20 Years of Shaping 

Environmental Policy at EPA

April 2009

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy 

and Technology (NACEPT)
This report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency, and hence, the contents of this 

report do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the EPA, nor of other agencies 

in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, nor does mention of trade names or 

commercial products constitute a recommendation for use. 

EPA 130-R-09-003

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

www.epa.gov/ocem 
i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Summary of Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Summary of Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

NACEPT Origins and Current Mission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Current Organizational Structure and Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Subcommittees, Workgroups, and Associated Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Objectives and Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter 2: Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

General Management of NACEPT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Procedures and Management of Individual NACEPT Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Internal Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Interaction with Program Offices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Staffing and Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Impact on EPA Policy and Environmental Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 3: Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

General Management of NACEPT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

NACEPT’s Role. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

NACEPT Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Promoting NACEPT within the Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Coordination with Other Groups in the Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Council Member Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Collaboration with Past Council Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

NACEPT Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Performance Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Progress on 10-year Report Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix A: Executive Summary of NACEPT Past & Future: 

A Decade of Stakeholder Advice (10-Year Anniversary Report) . . . 35

Appendix B: NACEPT Subcommittees/Workgroups and 

Associated Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
ii

Appendix C: Bibliography of NACEPT Publications . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

General Reports of the Council. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Advice Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

General Agency Policy or Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Program/Media Specific Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Information Management and Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Appendix D: Individuals Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Appendix E: Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
1

Executive Summary

Introduction

Over the last two decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has encountered new and unanticipated challenges in safeguarding human health 

and environmental quality. The National Advisory Council for Environmental 

Policy and Technology (NACEPT) has played a critical role in helping the Agency 

meet these challenges. NACEPT provides independent advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy, technology, and management issues. The Council is a balanced panel of outside advisors who represent 

diverse interests from academia, business, and non-governmental organizations, 

as well as state, local, and tribal governments.

To mark NACEPT’s 20th anniversary and its achievements over the last two 

decades, and to ensure that this record of success continues, EPA’s Office of 

Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM) led an effort to: (1) Identify 

the issues and challenges that EPA will face over the next 10 years; (2) Review 

NACEPT’s operations and accomplishments since 1988; and (3) Develop a strategic framework for how NACEPT can best serve EPA based on the prospective and 

retrospective findings.

Consistent with the second objective above, this report is intended as a retrospective survey of NACEPT’s accomplishments during its 20-year history. The 

primary objectives are to: 

•	 Characterize how NACEPT recommendations have influenced EPA policy;

and

•	 Identify factors that have distinguished successful NACEPT initiatives,

thereby guiding future NACEPT efforts.

The core information for this report was gathered through a series of detailed 

interviews with three major categories of respondents:

•	 NACEPT Council members and other participants who contributed to a

subcommittee or workgroup;

•	 EPA officials in programs that were the subject of NACEPT recommendations; and

•	 Current and former Agency staff involved with NACEPT management.

Council members also provided additional input in a panel session conducted 

at NACEPT’s November 2008 meeting. Other information sources included past 

NACEPT reports and advice letters; a 1999 EPA report reviewing NACEPT’s first ten 

years of activities; and a retrospective database that compiles information on 

NACEPT reports and recommendations, created specifically for this analysis.
2

Summary of Findings

Careful management, adherence to pragmatic operating procedures, and attention to sound recommendations have shaped NACEPT’s success in the last 

two decades. The vast majority of interviewees offered positive impressions of 

NACEPT and the contributions it makes to Agency decisionmaking. Key factors 

influencing this success include the following:

•	 Clear Charges: A successful NACEPT project begins with development 

of a clear charge. Most interviewees felt that NACEPT charges ultimately 

achieve the needed degree of clarity, although they may require iterative collaboration between OCEM, the Council, and the affected program 

office(s). 

•	 Diverse Council Membership: Interviewees praised the diverse and balanced composition of the NACEPT Council. OCEM has succeeded in 

achieving diversity both in terms of the backgrounds and experience of the 

members, as well as their geographic perspectives. 

•	 Quality of Council Membership: Interviewees commended the overall 

quality of the Council membership and the positive implications for the 

Council’s work environment. In particular, interviewees highlighted the 

recent Chairperson’s leadership and willingness to promote NACEPT within 

the Agency. However, interviewees split over precisely what characteristics 

make for the best Council members. While some suggested that Council members should be prominent, recognized leaders in environmental 

policy, others emphasized the need for members who are willing to commit 

time to projects and assist with practical research and writing tasks.

•	 Flexible Procedures: A greater reliance on smaller workgroups and interim 

work products has improved the responsiveness and timeliness of NACEPT’s 

advice. These more nimble research procedures represent an important 

improvement over early periods when projects progressed more slowly and 

culminated in a single major report. 

•	 Collaboration with Program Offices: Interviewees highlighted the importance of program office staff involvement, from project inception to the 

development of final recommendations. Program office staff can provide 

vital links to Agency expertise; secure buy-in from senior managers and 

other key political actors; and assist in crafting realistic recommendations. 

•	 Logistical Support: Many interviewees lauded OCEM’s efforts to provide 

various forms of logistical support to NACEPT projects. Most notably, OCEM 

often secures contractor support to perform practical subcommittee tasks 

such as note-taking and report editing. Likewise, OCEM has assisted with 

recruiting of ad hoc subcommittee and workgroup members to supplement the experience of Council members. 

•	 Feasible Recommendations: Interviewees identified a wide array of characteristics that increase the likelihood that EPA will implement specific 

NACEPT recommendations. For example, recommendations that directly 

inform ongoing policy deliberations can be highly influential, so timeliness

is a key characteristic. Other factors affecting the likelihood of implementation include budgetary feasibility; buy-in from the full set of actors affected 

by the advice; and consistency with the priorities of current and/or incoming administrations. 
3

Summary of Recommendations

Although interviewees consistently expressed satisfaction with past NACEPT efforts, refinement of the Council’s operations and products would help ensure its 

future relevance at EPA. In response to interview questions, interviewees identified 

a variety of steps that could improve NACEPT’s efficiency and the impact of the 

Council’s advice:

•	 NACEPT Role: Most interviewees agreed that NACEPT’s membership and 

charter are best suited to broad, multi-disciplinary, multi-media planning 

issues. Interviewees suggested that NACEPT steer clear of highly technical 

regulatory disputes or document review assignments where NACEPT is one 

voice in a crowded field of reviewers.

•	 NACEPT Charges: Interviewees suggested continued emphasis on collaborative development of charges, with some stressing the need for concise, 

face-to-face discussion.

•	 Enhance NACEPT’s Visibility: Many interviewees recommended continued 

emphasis on raising NACEPT’s profile within the Agency. To ensure that NACEPT’s expertise and services are understood throughout EPA, OCEM and 

the NACEPT Chair should expand efforts to perform outreach to program 

offices, the regions, and other organizational elements. This outreach is 

especially vital in light of the change in administration and the associated 

turnover in senior management.

•	 Intra-Agency Coordination: NACEPT should better coordinate its efforts 

with those of other Agency advisory boards (e.g., the Science Advisory 

Board, the Environmental Financial Advisory Board, etc.). Coordination 

would reduce the potential for redundant research and provide NACEPT 

with information about effective internal procedures used by similar organizations.

•	 Council Member Selection: Most interviewees expressed satisfaction with 

NACEPT member selection, but admitted having little understanding of 

how the process works. Specific recommendations for future refinements 

included selecting members in anticipation of specific research initiatives; 

using current or past members as sources of advice on new members; and 

selecting a Chair with whom the EPA Administrator has a strong professional relationship.

•	 Collaboration with Past Council Members: Several individuals suggested 

that OCEM seek input from past Council members whose experience may 

inform current NACEPT efforts and help improve institutional memory.

•	 Procedural Refinements: Interviewees suggested changes that could 

improve the efficiency of NACEPT subcommittees and workgroups. Many of 

the suggestions represent continuation of current practices such as use of 

smaller workgroups and interim advice products. Communications could 

be improved through expanded use of videoconferencing technologies 

and through more frequent face-to-face Council meetings. In addition, 

some interviewees expressed a desire for a more formalized system of feedback from the program offices to help NACEPT better track where its advice 

is having an impact.

•	 Performance Measurement: Most interviewees agreed that the best 

measure of NACEPT’s success is whether the Agency implements the 

Council’s advice. However, interviewees’ opinions varied on how to assess this outcome. Some see value in a periodic report that would examine the “success rate” of NACEPT recommendations, i.e., how many are 
4

implemented? Others emphasize that NACEPT recommendations range 

widely, from simple action steps to broad policy prescriptions; the latter are 

especially difficult to track with certainty. Therefore, it may be best to assess 

the degree to which Agency actions embrace key concepts promoted by 

NACEPT (e.g., integrated management, cross-program collaboration, attention to environmental outcomes).

Conclusions

In 1999, the NACEPT Council completed a study of its past performance and 

future course. Titled Past and Future: A Decade of Stakeholder Advice, the study 

determined that, in its first 10 years of operation, NACEPT had been highly successful in fulfilling its mission. It concluded that “NACEPT has produced hundreds 

of timely and relevant recommendations,” and that these recommendations 

“have influenced or been directly responsible for subsequent EPA decisions and

actions.” 

Building on this early success, NACEPT continues to be an important and independent source of stakeholder advice. Since the 10-year study, NACEPT has 

enhanced its management and operations in a variety of ways. Improvements 

include increased reliance on smaller workgroups; use of streamlined interim 

advice products; collaborative refinement of charges; consistent involvement of 

program office staff in NACEPT projects; provision of contractor support to workgroups and subcommittees; and increased outreach efforts to elevate NACEPT’s 

visibility within the Agency. Many of these changes directly address recommendations in the 10-year study. 

In recent years, these management changes have combined to produce notable NACEPT successes. NACEPT research in policy areas as diverse as biofuels 

planning, environmental indicators, environmental data management, environmental technology promotion, and venture capital partnering have influenced

EPA actions. Furthermore, NACEPT input has helped structure and refine major 

Agency publications such as EPA’s Report on the Environment. Chapter 2 of 

this report highlights numerous examples of specific NACEPT recommendations 

implemented by the Agency.

In the coming years, NACEPT will need to maintain the operational improvements 

it has introduced and step up efforts to assess the Council’s impact and performance. Better feedback from program offices would give NACEPT an improved 

sense of how to craft effective, practical recommendations. Likewise, systematic 

performance evaluation—either through periodic review of the number of NACEPT recommendations implemented or assessment of the degree to which concepts promoted by NACEPT permeate Agency policies—would help OCEM and 

the Council maximize the value of NACEPT’s efforts. Prudent management of the 

Council’s efforts will help ensure that NACEPT remains a source of independent 

advice for environmental policymakers in the 21st century. 
5

Chapter 1: Introduction

Over the last two decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has encountered new and unanticipated challenges in safeguarding human health 

and environmental quality. The National Advisory Council for Environmental 

Policy and Technology (NACEPT) has played a critical role in helping the Agency 

meet these challenges. NACEPT provides independent advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy, technology, and management issues.  The Council is a balanced panel of outside advisors who represent 

diverse interests from academia, business, and non-governmental organizations, 

as well as state, local, and tribal governments.

This report describes the activities and accomplishments of NACEPT during its 20-

year history. This introductory discussion is divided into two parts:

•	 First, it reviews how NACEPT has evolved over the last two decades, examining changes in the organization’s mission; features of NACEPT’s current 

structure; and the range of topics addressed by NACEPT subcommittees 

and workgroups.

• 	 Second, it explains the objectives of this report and the methodological

approaches used to characterize NACEPT’s achievements.

Subsequent chapters of the report present key findings of the research and recommendations for enhancing NACEPT’s impact on future Agency policy.

Background

NACEPT Origins and Current Mission

In the 1980s, the Agency recognized how formulation of environmental policy 

would benefit from increased involvement of non-federal agencies and the private sector.1 Simultaneously, legislation such as the Federal Technology Transfer 

Act of 1986 encouraged joint government-industry collaboration to develop new 

technologies. Consistent with these trends, EPA Administrator Lee Thomas created the Task Force on Technology Transfer in 1987. This group recommended how 

the Agency could encourage technology transfer and training through cooperative activities with industry, academia, and non-federal government agencies.

Subsequent to these recommendations, the Agency established the National 

Advisory Council for Environmental Technology Transfer (NACETT) in July 1988. 

NACETT was directed to consult with and make recommendations to the EPA 

Administrator, focusing on technology transfer issues. NACETT was designed to 

1 Portions of the historical background provided here are based on information provided 

in National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT): Past and 

Future (EPA, 1999) as well as information provided at the NACEPT website (http://www.epa.

gov/ocem/nacept/). 
6

promote continuing consultation and debate to ensure mutual understanding 

of the differing perspectives, concerns, and needs among environmental management institutions; maximize the extent to which each institutional participant 

understands, accepts, and fulfills its environmental management responsibilities; 

facilitate broad public sharing of information on environmental problems; and 

promote consideration of alternative strategies for leveraging resources to address environmental issues.

From 1988 to 1990, NACETT committees investigated various aspects of technology transfer, delivering recommendations on environmental education and 

training, state and local programs, and technology innovation issues. NACETT 

also sponsored projects that influenced Agency positions on the reauthorization

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and addressed other 

Agency requests on topics ranging from chemical accident prevention to hazardous waste remediation.

As the scope of NACETT’s charges broadened, the organization’s role in the 

Agency evolved. In July 1990, the Council adopted a new mission statement and 

became the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology 

(NACEPT). The revised mission statement expanded the role of the Council in 

forging collaboration and consensus between EPA and its partners in government, industry, and academia. The current NACEPT charter highlights several 

major objectives for NACEPT:

•	 Identifying approaches to improve the development and implementation

of domestic and international environmental management policies and 

programs; 

•	 Providing guidance on how EPA can most efficiently and effectively implement innovative approaches throughout the Agency and its programs; 

•	 Identifying approaches to enhance information and technology planning;

•	 Fostering improved approaches to environmental management in the

fields of economics, finance, and technology; 

•	 Increasing communication and understanding among all levels of government, business, non-governmental organizations, and academia, with the 

goal of increasing non-federal resources and improving the effectiveness 

of federal and non-federal resources directed at solving environmental 

problems; 

•	 Implementing statutes, executive orders and regulations; and

•	 Reviewing progress in implementing statutes, executive orders and regulations.

In 1999, the NACEPT Council completed a study of its past performance and 

future course. Titled Past and Future: A Decade of Stakeholder Advice, the study 

determined that, in its first 10 years of operation, NACEPT had been highly successful in fulfilling its mission. It concluded that “NACEPT has produced hundreds 

of timely and relevant recommendations,” and that these recommendations 

“have influenced or been directly responsible for subsequent EPA decisions and

actions.” Chapter 3 revisits this analysis in greater detail to examine NACEPT’s 

progress in addressing the recommendations from the 10-year anniversary 

report. Appendix A provides the executive summary of the 10-year anniversary 

report.
7

Current Organizational Structure and Procedures

In 1997, a collaborative effort between the Administrator’s Office, the Office of 

Reinvention, and the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM) 

resulted in a realignment of NACEPT. The changes included a revised NACEPT 

structure that increased the role of program offices in the NACEPT process 

through subcommittee management with OCEM oversight.

Today, the NACEPT Council is comprised of a Chair, the NACEPT Designated Federal Officer (DFO), and Council members selected by the Administrator or Deputy 

Administrator.  In selecting members, EPA considers candidates from academia, 

industry, non-governmental organizations, and state, local, and tribal governments. OCEM generally solicits nominations of qualified individuals through a 

Federal Register Notice, as well as through referrals from EPA officials and current 

or former Council members.

The topics for NACEPT are identified by the Administrator and other senior leadership officials. While each NACEPT effort is unique, a project generally begins 

with EPA issuing a charge to the Council or to a subcommittee or workgroup.2 A 

charge typically originates in one of the Agency’s program offices, but may be 

refined through discussions between the office, OCEM, and NACEPT. Projects are 

pursued by the subcommittee or workgroup, often with direct involvement of relevant program office staff, and sometimes with contractor support for practical 

tasks. Subcommittees or workgroups may not work independently of the NACEPT 

Council and must report their recommendations and advice to the Council for 

full deliberation and discussion. Once the Council has completed its review, 

NACEPT submits recommendations and reports to the EPA Administrator. As discussed in the findings chapter, NACEPT has introduced variations and improvements to standard procedures to enhance its responsiveness.

Subcommittees, Workgroups, and Associated Reports

Since 1988, NACEPT has organized a total of 32 subcommittees to develop recommendations on environmental policy and technology topics. A total of roughly 900 individuals have served on NACEPT subcommittees in the last 20 years, 

demonstrating one of NACEPT’s prime objectives of involving a broad array of 

stakeholders in environmental policy formulation. 

Exhibit 1 provides a timeline of NACEPT subcommittees and helps illustrate the 

breadth of topics that NACEPT has explored over the years. Key policy areas 

have included (but are not limited to) pollution prevention; chemical accident 

prevention; development of effluent guidelines; the use of environmental statistics; community-based environmental protection; Agency reinvention; information resource management; Superfund policy; and EPA’s role in the development 

and commercialization of environmental technologies. Appendix B to this report 

provides a more detailed listing of the NACEPT subcommittees and their charges. 

The most recent subcommittee under the auspices of NACEPT is the Environmental Technology Subcommittee.

Additional research is performed by small workgroups. Composed of Council 

members with experience in specific policy areas, these workgroups are increasingly responsible for researching and developing advice letters and position pa2 Initially, NACEPT issued assignments to “standing committees,” although NACEPT now uses 

the term “subcommittees.” For simplicity purposes, this report uses the term “subcommittees,” 

regardless of the time period under consideration.
8

pers. Recent NACEPT workgroups include Energy and the Environment, Sustainable Water Infrastructure, Information Access, EPA’s Strategic Plan, and NACEPT 

@20. 

NACEPT has produced approximately 82 major reports in the last two decades. 

Appendix C provides a comprehensive listing of these products. Overall, the 

reports have included over 1,500 recommendations for refining Agency policy 

decisions.3 The count of NACEPT products is even greater when one incorporates 

interim advice letters and other shorter-form materials, of which approximately 22 

have been produced in recent years. A more detailed discussion of the flow of

reports and recommendations from NACEPT is provided in the Findings section of 

this report. 

3 The specificity of recommendations across reports is not standardized. While some reports 

provide broad, compound recommendations, others provide more detailed, precise recommendations. A simple count of recommendations overlooks this variation.
9

EXHIBIT 1. Timeline of NACEPT Subcommittees and Workgroups: 

1998 Through 2008 1988 1989 1990

199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Present

SUBCOMMITTEES

General Agency Policy or Management

Environmental 

Education & Training 

Committee/Pollution 

Prevention Education 

Committee 

State & Local 

Programs Committee

Environmental 

Financial Advisory 

Board 

Technology 

Innovation & 

Economics 

Committee 

Trade & Environment 

Committee 

Ecosystems 

Implementation Tools 

Committee 

Ecosystems 

Sustainable 

Economics 

Committee 

Environmental 

Information, 

Economics, & 

Technology 

Committee

Community Based 

Environmental 

Protection Committee

Reinvention Criteria 

Committee

Environmental 

Capital Markets 

Committee

Title VI 

Implementation 

Advisory Committee

Subcommittee on 

Sectors

First Compliance 

Assistance Advisory 

Committee

Second Compliance 

Assistance Advisory 

Committee
10

SUBCOMMITTEES (continued)

198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Present

Program/Media Specific

Environmental 

Measures/Chemical 

Accident Prevention 

Committee

Effluent Guidelines

Task Force

Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant Review 

Committee

Superfund Evaluation 

Committee

Toxic Data Reporting 

Committee

Food Safety Advisory 

Committee

Total Maximum Daily 

Loads Committee

Tolerance 

Reassessment 

Advisory Committee

Committee to Advise 

on Reassessment & 

Transition

Endocrine Disruptor 

Methods Validation 

Subcommittee

Superfund 

Subcommittee

Information Management and Technology

Environmental 

Statistics Committee

Environmental 

Information and 

Assessments 

Committee

Information 

Resources 

Management 

Strategic Planning 

Task Force

Information Impacts 

Committee

Environmental 

Information and 

Public Access 

Committee

Subcommittee 

on Environmental 

Technology
11

198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Present

WORKGROUPS

Workforce Capacity 

Workgroup

Emerging Trends and 

Issues

EPA’s Report on the 

Environment

Strategic Plan Workgroup

Environmental Stewardship

Sustainable Water 

Infrastructure

Energy and the 

Environment

Integrated Modeling

Information Access

NACEPT @ 20

Objectives and Methods

To mark NACEPT’s 20th anniversary and its achievements over the last two decades, and to help ensure that this record of success continues, OCEM led an 

effort to:

(1) Identify the issues and challenges that EPA will face over the next 10 

years, highlighting areas where NACEPT may focus; 

(2) Review NACEPT’s operations and accomplishments since 1988; and

(3) Develop a strategic framework for how NACEPT can best serve EPA based 

on the prospective and retrospective findings. 

Consistent with objective (2) above, this report provides a retrospective survey of 

NACEPT’s accomplishments during its 20-year history. The primary purpose is to: 

•	 Characterize how NACEPT recommendations have influenced EPA policy;

and

•	 Identify factors that have distinguished successful NACEPT initiatives,

thereby guiding future NACEPT efforts.

Background research for this report began with a review of existing materials 

related to NACEPT’s activities and accomplishments. Relevant materials included 

the following:

•	 The 1999 report titled National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy 

and Technology (NACEPT): Past and Future, a compendium of NACEPT’s 

achievements and challenges at its 10-year anniversary;

•	 The current NACEPT charter; and

•	 The various reports and papers generated by NACEPT subcommittees and

work groups. Appendix C presents a bibliography of these publications. 
12

Using these materials, the researchers developed a detailed, relational database 

of NACEPT activities in the last 20 years. Maintained in Microsoft Access, the database features several linked components:

•	 The “sponsor” component of the database houses information on each

subcommittee’s charge, the dates it was active, and the subcommittee 

membership.

•	 A second component summarizes information on the reports generated

by each committee, including publication date and an abstract of the 

report’s objectives and findings.

•	 The database also provides a detailed listing of each report’s recommendations.

•	 Finally, the database summarizes information on EPA’s response to the

subcommittee recommendations.

The core information for this report was gathered through a series of detailed 

interviews with three major categories of respondents:

•	 NACEPT Council members and other participants who contributed to a

subcommittee or workgroup;

•	 EPA staff in programs that were the subject of NACEPT recommendations;

and

•	 Agency staff previously involved with NACEPT management.

OCEM identified all of the interviewees, selecting a cross section that ensured 

diverse perspectives across multiple research efforts. Appendix D lists the individuals interviewed. 

The researchers contacted each of the interviewees by electronic mail to invite 

their participation and to schedule the interview. Respondents were interviewed 

individually in a telephone conference setting, with one researcher guiding the 

discussion and a second researcher responsible for note-taking.4 

Researchers presented the interviewees with a brief set of open-ended discussion 

questions designed to elicit viewpoints on NACEPT’s effectiveness (see Appendix 

E for a listing of the questions). Interviewees received these questions in advance 

of the discussion, although no preparation was required. The researchers developed written interview summaries following each interview. Interviewees were 

given the opportunity to review their respective summaries and make corrections 

or additions as necessary.

Additional input was gathered at NACEPT’s November 2008 meeting, Council 

members had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this report. Several current and past members participated in a detailed panel session reviewing the preliminary report findings and possible refinements.

4 For efficiency purposes, the researchers conducted four of the interviews with pairs of respondents, rather than with individual respondents.
13

Chapter 2: Findings

For 20 years, NACEPT has been a source of independent and objective guidance 

for EPA decisionmakers. All of the individuals interviewed for this study complimented the diverse viewpoints, professional insight, and productivity of the Council. This chapter examines NACEPT’s achievements from several perspectives:

•	 First, it considers the overall management of NACEPT, addressing topics

such as the suitability of charges and the quality and composition of the 

Council’s membership;

•	 Second, the chapter discusses the procedures used by subcommittees

and workgroups and the impact of these procedures on the quality of 

NACEPT products; and

•	 Finally, the chapter examines the impact that NACEPT has had on Agency

policy and the factors influencing the implementation of NACEPT recommendations.

The interviews with NACEPT members and EPA staff form the foundation of the 

findings, although the discussion also integrates NACEPT reports and other descriptive information as appropriate.

General Management of NACEPT

NACEPT’s success depends upon prudent and efficient management of the 

Council and individual research efforts. Selecting and accepting appropriate 

charges, identifying capable participants, and cultivating NACEPT’s reputation 

within the Agency all enhance NACEPT’s potential for informing policymaking efforts. The section below discusses how OCEM and the Council have attempted to 

ensure smooth and productive operation of NACEPT.

One fundamental management responsibility is to ensure that NACEPT focuses 

on appropriate policy issues. While the Administrator takes the lead in identifying 

topics for NACEPT to address, a variety of actors (program offices, the Administrator’s Office, and the Council itself) play a role in crafting NACEPT charges. Most 

interviewees agree that, over time, NACEPT has come to focus on issues where 

it has a comparative advantage. For instance, one interviewee highlighted how 

NACEPT is uniquely suited to advise the Agency on issues that have long time 

horizons, primarily because NACEPT is not beholden to short-term obligations and 

day-to-day program implementation concerns. Similarly, NACEPT can address 

interdisciplinary, multi-media, and cross-office issues because it is unfettered by 

the institutional biases that may influence specific offices or programs at EPA.
14

As a result of this independent perspective, NACEPT can take risks on politically 

sensitive issues and provide uniquely objective advice.5

Many interviewees were quick to highlight the importance of clear charges to 

NACEPT’s performance. While some charges are simple and straightforward 

(e.g., review and comment on a document), others are initially amorphous and 

require several iterations to finalize. These iterations may simply focus the language or they may significantly modify the charge by winnowing 

the scope down to a set of practical questions or by revisiting the 

overall intent. For instance, one interviewee described how a 

NACEPT workgroup modified a draft charge to eliminate what it saw 

as a bias toward a particular research outcome. Direct involvement 

of NACEPT members in crafting charges is often beneficial, allowing 

Council members to align the charge with their background. 

Regardless, most interviewees felt that the time spent refining 

charges is worthwhile for ensuring that NACEPT’s efforts are focused 

and objective. 

Most interviewees felt that charges presented to NACEPT ultimately do attain the 

requisite degree of clarity and focus. Interviewees were asked to identify the common features of successful charges (i.e., charges for projects that proceeded to 

have a positive influence on policy decisions). This proved difficult to pinpoint.

Interviewees felt that NACEPT is capable of handling a variety of assignments, 

ranging from simple tasks (e.g., commenting on draft reports), to much less 

structured tasks (e.g., identifying options for integrating stewardship concepts 

into EPA activities). In short, NACEPT charges can be clear and achievable, even 

if the assignment incorporates broad concepts and/or leaves significant latitude 

to the researchers.

Another key to NACEPT’s success has been attention to diverse membership. The 

NACEPT charter highlights the objective of “increasing communication and understanding among all levels of government, business, non-governmental organizations, and academia...” Available information strongly suggests that NACEPT satisfies this objective. First, interviewees expressed satisfaction with the heterogeneous 

makeup of the Council and commended EPA for its efforts to diversify the membership. Although interviewees both within and outside of the Agency expressed 

limited familiarity with the specific process used to select members, all seemed 

satisfied with the results. Many emphasized the importance of selecting respected 

individuals who are prominent in their field, but who also possess the interpersonal 

skills needed to function in a consensus environment like NACEPT. The feeling is 

that OCEM and the Administrator’s Office have succeeded in this regard.

Of the 23 members on the NACEPT Council, six come from the private sector; 

six from academia; six from local/state governments; and five from non-governmental organizations.6 Therefore, the membership is an excellent reflection

of the four major sectors highlighted in the NACEPT charter. As demonstrated 

in Exhibit 2, the distribution across the four major sectors has balanced slightly 

over the past decade.

5 Interviewees also acknowledged a disadvantage to this “outsider” perspective, however. One 

interviewee noted that because NACEPT can set aside the practical realities of implementing its advice, the recommendations sometimes appear to come “from left field,” lacking a 

realistic grasp of budgetary limits or other organizational constraints.

6 Note that NACEPT members frequently change positions during their tenure; hence, the 

categorization by sector varies over time. These data are based on the NACEPT membership 

in April 2008.

“You have to start with the 

charge. The clearer the charge 

is, the more likely it is that 

the Council will be able to 

tackle the project and provide 

recommendations in a timely and 

efficient manner.”
15

EXHIBIT 2. NACEPT Council Composition in 1999 and 2008

1999 2008

Business and Industry 35% 26%

State/Tribal/Local Governments 24% 26%

Non-Governmental Organizations 28% 22%

Academia 7% 26%

Sources: U.S. EPA, National Advisory Council for Policy and Technology (NACEPT): Past 

and Future, July 1999; and 2008 Council membership available at http://www.epa.

gov/ocem/nacept/members/nacept_members.htm. 

NACEPT also strives to achieve geographic diversity in its membership. This goal 

is challenging given the concentration of environmental policymaking expertise 

in the Washington, DC area. Nonetheless, of the 23 members currently on the 

Council, 18 represent organizations outside of the DC beltway. 

Another key to NACEPT’s success has been steady management of the flow

of reports and recommendations. Exhibits 3 and 4 demonstrate how NACEPT 

has maintained a consistent output of reports and recommendations over the 

20-year history of the program.7 Maintaining this consistency through multiple 

administrations, Agency reorganizations, and policy transformations suggests 

prudent management and leadership from OCEM. 

7 The exhibits include final NACEPT reports, advice letters, and interim workgroup products. 

Note that the number of recommendations is restricted to discrete, numbered recommendations. Since some smaller NACEPT products do not number individual recommendations, the 

totals in the exhibit may understate the extent of Council advice.

“NACEPT provides a forum where there is a free, open, and honest exchange of 

ideas. Members leave any baggage or personal agendas they may have at the 

door. They really want to pull together to provide the best possible advice to the 

Administrator of EPA.”
16

EXHIBIT 3. Number of NACEPT Reports and Advice Letters 

(by Calendar Year)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

Year

Number of Reports

Information Management and

Technology

Program/Media-Specific General Agency Policy or

Management

EXHIBIT 4. Number of NACEPT Recommendations 

(by Calendar Year)

Information Management and

Technology

Program/Media-Specific General Agency Policy or

Management

0

50

100

150

200

250

199

0

199119921993199

4

199

5

199

6

19971998199

9

200

0

200120022003200

4

200

5

200

6

20072008

Year

Number of Recommendations
17

Finally, the quality of NACEPT’s membership has enhanced its success. First, 

strong leadership from the NACEPT Council Chairperson is a factor in overall 

management. Interviewees complimented the recent NACEPT Chair’s willingness to promote NACEPT throughout the Agency, meeting with EPA senior staff to 

explore potential areas of collaboration. In addition, interviewees highlighted the 

recent Chair’s attentiveness to subcommittee and workgroup products and his 

ability to cut through to essential research themes and assist in sharpening the 

focus of recommendations. Second, interviewees complimented the proficiency 

and professionalism of the Council members. One interviewee emphasized that 

the diversity creates a “think tank” atmosphere, where ideas are exchanged 

freely and political agendas (to the extent they exist) are left at the door.

Procedures and Management of Individual NACEPT Projects

The soundness of the NACEPT model is also evident in the degree of satisfaction 

with the procedures followed by subcommittees and workgroups. Interviewees 

were asked to respond to a series of questions focusing on the adequacy of 

NACEPT procedures and to identify characteristics of the most successful NACEPT 

initiatives.

Internal Procedures 

Most interviewees agreed that current NACEPT procedures are efficient and 

effective. One contributing factor has been increased reliance on more flexible

workgroup procedures for management of individual projects. While recommendations still require final approval by the full Council, initiatives are often pursued 

by smaller workgroups composed of Council members with a focused interest 

in a particular issue. This more nimble arrangement works to ensure efficient 

progress on research and more timely presentation of recommendations.8 These 

procedures clearly improve upon those used in earlier years of NACEPT; a former 

EPA official noted that in the past, NACEPT studies could be “ponderous,” affecting the timeliness of the findings.

Efficiency is also enhanced by consistent communication between subcommittees/workgroups and the full Council. NACEPT has had success with a liaison 

system whereby a subcommittee member who also serves on the full Council 

is responsible for keeping the Council informed of subcommittee progress and 

for seeking direction at appropriate times. Interviewees noted how essential this 

communication can be when a subcommittee includes a large group of individuals not involved with NACEPT. The system can ensure that subcommittees stay 

on schedule and focus on their specific charge. In addition, interviewees felt that 

the liaison can be helpful for anticipating how subcommittee recommendations 

would be received by the Council, which may help avoid conflicting views in the

late stages of a project.

Finally, interviewees who served as Designated Federal Officers (DFOs) noted 

that OCEM and the General Services Administration (GSA) provided high-quality 

assistance. In particular, the DFO training course (implemented by GSA) and the 

OCEM guidance manual clarified the mechanics of committee management 

and made it easier for one interviewee to perform the practical tasks for which 

DFOs are responsible. 

8 Panelists participating in the November 2008 NACEPT meeting further corroborated the idea 

that NACEPT’s streamlined procedures have improved the timeliness and relevance of its 

advice.
18

Interaction with Program Offices

Another major factor affecting the efficiency of NACEPT projects is the consistent 

involvement of staff working in affected program offices. Interviewees noted that 

NACEPT benefits greatly when a program office liaison is included on a particular 

subcommittee or workgroup: 

•	 Program office staff can be helpful in refining subcommittee and workgroup charges.

•	 Involving program office staff helps ensure that the group gets continuous

feedback and helps guide the project down a realistic path. 

•	 Having a sponsor in the program office(s) helps the subcommittee or workgroup obtain access to key individuals in the Agency. The sponsor can 

play a vital role in identifying players in relevant offices and encouraging 

their attendance at subcommittee meetings or other NACEPT sessions.

•	 Program office staff participation often yields an Agency “champion” who

will work to implement the NACEPT recommendations after the subcommittee or workgroup has finished its research. 

•	 Program office staff involvement can convey a sense of importance and

urgency to the research task, demonstrating to the subcommittee or workgroup members that the effort is not just a theoretical exercise, i.e., that the 

recommendations will be implemented.

One interviewee pointed out a drawback of direct collaboration between NACEPT and the program offices. Sometimes this relationship can be too close, 

with the Council effectively advancing key elements of an Agency staffperson’s 

agenda. NACEPT managers must be careful to screen charges and accept assignments that allow the Council to maintain objectivity and the “arms-length” 

relations that characterize most advisory boards.

NACEPT Recommendations in Action: Environmental Technology

In its 2006 report—EPA Technology Programs and Intra-Agency Coordination—

NACEPT’s Environmental Technology Subcommittee recommended several 

actions designed to refine the Agency’s environmental technology programs. 

The recommendations included two key organizational enhancements that thenAdministrator Johnson promptly enacted. First, the report highlighted the need 

for improved promotion and adoption of innovative technologies in the EPA 

Regions. In response, then-Administrator Johnson created a Regional Technology 

Advocacy Network (RETAN), establishing a technology advocate in each region. 

These advocates identify new technology opportunities in their regions; share 

findings with stakeholders in and outside of the Agency; and serve as members 

of EPA’s Environmental Technology Council (ETC). Second, then-Administrator 

Johnson implemented NACEPT’s recommendation to create a Senior Environmental 

Technology Officer position at EPA Headquarters. This individual serves as Chair 

of the ETC; facilitates cross-Agency information sharing related to innovative 

technologies; and performs outreach with the business community and other 

stakeholders. 

Source: Response Letter from EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson to John Howard, NACEPT Chair, 

May 20, 2008.
19

Staffing and Support

Another determinant of NACEPT’s efficiency and effectiveness is adequate assistance with day-to-day administrative tasks. Several interviewees highlighted the 

important role played by contractors supporting NACEPT research efforts. Contractors not only assist with note-taking and other logistical 

tasks, but can serve a central role in helping the committee by integrating members’ comments into interim 

and final reports. For instance, contractors typically 

assemble the diverse contributions of subcommittee or 

workgroup members into a coherent, readable report. 

Contractors can also be used to summarize major 

points from discussions, which members may decide 

to incorporate in initial drafts of interim products; this 

provides a concrete focal point for subcommittee or 

workgroup discussions and ensures that momentum 

achieved in meetings will not be lost.

The importance of contractor support is subject to 

two caveats, however. First, this type of assistance 

must be accompanied by practical contributions 

from the NACEPT committee members themselves. 

One interviewee noted that subcommittees and 

workgroups must be staffed by individuals who 

embrace a “worker” role. They must be willing to 

make practical contributions (e.g., research and 

writing) and not restrict their role to participation in 

meetings. Second, interviewees observed that the 

quality of contractor support has varied considerably. They emphasized that if contractor support is 

to be of value to the workgroup or subcommittee, 

EPA must select consultants with adequate expertise 

in the policy area under analysis. Furthermore, these 

individuals must possess good writing and organizational skills.

The addition of ad hoc members represents another way to enhance the effectiveness of a subcommittee or workgroup. Distinct from practical contractor 

support, these individuals supplement the experience of the existing group. For 

instance, one interviewee emphasized contributions made by computer specialists who participated on the NACEPT Integrated Modeling Workgroup. 

Yet another determinant of subcommittee or workgroup effectiveness is simply 

the commitment of the individuals involved with the effort. Interviewees noted 

that Council members and other participants are free to make the most of their 

time with NACEPT, and that some individuals are ultimately more effective than 

others. As a result, the balance of contributions across participants may be 

uneven. Some of the interviewees observed that while certain subcommittee or 

workgroup members may be fully engaged with a project, others may remain on 

the periphery and make fewer substantive contributions. This outcome is demonstrated by the experience of one interviewee involved with a workgroup whose 

membership changed when there was turnover on the Council. The infusion of 

“new blood” brought energy to the project and substantially enhanced the pace 

of the effort. The advantages of committed staff are especially noteworthy for 

subcommittee and workgroup chairs. A dedicated chair is essential to advance 

planning and ensuring that meetings are productive. One interviewee observed 

NACEPT Recommendations 

in Action: Sustainable Water 

Infrastructure

NACEPT’s Sustainable Water Infrastructure 

workgroup examined how EPA can apply 

watershed approaches in addressing 

water supply and water quality issues. In 

response to the workgroup’s initial findings, 

the Office of Water (OW) has pursued new 

outreach efforts to advance watershedbased concepts under its Sustainable 

Infrastructure Initiative. These efforts 

include expanded collaboration with EPA’s 

Local Government Advisory Committee as 

a means of reaching local officials; use of 

the National Estuary Program to promote 

watershed approaches to infrastructure 

planning; and establishment of a liaison 

between OW and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation to focus on watershedbased management.

Source: Response Letter from EPA Administrator 

Stephen L. Johnson to John Howard, NACEPT 

Chair, April 24, 2008.
20

that “people don’t like to waste time,” and that an engaged chairperson is one 

key to making substantive progress.

Impact on EPA Policy and Environmental Quality

Ultimately, the primary measure of NACEPT’s success is whether its recommendations influence policy decisions at EPA. However, it is difficult to state definitively the degree to which NACEPT succeeds in this regard. Recommendations 

vary greatly in scope and complexity, ranging from pragmatic organizational 

“tweaks” to sweeping overhauls of Agency procedures and mission. Not only are 

the latter type more difficult for the Agency to implement, but it is simply harder to 

determine if they are being implemented. For instance, if NACEPT recommends 

creating a position at the Agency, it is easy to determine if the advice was implemented. However, if NACEPT recommends greater integration of stewardship 

concepts into Agency activities, it may be difficult to assess whether the recommendation was heeded. 

As a result of these complexities, interviewees noted that the record is “mixed” 

when considering whether NACEPT advice is directly incorporated into Agency 

actions. Nonetheless, numerous success stories exist; text boxes presented 

throughout this chapter highlight several noteworthy instances of EPA policy 

incorporating NACEPT recommendations.

NACEPT Recommendations in Action: 

Report on the Environment and Information Access Strategy

NACEPT regularly reviews drafts of major EPA publications, providing 

recommendations that reflect the Council’s “real-world” perspective. For

instance, EPA’s Report on the Environment (ROE) represents a major periodic 

effort to describe and analyze important trends in U.S. environmental quality. 

NACEPT was asked to review and comment on the 2008 ROE, and several of its 

recommendations proved highly influential in improving the accessibility of the

report. First, in response to NACEPT advice, EPA created a stand-alone Highlights 

Document summarizing key findings with a minimum of technical detail. In addition, 

EPA modified the document to incorporate numerous links to information on how 

average citizens can bring about environmental improvements.

Likewise, NACEPT recently made recommendations on EPA’s Information Access 

Strategy, an effort to improve the quality and accessibility of the Agency’s information 

resources. Changes made in response to Council suggestions include: (1) greater 

emphasis on tools (e.g., Navigate EPA) that train front-line data providers; (2) 

clarification of the links between environmental data and Agency priorities and 

initiatives; (3) expansion of the Strategy’s metadata discussion; and (4) articulation of 

how EPA can solicit public feedback on the quality of existing information resources 

as well as future information access needs.

Sources: Response Letter from EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson to John Howard, NACEPT 

Chair, January 13, 2009; and interview with Mike Flynn of EPA’s Office of Environmental Information.
21

Interviewees pointed to several factors that affect whether EPA implements NACEPT recommendations:

• Timing: To affect policy, recommendations must arrive at crucial decision 

points. NACEPT has improved its ability to deliver advice in a timely fashion 

by relying more on workgroup efforts (as discussed above) and by instituting a more flexible system of interim products. By allowing interim advice

letters and other short products—as opposed to preparing only detailed 

final reports—NACEPT increases the likelihood that recommendations 

reach program offices at key decision points. NACEPT’s work in the area of 

biofuels provides an excellent illustration of the advantage of the smallproduct approach. Interviewees highlighted the fast-paced and evolving 

nature of the biofuels debate. More fluid and frequent advice is necessary

to make NACEPT’s contributions in this area relevant and effective. 

A related timing issue occurs when NACEPT reviews major agency documents. For instance, interviewees noted that while NACEPT provided a 

variety of comments that were readily incorporated into the Report on the 

Environment (ROE), some suggestions were more fundamental and not 

feasible given deadline pressures surrounding the ROE’s release. 

•	 Budgetary Feasibility: Not surprisingly, budgetary factors play a role in 

whether a recommendation is implemented. Most obviously, smaller-scale 

recommendations that can be implemented 

at little or no cost to the program office have 

a higher likelihood of implementation. In addition, the overall budgetary context in which the 

recommendation occurs also has an influence.

Interviewees pointed to the example of NACEPT’s Effluent Guidelines Task Force. The Task

Force developed a theoretically sound system 

for prioritizing best available technology (BAT) 

standards to identify effluent guidelines most

in need of revision as well as to identify newer, 

currently unregulated categories that needed 

to be addressed. The objective was to help 

structure the daunting task that the Office of 

Water faced in revising the full suite of effluent

guidelines every three years (as required by 

Congress). However, the overall budget and 

schedule pressure faced by OW made it difficult 

to pause and consider adopting the alternative 

approaches recommended by NACEPT.

•	 Focus and Tangibility: Interviewees noted that 

successful recommendations are limited in 

number and avoid the temptation to load in 

too many ideas or suggestions. Likewise, effective recommendations identify what office (and 

even individual) in the Agency should respond to each suggestion, so it is 

clear who needs to act. While exceptions may exist, the best recommendations are specific and actionable. For instance, one interviewee highlighted how NACEPT’s Everyone’s Business report features office-specific 

recommendations that operationalize broad themes of the study, enhancing Agency interest. 

NACEPT Recommendations in 

Action: Environmental Futures

In the 2002 report The Environmental 

Future: Emerging Challenges and 

Opportunities for the EPA, NACEPT 

developed and tested strategies for 

recognizing nascent environmental 

issues. The report’s recommendations 

included suggestions for integrating 

futures analysis into EPA’s strategic 

planning process. In response, the 

Agency’s latest strategic plan includes 

sections that address “emerging 

issues and external factors” for each 

of the plan’s major policy areas 

(e.g., air, water, ecosystems). These 

sections address new challenges 

and opportunities likely to face EPA in 

coming years.

Source: Response Letter from EPA Associate 

Administrator Thomas J. Gibson to Dorothy 

Bowers, NACEPT Chair, December 30, 2002.
22

•	 Broader Organizational Buy-In: Another factor affecting policy impact is 

the receptiveness of all affected agencies and offices. First, the NACEPT 

project must have an immediate audience, i.e., an individual in the 

Agency who asked for the study and is anxious to hear the advice. Furthermore, a NACEPT project may progress with the involvement and blessing 

of a particular sub-office, but recommendations may affect other organizational elements at EPA. These other groups may be less receptive to the 

recommendations because of entrenched interests and preference for status quo, potentially undermining the chances of implementing NACEPT’s 

advice. 

•	 Changes in Administration: In instances where NACEPT recommends 

large-scale changes in Agency procedures or mission, the likelihood 

of implementation can be affected by cyclical changes in presidential 

administrations. For example, the Everyone’s Business report recommends 

reframing EPA’s mission to make stewardship a central concept. Interviewees noted that an outgoing Administrator is unlikely to pursue such sweeping changes. Likewise, interviewees suggested that a new administration 

may be “out of sync” with a Council selected and directed by a previous 

administration, and consequently may pay less attention to the advice. 

Likewise, another interviewee stressed the importance of continuity of 

senior management. This individual pointed to a NACEPT product that had 

a limited policy impact because the Assistant Administrator championing 

the effort left the Agency. 

Interviewees stressed that the likelihood of recommendations being implemented 

increases with attention to these factors. The chair of one subcommittee observed that EPA has shown progress on virtually all of his group’s recommendations because explicit attention is paid to crafting realistic, attainable recommendations that are easily tracked.

Some interviewees emphasized that NACEPT’s impacts extend beyond the 

primary mission of influencing specific EPA policies. First, NACEPT members may

have an indirect influence on Agency practices. EPA interviewees noted that

interaction with non-EPA experts can bring fresh thinking and information to 

the program office’s activities. Indeed, in some cases, research completed by 

NACEPT may free up program office staff to pursue other aspects of a problem. 

NACEPT Recommendations in Action: Engaging the Venture 

Capital Community

In April 2008, NACEPT’s Environmental Technology Subcommittee completed the 

report EPA and the Venture Capital Community: Building Bridges to Commercialize 

Technology. The study explores how EPA and the investment community can 

partner to facilitate private sector investment in the commercialization of 

environmental technologies. A key recommendation is to “forge and sustain 

communications with the early-stage investment community.” Responding to 

this advice, EPA recently hosted a “brown bag” discussion that brought together 

senior Agency officials, members of the Environmental Technology Subcommittee, 

and representatives of the venture capital community. In addition, a November 

2008 workshop further considered the commercialization and deployment of 

environmental technologies.

Source: Interviews with Phil Helgerson and Dan Watts, members of the NACEPT Subcommittee on 

Environmental Technology.
23

In addition, NACEPT reports have been used in college curricula. Specifically, the 

2002 Futures Report and the Greening of World Trade report have been used in 

college classrooms.

Conclusions

The considerations examined above—prudent management of NACEPT, sound 

procedures for addressing charges, and positive impacts on Agency policy— 

combine to produce a compelling picture of NACEPT’s success in its first 20 years. 

The vast majority of interviewees praise NACEPT’s management and contributions, and NACEPT’s reputation for insightful, timely recommendations has grown 

steadily over time. Key factors influencing this success have included:

•	 Development of clear charges, often focusing on Agency-wide management questions which NACEPT is especially well-equipped to address;

•	 Diverse and balanced composition of the NACEPT Council;

•	 Nimble research and reporting procedures, including workgroup arrangements and interim advice letters;

•	 Consistent involvement of EPA program office staff;

•	 Strong contractor support to cover practical tasks; and

•	 Increasingly pragmatic and actionable recommendations that acknowledge budgetary constraints, political realities, and other factors.

NACEPT Recommendations in Action: EPA Biofuels Strategy

Since 2006, NACEPT’s Energy Workgroup has been developing guidance on how EPA 

can encourage the use of renewable fuels and ensure their sustainable development. 

EPA is currently implementing several recommendations found in NACEPT’s first two 

advice letters (issued in 2007). First, then-Administrator Johnson appointed EPA’s Science 

Advisor (who also serves as the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and 

Development) to the federal multi-agency Biomass Research and Development Board, a 

group tasked with coordinating federal R&D activities related to biobased fuels, power, 

and products. Then-Administrator Johnson also directed several senior EPA officials to 

convene an Agency-wide meeting to develop an internal biofuel strategy. This strategy 

is being organized around a five-stage biofuel supply chain framework recommended 

by NACEPT. All of these actions play a role in the Agency’s efforts to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions and increase energy efficiency.

Source: Response Letter from EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson to John Howard, NACEPT Chair, 

September 26, 2007.
24
25

Although interviewees consistently expressed satisfaction with NACEPT’s performance, refinement of the Council’s operations and products would help ensure 

its future relevance at EPA. In response to interview questions, NACEPT stakeholders identified a variety of steps that could improve NACEPT’s efficiency and the 

impact of the Council’s advice. The sections below discuss these recommendations, organizing them into three major topics:

•	 The first set of recommendations reviews how OCEM and the Agency at

large can better manage NACEPT and fortify its role at EPA.

•	 The second set of recommendations focuses on refinement of NACEPT’s

internal procedures.

•	 The final set of recommendations examines performance measurement

and options for evaluating NACEPT’s impact in the Agency.

General Management of NACEPT

NACEPT’s Role

Interviewees were asked to discuss how NACEPT can best assist EPA in the future, 

i.e., what is the appropriate role for NACEPT in the Agency? Several points arose 

in this assessment of the Council’s comparative advantage. First, although the 

Council has the background and experience to field a 

variety of charges, its composition and perspective may 

be best suited to broad, Agency-wide policy or management questions involving synthesis of disparate information. Interviewees advocated this kind of support in the future, noting that the Council has proven itself well suited 

to cross-office, inter-media, interdisciplinary problems that 

have longer-term time horizons; examples include futures 

planning, strategic planning, and sustainability. Similarly, 

interviewees and panelists at the November 2008 NACEPT 

meeting observed that EPA already receives extensive 

input from industry and NGOs on specific rulemakings or 

programs. In contrast, NACEPT is one of the few sources 

of advice on Agency-wide management and planning considerations, and this 

broad perspective is one of the Council’s comparative advantages.

Interviewees also encouraged continued emphasis on the Council’s knowledge 

of innovative technology and its applications in environmental policymaking. 

One interviewee stressed that, in this era of rapid technological change, NACEPT 

should be at the forefront of efforts to make the Agency more proactive with 

technologies related to information management, pollution control, and clean 

energy. Similarly, another interviewee noted that NACEPT may have the greatest impact in cutting-edge fields that are in earlier, more malleable develop-

“Plenty of people are willing 

to give us advice about this 

or that particular program or 

regulation. But NACEPT is able 

to look across what EPA is doing 

and give us some broader 

reflections...I think that is quite

valuable.”

Chapter 3: Recommendations
26

ment stages. The ongoing biofuels strategy provides a good example of NACEPT 

exploiting this comparative advantage. Collaboration between NACEPT and 

groups such as the Office of the Science Advisor and the Environmental Financial 

Advisory Board could help steer NACEPT toward areas such as high technology 

and alternative energy.

One interviewee emphasized the need for NACEPT to be relevant to the new 

administration. To be relevant, NACEPT must respond to the policy priorities of the 

new administration, supporting emerging initiatives. Likewise, NACEPT needs to 

continue evolving to meet new procedural demands, e.g., provision of more realtime advice to policymakers. 

Interviewees also identified roles that NACEPT may want to avoid in the future. 

Most notably, one interviewee advised that NACEPT steer clear of reviewing and 

commenting on reports that already attract numerous reviewers (e.g., EPA’s Strategic Plan).9 In addition, another interviewee stressed that NACEPT should not be 

used as an arbitrator to settle contentious problems. 

NACEPT Charges

Interviewees also stressed the continued need for clear NACEPT charges. As 

the starting point for NACEPT research, charges are vital to ensuring productive 

operations and useful recommendations. As such, interviewees noted that time 

devoted to crafting charges is always well spent. Collaboration between program office staff, as well as between the program office and the NACEPT Council, 

may take time, but the iterations refine the charge and ultimately pay off in a 

more focused research effort.10 One interviewee recommended that the process 

of refining charges could be simplified by “getting everyone in a room” and hammering out the charge. Interviewees also emphasized the value of having senior

program office staff involved with crafting charges, ensuring broader office buy-in 

to the direction and ultimate recommendations of the project. 

Also, OCEM may want to consider soliciting charges from segments of the 

Agency with which NACEPT does not traditionally interact. In particular, interviewees noted that to date, the EPA regions have played a limited role in generating charges for NACEPT. As such, the regions may represent a new “client” for 

NACEPT.

Finally, OCEM and the program offices should continue to screen charges carefully, selecting those that will be most useful and applicable within the Agency. 

One interviewee suggested that this type of oversight would help ensure that NACEPT is not inadvertently working to advance the agenda of individual EPA staff. 

Screening will ensure that NACEPT maintains the objectivity and independence 

essential to any advisory group.

Promoting NACEPT within the Agency

Interviewees recommended that NACEPT promote itself more systematically within the Agency. Some interviewees felt that NACEPT’s visibility is inadequate, with 

one suggesting that few groups beyond the Administrator’s Office are aware of 

9 This is not to say that NACEPT should avoid all review and comment assignments. Many such 

projects have proven successful. In particular, one reviewer noted that NACEPT can often 

serve as a “microcosm of the general public” when offering comments on documents such 

as EPA’s Report on the Environment.

10 While all charges are developed by EPA and ultimately approved by senior-level Agency officials, program office staff may seek input from individual NACEPT members. 
27

NACEPT and the services it provides. Interviewees complimented efforts by OCEM 

staff and the NACEPT Chair to perform outreach at EPA by informing program offices of NACEPT’s strengths and identifying possible areas for collaboration. Continuing and possibly expanding this practice would be beneficial. Interviewees 

and panelists at the NACEPT November 2008 meeting emphasized that similar 

outreach to groups such as EPA’s Innovation Action Council and the EPA regions 

would help raise NACEPT’s profile among senior-level executives at EPA.

One interviewee stressed the need for NACEPT to market itself now, in response 

to the new administration. This individual stressed that OCEM and the Council 

should familiarize incoming senior managers with NACEPT’s strengths and capabilities in a proactive fashion, rather than waiting for senior managers to request 

the Council’s services. 

Despite these suggestions, interviewees acknowledged that awareness of NACEPT as a resource is a two-way street. While NACEPT can do more to promote 

itself, EPA staff—particularly senior political appointees—should have working 

knowledge of NACEPT and the other advisory resources available at the Agency. 

Coordination with Other Groups in the Agency

Interviewees were asked whether there are existing internal mechanisms at the 

Agency with which NACEPT should be better coordinated. Most respondents 

focused on other advisory boards and NACEPT’s role among these other entities. 

First, interviewees suggested closer collaboration between NACEPT and groups 

such as EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), Office of the Science Advisor, the 

Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB), and EPA’s Farm, Ranch, and 

Rural Communities Advisory Committee.11 Coordinating the use of these groups 

would help focus NACEPT’s role, avoid redundant research, and ensure that the 

advisory boards collectively serve EPA’s needs. Coordination would also provide 

NACEPT with the opportunity to learn from other advisory panels; this shared 

knowledge could be especially helpful for structuring and organizing NACEPT’s 

internal procedures (e.g., selection of topic areas for Council research). Likewise, 

coordination with the newly created Regional Technology Advocacy Network 

(RETAN) would serve both the goal of using internal mechanisms as well as the 

regional outreach goals cited above.

One interviewee suggested applying this same brand of coordination internally 

among NACEPT workgroups and subcommittees. For instance, the interviewee 

observed that topics such as biosolids management occur at the intersection 

of the biofuels workgroup and the water infrastructure workgroup. Recognizing 

these synergies may help NACEPT work more efficiently and leverage the Council’s expertise in new areas.

Finally, as noted above, collaboration with senior managers involved in EPA’s Innovation Action Council (IAC) may be beneficial. Beyond simply raising NACEPT’s 

profile within the Agency, one interviewee noted that IAC could recommend 

emerging issues that the Administrator may wish to consider for NACEPT initiatives.

11 This type of coordination is already partly underway. SAB representatives served on NACEPT’s 

workgroup reviewing EPA’s Report on the Environment. Similarly, members of EFAB and EPA’s 

Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) participated on the NACEPT Environmental 

Stewardship Workgroup. Likewise, NACEPT has recently designated an SAB liaison. 
28

Council Member Selection 

While nearly all interviewees highlighted the quality and expertise of the NACEPT 

Council members, some offered recommendations for improving the process 

by which Council members are selected. First, some respondents observed that 

Council members sometimes appear to be selected before NACEPT’s research 

agenda for the coming period is established. As a result, Council expertise may 

not align directly with the projects at hand. Coordination of the research agenda 

and Council member selection would help ensure a better fit between research 

demands and Council expertise. 

Second, one interviewee suggested that EPA consult with former Council members for input on prospective Council members. Attractive NACEPT candidates 

should have a strong reputation and presence in their respective fields; in many 

cases, peers in that community (i.e., former Council members) may have direct 

experience working with the candidate, and may be able to offer insights on the 

candidate’s fit with Council needs.

Third, one interviewee suggested selecting a NACEPT Chairperson who has an 

established relationship with the EPA Administrator. NACEPT could potentially be 

more effective and influential if the Chair has “walk-in” status with the Administrator.

Fourth, one interviewee recommended shorter terms for Council members. 

Shorter terms would allow OCEM to identify members who are over-committed 

or otherwise not contributing to the group, transition them off the Council, and 

replace them with more active members.

Finally, echoing findings about the effectiveness of workgroups and subcommittees with committed “workers,” interviewees suggested screening Council 

members for this trait. One interviewee noted how it may be tempting to select 

prominent members who “look good on paper,” but who view their role as being 

limited to meeting attendance. However, this advice directly contradicts other 

interviewees who stressed the need for high-status NACEPT members who garner 

respect at EPA. Overall, when selecting members, OCEM and the Administrator 

should seek a balance between reputation and commitment to practical responsibilities.

Collaboration with Past Council Members

At NACEPT’s November 2008 meeting, several current and past Council members 

recommended that NACEPT more frequently solicit input from individuals whose 

formal term on the Council has ended. They noted that past members are often 

willing to review documents or otherwise lend their expertise to Council deliberations. These individuals would approximate “council emeritus” status. Their contributions would help improve NACEPT’s overall institutional memory, an essential 

function given the long time frame sometimes necessary to develop, issue, and 

implement Council recommendations. 

NACEPT Procedures

While interviewees expressed satisfaction with the internal workings of NACEPT 

projects, they identified a variety of possible steps for improving efficiency. Several of these suggestions essentially call for continuation (and possibly expansion) of current practices:

•	 NACEPT should continue performing projects with smaller workgroups

to harness the enthusiasm of the most interested Council members and 
29

respond more fluidly to Agency needs. Along these lines, one interviewee

recommended that NACEPT specifically consider a more streamlined system of document review to recognize situations where comments are time 

critical. Finally, NACEPT should continue its use of interim products (e.g., 

advice letters) to address appropriate segments of charges in a timely 

fashion. 

•	 NACEPT should continue involving EPA program office staff in workgroup

and subcommittee efforts, using these representatives to get access to 

Agency expertise and to craft more effective recommendations. One interviewee noted that this practice may involve re-interpretation of the NACEPT 

charter language requiring that the Council report exclusively to OCEM 

and the Administrator. This interviewee felt strongly that EPA staff learn from 

the process of NACEPT deliberations and that this learning may be even 

more valuable than the final advice provided by the Council on any given 

topic.

•	 As a means of enhancing communication among subcommittee and

workgroup members, NACEPT should take more frequent advantage of 

technologies such as videoconferencing and web-based meetings. These 

same technologies could be used to improve coordination among the full 

Council. Somewhat in contrast, one interviewee emphasized the need for 

subcommittees and the full Council to hold more face-to-face meetings. 

This individual felt that OCEM should attempt to secure more travel funding for NACEPT participants. To the extent that face-to-face meetings are 

feasible, one interviewee stressed the value of meetings held outside of 

Washington D.C. (e.g., at an EPA regional office).

Some interviewees recommended that NACEPT and OCEM institute more formal 

systems of feedback between the program offices and the Council. Some mechanisms already exist for informing the Council of the status of their recommendations. For instance, in addition to response letters from the Administrator, one EPA 

interviewee noted how Council members met with the program office to discuss 

NACEPT’s recommendations and steps that EPA was taking to implement them. 

In general, however, interviewees asserted that more systematic feedback would 

be useful and potentially would enhance the commitment and engagement 

of the Council members. The practice of periodically tracking recommendation 

implementation (see below) may directly address this suggestion. 

Performance Measurement

The interviews with NACEPT stakeholders included a series of questions focusing 

on how NACEPT can best assess its own success in the coming decade. Nearly 

all interviewees began their response with the same general observations: (1) For 

NACEPT, “success” equates to the extent to which the Agency implements the 

Council’s recommendations; and (2) NACEPT needs a better system for determining which of its recommendations are implemented, which are not, and why. 

In one sense, tracking the “success rate” for NACEPT recommendations would 

appear straightforward. However, as discussed, NACEPT recommendations 

run the gamut from practical, incremental advice to sweeping reorientation of 

Agency mission and procedures. Therefore, interviewees suggested several forms 

of retrospective assessments that differ somewhat in scope and objectives: 

•	 One interviewee recommended performing a detailed retrospective study

of several specific NACEPT projects, examining the reasons why recommendations were or were not implemented. This study would serve as the 
30

basis for crafting a formal system of feedback between NACEPT and the 

program offices that could be applied on all future NACEPT projects.

•	 Several interviewees suggested that NACEPT develop a periodic report—

i.e., every one or two years—assessing the extent to which NACEPT recommendations have been implemented. Such a study could be used to 

refine the issues NACEPT addresses and the type of recommendations it 

provides. The study could either be developed internally (at OCEM) or by 

an independent contractor. Given that the nature of recommendations 

varies greatly, it may be best to implement this type of study only for a specific subset of NACEPT projects. Projects that produce a finite set of discrete 

recommendations may lend themselves better to such an evaluation than, 

for example, assignments wherein NACEPT reviews and comments on an 

EPA document. 

•	 Short of a periodic report, NACEPT could occasionally reconvene subcommittees to assess the extent to which recommendations have been 

implemented. Some interviewees suggested that these procedures include 

meetings with program offices to hold follow-up discussions on the status of 

the recommendations. 

To facilitate these kinds of retrospective studies, NACEPT may wish to pay explicit 

attention to the “trackability” of its recommendations. The goal would be to formulate recommendations that can be evaluated easily in the future. An interviewee 

with detailed knowledge of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) 

noted that EFAB explicitly considers this type of clarity in its recommendations. 

Interviewees also suggested options for gauging the impact of NACEPT advice 

without explicitly tracking each individual recommendation. The basic objective would be to assess the degree to which major themes inherent in NACEPT 

recommendations are evident in EPA management actions. Major themes might 

include the following:

•	 Consider whether EPA is implementing an iterative management process

that integrates strategic planning, financial management/budgeting, 

and environmental results. One interviewee argued that the Agency could 

more fully integrate these three major management exercises. 

•	 Assess the degree of cross-program collaboration at the Agency. One

interviewee observed how even the NACEPT project itself may demonstrate 

progress with respect to this indicator; that is, involvement of individuals 

from multiple program offices on the NACEPT subcommittee or workgroup 

will improve cross-office coordination.

•	 Gauge the degree to which EPA measures the environmental impacts of its

programs and regulations. For various reasons, evaluations tend to focus 

on measuring program inputs, program outputs, and readily observed outcomes, with less attention paid to environmental improvements. Interviewees acknowledged that all EPA offices are under pressure from GPRA to 

measure true impacts, and are struggling to identify and implement these 

more meaningful measures.

•	 One interviewee stressed that another yardstick to gauge NACEPT’s effectiveness would be the degree to which it moves EPA into the technology 

fields where it currently lacks a presence. Because alternative energy is a 

key to reducing greenhouse gases, the interviewee suggested that EPA 

may wish to consider expanding its role in the alternative energy field (e.g., 

wind, solar, biofuels).
31

As framed by one interviewee, all of these measures would reflect how NACEPT’s

advice helps EPA “change the way it does business.” Some interviewees felt that 

such measures would be more effective than simply tracking the rate at which 

recommendations are adopted.

Other suggestions for performance measurement include the following: 

•	 One interviewee suggested assessing the “durability” of the recommendations. Specifically, the most successful reports are those that are still relevant and useful several years after publication. In this way, a new administration can take advantage of the Council’s earlier work.

•	 Finally, NACEPT may wish to consider demand for its services as an indicator of success. If program offices, regions, and other segments of the 

Agency present a large number of charges to NACEPT, it demonstrates 

that NACEPT’s advice is highly valued.

Progress on 10-year Report Recommendations

NACEPT’s 1999 report Past and Future: A Decade of Stakeholder Advice considered the successes associated with the Council’s first 10 years of operation. The 

study compiled 14 recommendations for the Council and OCEM, with the goal 

of improving the impact and value of NACEPT in the coming years. It is useful 

to reflect on the extent to which the Council and OCEM have addressed these

recommendations in the last decade and identify areas where further work may 

be needed.

Exhibit 5 summarizes the progress made against the 10-year recommendations. 

The interviews conducted for this study demonstrate marked progress on many 

of the recommendations. Themes stressed throughout this report include: (1) 

more streamlined NACEPT response to Agency needs; (2) improved NACEPT visibility throughout EPA, including with EPA Regions and groups such as the IAC; 

(3) more direct collaboration with EPA program offices; (4) improved support 

for subcommittees and workgroups (e.g., through contractor assistance and 

arrangement of ad hoc membership); (5) improved guidance for new Council 

members and DFOs; and (6) encouragement of more systematic feedback on 

NACEPT’s performance and its recommendations. 

In some instances, NACEPT has explored the 10-year recommendation and chosen to move in a different direction. For example, the Council has experimented 

with formal facilitation but has found that the Chairperson is more effective at 

managing meetings.

Finally, some of the 10-year recommendations focus on refinement of formal subcommittee procedures. Because NACEPT has moved toward greater reliance on 

smaller, informal workgroups, some of these recommendations are less relevant 

to current practices.

Overall, NACEPT has succeeded in satisfying the majority of the recommendations set forth in the 10-year report. 
32

EXHIBIT 5. Progress on Recommendations Provided in NACEPT 

10 Year Study

Recommendation in 10-Year Study Progress Based on Interviews and OCEM Input

NACEPT should more actively engage 

in strategic planning to identify the 

policy issues which NACEPT standing 

committees address.*

•	 NACEPT has focused on being responsive to Administrator and 

program office demands; less emphasis on suggesting policy issues 

for the Council to address.

•	 NACEPT produced the 2002 report The Environmental Future: 

Emerging Challenges and Opportunities for EPA to assist the 

Agency in identifying upcoming policy challenges.

•	 NACEPT produced the 2009 report Outlook for EPA, recommending 

significant changes in EPA’s focus and operations. 

NACEPT should better publicize itself and 

its work to all parts of the Agency and 

beyond.

•	 Interviewees noted recent efforts by NACEPT Chair and OCEM staff 

to meet with program offices, regions, and other segments of the 

Agency. For instance, OCEM has recently briefed Regions 2 and 10 

on NACEPT, with additional briefings planned.

•	 Interviewees also noted coordination with groups such as EPA’s 

Innovation Action Council. 

NACEPT should streamline the 

process of developing and delivering 

recommendations.

•	 Interviewees highlighted use of smaller workgroups and reliance on 

shorter interim products such as advice letters.

NACEPT should conduct an evaluation of 

standing committee processes upon the 

completion of the standing committee’s 

work.

•	 OCEM staff routinely follow up with program offices to gauge 

satisfaction with completed NACEPT efforts. However, no formal 

evaluation has been completed, owing to resource constraints and 

the need to hire outside, neutral evaluators.

•	 NACEPT has increased its reliance on simpler, streamlined 

workgroup-based efforts, rather than creation of full subcommittees. 

Hence, limited need exists for a review of committee procedures.

NACEPT should take responsibility 

for maintaining contact with its past 

members.

•	 Studies such as the current retrospective and prospective analyses 

have relied extensively upon input from past members, seeking 

their perspective on past performance and future NACEPT 

directions.

•	 Interviewees and participants in NACEPT’s November 2008 

meeting recommend selective reliance on past Council members’ 

experience to inform ongoing NACEPT efforts.

Standing committees should prioritize 

their recommendations and include 

suggested schedules and performance 

targets for implementation of each 

recommendation.

•	 Workgroups routinely prioritize their recommendations. However, 

the Council has chosen not to dictate schedules and performance 

targets, leaving these decisions to the program offices.

Standing committees should request 

a formal response from the Agency to 

standing committee reports.

•	 The program offices typically respond to NACEPT 

recommendations. In particular, feedback from the EPA 

Administrator and Assistant Administrators on NACEPT products is 

more consistent than in the past.

OCEM should ensure productive 

interaction between NACEPT standing 

committees and relevant Agency 

program offices.

•	 Interviewees highlighted how direct involvement of program office 

staff has improved the efficiency and effectiveness of research 

projects. In particular, senior program office staff are able to 

shepherd NACEPT recommendations because of their level of 

experience and knowledge of EPA. 

OCEM should ensure that standing 

committee work is adequately planned 

and managed by the DFO and standing 

committee chairperson to achieve the 

committee’s goals in an efficient manner.

•	 Interviewees commended the appointment of liaisons to report 

from subcommittees and workgroups to the larger Council.

•	 NACEPT has increased its reliance on workgroup-based efforts, 

rather than full subcommittees. 
33

Recommendation in 10-Year Study Progress Based on Interviews and OCEM Input

OCEM should inform program offices of 

the qualifications needed to be a DFO 

and provide training to appointed DFOs.

•	 Interviewees commented favorably on the guidance manual that 

OCEM produced for DFOs.

•	 The General Services Administration provides FACA training for DFOs. 

OCEM should develop better ways for 

NACEPT members to communicate 

between meetings.

•	 OCEM has increased its use of teleconferencing to facilitate 

communication between NACEPT meetings. In addition, smaller 

workgroups have led to increased meeting frequency. 

•	 While some interviewees felt that formal and informal meeting 

frequency was adequate, others recommended fostering more 

frequent communication. 

OCEM should establish an enhanced 

formal method for the establishment of 

standing committees.

•	 A memorandum of understanding is created when a 

subcommittee is established. 

OCEM should improve the NACEPT 

standing committee orientation process 

for new members.

•	 OCEM hosts an orientation session for new members, which 

includes an overview of FACA, NACEPT, EPA, procedures, travel 

policy, and other relevant issues. OCEM has also arranged 

presentations by past Council members to orient new members. 

OCEM should develop a formal 

facilitation program to ensure proper 

support for each standing committee.

•	 The Council has chosen to limit its reliance on formal facilitation, 

instead relying on the NACEPT Chair to perform this function.

•	 Interviewees commented favorably on OCEM efforts to provide 

contractor support and willingness to recruit ad hoc committee 

members when supplementary experience is needed.

* Note that while the 10-year recommendations make frequent mention of “standing committees,” NACEPT has 

moved toward greater reliance on smaller workgroups.
34
35

Appendix A: Executive Summary of NACEPT 

Past & Future: A Decade of Stakeholder Advice 

(10-Year Anniversary Report)

The Executive Summary begins on the next page.











47

Name Years in 

Operation

Charge

Environmental Education and 

Training Committee/Pollution 

Prevention Education Committee

1988-1993 Established to promote an environmentally conscious and responsible 

public through three major objectives: (1) heighten public sensitivity 

to the environmental consequences of our individual and collective 

actions; (2) educate youth and train future environmental management 

professionals; and (3) aid public and private executives in making 

informed and responsible decisions.

State and Local Programs 

Committee

1988-1993 Established to advise the Administrator on enhancing of state and local 

governments’ ability to carry out their environmental management 

responsibilities and on building cooperation among government, 

business, academia, and the public interest.

Environmental Financial Advisory 

Board

1989-1990 Established to advise the Administrator on environmental financing, 

related taxation issues, innovative financing approaches, legislative 

and regulatory options, public/private partnerships, local and regional 

infrastructure issues, and accounting disclosure standards.

Technology Innovation and 

Economics Committee 

1989-1993 Established to examine (1) the effectiveness of governmental 

“environmental systems” in ensuring a suitable climate for technological 

development and (2) the adequacy of market forces to stimulate the 

development of environmentally beneficial technologies.

Trade and Environment 

Committee

1989-1993 Established to assist the Administrator to clarify EPA’s trade position, 

advance the integration of environmental and trade policy making, and 

identify key policy issues and recommendations.

Environmental Measures/

Chemical Accident Prevention 

Committee

1990-1996 Established to provide policy advice on ways to obtain the 

measurements and other information that EPA needs to make its 

chemical accident prevention programs work.

Effluent Guidelines Task Force 1992-2003 Established to assist the Agency in implementing the Clean Water Act, 

advising the Administrator on the long-term strategy for the Effluent

Guidelines Program, and making recommendations on a process for 

expediting the promulgation of effluent guidelines as well as ways the

Agency could expedite the rulemaking process.

Environmental Statistics 

Committee

1992-1997 Established to provide advice to EPA on ways to make its environmental 

statistics available, the use of statistics to measure environmental 

progress, and the development of environmental and economic 

indicators of progress.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Review 

Committee

1992-1999 Established to provide advice on the Agency’s decision to approve the 

Department of Energy’s Test and Retrieval Plans for the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant (WIPP); the development of compliance criteria implementing 

the High Level and Transuranic Waste Disposal Standards; and the 

decision to certify WIPP’s compliance with 40 CFR 191.

Superfund Evaluation Committee 1993-1994 Established to examine stakeholder values, seek proposals for change, 

and develop a creative proposal for changes that are consistent with 

and help to foster capacities for state and local control over Superfund 

investment decisions and actions.

Toxic Data Reporting Committee 1993-1999 Established to form recommendations for definitions and guidelines 

under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 from 1993 through 1995. In 

1997, the Committee was charged with developing recommendations 

related to EPA’s proposed improvement of the Toxics Release Inventory 

(TRI) program.

Appendix B: NACEPT 

Subcommittees/Workgroups 

and Associated Charges

Subcommittees
48

Name Years in 

Operation

Charge

Ecosystems Implementation Tools 

Committee

1994-1995 Established to evaluate opportunities for EPA to reorient its statutory 

and regulatory responsibilities to a community-based approach to 

environmental protection (CBEP). In addition, the Committee was 

responsible for identifying opportunities for the Agency to develop 

partnerships with state and tribal co-regulators and land resource 

management agencies.

Ecosystems Sustainable 

Economies Committee

1994-1996 Established to examine the defining elements of sustainable economies 

and opportunities for harmonizing environmental policy, economic 

activity, and ecosystem management. Specifically, the Committee was 

charged with examining responsibilities and opportunities related to the 

following three types of activities: 1) consensus-building; 2) measurement 

and expansion of knowledge base; and 3) development of an incentive 

structure.

Environmental Information and 

Assessments Committee

1994-1996 Established to develop a strategy to implement a Community-Based 

Environmental Protection (CBEP) approach, focusing specifically on 

the information and science requirements of such an approach. The 

committee was asked to examine the availability, access, and use 

of environmental information in support of place-based ecosystems 

protection, as well as how science could be brought to bear in support 

of CBEP implementation.

Information Resources 

Management Strategic Planning 

Task Force

1994 Established to provide expert input on how to prioritize the Agency’s 

information resource management budget in support of the Agency’s 

strategic vision, the integration of information, and working relationships 

with external partners.

Environmental Information, 

Economics, and Technology 

Committee

1995-1996 Established to review the data sources, methodologies, weighting 

systems and approaches proposed in two reports, “Analysis of CostBased Environmental Technology Gaps” and “Resource-Based Method 

for Identifying Environmental Technology Priorities.” The Committee was 

also asked to provide recommendations to the Office of Policy Planning 

and Evaluation (OPPE) as to the appropriate methodology to use in the 

selection process of the industrial sectors in which the demand for more 

efficient environmental technologies was strongest.

Community Based Environmental 

Protection Committee

1996-1997 Established to focus on the availability of information, measures 

of success, public incentives, and private incentives required for 

community-based environmental protection.

Food Safety Advisory Committee 1996 Established to provide strategic, policy-level advice and counsel to the 

EPA Administrator to facilitate quick implementation of the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA).

Information Impacts Committee 1996-1997 Established to provide advice on the Agency’s current and proposed 

processes for managing information resources, particularly in terms of 

place-based environmental protection, the Common Sense Initiative, 

Performance Partnerships, One-Stop Reporting, and Project XL.

Reinvention Criteria Committee 1996-1999 Established to identify and recommend criteria EPA could use to 

measure the progress and success of its environmental regulation 

reinvention activities; to assist the EPA in its reinvention efforts, often by 

addressing specific questions asked by the Agency.

Total Maximum Daily Loads 

Committee

1996-1998 Established to develop advice on new policy and regulatory directions 

for the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) program regarding its roles 

in watershed protection, the identification of impaired waters, the pace 

of TMDL development, the science and tools needed to support the 

program, and the roles and responsibilities of state, tribes, and EPA in 

implementing the program.

Environmental Capital Markets 

Committee

1998-1999 Established to identify concrete actions that EPA, on its own or in 

cooperation with other federal or state agencies, could take to help the 

financial services industry incorporate environmental information into its 

core credit, investment, and underwriting decision-making processes.

Environmental Information and 

Public Access Committee

1998-1999 Established to examine EPA information management policy and 

implementation issues, including the long-term role of the Center for 

Environmental Information and Statistics, the EPA Information Resources 

Management Strategic Plan and the Re-Inventing Environmental Action 

Plan, and the effective implementation of Environmental Monitoring for 

Public Access and Community Tracking within the Agency’s information 

management model. 
49

Name Years in 

Operation

Charge

Title VI Implementation Advisory 

Committee

1998-1999 Established to advise EPA on the implementation of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act through the development of a process which incorporates 

environmental justice into EPA planning. More specifically, charged with 

aiding EPA in handling and preventing complaints that state or local 

pollution control permits violate federal civil rights laws.

Tolerance Reassessment Advisory 

Committee

1998-1999 Established to provide advice and counsel to the EPA Administrator on a 

strategic approach for the reassessment of organophosphate pesticide 

tolerance regulations.

Subcommittee on Sectors 1999-2001 Established to provide advice and recommendations on EPA’s 

implementation of the sector approach to environmental protection, 

informing EPA’s Sector Program Plan 2001-2005.

Committee to Advise on 

Reassessment and Transition

2000-2002 Established to provide advice and counsel to the Administrator of EPA 

and the Secretary of Agriculture regarding strategic approaches for pest 

management planning and tolerance reassessment for pesticides as 

required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.

First Compliance Assistance 

Advisory Committee

2000-2001 Established to create a multi-stakeholder working group that can 

provide advice to the Administrator on the design and implementation 

of several new projects. Initial work centered on three activities: (1) The 

development of a Clearinghouse for compliance assistance materials 

from federal, state and private sector providers; (2) The development of 

an annual EPA-wide compliance assistance activity plan that will outline 

EPA’s priorities and commitments for compliance assistance activities; 

and (3) Convening a national forum of compliance assistance providers 

to share information on compliance assistance activities, provide 

focused feedback on the Clearinghouse and the Activity Plan, and to 

identify priority areas for compliance assistance activities.

Endocrine Disruptor Methods 

Validation Subcommittee 

2001-2004 Established to provide advice and counsel to the EPA on scientific 

issues associated with the conduct of studies necessary for validation 

of Tier 1 and Tier 2 assays for the EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening 

Program (EDSP) (63 FR 71542). It was created to provide advice and 

recommendations regarding: the development and choice of initial 

protocols; prevalidation study designs; validation study designs; and the 

integration of prevalidation and validation study results into EDSP Tier 1 

and Tier 2 methods documents suitable for external peer review.

Second Compliance Assistance 

Advisory Committee

2002-2004 Established to advance the work done by the first Compliance 

Assistance Advisory Committee. The original charge was modified to 

focus on three key areas: (1) the EPA-wide integration of compliance 

assistance (CA) into the Agency’s mission, goals and activities; (2) 

the development of parameters which will enable EPA to successfully 

measure CA results; and (3) the optimization of the CA network across 

EPA and other environmental assistance providers.

Superfund Subcommittee 2002-2004 Established to spur a national dialogue on the role of the National 

Priorities List (NPL), mega sites, and program performance measures in 

the context of other federal, state and tribal waste cleanup programs.

Subcommittee on Environmental 

Technology

2004-2008 Established to investigate two questions: (1) how can EPA better optimize 

its environmental technology programs to make them more effective? 

And (2) what other programs should the Agency undertake to achieve 

this goal? Efforts included analysis of how EPA and the investment 

community can partner to facilitate private sector investment in the 

commercialization of environmental technologies.
50

Name Years in 

Operation

Charge

Workforce Capacity Workgroup 2000-2001 Established to help the Agency focus its strategic planning for human 

resource development. Charge includes comparing EPA human 

resources planning to private sector practice and review of OARM’s 

Workforce Assessment Project and Strategy for Human Capital. 

Emerging Trends and Issues 

Workgroup

2000-2002 Established to: (1) Enhance EPA’s ability to identify emerging trends and 

issues that will affect EPA over the next five to ten years; and (2) Identify 

emerging issues and trends, assign priorities, and prepare issue papers 

for presentation to the NACEPT Council.

EPA’s Report on the Environment 

Workgroup

2003, 2005, 

2008

Established to review various editions of EPA’s Report on the Environment, 

suggesting changes that could help the document achieve its 

objectives and providing editorial comments to improve the clarity of the 

presentation.

Strategic Plan Workgroup 2003, 2006, 

2008

Established to review and comment on drafts of EPA’s 2003-2008, 2006-

2011 Strategic Plan, and 2009-2014 Strategic Plan Change Document.

Sustainable Water Infrastructure 

Workgroup

2006-2008 Established to identify the ways the Agency can better advance 

sustainable approaches to water resource management and 

infrastructure to meet watershed goals.

Energy and the Environment 

Workgroup

2006-Present Established to provide EPA with views on how the Agency can best 

organize and act to encourage the use of renewable fuels and to help 

ensure that the fuels are developed in ways that are sustainable in the 

long term.

Integrated Modeling Workgroup 2008 Established to provide a critical review of the Agency White Paper 

“Integrated Modeling for Integrated Environmental Decision Making.”

Information Access Workgroup 2008 Established to review EPA’s Strategy for Improving Access Environmental 

Information to determine: (1) If the strategy clearly articulates the 

environmental information access priorities of EPA’s major audiences; 

(2) If the strategy balances the perspectives expressed by EPA’s major 

information audiences; and (3) If the strategy is clearly written and 

understandable for members of EPA’s information audiences.

NACEPT@20 Workgroup 2008 Established to: (1) identify the issues and challenges EPA will face over 

the next five to ten years, and (2) develop a strategic framework for 

NACEPT to help the Council provide future administrations with timely 

and relevant advice.

Workgroups
51

Bibliography12

General Reports of the Council

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology: An 

Overview September 1990.

Progressive Environmental Management: Leveraging Regulatory and Voluntary 

Action March 1993.

Promoting Innovative Approaches to Environmental Protection: A Summary 

of Recommendations from the National Advisory Council for 

Environmental Policy and Technology June 1996. (Developed as a result 

of the NACEPT Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee.)

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology: Past & 

Future July 1999.

The Environmental Future: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities for EPA

September 2002.

Everyone’s Business: Working Towards Sustainability Through Environmental 

Stewardship and Collaboration March 2008.

Outlook for EPA March 2009.

Advice Letters 

Advice Letter: Comments Regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Draft Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Compliance Assistance Activity 

Plan August 8, 2000.

Advice Letter: Fiscal Year 2002 Enforcement Grant Program May 23, 2001.

Advice Letter: National Environmental Technology Competition August 5, 2002.

Advice Letter: Update of NACEPT Activities August 15, 2002.

Advice Letter: Process to Identify Emerging Trends and Issues September 30, 

2002.

12 This bibliography lists NACEPT reports produced since 1988. The inventory of older documents (pre-2000) relies on the bibliography produced for NACEPT’s 10-year anniversary 

report (National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT): Past 

and Future, EPA, 1999). While efforts have been made to identify relevant materials, the list is 

not exhaustive.

Appendix C: Bibliography of 

NACEPT Publications
52

Advice Letter: Comments Regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Draft 2003 Strategic Architecture January 31, 2003.

Advice Letter: Response to EPA’s Draft 2003-2008 Strategic Plan April 25, 2003. 

Advice Letter: Roll-out of EPA’s Report on the Environment July 14, 2003.

Advice Letter: Comments on EPA’s 2003 Report on the Environment November 

6, 2003.

Advice Letter: National Environmental Indicators Database January 2005.

NACEPT Comments on EPA’s Draft 2006-2011 Strategic Plan Architecture March 

29, 2006. 

NACEPT Comments on EPA’s Draft 2006-2011 Strategic Plan July 14, 2006.

Advice Letter: NACEPT’s Initial Thoughts on Environmental Stewardship

December 22, 2006.

Advice Letter: NACEPT’s Initial Thoughts on EPA’s Role in Biofuels February 20, 

2007.

Advice Letter: Strategic Framework for EPA and InterAgency Biofuel Efforts July 

13, 2007.

Advice Letter: Expanding EPA’s Stewardship Role in Biofuel Development 

November 19, 2007.

NACEPT Comments on EPA’s 2007 Report on the Environment: Highlights of 

National Trends January 2008.

Advice Letter: Integrated Modeling for Integrated Environmental 

Decisionmaking September 2008.

Advice Letter: Review of EPA’s Strategy for Improving Access to Environmental 

Information November 2008.

Advice Letter: NACEPT’s Fourth Advice Letter to the Administrator on Biofuels 

December 2008.

Advice Letter: NACEPT’s Comments on EPA’s Draft 2009-2014 Strategic Plan

Change Document December 2008.

Advice Letter on NACEPT’s Role April 2009.
53

General Agency Policy or Management

Community Based Environmental Protection Committee

Report and Recommendations of the Community-Based Environmental 

Protection Committee 1997.

Compliance Assistance Advisory Committee

Maximizing Compliance Assistance: Recommendations for Enhancing 

Compliance Assistance Opportunities at EPA and Through Other 

Providers August 13, 2001.

Recommendations for Enhancing EPA’s Compliance Assistance Program: 

Report of the Second Compliance Assistance Advisory Committee

June 2004.

Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee

Interim Report of the NACEPT Implementation Tools Committee on EPA’s PlaceBased Approach to Ecosystem Management January 1995.

Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee

NACEPT Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee FY 1995 Activities and 

Recommendations June 1996.

Environmental Capital Markets Committee

Green Dividends? The Relationship Between Firms’ Environmental Performance 

and Financial Performance May 2000. 

Environmental Information, Economics, & Technology Committee

Peer Review of Analysis of Cost-Based Environmental Technology Gaps June 

1996.

Peer Review of Resource-Based Method For Identifying Environmental 

Technology Priorities July 1996.

Environmental Education & Training Committee/Pollution Prevention Education Committee

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology: The Urban 

Environmental Education Report December 1990.

National Advisory Council for Environmental Technology Transfer: Report 

and Recommendations of the Environmental Education and Training 

Committee 1990.

Pollution Prevention Education and Training for an Environmentally Sustainable 

Future: Report and Recommendations of the Academic Focus Group of 

the Pollution Prevention Education Committee October 1992.

Partnership-Building to Promote Pollution Prevention: Industry Focus Group 

Report October 1992.

Partnerships for Pollution Prevention Education and Training December 1992.
54

Environmental Financial Advisory Board

Environmental Tax Policy Statement Draft Recommendations March 1990.

Small Communities Financing Strategies Workgroup Draft Recommendations

March 1990.

Public Financing Options Workgroup Draft Recommendations March 1990.

Private Sector Incentives Workgroup Draft Recommendations March 1990.

Reinvention Criteria Committee

Letter to the Deputy Administrator: Preliminary Findings and Recommendations

October 22, 1996.

Letter to the Deputy Administrator: Preliminary Findings and Recommendations

April 18, 1997.

Recommendations on EPA’s Draft Strategic Plan July 1997.

Interim Report of the Reinvention Criteria Committee March 1998.

Final Report and Recommendations of the Reinvention Criteria Committee: 

Identification of Evaluation Criteria for EPA’s Reinvention Programs

September 1999. 

Final Report and Recommendations of the Reinvention Criteria Committee: 

Incentives to Promote Environmental Stewardship December 1999.

State & Local Programs Committee

Report and Recommendations of the State and Local Programs Committee

February 1990.

Implementation of Recommendations October 1990.

State and Local Programs Committee Recommendations March 1991.

Building State and Local Pollution Prevention Programs December 1992.

Subcommittee on Sectors

Report and Recommendations: EPA Sector Program Plan 2001-2005 December 

11, 2000.

Petroleum Refinery Sector Workgroup: Refinery Air Information Reporting 

System (RAIRS) October 2000. 

Technology Innovation & Economics Committee

Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics 

Committee January 1990.

Permitting and Compliance Policy: Barriers to U.S. Environmental Technology 

Innovation: Report and Recommendations of the Technology 

Innovation and Economics Committee January 1991.

Improving Technology Diffusion for Environmental Protection: Report and 

Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics 

Committee October 1992.
55

How Best to Promote Industrial Pollution Prevention Through the Effluent 

Guidelines Process: Report of the Technology Innovation and 

Economics Committee/Industrial Pollution Prevention Project Focus 

Group February 1993.

Transforming Environmental Permitting and Compliance Policies to Promote 

Pollution Prevention: Removing Barriers and Providing Incentives 

to Foster Technology Innovation, Economic Productivity, and 

Environmental Protection: Report and Recommendations of the 

Technology Innovation and Economics Committee April 1993.

Report and Recommendations for Action: “EPA’s Technology Innovation 

Strategy and Program Plans for the Environmental Initiative” August 

1994.

Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee

Final Report of the Title VI Implementation Committee April 14, 1999.

Trade & Environment Committee/International Environmental Committee

The Greening of World Trade February 1993.

Workforce Capacity Workgroup

Report and Recommendations: Evaluation of EPA’s Workforce Assessment 

Project and Strategy for Human Capital April 2001.

Program/Media Specific Policy

Environmental Measures/Chemical Accident Prevention Committee

National Environmental Information Goals and Objectives for the 21st Century: 

Draft Interim Recommendations of the Environmental Statistics 

Subcommittee April 1992.

Report of the Pollution Prevention Measurements Subcommittee June 1992.

Measuring Progress in Chemical Accident Prevention: Recommendations of 

the Chemical Accident Prevention Subcommittee September 1992.

Establishment of a Center for Environmental Statistics at EPA: Interim 

Effluent Guidelines Task Force

The Effluent Guidelines Program: Selection Criteria for Preliminary Industry 

Studies July 1994.

Effluent Guidelines Task Force Workgroup 1 - Issue Paper: Design of Preliminary 

Studies September 1996.

Fostering Pollution Prevention and Incorporating Multi-Media Considerations 

into Effluent Guidelines Development September 1996.

Removing the Bottlenecks from the Effluent Guidelines Process October 1996.

Recommendations on Streamlining the Effluent Guidelines Development 

Process: Draft Report May 1998.
56

Toxic Data Reporting Committee

Issues and Concerns for the Definitions and Guidance for the Requirements 

of 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act; Summary of Discussion of the 

Toxics Data Reporting Subcommittee of the National Advisory Council 

for Environmental Policy and Technology January 1994.

Report of the Toxics Data Reporting Committee on the Toxics Release 

Inventory Program December 1998. 

Food Safety Advisory Committee

Summary Report of Food Safety Advisory Committee December 1996.

Total Maximum Daily Load Committee

Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) Program July 1998.

Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee

Framework for Addressing Key Science Issues Presented by the Food 

Quality Protection Act (FQPA) as Developed Through the Tolerance 

Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) October 1998.

Framework for Refining FQPA Science Policy October 1998.

Schedule for Release of Guidance on Science Policy Issues October 1998.

Superfund Subcommittee

Final Report: Superfund Subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for 

Environmental Policy and Technology April 12, 2004. 

Sustainable Water Infrastructure Workgroup

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology’s Initial 

Findings and Recommendations on EPA’s Sustainable Infrastructure 

Watershed Pillar July 2007.

Encouraging Regional Solutions to Sustaining Water Sector Utilities March 2009.

Information Management and Technology

Environmental Statistics Committee

FY 1995 Recommendations of the Environmental Statistics Subcommittee 1995.

Environmental Information and Assessments Committee

Findings and Recommendations of the Ecosystems Information and 

Assessments Committee June 1996.

Information Resources Management Strategic Planning Task Force

Interim Recommendations March 1994.

Using Information Strategically to Protect Human Health and the Environment: 

Recommendations for Comprehensive Information Resources 

Management August 1994.
57

Information Impacts Committee

Interim Report January 1997.

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource: Final Report and Recommendations of the 

Information Impacts Committee January 1998.

Environmental Information and Public Access Committee

Report and Recommendations of the Environmental Information and Public Access 

Committee April 28, 1999. 

Subcommittee on Environmental Technology

EPA Technology Programs and Intra-Agency Coordination May 2006. 

EPA Technology Programs: Engaging the Marketplace May 2007.

EPA and the Venture Capital Community: Building Bridges to Commercialize Technology April 

2008.
58
59

Appendix D: Individuals 

Interviewed

Name Current Position* Relationship to NACEPT

Derry Allen EPA, Office of Policy, Economics, and 

Innovation

Working with NACEPT on stewardship and 

sustainability issues

Sonia Altieri Designated Federal Officer, NACEPT, EPA Working with Council since 2000; since 2004, 

served as DFO on a variety of NACEPT initiatives

JoAnne Berman EPA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

Served as Designated Federal Officer for 

NACEPT’s Compliance Assistance Advisory 

Committee

Dorothy Bowers Former VP of Environmental Programs for 

Merck & Co.

Former NACEPT Chair (2002-2005, approximately)

Rob Brenner Director, Office of Policy Analysis and 

Review, EPA Office of Air and Radiation

Worked with NACEPT on stewardship and venture 

capital

Michael Brody EPA, Office of Policy, Analysis, and 

Accountability

Working with NACEPT on futures and strategic 

planning

Angelo Carasea EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response, Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technological 

Innovation

Served as DFO on NACEPT’s Superfund 

Subcommittee, 2003-2004

Mike Flynn Director, Office of Information, Analysis 

and Access, EPA Office of Environmental 

Information

Worked with NACEPT on Report on the 

Environment and EPA’s Strategy for Improving 

Access to Environmental Information

George Gray EPA, Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Research and Development

Working with NACEPT on biofuels and 

environmental technology issues

Hank Habicht Managing Partner, SAIL Venture Partners Worked with NACEPT while EPA Deputy 

Administrator (1989-1993); has addressed 

Council on technology topics

Bob Hardaker Retired Involved with NACEPT precursor organizations 

beginning in 1988; served as OCEM Director from 

1990-1991

Phil Helgerson Computer Sciences Corporation NACEPT Environmental Technology 

Subcommittee Chair

John Howard Partner, Vinson & Elkins, LLP NACEPT Chair, January 2006 – January 2009

Mark Joyce Associate Director, OCEM Since 1992, served as DFO on a variety of NACEPT 

initiatives

Stan Meiburg EPA Region 4, Deputy Regional 

Administrator

Collaborated with NACEPT on Environmental 

Stewardship report; broad knowledge of advisory 

board procedures through extensive EFAB work

Erik Meyers The Conservation Fund, Vice President of 

Sustainable Programs

Current NACEPT Council member, Interim 

NACEPT Chair

James Morant EPA Office of International Affairs Served as DFO on NACEPT’s Environmental 

Statistics Committee in the early 1990s

Arleen O’Donnell Massachusetts Environmental Trust Current NACEPT Council member

Donna Perla EPA, Senior Advisor to the Director of 

Sustainable Development, Office of 

Research and Development

Working with NACEPT on biofuels issues

Abbie Pirnie American Association of Retired Persons Served as OCEM Director from 1991-1995
60

Name Current Position* Relationship to NACEPT

Gordon Schisler EPA, Deputy Director, Office of Civil Rights Deputy Director and Acting Director of OCEM 

from 1991 to 2002

Joseph Sierra EPA Office of Environmental Information, 

Chief of Information Strategies Branch

Served as DFO on a variety of NACEPT initiatives 

from 1993 until 1998, with a focus on information 

resources management

Richard Sustich University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Former NACEPT Council member

Dan Watts Executive Director, New Jersey 

Institute of Technology, York Center for 

Environmental Engineering and Science

Current NACEPT Council member

Gwen Whitt EPA Office of the Administrator, Office of 

Executive Services

Served as DFO on a variety of NACEPT initiatives 

from mid-1990s until 2002

* Each individual’s current position and relationship to NACEPT are based on the date which individuals 

were interviewed.
61

Questions for NACEPT Retrospective Analysis

1. Please describe your role with NACEPT (committee member, EPA, OCEM).

2. How would you describe your experience with NACEPT?

3. What is your opinion on whether NACEPT’s charges from EPA are clear and 

provide adequate direction?

4. How would you describe the timeliness and quality of NACEPT’s advice?

5. Based on your knowledge, to what extent were the recommendations 

implemented? 

6. How have NACEPT’s recommendations and advice impacted the Agency’s 

decision-making and actions?

7. Based on your experience, what factors influence whether or not EPA acts on

specific recommendations? 

8. Based on your experience, what NACEPT projects have been most and least 

effective? 

9. What factors do you think have an effect on whether the project is effective or 

ineffective?

10. What would you recommend to make NACEPT more efficient and effective?

11. What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the system for selecting 

NACEPT members?

12. Given NACEPT’s strengths and capabilities, how can NACEPT best assist EPA? 

13. Are there any existing internal mechanisms that NACEPT should utilize?

14. How can EPA best identify new policy issues for NACEPT to consider?

15. Over the next ten years, how would you define success for NACEPT?

16. What measures would indicate success or failure for NACEPT in the next ten 

years?

17. What are some ways in which the Agency can better track and measure the 

effectiveness of NACEPT?

18. Is there anything else you would like to add?

APPENDIX E: Interview 

Questions

Acknowledgements

EPA’s Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM) wishes to thank 

all the individuals who contributed to this retrospective study. In particular, we thank 

the interviewees listed in Appendix D of this report for their valuable insights. We 

also acknowledge the contribution of NACEPT Council members who reviewed and 

commented on the report in its draft stages. We thank Andrew Schwarz, Maggie 

Clary, and Colin Mahoney of Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) for technical assistance 

in the development of the report, as well as IEc’s subcontractor, Robert Black, who 

served as the lead author of the study. Finally, we thank IEc’s subcontractor Eastern 

Research Group for their report design and layout services.

Sonia Altieri

Designated Federal Officer

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy & Technology (NACEPT)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1601M)

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Tel. (202) 564-0243

www.epa.gov/ocem/nacept