Exhibit ES-2.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The NACEPT Council should:

Do more strategic planning to identify the policy issues which NACEPT standing
committees address.

Better publicize itself and its work to all parts of the Agency and beyond.
Streamline the process of developing and delivering recommendations.

Conduct an evaluation of standing committee processes upon the completion of the
standing committee’s work.

Take responsibility for maintaining contact with its past members.

NACEPT Standing Committees should:

¢ Prioritize their recommendations and include suggested schedules and performance
targets for implementation of each recommendation.

* Request a formal response from the Agency to all standing committee reports at an
appropriate interval.

The Office of Cooperative Environmental Management should:

Ensure productive interaction directly between NACEPT standing committees and
relevant Agency program offices.

Ensure that standing committee work is adequately planned and managed by the
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) and standing committee chairperson to achieve
committee goals in an efficient manner.

Make clear to the program offices the qualifications needed to be a DFO and provide
training to appointed DFOs.

Develop better ways for NACEPT members to communicate between meetings.
Establish an enhanced formal method for the establishment of standing committees.
Improve the NACEPT and standing committee orientation process for new members.

Develop a formal facilitation program to ensure proper support for each standing
committee.

NACEPT: Past and Future * ES-3



Input from the TDR committee has led to revisions to Form A reporting
requirements and resulting procedures.

NACEPT advice was incorporated into the Agency’s compliance criteria for
‘WIPP.

EPA now recommends the establishment of community groups to increase public
involvement in the remediation of radiation contaminated sites.

GENERAL AGENCY/ POL!
Standing Committees Impacts on EPA Policy
Environmental Education # EPA developed of a guidebook to help develop more sustainable economic
and Training Committee systems.
Pollution Prevention @ EPA created of a new U.S. Environmental Training Institute.
Education Committee 4 EPA formed of EPA's Office of Environmental Education.
State and Local Programs wo. . . .
Committee + EPA created of non-profit organizations addressing environmental education and
Technology Innovation and needs of industry. ‘
Economics Committee + EPA improved delivery of environmental information to college students and
‘Trade and Environment young adults.
Committee ¢ EPA established of a Technology Innovation Office (TIO) to facilitate the
International Environmental transfer of technologies developed in the Superfund Innovative Technology
Committee Evaluation program.
Environmental Financial 4 EPA has addressed “environmental education” in a proactive manner.
Aavisony ae bi # EPA developed programs which focus on educating businesses on how to
‘osystems Sustainable * -
Economies Committee implement environmental programs. _ , ; ;
Ecosystems Implementation * EPA developed EnviroSenSe, an electronic library of information on pollution
Tools Committee prevention, technical assistance, and environmental compliance.
Environmental Information, | # The Agency has supported of projects to build state and local capacity for tisk-
Economics, and based planning.
Technology + EPA established of a the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee by the Office of Air
Community Based and Radiation.
Environmental Protection | 4 EPA implemented of comparative risk and strategic planning in EPA Regions.
Reinvention Criteria # EPA increased cooperative agreements.
Committee + EPA increased use of performance evaluation based on outcomes.
Environmental Capital EPA conducted pre-congressional consultations on the Agency’s GPRA plan.
Markets Committee EPA incorporated technology incentives into the Agency’s pollution prevention
Title VI Implementation strategy.
Advisory Committee

+
+

EPA developed techniques for ecosystem valuation.

EPA developed final guidance for implementation of the data elements required by
the Pollution Prevention Act.

NACEPT: Past and Future * ES-8



1991

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

[State and Local Programs Cmte.
[Technology Innovation and Economics Cmte.
finterational Env. Cmte. [Trade and Env. Cmte.

General Agency Policy or Management

[Administrator Thomas foe

esabtahes aczPrin | | ‘ [eneton Ge Gas

co ia fe
Ec]

[Renamed NACEPT in July
1990 to reflect the scope of
its mission and activities.

[Administrator Reily asks
INACEPT to help the Agency
Jpromote pollution prevention.

FTotat Maximum Daily Load Cmte.

Program/Media-Specific

(Env. Statistics Cmte.

[Administrator Browner asks

INACEPT to expand its charter
to incorporate a wider range of |-——>
jideas and issues.

Inform:

Management and
‘Technology

PAC.

Note: Appendix A: NACEPT Standing Committee Acronyms presents the full name and dates of operation for
each committee.

Purpose of this Study

The purpose of this study was to assess NACEPT’s effectiveness and impact over its first decade
of operations and to develop recommendations to enhance its value in the future. The study
examined NACEPT organizational processes, products, and impacts to assess both the efficiency
and effectiveness of NACEPT and its standing committees from the perspectives of those serving
on the Council and EPA officials who are the Council’s clients. The study also examined the
interaction between the Council and its standing committees and between the Council and EPA,
especially the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM) which supports the
Council on behalf of the Administrator.

The study was conducted in three stages of data collection, involving: (1) extensive review of
NACEPT and OCEM records and external data sources; (2) a written survey targeting all past

NACEPT: Past and Future * ES-5



: Summary of Report oo

Overview of NACEPT

In 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) founded the National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) [previously known as the.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Technology Transfer (NACETT)]. NACEPT was
established to provide an ongoing stakeholder advisory group to recommend ways the Agency
could encourage technology transfer through cooperative activities with industry, academia, and
non-federal government agencies.

In its first decade of operation, NACEPT has involved over 700 stakeholder representatives from
a variety of sectors including business and industry, state, local, and tribal governments, and
academia, who have participated in 26 standing committees in addition to the Council. Each
standing committee is established to address a specific charge within a set timeframe. As such,
the Council serves as a steering committee, reviewing and approving the reports and
recommendations of the standing committees.

The number of NACEPT standing committee investigations has increased over the past decade as
NACEPT has increased the scope of issues on which it provides the Agency advice, as shown in
the Exhibit ES-3 below. These committees, identified in Exhibit ES-4, have held hundreds of
open meetings in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), produced over
50 major, published reports, and put forth over 1,000 recommendations related to information
management, program activities, and general Agency policies.

Exhibit ES-3. Number of Standing Committees by Topic Area

a!

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Il General Agency policy or management
(1) Programimedia specific
EQ information managementinformation technology

NACEPT: Past and Future * ES-4



Standing Committees

Impacts on EPA Policy

Environmental Information
and Assessments Committee
Environmental Statistics
Committee

Information Resources
Management Strategic
Planning Task Force
Environmental Information
and Public Access
Committee

Information Impacts
Committee

Teco!

OIRM management incorporated NACEPT recommendation into the Agency’s
Strategic Management Plan.

EPA launched the Facility Identification Initiative to streamline access and
reporting by establishing a uniform set of facility identification data.

EPA’s IRM Strategic Plan incorporated much of the language contained in the
IRM Task Force recommendations.

Consistent with NACEPT advice, the Agency has created a Chief Information
Officer to oversee the Agency’s information management.

Advice of the Information Impacts Committee was cited in a June 1998 Agency
audit of the Office of Water’s Data Integration Efforts.

Recommendations of the Environmental Information and Assessment Committee
influenced the Agency’s Office of Research and Development’s management
strategy for scientific data.

EPA established a Center for Environmental Information and Statistics as

prio

nded by the Environmental Statistics Committee.

Standing Committees

Impacts on EPA Policy

Environmental
Measures/Chemical
Accident Prevention
Committee

Superfund Evaluation
Committee

Food Safety Advisory
Committee

Total Maximum Daily Load
Committee

Effluent Guidelines Task
Force

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Review Committee

Toxic Data Reporting
Committee

Tolerance Reassessment
Advisory Committee

The advice of EMCAP has been used in the measurement process in the
Agency’s pollution prevention program.

EPA’s Superfund Administrative Reforms adopted many of the concepts
embodied in the SEC’s recommendations.

The Integrative Environmental Justice Model Demonstration Approach developed

by SEC was incorporated into the OSWER Environmental Justice Action Agenda
developed by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC).

EGTF recommendations have led to limitations on the use of synthetic-based
drilling fluids, an examination of rules addressing coal mining operations, and
revisions to the feedlot category as well as a commitment from the Agency to
write regulations for dams.

EPA now recommends that states publish their methodology for TMDL listings
and establish related data quality assurance measures.

The Agency has incorporated earlier stakeholder participation in the development
of specific Effluent Guideline Rules.

EPA has used approaches developed by FSAC to make FQPA regulatory
decisions.

EPA is currently utilizing the framework developed by TRAC to investigate
science policy areas related to FQPA and tolerance reassessment.

NACEPT: Past and Future * ES-7



[30 Soo000/
United States Office of January 2000

Environmental Protection The Administrator
Agency (1601A)

GEPA National Advisory
Council for Environmental

Policy and Technology
(NACEPT)

Past & Future
Executive Summary

A Decade of Stakeholder Advice



NACEPT should streamline the recommendation review process to ensure that the
advice of standing committees is approved by the Council and transmitted to the
Agency in a timely fashion.

NACEPT should conduct post-committee evaluations. Such evaluations would be
led by the standing committee chairperson and DFO and would attempt to identify
which aspects of the process worked well and where improvement or change is
needed.

NACEPT should better publicize itself and its work to all parts of the Agency and
to external audiences.

NACEPT should make a concerted effort to maintain contact with its past
members. This contact should include communication regarding the actions
which have been taken by the Agency as the result of NACEPT’s advice.

For cases in which the Agency has committed to implement NACEPT
recommendations, NACEPT should request formal updates on the status of
implementation of those recommendations.

Recommendations for improving the NACEPT Standing Committees

>

Standing committees should be encouraged to prioritize their recommendations
and include, where appropriate, implementation schedules and milestones for each
recommendation.

Standing committees should request that the Agency provide a formal response to
NACEPT on the Agency’s disposition toward standing committee
recommendations at a mutually acceptable interval. (For most standing
committees, the schedule of 60 days after transmittal seems reasonable.)

Recommendations for OCEM’s management of NACEPT

>

OCEM should maximize direct interaction between standing committees and
Agency program offices. This could be accomplished by establishing a program
office-standing committee liaison. Such a liaison would be encouraged to attend
standing committee meetings, contribute to the development of agendas and
background materials, and serve as the key intermediary on technical issues.

OCEM should ensure that standing committee work is adequately planned and
managed by the Designated Federal Official (DFO) and chairperson to achieve the
standing committee goals in an efficient manner. Such planning would include
the initial development of clear objectives and timelines to guide the
investigation, as well as milestones and performance objectives by which to assess
progress.

OCEM should develop and implement a formal facilitation program to ensure
proper support for each standing committee.

NACEPT: Past and Future * ES-10



At the same time, although largely satisfied with the process, many past and current NACEPT
members recommended improvements in certain aspects of NACEPT and standing committee
operations. Most importantly, few NACEPT members indicated knowing what EPA had done
with their standing committee’s recommendations, which impedes the Council’s ability to
provide continuing advice and counsel on that topic. Nearly one-quarter (24%) of respondents
did not know whether the Agency had taken actions as a result of the standing committee’s
advice. The other principal findings are as follows:

» While adequate direction is given to guide the work of a standing committee, an
initial agreement between the standing committee and relevant Agency offices on
the specific purpose and goals of the standing committee would improve
efficiency of the standing committee’s work.

» Standing committees would benefit from more support (e.g., background
materials) on technical issues. In addition, in the case of a few standing
committees, respondents stated that agendas and meeting materials were not
distributed in a timely way.

» The efficiency of standing committee work could be improved by more frequent
meetings of the committee and improved communication between meetings to
allow the committee to advance its work between meetings.

> Better meeting management is often needed. Specifically, clear and agreed on
processes for reaching consensus need to be identified, equitable participation
must be ensured, and facilitation is needed to keep discussions on-track.

> Deliberations could be improved by having technical advisors on hand at all
meetings as well as better clerical support and equipment for real-time
collaborative group work (e.g., laptop computers to draft recommendations).

> While communication is effective between standing committee members,
communication between the Council and standing committees is limited.

Recommendations

Based on the findings summarized above and described in greater detail in the remainder of this
report, recommendations were developed in three areas related to: (1) Council operations; (2)
standing committee activities; and (3) OCEM support. These recommendations are presented in
Exhibit ES-2 on page ES-3 and described briefly below.

Recommendations for improving the NACEPT Council

> NACEPT should engage in a strategic planning effort to identify pressing or
emerging policy issues which standing committees might address. The results of
these efforts should be transmitted to the EPA Administrator on an annual basis.

NACEPT: Past and Future « ES-9



and current NACEPT members; and (3) detailed one-on-one interviews with a selected sample of
NACEPT members and EPA officials. Additional details on the study methodology are included
Appendices F, G, H, I, K, and L.

Principal Findings

Several tests of effectiveness were used in this study to assess NACEPT’s impact, including the
extent to which the Council and its standing committees had:

fulfilled their charges;

brought new, outside perspectives to EPA;

provided timely and relevant advice and recommendations; and

influenced the outcome of Agency policy decisions and/or course of program
activities.

vryvy

By all of these standards, NACEPT has been a success. Principal findings of the study are
summarized in Exhibit ES-1 on page ES-2.

Through its standing committees, NACEPT has produced over 1,000 recommendations presented
in over 50 major reports. In addition to informal advice, counsel, and insight were provided
directly to EPA officials in the course of NACEPT meetings. Both NACEPT members and
Agency officials interviewed attest to the new perspectives that NACEPT has brought to issues
put before it and to the quality and timeliness of its recommendations on these issues. By a
significant margin, past and current NACEPT members valued their service on NACEPT and
rated their standing committee’s work as valuable to EPA. For example,

» Survey respondents were very positive about the value of the NACEPT process
and the advice NACEPT provides EPA decision-makers.

> Respondents particularly value the diversity of perspectives captured within the
NACEPT process.

> Over three-quarters of respondents indicated that they would serve on NACEPT
again if asked.’

Agency officials echoed these views and, as shown in Exhibit ES-5, there is an extensive list of
Agency decisions and actions that can be traced back to recommendations made by NACEPT.
This list, which is only a partial list of NACEPT’s impact, indicates the considerable influence of
NACEPT on Agency policies and actions over the last decade.

1 NACEPT members volunteer their expertise and time and are not compensated although travel costs are
reimbursed.

NACEPT: Past and Future * ES-6



Based on these findings, NACEPT has undertaken several strategic planning initiatives including
the development of a strategic action plan, which identified future and emerging issues relevant
to environmental decision-making. In addition, this report includes recommendations related to
NACEPT’s operations, its standing committees, and EPA’s Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management, which provides management and administrative support to the Council. These
recommendations range from implementing a structured evaluation of each standing committee
on completion of its work to requesting a formal response from 'the Agency to all standing
committee reports. The full list of study findings and recommendations is presented in the
following Exhibits ES-1 and ES-2.

Exhibit ES-1.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
lL. NACEPT provides valuable input and advice to the Agency from a wide variety of
stakeholders.

2. Recommendations are timely for Agency decision-making and fulfill standing
committee charters.

3. Standing committee membership is a balanced representation of points of view.

4, Standing committees are given adequate direction to fulfill their missions; early
agreement on purpose and goals may help to improve efficiency.

5. Standing committee recommendations are developed in a timely, inclusive fashion.

Most respondents have not received feedback from the Agency on the impact of their
standing committee’s recommendations.

7. Communication between standing committee members is adequate but improvements
are needed for communications between meetings and to the Council.

8. Standing committee meetings are generally well-planned and structured yet
improvements can be made in defining the consensus process, ensuring equitable
participation, and keeping decisions on track.

9. Standing committee members were generally positive about receiving timely and
useful background and technical materials to make informed decisions.

10. More frequent meetings and improved communication between meetings could
improve standing committee effectiveness.

11. Better meeting support can be achieved through increased use of technology and
facilitation.

NACEPT: Past and Future * ES-2



Community Based Environmental Protection

+: |Waste-Isolation Pilot Plant Review Committee

|CBEP Committee |General Agency Policy or Management
/ECMC Environmental Capital Markets Committee 1998-Ongoing |General Agency Policy or Management
Environmental Education and Training a
/EETC Committee |General Agency Policy or Management
/EFAB Environmental Financial Advisory Board |General Agency Policy or Management.
[EGTF ~ . {Effluent Guidelines Task Force: ~ *,]1992-Ongoing’:": |Program/Media-Specific
Environmental Information and Assessments 5
/EIAC Committee Information Management and Technology
Environmental Information Economics and ,
EIET Technology Committee |General Agency Policy or Management
|Environmental Information and Public . .
EIPAC ae Committes 11998-Ongoing Information Management and Technology
EITC Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee |General Agency Policy or Management
.,  |Bnvironmental Measures/Chemical Accident /Media-Specific *
EMCAP’'" [Prevention Committee : ‘Pre pecific
Ecosystems Sustainable Economies "
ESEC Committee |General Agency Policy or Management
IESTATS _|Environmental Statistics Committee information Management and Technology
FSAC. Food Safety Advisory Committee. \Program/Media-Specific
IC information Impacts Committee information Management and Technology
\information Resources Management 5
RM Strategic Planning Task Force information Management and Technology
|PPEC Pollution Prevention Education Committee ‘General Agency Policy or Management
[RCC Reinvention Criteria Committee 1996-Ongoing |General Agency Policy or Management
S&L State and Local Programs Committee |General Agency Policy or Management
SEC: »_ [Superfund Evaluation Committee 2." |Program/Media-Specific «
[TDR .:- = [Toxic Data Reporting Committee. - - |Program/Media-Specific~
{Trade and Environment
ITEC |Committee/International Environmental General Agency Policy or Management
|Committee
Technology Innovation and Economics "
TIE Committee General Agency Policy or Management
\TITLEVI _|Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee |1998-Ongoing _ |General Agency Policy or Management
TMDL [Total Maximum Daily Load Committee |Program/Media-Specific
TRAC. |Tolerance’ Reassessment. Advisory’ Committée ‘|Program/Media-Specific ,
WIPP ~ 19922Ongoing. |Progran/Media-Specific’

NACEPT: Past and Future Appendix * A-1



ecutive Summary

Abstract of Study

The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) was
established in 1988 to provide advice to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on
issues related to environmental management and policy. NACEPT provides a forum for public
discussion and the development of independent advice and counsel by taking advantage of the
respective experiences, strengths, knowledge, and responsibilities of a broad range of Agency
constituents and stakeholders. Since 1988, the Council has convened and directed the work of 26
standing committees, each established to address a specific issue. Over the last decade, these
standing committees, comprised of over 700 stakeholder representatives, have addressed Agency
issues related to information management, program activities, and general management and
policy. The Council, in turn, has approved and published over 50 major reports containing over
1,000 recommendations to the EPA Administrator. In recognition of the 10-year anniversary of
NACEPT, the Council undertook a study to evaluate its past performance and to chart a course
for its future by identifying ways to better serve the Agency.

This study found that NACEPT has undoubtably been a success. NACEPT’s standing
committees have produced hundreds of timely and relevant recommendations responding to
requests made by the EPA Administrator. Many of these recommendations have influenced or
been directly responsible for subsequent EPA decisions and actions. In addition, the volume and
range of topics addressed by NACEPT has increased during this time, reflecting the value placed
on the Council by EPA’s leadership.

This report, entitled NACEPT: Past and Future, presents the results of this study. Other key
findings of the study are:

> NACEPT recommendations have had significant impacts on Agency decision-
making as demonstrated by the creation of new programs such as the U.S.
Environmental Training Institute, the establishment of new Agency offices such
as the Technology Innovation Office, and incorporation into formal Agency
policy such as the EPA’s IRM Strategic Plan.

» NACEPT’s recommendations have fulfilled the requests for advice made to
Council by the EPA Administrator.

> Membership on NACEPT is balanced and representative of diverse points of
view. Feedback to standing committees on the impact of their recommendations
and their implementation has been limited.

> Standing committees have adequate direction, support, and resources to complete
their work although enhancements in communication and facilitation support are
desirable.

NACEPT: Past and Future + ES-1





> OCEM should develop better ways for stariding committee members to
communicate between meetings. Options provided by the Internet and
telecommunication systems should be considered.

> OCEM should review and enhance the method by which new standing
committees are established. Specifically, better definition of the purpose and a
more rigorous membership selection process are needed.

id OCEM should improve the orientation process for new members. Improvements
could include enhanced focus on past NACEPT work to provide committee-
specific background, as well as the development of new ways to provide training
on FACA guidelines such as online tutorials or a brief video.

Conclusion

Over its first decade, NACEPT has addressed an extensive and varied set of issues at the request
of the EPA Administrator and provided valuable recommendations, advice, and counsel on these
issues and topics. Equally important, NACEPT’s recommendations have had a significant and
lasting impact on the Agency’s decision making, policies, and program activities. These impacts
attest to the value of the expertise and perspectives that NACEPT is able to bring to an issue. In
addition, the usefulness of NACEPT to the Agency is demonstrated by the number of standing
committees and range of issues addressed by NACEPT at the Administrator’s request in the last
decade.

NACEPT has demonstrated that it is EPA’s most unique federal advisory committee. This study
has identified NACEPT as having developed a niche for providing valuable advice on broad,
cross-media issues. At the same time, NACEPT has displayed the flexibility to address specific
programmatic issues that are of a high priority or urgent in nature. This flexibility has enabled
NACEPT to be responsive to EPA, even as issues and priorities change.

At present, NACEPT is taking the strategic initiative to reinvent itself, thereby increasing its
value to EPA. Evidence of this includes this study, the creation of the NACEPT Council’s
strategic plan, customer focus and partnering, and improved processes. NACEPT’s future is
filled with possibilities and promise, based on the past 10 years’ exemplary record of service to
EPA and the citizens of the United States.

NACEPT is indebted to Nancy Tosta, Gerard Bulanowski, Bill Sonntag, Tom Davis, and Patricia
Bauman who, as the members of the Study team, directed this study and developed its findings’
and recommendations. Their insights, efforts, and enthusiasm were instrumental to the success
of this study.

NACEPT: Past and Future * ES-11