-4000. Information is treated
as confidential and callers may remain anonymous, o
Radon Information
Two of the key pieces of information that EPA collects
from radon demonstration projects are the performance of
reduction techniques and the costs associated with
installation and operation. Both types of information are of
interest to residents. EPA is looking for the most useful
way to collect and report these data, so SAB was asked to
help in formulating the Agency's definition of
cost-effective mitigation.
In the past, EPA has tended to report performance both
as a percent reduction in radon concentration and as the
final value of radon concentration.
The first of these methods can be somewhat misleading.
For instance, a reduction in radon concentration of 90 to
99 percent seems impressive, but may leave elevated
radon levels, depending on initial concentrations. A house
with 100 picocuries per liter initially could be controlled
by a technique yielding a 90 percent reduction and still
have 10 picocuries after mitigation. Although the potential
radon exposure has been dramatically reduced, residents
would still face exposures greater than the average in the
U.S.
In a recent 10-state survey, 79 percent of the houses had
radon concentrations below four picocuries per liter. If one
establishes an index to describe the relative cost per
increment of radon reduction, then the apparent greatest
bargain will almost always accrue to houses with high
initial radon levels. That's true a fortiori if the same
mitigation method is used on the high- and
moderate-radon-level houses. Fixed costs are associated
more with installation and operation of equipment than
with the amount of radon to be removed. This type of
index does not presently appear to be a useful way of
comparing mitigation strategies for individual houses. The
cost of mitigating a particular house is more dependent on
the characteristics of the house and its ambient soils than
on the initial Jevel of radon. Even though the cost per unit
of radon reduction may not be a useful way to compare
the mitigation of individual houses, the average cost per
unit of health-risk reduction for the entire program may
prove very useful in comparing this program to others in
which health risks are being cut. o
------- |