the effects of transboundary pollution {ES&T, Aug. 1996, p. 336A). In the meantime, EPA will complete an interim implementation policy outlining how states can continue to meet the current standards until they have developed plans to meet the new standards. The interim policy will become effective the same day the new standards become final. Businesses sharply disagree with EPA that the tighter standards are necessary, claiming they will put a chill on the nation's economy. Operating as the Air Quality Standards Coalition, auto manufacturers, utilities, oil companies, the National Association of Counties, and others add there is not enough scientific evidence to support tightening the two standards. The coalition cites comments by EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee
Power plants that rely on high-sulfur coal are likely targets for control under EPA's proposed ozone and P M 2 5 standards.
(CASAC) on the uncertainties expressed in health-related studies of PM. "The agency is ignoring years of real progress in the fight against air pollution with a hasty, 'throw out the baby with the bath water' response to unproven theories," said Owen Drey of the National Association of Manufacturers, which is leading the coalition.
However, the science has been peer reviewed and opened to public comment, EPA says, as well as scrutinized several times by CASAC, an independent group that includes industry scientists. CASAC agreed there was a need for tighter controls on both PM and ozone, but it did not select numerical standards (ES&T, July 1996, p. 280A). Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans have announced that Congress will hold hearings to review the scientific studies. Others predicted that the Republican leadership will use the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which allows Congress to veto rules that would have an economic impact of more than $100 million, to block the proposals. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
ORD staff, managers meet to discuss management, morale From "guardedly optimistic" to the "best workshop I've attended in 20 years at ORD" was the range of attendee responses following the EPA Office of Research and Development's (ORD) "managing change" meeting, held in Williamsburg, Va., Dec. 2-5. The workshop brought together 200 ORD staff and managers and came on the heels of an internal ORD staff survey that revealed deep dissatisfaction within the office. Workshop attendees included some 100 staff members from all labs and levels, selected from 400 volunteers; the rest were managers. The total topped 10% of ORD's employees. The workshop and survey are to be annual affairs, according to interviews. The workshop's focus was to "explore opportunities for improving ORD," according to a memo from ORD Assistant Administrator Robert Huggett. He urged attendees to "prod" coworkers for ideas on how ORD can be improved and to bring all views to the workshop. He promised an open and thorough discussion, and, based on interviews with attendees of the closed meeting, Huggett delivered. On the first day, attendees were randomly mixed into workgroups and asked to identify key problems. The list of problems was refined
and trimmed to five topics. Participants called the workshop "intense"—with positions agreed to one day, written up and ready for discussion the next. At the workshop's end, each lab's staff met and outlined an action plan for further refinement at allhands meetings planned for individual labs and EPA headquarters. Five priority issues emerged: red tape and micromanagement; too much top-down communications; resources and infrastructure needs; integration of science within EPA's mission; and career development. Red tape topped the list at the workshop and among those interviewed. A scientist with experience at several federal agencies said ORD was the most bureaucratic office in the most bureaucratic federal agency. He and others blamed EPA's upper level management and its fear of congressional and Inspector General investigations for the problem. But these critics also credited the same EPA top officials with openness at the workshop. At the workshop's'conclusion, managers committed to cut internal review and approval signatures for decision documents and work to make decisions at the lowest level possible. Management also agreed to address sev-
eral long-running complaints: to create a "mentoring system" for career development and to investigate charges that management was "hoarding" travel budget allocations at the expense of research scientists [ES&T, Nov. 1996, p. 492A). Several attendees endorsed the need for the workshop and defended the time and cost. "It's important to get people away from their desks and to give them time to be creative and meet people from other labs," said one. In implementing recommendations, Huggett's most difficult challenge, participants said, may be to change management's views. "Our top-level people have worked to maintain the status quo," said one participant. "After all, this is the system that got them where they are." But several participants were swayed by Huggett's closing speech. "I've always heard Huggett is a top-down, do-it-my-way kind of individual," one said. "But he said the recommendations will be implemented, the bottom-up information will be included, and he will change the performance standards of his assistants and mega-labs directors to include these objectives. That speech set quite a tone." —JEFF JOHNSON
VOL. 3 1 , NO. 1, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 5 A
