August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 1

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology 

(NACEPT) Meeting

August 2 - 3, 2012

Ariel Rios Building

1201 Constitution Ave, NW

Washington, D.C. 20004

FINAL MEETING SUMMARY

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2012

Welcome and Introductions

Mark Joyce, Associate Director of the Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

(OFACMO) and Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the National Advisory Council for 

Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 

William Ross, Jr., NACEPT Chair, Visiting Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy and Duke 

Cancer Institute, Duke University; and 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Acting Director, OFACMO, EPA 

Mr. Joyce called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. and welcomed the NACEPT members. Mr. Ross 

expressed his appreciation to the meeting attendees and remarked that he is looking forward to a 

productive meeting. Ms. Jones-Jackson welcomed the members of the NACEPT and thanked them for 

their work and for the first sustainability letter sent to the EPA Administrator; the Council’s proposed 

recommendations were invaluable. She acknowledged the new NACEPT Chair, Mr. Ross, and thanked 

him for graciously accepting the challenge to lead the Council for the next 2 years. Dr. James Johnson, 

Jr., the former NACEPT Chair, recently accepted a position as Director of EPA’s National Center for 

Environmental Research (NCER) within the Office of Research and Development (ORD). Ms. JonesJackson also extended a special welcome to new Council member Dr. Judith Mazique (Texas Southern 

University). She then thanked the senior EPA staff members who agreed to speak during the NACEPT 

meeting: Mr. Craig Hooks, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Administration and Resources 

Management (OARM); Ms. Bicky Corman, Deputy Associate Administrator for EPA’s Office of Policy; 

and Dr. Robert Kavlock, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science in ORD. Finally, Ms. Jones-Jackson 

thanked Mr. Howard Learner (Environmental Law and Policy Center) for his assistance as Vice-Chair 

under Dr. Johnson and for continuing in this position for the tenure of Mr. Ross. 

Mr. Ross acknowledged the challenging nature of the NACEPT Chair position and expressed gratitude to 

the Administrator for the opportunity. He recognized Dr. Johnson’s excellent leadership and thanked 

everyone who has offered assistance as Mr. Ross supports the Council’s important work on sustainability. 

He thanked Mr. Learner for continuing to serve in his role as Vice-Chair. He then asked the NACEPT 

members and those in the audience to introduce themselves and share a thought or observation related to 

sustainability. He began by offering a poem by Alfred Tennyson. Each Council member and meeting 

attendee followed suite, sharing their name, affiliation and thoughts about sustainability.

Ms. Jones-Jackson noted that the microphones only work at the podium, and she encouraged everyone to 

use the podium or project their voices when speaking.
2 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Opening Remarks

Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, Office of the Administrator, EPA

Mr. Perciasepe thanked the NACEPT for all of its efforts to advise EPA. He remarked that both he and 

the Administrator were pleased that Mr. Ross had accepted the responsibility of NACEPT Chair, and

added that the advice in NACEPT’s April letter was timely and much appreciated. 

Mr. Perciasepe described EPA’s sustainability-related programs. He noted that there are many 

sustainability initiatives happening outside the Agency; the Council provides a link to those external 

efforts. Corporate America is focusing on incorporating sustainability into business models. Sustainable 

services and products improve the consumer’s perception of companies, but the reduced carbon emissions 

and energy use also provide direct benefits to a business’ bottom line. Companies are realizing that 

sustainability initiatives are critical to their success; the advice letter from the NACEPT is aligned with 

corporate priorities. There have been historic investments in energy technologies and impressive 

advancements in sectors such as green chemistry and infrastructure. This will improve the ability for EPA 

to deal with environmental issues throughout the process, rather than just at the end of the pipeline.

Mr. Perciasepe relayed that, on a recent trip in rural China, he was delayed by a convoy of trucks carrying 

wind turbine blades, representative of the high rate of renewable energy development around the world. 

The lesson from companies and countries is that sustainability affects not just the environment but also 

the economy. There is a growing part of the economy oriented toward environmental technologies, and 

demand for products and services have economic and environmental advantages. EPA plays a leadership 

role in environmental technology to guide global and U.S. investment is this sector.

Mr. Perciasepe noted that changing the way of thinking can modify the outcome. Even today, EPA is 

building sustainability ideas into its programs and initiatives. For example, Region 1 addressed the 

challenge of thermal pollution within the Charles River in an innovative way. The Kendall power plant 

was discharging heat into the river. In working with Kendall for a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit, Region 1 developed an idea to sell the heat. A pipeline was built 

under the river to relay the heat, which resulted in reduced thermal pollution and improved air and water 

quality. This example of a new way to solve an old problem illustrates how EPA is taking opportunities to 

think differently about innovative solutions. 

In the 20 years of ENERGY STAR’s existence, 5 billion ENERGY STAR products have been sold, 

resulting in 1.7 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases not being emitted and $230 billion saved in utility 

bills. ENERGY STAR is a global symbol, having reciprocity in more than 30 countries. Thinking 

differently about how things are done will capture the market forces to help move the momentum 

forward. There are many other examples. The stimulus package supplied $6 billion for innovative 

projects. The sewage treatment plant in Johnson County, Kansas, used some of these funds to modify the 

facility into a net-zero, energy sufficient operation, and New England flood damage is being repaired by 

retrofitting communities in an energy-efficient manner.

Mr. Perciasepe is proud that EPA received all “green” marks on the national scorecard from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), including in the categories of greenhouse gases, renewable energy use 

and fuel usage in the transportation fleet. Petroleum use has been reduced by 30 percent, and the 

Administrator uses a Chevy Volt for transportation around Washington, D.C.

Mr. Perciasepe noted that it is timely to pursue sustainability initiatives. EPA will incorporate advice from 

the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) into what the Agency already is doing and develop processes to 

further this evolution within EPA. Visualizing that direction is very important. EPA has conducted 

hundreds of Listening Sessions across the United States, and an action plan is being developed to 

coordinate the Agency’s work and build upon the existing foundation of sustainability. The action plan 
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 3

will have an evolving component to ensure a continuum toward a future state that is more sustainable than 

today.

Mr. Perciasepe acknowledged the leadership and work of former NACEPT Chair, Dr. Johnson, who 

remains with EPA as the new Director for NCER. The Administrator will continue to reference the 

NACEPT letter regarding the workforce challenges and skillsets needed in the future. Mr. Perciasepe 

stated that the Office of the Administrator appreciates Dr. Johnson’s efforts as Chair and eagerly 

anticipates his work as the new NCER director. He then presented Dr. Johnson with a plaque 

commemorating his Chairmanship of the NACEPT. 

Dr. Johnson expressed his appreciation for the sentiments and plaque, noting that the Council is an 

integration of real life, science and policy. He emphasized that the NACEPT work is very important to 

guide the Agency as it progresses forward. It is clear that the Administrator listens to NACEPT’s advice;

she has referenced the NACEPT letter on workforce issues and has directed others to consult NACEPT 

products. 

Discussion

Dr. Ronald Meissen (Baxter International Inc.) questioned EPA’s capacity to advance sustainability at the 

Agency while being challenged by resource limitations and routine staff responsibilities addressing 

permitting and enforcement. Mr. Perciasepe acknowledged the importance of advancing sustainability 

and noted that the best approach to ensure success is to integrate sustainability into all current activities, 

rather than view it as an additive issue. The Agency needs to evaluate current activities within permits, 

enforcement and research. Mr. Perciasepe was optimistic that EPA could build upon its substantial 

existing knowledge and talent to better coordinate sustainability activities and invest in specific skills. 

Because of the limited budget, EPA needs to evaluate every activity—including NPDES permits, state

oversight and regulatory interactions—to optimize processes. 

Ms. Sara Kendall (Weyerhaeuser Company) stated that Mr. Perciasepe had discussed the One EPA vision 

at the previous NACEPT meeting and wondered whether the sustainability planning process was to be 

concluded prior to integrating sustainability into Agency programs. Mr. Perciasepe replied that the current 

strategic plan already contains cross-cutting strategies, although it will be important to give equal weight 

to EPA’s statutory obligations and accountability to Congress. Mr. Perciasepe’s new title of Chief 

Operating Officer (COO) reflects those changes.

Dr. Olufemi Osidele (Southwest Research Institute) questioned whether the Agency is viewing 

sustainability primarily as a top-down or bottom-up approach within the strategic plan and annual reports. 

For example, the NAS report on Sustainability and the U.S. EPA (commonly referred to as the “Green 

Book”) sets a vision of sustainability and then backcasts the strategic planning process; conversely, EPA 

regions already have implemented programs with sustainability principles. Mr. Perciasepe responded that 

both approaches are necessary. Leadership needs to push the system forward to catch momentum with the 

policy space to make things happen. Although the diverse and diffuse culture at EPA can be lamented, 

Mr. Perciasepe noted that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) all contain separate regional structures. EPA’s 

advantageous regional structure integrates air, water, pollution and other important media. It will be 

important to capture innovation at EPA’s decentralized regional offices to find new ideas to solve 

problems. 

Mr. Robert Kerr (Pure Strategies, Inc.) emphasized the importance of leveraging EPA’s existing 

coordination with various sectors such as housing, transportation and commerce. Mr. Perciasepe noted 

that one of his priorities as the Deputy Administrator is to build strong relationships with other agencies. 

EPA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to form the Partnership for Sustainable 
4 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Communities, demonstrating a productive collaboration between three federal agencies. Administrator 

Jackson and Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator Karen Mills initiated a technology 

water cluster event in Cincinnati, Ohio, that was a confluence of government, business and academic 

institutions to build upon the collaborative foundation to bring new products to the market.

Overview and Discussion of EPA’s Internal Sustainability Initiatives

Craig Hooks, Assistant Administrator, OARM, EPA

Mr. Hooks discussed the impact of sustainability on Agency operations. He noted that sustainability 

works in many ways for the OARM, as it impacts the operations, economy and the environment. EPA 

employs 1.8 million people, occupies 500,000 buildings across the United States, and provides 500 

million goods and services; there are many areas where sustainability can be incorporated within the 

Agency. 

EPA’s updated sustainability policy began in 1992 with Executive Order (EO) 13123, which regulated 

energy efficiency, water conservation and green building. Many subsequent policies were combined into 

EO 13514, which required sustainability reporting to track progress, including greenhouse gases, energy 

production, renewable energy, transportation, water use, green buildings and green procurement. Waste 

diversion, electronic stewardship and environmental management also were tracked on a systems level. 

Mr. Hooks noted that EPA strives to reduce the environmental impact of its activities, including reducing 

the environmental footprint by decreasing employees’ business travel, improving videoconferencing 

capabilities and increasing workshare programs. OARM is working with the Office of Environmental 

Information (OEI) to facilitate telework, which would significantly reduce commuter vehicle emissions. 

EPA is the only federal agency to receive an “all green” rating from the OMB 2 years in a row. All of the 

Agency’s efforts are based on the Administrator’s seven priorities, which include mitigating the effects of 

climate change, safe chemical management and promotion of environmental justice (EJ).

Within EPA, the Office of Water has been promoting green infrastructure. The Chesapeake Bay Trust and 

Edmonson reduced stormwater runoff and flooding by retrofitting technology. Importantly, the designs 

were uploaded to the Internet so that other sites could emulate their solution. A performance plan of 

activities is required, which reiterates sustainability goals such as fleet management, water conservation, 

green buildings, waste minimization, electronics stewardship and green acquisition. Improvements are 

realized in the design of new green buildings and in assessing existing buildings for water use, laboratory 

equipment and controls, and space efficiency and consolidation. Some examples include: the Atlantic 

Ecology Division installed wind turbines, photovoltaics and a green roof; EPA’s Caribbean 

Environmental Protection Division (CEPD) recently moved into a new Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED®)-certified Gold commercial building, which is the first Gold rating in 

Puerto Rico; and EPA’s facility in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina, uses photovoltaics and 

a heat recovery system to reduce non-renewable energy use. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (AARA) funds expand these initiatives beyond EPA. 

Making operations more efficient will be important as budgets continue to decrease. One suggestion is to 

interact with facility managers to develop new ideas to meet energy reduction targets. Mr. Hooks 

reminded attendees that achieving sustainability requires investments to reduce the Agency’s footprint. 

Office space has been reduced by 20 percent, and a transit subsidy program has reduced greenhouse gas 

emissions by 6 million tons per year. Money saved with efficiency improvements will be cycled back into 

future sustainability investments.
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 5

Discussion

Dr. Meissen noted that Mr. Hooks is the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) and the chief human capital 

officer, declaring that organizations use human capital to accomplish goals. Mr. Hooks agreed that human 

resources departments are useful to advance sustainability initiatives. 

Ms. Corman added that the EO requires the CSO to report on the sustainability performance plan to 

evaluate the Agency on heating and cooling resources and reducing the energy each employee requires 

for transportation. EPA also issues regulations, permits and partnerships to advance sustainability 

initiatives. 

Dr. Patricia Gallagher (Drexel University) expressed concern that Congress would decrease funding to the 

Agency as sustainability efforts reduce costs. Mr. Hooks understood the concern but suggested that 

dollars saved through reduced costs would be invested back into future sustainability initiatives. 

Dr. DeWitt John (Bowdoin College) emphasized the usefulness of EPA reaching out and working 

together with other organizations to develop and promote sustainable practices. One participant noted that 

his company works with the government through EPA’s Forum on Environmental Measurements (FEM), 

which provides a forum for sharing ideas and technology innovations. 

Ms. Alison Taylor (Siemens Corporation) questioned whether sustainability efforts within EPA were 

voluntary or whether the Agency had developed an enforcement mechanism to drive the efforts. 

Mr. Hooks responded that performance metrics were described in EOs, statutes and mission statements, 

but no enforcement mechanism exists. 

Overview and Discussion of EPA’s Internal Sustainability Initiatives: Response to the NAS Green 

Book “Sustainability and the U.S. EPA”

Bicky Corman, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, EPA

Ms. Corman relayed the history of the NAS Green Book, describing how in 2010 Administrator Jackson 

had asked the NAS to produce a sustainability report for EPA. The Green Book was a followup to the 

“Red Book,” which was a manual to address EPA’s incorporation of risk assessment into decision 

making. Forty years later, EPA is moving from a risk paradigm to a sustainability paradigm. Rather than 

focusing attention on minimizing risk at the end of a natural or artificial life cycle, EPA is maximizing 

opportunities to address sustainability throughout environmental and social arenas. It is apparent that 

potential harms are interconnected, and that multimedia approaches work best to address various 

problems. 

The NAS confirmed that the Agency should incorporate sustainability into its foundation, producing 29 

recommendations for EPA’s consideration. Although EPA has been engaging in sustainability efforts, 

there needs to be a strategic focus. There is no EO governing how agencies implement programs or 

policies, and no coherence exists at the federal level about how to implement sustainability. The 

Department of Defense (DOD) incorporated sustainability into its mission after realizing that fuel 

convoys represent one of the highest fatality rates in Afghanistan. The DOD reasoned that reducing fuel 

usage would help to protect soldiers, which is the Department’s most valuable asset. Despite these 

isolated initiatives, however, there is no overarching federal sustainability goal, and it is important for 

EPA to determine the best way to help the government progress in that direction. 

EPA’s Office of Policy, tasked with determining whether external stakeholders would be amenable to a 

paradigm shift, conducted 80 Listening Sessions across the United States. An additional 50 Listening 

Sessions were conducted with EPA employees and other federal agencies to coalesce around government 

sustainability priorities. The Listening Sessions were designed to answer two questions: (1) Should EPA 

more robustly incorporate sustainability into its policies and procedures? (2) If so, to what extent?

Ms. Corman noted that many corporations and municipalities already have addressed these questions. 
6 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

EPA needs to add value to other entities’ activities by forming partnerships and leveraging ideas and 

finances that will harness the resources of the business world and so better achieve sustainable outcomes. 

The Listening Sessions affirmed that EPA should move forward, although caveats were proffered. 

Industry and state representatives said that increasing sustainability is important, but EPA should not turn 

any policies into unfunded mandates. There was some concern that the focus on sustainability would 

divert EPA’s attention from its regulation and permitting mission. The challenge is to demonstrate that 

EPA is concerned with its mission, but efficiency results from sustainable processes such as a water 

permit that also protects the air and reduces asthma. 

Stakeholders shared four messages with EPA: (1) effectuate message change; (2) improve 

communication; (3) develop better science, tools and methods to support permits and measure progress; 

and (4) pursue partnerships. The most important change will be in doing things differently with a 

sustainability perspective. EPA has experienced great success in the non-regulatory arena with programs 

such as EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) and ENERGY STAR, and these types of programs 

should be increased. Sustainability also needs to be built into the 80 percent of EPA’s programs that 

concern permit issuance and enforcement. Stakeholders believe that EPA has a responsibility to go 

beyond compliance and incorporate sustainability into professional as well as personal life. For example, 

Region 9 has a zero waste policy.

The NACEPT’s first advice letter supports EPA moving in a sustainable direction. These changes will 

take time and need to be considered carefully in an era of budgetary constraints. One way to start would 

be with internal activities under EPA’s control, such as training. Investing in EPA’s human resources, in 

addition to developing performance indicators and internal accounting systems, will improve adherence to 

the mission. Regions need to be credited for improvements to air and water; the current system does not 

reward cross-office collaborations.

The NAS recommended developing breakthrough objectives to bring coherence to the activities in which 

the Agency is engaged. For example, energy efficiency is an overarching principle that applies to water 

utilities, waste programs and the reuse of materials in construction. Measuring energy use is difficult, but 

harmonizing energy efficiency in water utilities, buildings and other facilities is important, and all of 

these efforts must be scientifically defensible. 

Ms. Corman expressed appreciation for NACEPT’s efforts, noting that the advice letter confirmed that the 

Agency was heading in the right direction. 

Discussion

Dr. Osidele reminded the attendees that NACEPT’s first letter recommended that EPA develop a bold 

statement and vision of sustainability. He noted that there appears to be an understanding of where the 

Agency needs to go, and the challenge will be in developing breakthrough objectives. Ms. Corman 

asserted that there is no opposition for sustainability within the Agency, but there exists the practical 

question of how to accomplish it. The challenge is to set reasonable objectives that are credible and will 

not alarm outside stakeholders. Attaching numbers to objectives and measuring the impact of every action 

is an issue: the goal is to manage X percent of stormwater using green infrastructure by year Y, but first it 

is important to know how much stormwater is generated per year. ORD can help with green engineering 

and green technology challenges. Setting unreachable goals invites failure; caution is critical. Dr. Mark 

Mitchell (Mitchell Environmental Health Associates) interpreted NACEPT’s goal as helping to develop 

the objectives and then negotiating interim steps to achieve those objectives. 

Programs such as ENERGY STAR and DfE move industries toward sustainability and energy efficiency, 

but this is a process, not an outcome. Dr. Mitchell asked whether the DfE and ENERGY STAR programs 
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 7

are time-limited. Ms. Julia Farber (Underwriters Laboratories) noted that the Department of Energy

(DOE) revises ENERGY STAR standards periodically.

Mr. Learner discussed the 80 percent of EPA that is concerned with regulations, permitting and 

enforcement, noting that the Clean Air Act (CAA) and greenhouse gas standards do not allow much 

flexibility to introduce sustainable principles. He asked Ms. Corman how EPA plans to overcome the 

legal and structural hurdle of infusing cross-cutting principles into statutes that do not have them already. 

Ms. Corman expressed optimism, explaining that the Office of the General Council (OGC) is analyzing 

where each regulation might have flexibility for sustainability language and will be documenting its 

findings in a future publication. Water quality regulations have air quality components—an incidental 

benefit to cleaner water is healthier air with reduced pollutants. Mr. Learner noted that any information 

about the OGC’s results would be useful to NACEPT as it formulates advice for the Agency. 

Mr. Kerr thought that “incidental benefits” was a useful phrase, and that promoting innovative technology 

as an outcome of regulatory process will be a broad objective. Ms. Corman said that the Technology 

Innovation workgroup is considering these activities in a different way, specifically by pursuing market 

analyses, visioning what technology will look like in the future and identifying the best available control 

technology. 

Ms. Taylor questioned the best process for NACEPT’s advice, given the uncertain environment. Would 

the Agency be served best by a near-term, high-level sustainability letter, with more detailed advice 

presented in the future? Ms. Corman replied that the Agency currently is looking at the most effective

methods to communicate priorities so timely advice on this issue would be most helpful. Additional 

advice with more detail also would be helpful in the future.

Overview of the Office of Research and Development’s Realignment Around Sustainability

Robert Kavlock, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, ORD, EPA

Dr. Kavlock discussed strategic directions for EPA research within ORD, which has a budget of $550 

million and a workforce of 1,900 full-time employees. ORD supports EPA’s mission by conducting 

research and development to identify, understand and solve current and future environmental problems. 

The Office has raised the visibility of sustainability and has an evolving role to continue to support the 

scientific basis for regulation development, identify risks to human health and the environment and 

develop tools to help decision makers make better choices when faced with complicated decisions. ORD 

also advances sustainability science in EPA programs and promotes innovative and sustainable solutions 

to environmental problems. Sustainability, as defined in The Path Forward by former EPA Science 

Advisor Dr. Paul Anastas, is the “true north” of EPA.

ORD views sustainability as a three-legged stool with the supports consisting of environmental, social 

and economic components. EPA has a lot of experience with the environment, but could strengthen 

research on social components. EPA’s contribution to the economic dimension is to provide analytical 

tools and models to inform sustainable decisions. Research helps decision makers quantify and value all 

dimensions of sustainability, with the awareness that EPA decisions must comply with statutory criteria 

for decision making. ORD’s triple-value model uses a systems approach to sustainability that measures 

the flow of information, goods and services. Identifying and evaluating tradeoffs in the system can 

minimize the impact on the environment and protect the ability to produce ecological goods.

Dr. Kavlock described the organization of ORD, which is comprised of national laboratories, cores and 

centers that efficiently apply resources in a multidisciplinary manner. National Program Directors for the 

newly realigned and integrated ORD research programs work with regulatory officers and regions, 

coordinating efforts and deadlines for high-priority needs. The six ORD research programs are: 

Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program (SHC); Air, Climate and Energy Research 

(ACE); Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research (SSWR); Chemical Safety for Sustainability 
8 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Research (CSS); Homeland Security Research (HSR); and Human Health Risk Assessment Research 

(HHRA). Each program has identified visions, goals and coordinating themes to structure research tasks. 

Although the HSR and HHRA programs support a single program structure, other ORD programs support 

multiple entities. Each program has a 40-page Strategic Action Plan that details the programs’ priorities 

and outcomes.

Encompassing all of ORD’s activities is the SHC program. The vision of the SHC is “to inform and 

empower decision makers in communities, as well as in federal, state and tribal community-driven 

programs, to effectively and equitably weigh and integrate human health, socioeconomic, environmental 

and ecological factors into their decisions in a way that fosters community sustainability.” SHC has 

developed tools such as the National Atlas for Sustainability (Atlas), Regional Vulnerability Assessment 

Environmental Decision Toolkit (ReVA), Community/Tribal-Focused Exposure Risk Screening Tool 

(C/T-FERST) and the Community Cumulative Assessment Tool (CCAT). The Atlas provides highresolution analysis of 250 urban areas and is a collaborative effort with USDA and USGS partners. 

Performance measures developed by SHC include the Human Well-Being Index, Environmental Quality 

Index and a database of Sustainability Indicators. SHC uses the Health Impact Assessment approach to 

complement Environmental Impact Assessments and values social media, collaborative research and 

improving current and future tools through inventory, gap analysis, evaluation and access.

ORD’s ACE program investigates the multipollutant nature of air pollution to assess exposures and 

effects of chemical mixtures and develop options for air quality management. Other key issues include 

evaluating the impact of climate change and the development and evaluation of sustainable adaptation and 

mitigation options, as well as evaluating the human health and environmental impacts of current and 

future energy alternatives. Laboratories are organized around ACE research themes, which include 

assessing impacts, preventing and reducing emissions, and responding to changes in climate and air 

quality. 

The SSWR program contains a number of research activities, including green infrastructure to manage 

stormwater runoff and sustainable solutions for chemical and microbial contaminants. The triple value 

model can be used to model the water nutrient cycle, illuminating how sources such as nitrogen can 

impact different systems. A pilot project in Narragansett, Rhode Island, has applied systems thinking to 

explore integrated strategies for nutrient mitigation in collaboration with other stakeholders, 

demonstrating the value of the system. 

The CSS program is designed to address the problem statement, “Although chemicals are essential to 

modern life, we lack innovative, systematic, effective and efficient approaches and tools to inform 

decisions that reduce negative environmental and societal impacts of chemicals.” The CSS, aligned along 

eight research themes of chemical inherency, systems models, biomarkers, cumulative risk, life cycle 

considerations, extrapolation, dashboards and evaluation, aims to design new tools to encourage 

sustainable chemical use. A collaborative activity with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Chemical 

Genomics Center (NCGC) is developing transformative tools that can screen 8,193 chemicals using 

biological assays for disease production. The tool screens a different project each week, which provides 

guidance for green chemistry initiatives.

The HSR program strives to secure and sustain water systems and remediate sites if a contamination 

occurs. The HHRA, responsible for developing Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments, 

supports communities with environmental and human health risk assessments.

The Green Book indicates the need for ORD to develop a systems approach to assess the biological and 

chemical life cycle using sophisticated tools. The Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) rewards investigators 

for being innovative while advancing the resilience of society. ORD’s next steps are to develop an 

Internal Implementation Plan and evaluate two future NAS reports.
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 9

Discussion

Dr. Fernando Abruña (Abruña and Musgrave, Architects) expressed interest in the Sustainability Atlas 

and questioned whether any urban Puerto Rico areas were included in the study. Puerto Rico does not 

have a national land-use plan, and a sustainability study would be very useful.

Dr. Meissen acknowledged the urgency in innovating systems thinking and noted that he would like to 

learn more about ORD’s programs. Dr. Kavlock suggested that Dr. Meissen visit with the National 

Program Directors to learn more. 

Dr. Giovanna Di Chiro (Nuestras Raices, Inc.) applauded the transdisciplinary concepts embedded within 

Dr. Kavlock’s presentation. She reminded attendees that innovation also can result from garnering

environmental knowledge held by traditional cultures and societies. She questioned the extent to which 

ORD works with tribal communities to share these types of ideas. Dr. Kavlock responded that ORD has a 

Tribal Council to investigate traditional environmental knowledge and remarked about the importance of 

using information technology to structure existing information in a way that is organized and readily 

accessible. Dr. Di Chiro asked whether ORD was involved with the citizen science workshops; 

Dr. Kavlock replied that he was not aware of any participation.

Dr. Mitchell asked Dr. Kavlock how the NACEPT could assist ORD in accomplishing its work. 

Dr. Kavlock replied that advice on the community programs would be appreciated. Ms. Corman added 

that the challenge facing the organization is how to identify objectives and priorities and get the science to 

support progress in that direction. 

Ms. Kendall was encouraged by the unexploited opportunities held within statutes and regulations, 

explaining that it might be an interesting way to promote cultural thinking in permit and regulation 

writers. Ms. Corman agreed, saying that EPA has been successful in providing companies not in 

compliance of permits with alternatives: either decrease the level of pollutant emission or choose to use 

an alternative green chemical. 

Public Comments

Mr. Ross called for public comments and none were offered.

Perspectives on the Development of Sustainability Metrics I

Ronald Meissen, Senior Director of Sustainability, Baxter International Inc. (Baxter)

Dr. Meissen described three new books related to sustainability, which were shown to the group and few 

copies handed out to interested members.

Acting as if Tomorrow Matters: Accelerating the Transition to Sustainability by John Dernbach (2012)

The Nature Principle: Reconnecting with Life (Nature) in a Virtual Age by Richard Louv (2012)

2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years by Jørgen Randers (2012) 

The book 2052 commemorates the 40th anniversary of the publication of the book “Limits to Growth” 

first published in 1972. The new book 2052, with current state-of-the-art modeling and contributions by 

about 35 experts on various sustainability topics project key trends 40 years into the future.

He then explained Baxter’s basic sustainability priorities launched in 2007. Baxter is a leading supplier of 

healthcare products for hospitals, employs 48,000 individuals and has more than 60 manufacturing 

facilities in 27 countries. About sixty percent of the company’s sales occur outside the United States, 
10 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

reflecting Baxter’s global presence and sustainability perspective. Recently some of Baxter’s medical 

products have received the “Carbon Trust” certification, which is an innovative response to some 

customers concerns about a product’s carbon footprint and the company’s commitment to reduce product 

related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in addition to GHG emissions from Baxter operations. Dr. 

Meissen described Baxter’s executive-level Sustainability Steering Committee that was formed in 2006 

and launched in 1997. At that time, Baxter was a leader with its environmental program and associates

were proud to be part of the environmental team. . The Sustainability Steering Committee – with a focus 

on accelerating the integration of sustainability into the organization - is tasked with setting companywide 

sustainability strategy and goals to support long-term sustainability priorities. The present 10 Committee 

executives are not sustainability experts, but they are in positions of authority within their company 

function to advance sustainability. The Committee members represent many business groups and 

functions, such as environment, health and safety (EHS), finance, corporate communications, ethics and 

compliance, manufacturing, human resources and supply chain.

Baxter’s Sustainability Steering Committee meets quarterly and for most of the day each time they meet. 

Baxter’s nine sustainability priorities, developed by the Committee, relate to Baxter’s employees, 

operations and products and the world. Sustainability priorities relating to people include promoting a 

safe and healthy workplace, an inclusive and diverse workplace, and ethical conduct and legal 

compliance. Regarding operations and products, Baxter strives for a green supply chain, reductions in its 

carbon footprint, reductions in its natural resource use and enhanced product stewardship. To contribute 

to the sustainability of the world, Baxter strengthens access to healthcare through product development 

and strategic product donations as well as the company’s commitment to education, especially math and 

science. Each Steering Committee member typically sponsors one Baxter sustainability priority but all 

collaborate to promote the numerous sustainability goals. Importantly, each goal has a goal owner and 

progress is evaluated every 3 months. Baxter sustainability goals, fist established in 2008, are reassessed

and occasionally modified to maintain close alignment with Baxter’s global sustainability strategies. 

Baxter’s sustainability supply chain program incorporates sustainability principles into Baxter’s 

purchasing programs with Baxter’s largest suppliers. There are now 20 specific sustainability criteria used 

to evaluate Baxter’s largest suppliers and used as reference with Baxter’s other suppliers. Baxter staff 

may visit select suppliers, have conference calls or hold supplier meetings to review and measure Baxter’s 

supplier sustainability performance. Each year Baxter publishes a company Sustainability Report, which 

is posted on Baxter’s Website. Baxter’s ongoing sustainability activities over many years have resulted in 

recognition such as in 2011 Newsweek ranking Baxter as the 4th Greenest Company in the U.S. 

Discussion 

Dr. Edith Parker (University of Iowa) asked how Baxter ensured that suppliers were answering the 

surveys honestly. Dr. Meissen replied that Baxter relied on the honesty of the suppliers in answering the 

annual surveys. As previously noted Baxter has meetings or conferences calls with select suppliers 

throughout the year. Mr. Kerr asked whether buyers were given incentives to focus on purchasing 

environmentally friendly options, and Dr. Meissen noted the buyers have individual performance 

objectives to address sustainability factors with their dealing with suppliers.

Mr. Learner pointed out that Baxter’s sustainability program has existed throughout the tenure of two 

Baxter CEOs and commented that the company’s sustainability reputation helps attract key 

talent/personnel, build long-term value for the company. In response to a question from Dr. Abruña 

regarding the impact of the vision on Baxter production staff, Dr. Meissen replied that employees have 

responded positively. Dr. Di Chiro asked whether the sustainability measures would continue in the 

absence of Dr. Meissen, given his environmental knowledge and experience. Dr. Meissen believed that 

given Baxter’s matrix of sustainability expertise, others would continue with Baxter’s sustainability 

initiatives in his absence. 
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 11

Mr. Yalmaz Siddiqui (Office Depot) noted the three separate categories of Baxter’s sustainability 

priorities (social, environmental and world) and questioned whether EPA also should categorize its 

sustainability priorities as metrics are developed. Conversely, it might be better to develop integrated 

metrics to measure all three categories. Dr. Meissen replied, based upon his experience, each organization 

should move forward from its current (sustainability) position, focusing on what is right for that 

organization at that time and in its current environment. For example, EPA’s strength involves

protecting human health and the environment. If a metric affects both elements, it is not necessary to 

categorize the sustainability priorities separately.

Perspectives on the Development of Sustainability Metrics II

Sara Kendall, Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Sustainability and EHS, Weyerhaeuser Company

Ms. Kendall emphasized the importance of focusing on the sustainability journey as a company. 

Weyerhaeuser, for example, is a large integrated forest products company that owns 20 million acres of 

forested timberland in North America and initiates the chain of supply for products such as wood for 

buildings, cellulose fiber, diapers and newspapers. The company focuses on providing superior 

sustainable solutions to the world based on a renewable and regenerated natural resource. Weyerhaeuser 

manages a significant natural resource through the work of 12,000 employees while generating $6 billion 

in sales. 

The majority of the company is focused on timberland resource solid products used to construct 

buildings. After cutting rectangular planks, residual wood goes into pulp, cellulose products and energy 

production such that 98 to 99 percent of every log is used. Innovative products such as cellulosic biofuels, 

plastics, clothing and ice cream all derive from Weyerhaeuser’s forests. 

Weyerhaeuser was founded in 1930 and was the first forest company in the Nation to plant trees to 

maximize each acre of forest. Employees are focused on maintaining the ecosystem that supports their 

livelihood. Wildlife specialists and foresters are on staff to understand and properly manage the 

ecosystem. 

This publically traded company has produced environmental reports since the 1990s, and in 2001 it 

developed an annual sustainability report. Weyerhaeuser’s sustainability strategy includes adopting 

greenhouse gas and water reduction goals. Recently, corporate leadership noted that some subsidiaries 

demonstrated high sustainability practices whereas others did not. A focused effort involving senior 

leaders and middle management agreed on a vision that provides sustainable solutions for the world. The 

focus of the sustainability vision rests on the pillars of performance, people and the planet. Weyerhaeuser

tries to envision what society will need in the future; for example, new ecosystem services and biofuels 

divisions likely will mature into revenue-producing businesses to provide shelter and green energy. It is 

important to keep looking ahead as the 70 to 80 million trees planted by the company do not give a return 

for 45 years. Weyerhaeuser produced a roadmap for 2020 and used that vision to develop milestone goals 

and benchmark tools to evaluate the company and its competitors and identify gaps. Each milestone 

relating to the 2020 roadmap is assessed in annual sustainability reports with transparent metrics.

Ms. Kendall clarified her role, which is to drive sustainability principles throughout the business. The 

company employs both top-down and bottom-up approaches to achieve sustainability goals; foundational 

values underlie all actions. She explained that developing the sustainability strategy was complicated at 

first because each word was discussed and agreed upon. The sustainability strategy and vision is 

completely integrated with Weyerhaeuser’s mission—people in specific departments such as 

homebuilding can see how the vision applies to their efforts, and everyone from factory workers to 

executive leadership relates to the goals. A recent survey showed that sustainability, including a 

commitment to safety, was a deciding factor when employees chose to work at Weyerhaeuser. 
12 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Weyerhaeuser’s final sustainability plan consists of 19 commitments and 42 targets. Some of the goals, 

such as greenhouse gas reduction, are large and performance related. Every capital project is analyzed 

from a planet sustainability perspective. Weyerhaeuser also started a community investment program to 

set precedence for community robustness. This program allows communities to decide where to invest the 

funds. Notably, Ms. Kendall said that forms, templates and processes allow people a way to consider their 

behavior and develop sustainable alternatives.

Discussion 

Dr. John asked about the impact of Weyerhaeuser’s sustainability initiatives on the supply chain. 

Ms. Kendall replied that Weyerhaeuser is at the beginning of the supply chain; the company supplies 

more than it is supplied. Every product that the company produces comes with a certification and 

pollutant footprint, and every mill is evaluated on sustainability measures. 

Mr. Learner noted that if EPA developed an exciting view of sustainability like Weyerhaeuser and Baxter, 

innovative and talented people would be attracted to the Agency. Ms. Taylor added that Siemens works 

closely with universities, and many recruits inquire about Siemens’ sustainability program. Ms. Kendall 

remarked that, because three-quarters of Weyerhaeuser’s business is related to housing, hiring has slowed 

during the past few years; however, recruitment is occurring in rural locales and Weyerhaeuser’s

sustainability story assures community citizens that the company is a responsible steward of the land and 

wildlife. Hunting is permitted on much of the forest lands, and the company is tracking metrics on 18 

timberland ecosystem services goals. Weyerhaeuser sells licensing to hunting clubs and thus tracks

metrics; clubs have specific requirements for ecosystem quality, making it easy to track and report.

Ms. Kendall commented that, as an employer, she would hire a forester or processor who cares about 

sustainability rather than a person who has a degree in sustainability. Ms. Taylor agreed about the 

multidisciplinary nature of sustainability and the importance of being able to apply sustainable principles 

in various careers.

Perspectives on the Development of Sustainability Metrics III

Alison Taylor, Vice President, Sustainability-Americas, Siemens Corporation

Ms. Taylor described how, similar to EPA, the challenge for Siemens is to apply sustainability to a 

diversity of businesses. In contrast to the focused companies of Baxter and Weyerhaeuser, Siemens 

provides a variety of services. Wind turbines, natural gas and clean coal technologies, water purification

and light rail services represent Siemens’ diverse portfolio. 

Siemens has implemented environmental and design standards for many years. Although Siemens 

employs 60,000 U.S. citizens, as a European company, it has made a lot of progress with respect to 

European regulations such as the emissions trading system. Siemens applies European policy and design 

regulations to its U.S. products despite the lack of similar legal requirements in the United States. 

Ms. Taylor noted that it can be difficult to think creatively about situations. For example, a hospital 

salesperson will not necessarily stop to think about the potential energy audit that Siemens could perform. 

Ms. Taylor related this to the challenges in finding flexibility to introduce sustainability principles within 

the CAA and Clean Water Act (CWA). She also noticed similarities in the mission and vision statements 

developed by the NACEPT and Siemens. 

Sustainability is more than being green; sustainable business strategies also are important. Ms. Taylor 

noted that the three pillars of environment, economy and social sustainability were enlightening as the 

company realized that attracting employees had as much economic as social impact. As another example, 

corporate governance and compliance has both environmental and economic impacts.
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 13

Siemens publishes materiality analyses annually and delves into megatrends affecting its sustainability 

strategy. Worldwide, Siemens employs 475,000 employees in 190 countries. The company’s business 

leaders and stakeholders selected key sustainability ideas and factors to analyze in their development of a 

sustainability strategy. Siemens also provides questionnaires to its suppliers about labor practices, water 

use and so forth to ensure that it uses sustainable suppliers. Mutual discussions occur regarding how to 

develop a more efficient project or packaging solution. Compliance and reporting are integrated into 

Siemens annual sustainability report.

Siemens’ global targets for carbon dioxide and emission reductions were established in 2005, and 

numeric progress indicators show that Siemens already has achieved some of the targets. In the second 

iteration of target development, absolute targets will replace relative targets to help achieve goals for 

energy efficiency and watershed stress, among others. Siemens intends to put stringent water-use 

requirements in facilities located in water-stressed areas, and site locations will be chosen after evaluating 

the local environment and its ability to withstand production. Key performance goal categories include 

carbon savings of products used in the marketplace, employee diversity and retention, education 

expenditures per employee, health and safety. 

Siemens is categorized as “diverse industrials,” and it measures well compared to other companies in that 

portfolio, particularly with regard to how the company treats employees and the environment. Siemens 

aims to increase the points in the sustainability ratings year after year, but already is at a very high level.

Discussion 

In response to a question, Ms. Taylor said that Siemens’ environmental portfolio includes wind turbines, 

and Siemens intends to increase the number of products in its environmental portfolio. Ms. Taylor noted 

that it is difficult to ensure alignment with the sustainability vision across different businesses. 

Performance responsibility is the purview of top leaders, who attend meetings to set targets and goals. 

The challenge is how to harmonize different strategies at the regional level. 

Dr. John noted that the European regulatory and political enterprises are more developed than those in 

this country. In the United States, there are no financial incentives for renewable energy, whereas Europe 

has a very robust incentive system. Europeans encourage sustainability and are more public-transit 

oriented.

Perspectives on the Development of Sustainability Metrics IV

Bridgett Luther, President, Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute

Ms. Luther remarked that new technologies do not appear in a vacuum without support. Cradle to Cradle 

takes a long-term view focusing on framing, products and innovation. Founded by William McDonough 

and Michael Braungart, the firm is a nonprofit organization providing third-party certification. The 

McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry designed the certification mark to encourage a large-scale 

transformation as a gateway to sustainability. Cradle to Cradle helps companies achieve their certification 

by evaluating the processes and products. The company considers material health and reutilization, 

renewable energy, water stewardship and social responsibility to ensure that companies design products 

that retain value at end-of-use. A sustainably designed chair, for example, can be separated into 

aluminum, steel and cloth components to be turned into other products. Certified products are 

compostable or recyclable, and the companies commit to powering processes with 100 percent renewable 

energy. Cradle to Cradle offers multiple levels of certification and is scaling the certification process 

worldwide. 

Ms. Luther said she previously focused her efforts on improving water quality in North Carolina, and 

noted that solutions remain evasive. Many different entities produce their own lists of banned chemicals, 
14 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

complicating the situation. She noted that a laboratory at Stanford University recently developed a 

polymer with a salinity trigger for dissolution to decrease the amount of plastic in the ocean. 

Cradle to Cradle focuses on renewable energy and disappearing metal resources. Carbon neutral does not 

go far enough—companies should aim for zero emissions. Companies are still thinking “cradle to grave” 

and need to realign their thought processes. Even eco-efficient design is not enough; designs also must be 

eco-effective. The Cradle to Cradle Continuous Improvement Strategy Chart optimizes processes over 

time to emulate natural cycles. Emulating natural cycles of biological nutrients with technical nutrients 

allows the possibility of a world where all consumption is positive. 

Ms. Luther suggested that EPA should reconsider its approach to the supply chain as its rules affect the 

end result, not the process. If products are toxic, EPA has a law to reduce toxic substances, but attention 

should be focused earlier in the process. EPA developed an innovation platform based on what other 

companies have done, but significant change is needed to offset worldwide degradation; the incremental 

approach is too risky considering the magnitude of the problem. Ms. Luther stated that a regulation is a 

signal of design failure and proposed ideas for EPA’s consideration. Adopting Cradle to Cradle principles 

means using substitutes for harmful chemicals, improving biodegradability, using carbon positive energy 

and managing inputs, not outputs. She suggested that EPA consider closed-loop and upstream solutions 

rather than relying on regulations at the end of the line. The Agency should design for reuse and 

recyclability; consider end of use, not end of life; and create renewable energy strategies. The Cradle to 

Cradle principle states: “Our goal is a delightfully diverse, safe, healthy and just world, with clean air, 

water, soil and power—economically, equitably, ecologically and elegantly enjoyed.”

Discussion 

Mr. Ross asked Mr. Learner how those principles could fit into EPA statutes. Mr. Learner replied that 

they cannot rewrite the CAA, but they can work within the statute. It is important to focus on what EPA 

can do, instead of what the Agency is constrained to do.

Perspectives on the Development of Sustainability Metrics V

William Ross, Jr., NACEPT Chair, Visiting Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy and Duke 

Cancer Institute, Duke University

Mr. Ross discussed sustainability from the perspective of state governments. He pointed to the Duomo in 

Florence, Italy, as an example of innovation. The Duomo was designed and built by Filippo Brunelleschi 

at a time when nothing similar had been accomplished. In creating the largest freestanding dome, 

Mr. Brunelleschi created a perfect design solution. 

The North Carolina state government is involved with sustainability innovation. The Green Square 

facility houses the Nature Research Center and the North Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources (DENR). The facility, built with technologically advanced structures, is LEED®

certified and was designed as an educational tool to promote sustainability. More than 300,000 people 

have accessed the site since April 2012. There is a three-story globe that houses exhibit space for museum 

programs. No more water leaves the site than would if it were forested rather than built, and the granite 

used in construction was quarried from a location very close to the site.

North Carolina began the Environmental Stewardship Initiative (ESI) 10 years ago. The initiative 

encouraged members to reach compliance and then go beyond compliance to sustainability. Organizations 

range from private sector companies to public waste treatment facilities to a company that fixes damaged 

helicopters for the Department of the Army. Some members are recognized environmental stewards. 

Mr. Ross emphasized that it is good to have the government involved in regulatory responsibilities but it 

is important that the government also recognizes companies for their sustainability efforts. In 2010, ESI 

members reported reductions of 46 tons of air emissions, more than 41 million gallons of water and 
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 15

10,245 tons of landfill waste. These reductions realized more than $3.27 million in cost savings. North 

Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act demonstrates an instance of sustainability being written into law to 

reduce emissions in coal-fired power plants. The air has been measurably cleaner and health has improved 

since the enactment of this law. 

Mr. Ross noted that sustainability programs attract talented employees to these organizations, which 

empowers them to achieve their goals. The Southeastern Regional Partnership for Planning and 

Sustainability (SERPAS) is an initiative to build partnerships between government, natural resource and 

environmental agencies, which collaborate to plan sustainability projects to move toward mutually 

beneficial goals. This important example of “breaking down silos” improves communication without 

compromising each entity’s individual mission. Projects include restoring longleaf pine along its historic 

range and protecting endangered species. SERPAS is a model for innovative value-added collaboration in 

which EPA and others could become involved.

Discussion 

Mr. Kerr noted that criticisms of Mr. Brunelleschi’s plan for the Duomo did not deter his efforts. He had a 

vision, convinced people it could be done, and developed both the plan and the machines to implement it. 

Dr. Parker asked how many organizations were associated with the ESI, and Mr. Ross replied that more 

than 50 entities were partners, of which 14 were recognized as going beyond compliance. 

Ms. Luther asked how North Carolina had partnered with the DOD, which has a large budget, and 

suggested that EPA could learn from that process. Mr. Ross stressed that all of the partners became 

convinced that ESI was worth pursuing. 

Mr. Kerr noted that the DOD employs a systematic long-term visioning process. He suggested that 

systematic forward thinking would be useful for EPA. In response to Dr. Di Chiro’s remark about the size 

of EPA’s budget relative to the DOD’s budget, Mr. Ross emphasized that the important point was to 

convince unconventional partners to work together to leverage different resources.

Sustainability Workgroups Breakout Session 

The two NACEPT workgroups—Breakthrough Objectives and Strengths—met to discuss the drafting of 

NACEPT sustainability advice letters and to prepare presentations for the following day. 

3- to 5-Year Breakthrough Objectives Workgroup Breakout Session

Dr. DeWitt John, Mr. Robert Kerr, Ms. Bridgett Luther (Co-Chair), Dr. Judith Mazique, Dr. Mark

Mitchell, Dr. Olufemi Osidele (Chair), Dr. Edith Parker and Mr. Yalmaz Siddiqui

Dr. Osidele reminded the Breakthrough Objectives Workgroup members that EPA’s charge to the 

NACEPT is to recommend breakthrough objectives for the next 3 to 5 years by backcasting from EPA’s

sustainability vision. He explained that his presentation incorporated perspectives submitted by all 

Workgroup members. 

Dr. Osidele described the four vital steps the NACEPT recommended in its first advice letter to EPA on 

how to incorporate sustainability at the Agency. The steps called for the establishment of: (1) a bold 

Agencywide sustainability vision; (2) a set of sustainability principles; (3) several 3- to 5-year 

breakthrough objectives; and (4) several mid-term goals out to 2020. He said there has been much 

discussion of needing a vision from which to backcast the necessary steps for achieving it. 

The NACEPT is charged with defining measurement systems to assess progress, creating tools for 

qualitative and quantitative benefits, defining approaches for sharing progress with the public, and 
16 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

suggesting other new approaches necessary to implement the breakthrough goals that the NACEPT 

recommends. The breakthrough goals are the priority focus of the Breakthrough Objectives Workgroup. 

The Workgroup discussed the best way to develop and frame the breakthrough objectives. Dr. John said 

he felt constrained in identifying breakthrough objectives for air and was uncomfortable with the 

framework. He noted that Mr. Perciasepe had said that the goal is to “align” EPA with sustainability 

efforts taking place elsewhere. He suggested that “align” implied affiliating with breakthrough companies 

and communities; the breakthrough objectives for EPA would reflect the company and community 

approaches.

Dr. Osidele stated that Dr. John’s question, “What assets can EPA bring to the table?” was a very good 

point that enables this Workgroup to connect with the other NACEPT workgroup examining EPA’s 

strengths. The members discussed the three pillars of sustainability (e.g., environmental, economic and 

social). The breakthrough objectives should bolster all three, through external collaborations and other 

approaches. 

Mr. Cooper (EPA) said that he has seen three or four EPA sustainability documents over the years that are 

all the same in the sense that none of them clarify how an EPA staffer should do his or her job. In his 

view, all the issues of sustainability relate to economic activity; thus, sustainability is about use of 

resources such as water or forests without degradation, or use with restoration. He urged a concrete vision 

statement that could be implemented by Agency staff. Workgroup members appreciated his perspective.

The Workgroup discussed additional information needs, which include the need for EPA to provide a 

clearer high-level vision of sustainability that the NACEPT can use for backcasting when developing 

breakthrough objectives. The Workgroup mapped the linkages between EPA’s strategic plan goal areas, 

the NAS Green Book and other EPA planning documents. Based on that map, breakthrough objectives

were drafted. The objectives for water addressed nutrient loadings and runoff, critical watersheds, and 

protecting human health. For air quality and climate, Dr. John had proposed some draft objectives. For 

chemicals and pollution prevention, Mr. Kerr and others had made suggestions. 

Dr. Osidele solicited comments regarding the draft presentation. One participant thought the Workgroup 

was not articulating breakthrough objectives clearly, and in the absence of a clear sustainability vision,

the group was “rudderless.” That left two options: (1) wait until EPA creates a vision before developing 

breakthrough objectives; or (2) promulgate the Workgroup’s idea of what the EPA sustainability vision 

statement could be, and develop breakthrough objectives based on that draft vision statement. It is unclear 

how long it would take for EPA to put forward a vision. The Agency has developed some sustainability 

publications but there is no clear vision statement with enough detail to provide guidance for the 

Workgroup. One member said that Mr. Perciasepe’s message was that the Agency is seeking help in 

framing a vision. To help deflect criticism, EPA needs NACEPT support before it can publicly establish 

an Agencywide vision. The Workgroup agreed to attempt to draft a vision statement because it is 

important for EPA to go beyond incremental measures. 

The Workgroup proceeded to draft a sustainability vision statement for EPA, with each member 

separately drafting his or her version as a basis for the Workgroup to develop a draft vision 

collaboratively. Dr. Osidele read the proposed draft vision statements and Workgroup members provided 

comments. He noted that all of the various statements point to the need for transforming EPA away from 

end-of-pipeline regulation toward an innovative, collaborative organization that advances sustainability’s 

three pillars. One member commented that the vision of an EPA transformation away from end-of-pipe

regulation toward collaboration and innovation is necessary; otherwise, the NACEPT would be simply 

encouraging the Agency to continue on its current path. 

A member commented that not all state environmental agencies seek to move beyond the floor of 

compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. A Workgroup member suggested that an important 

part of the vision statement would be language indicating that EPA will advance its vision by serving as 
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 17

the world’s premier environmental science subject matter expert, working with industry and agencies and 

other such goals. Other specific language was discussed for inclusion in the draft vision statement. 

Dr. Osidele reiterated that the Workgroup’s vision-drafting exercise was aimed at creating a picture of the 

goal for EPA’s sustainability efforts followed by proposals for how to achieve the vision. The draft vision 

statement that emerged from the discussion follows: 

EPA’s sustainability vision is to build from its strengths as a compliance and regulatory agency 

to become the world leader as an innovative, collaborative organization that accelerates 

America’s journey to sustainable development.

The Workgroup agreed that the statement’s second half requires further consideration that will be 

conducted via email. 

Strengths Breakout Workgroup Breakout Session

Dr. Fernando Abruña, Dr. Giovanna Di Chiro, Ms. Sara Kendall, Dr. Patricia Gallagher, Mr. Howard 

Learner, Dr. Ronald Meissen (Chair) and Ms. Alison Taylor (Co-Chair)

The Strengths Workgroup discussed the status of the effort to draft a sustainability letter to the EPA 

Administrator. Mr. Ross explained that the Workgroup was to draft the recommendations to present to the 

larger group the next day. The feedback and wisdom of the full Council would be considered in the 

drafting of the actual recommendation letter. Ms. Jones-Jackson said that she thought Ms. Corman would 

prefer to have NACEPT’s advice sooner rather than later, but added that there is no deadline for the 

advice letter. Ms. Jones-Jackson will confirm whether Ms. Corman can share results of the Listening 

Sessions with the NACEPT.

Ms. Kendall asked whether the Council should produce advice letters or a large report/series of white 

papers as it has done in the past. Ms. Jones-Jackson replied that an advice letter would more quickly 

satisfy EPA’s needs than a longer, meticulously crafted report, but the format is not prescribed. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson observed that the charge to the Council was to determine what actions EPA can take to 

better incorporate sustainability into programs and decision-making processes. 

The Workgroup members discussed the presentation for the following day that would summarize the 

Workgroup’s key thoughts about EPA’s sustainability strengths. Ms. Taylor presented a pre-populated 

PowerPoint based on the document that was developed collectively by the members. The presentation 

began by reiterating Dr. Paul Anastas’ sustainability statement: “Sustainability is our true north. The work 

that we do—the research, the assessments, the policy development—is part of ensuring that we have a 

sustainable society; a sustainable civilization.” Ms. Taylor also presented the charge question addressed 

by this Workgroup: “What strengths can EPA leverage to successfully deploy, across the Agency, 

sustainability strategies drawing upon both the NAS report recommendations and also approaches to 

sustainability and recommendations from other sources and stakeholders? Are there internal or external 

challenges—barriers and gaps—that EPA will need to address, manage and overcome to successfully 

deploy sustainability strategies drawing upon both the NAS report recommendations, and also, 

approaches to sustainability and recommendations from other sources and stakeholders? If yes, 

(a) identify the significant internal challenges and then recommend strategies to address, manage and 

overcome them; and (b) identify the significant external challenges and the stakeholders involved, and 

then recommend strategies to address manage, and overcome them and contribute to EPA’s successful 

rollout of its defined sustainability strategy while engaging with key stakeholders.”

The Strengths Workgroup had met on April 19, 2012, to brainstorm on the strengths in EPA programs. 

Those notes were refined into subgroup efforts focused in four areas: (1) Community Engagement/

Inclusion; (2) Companies, Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), Cities, States and Other Entities; 

(3) Green Buildings; and (4) EPA Leadership, Coordination and Developing Capacity. 
18 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Ms. Kendall expressed concern about naming specific external programs, such as LEED®, for fear of 

unintentional endorsement. Dr. Abruña noted that this concern was addressed in the text prepared by the 

Workgroup. Ms. Kendall also noticed that the level of detail from the Green Building subgroup was 

substantially finer than the details in the other subgroup recommendations, and she suggested that the 

language should be more general. Dr. Di Chiro reminded the Workgroup that the purpose of this breakout 

session was to refine the existing draft and make the sections more consistent. 

Ms. Taylor remarked that EPA’s sustainability journey was evolving over time, but one important goal 

was to identify room for sustainable principles within the majority (80%) of the Agency that is concerned 

with regulations. It would be useful for the Workgroup to discuss creative ways that statutes and laws can 

provide opportunities. For example, green building could be integrated into existing mandates, and 

construction permits could be issued under the CAA. Ms. Taylor cautioned that the Council should focus 

on what EPA could do within its current mission. The statutes can be relatively inflexible, and ultimately, 

it will be important to recommend actions that EPA legally can pursue. The National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) could be investigated in the context of thinking about the origins of the environmental 

movement, environmental laws and broad philosophical perspectives. 

The Workgroup agreed that the OGC analysis would be an important resource in considering where 

sustainability might be introduced into existing legislation, but also will work towards producing 

recommendations outside regulatory statutes, as the non-regulatory component (20%) of EPA provides a 

large area for improvement. Dr. Meissen reiterated that the most important goal is to have the 

Administrator determine that the advice is rational, helpful and actionable. 

The Strengths Workgroup summarized each subgroup topic. The Community Engagement subgroup 

focused on determining the strengths of EPA’s community engagement and inclusion efforts, as well as 

challenges, recommendations and opportunities. Dr. Di Chiro explained that the subgroup focused on the 

strengths and challenges in the following five areas: statutory/policy, expertise/knowledge, 

communications, programmatic and resources. Referring to a three-legged stool graphic, Dr. Di Chiro 

noted the irony that the pillars tend to look like silos, which EPA is trying to avoid.

Dr. Abruña explained the Green Building subgroup topic. A challenge is the lack of coordination across 

EPA’s green building-related programs. In theory, EPA’s related programs (e.g., sustainable sites, water 

and indoor air quality) could be integrated into a green building certification program. For example, 

EPA’s WaterSense program meets the water criteria outlined in many green building certification 

programs. Workgroup members liked the idea of EPA integrating some of its existing programs into a 

new certification program. Mr. Learner and Ms. Taylor noted that there are opportunities to leverage 

existing programs to encourage green building and make the built environment more sustainable.

The Workgroup discussed whether Green Building should be placed under a subgroup topic to maintain 

consistency with the high-level subgroups that are less detailed. Ms. Taylor suggested placing the Green 

Building topic under the EPA Leadership subgroup. The Strength Workgroup members concurred with 

this suggestion, so Green Building was placed under the Leadership heading along with Coordination of 

Leadership. The remaining three subgroups are: (1) Companies, Nongovernmental Organizations 

(NGOs), Cities, States and Other Entities; (2) Community Engagement/Inclusion; and (3) EPA 

Leadership, Coordination and Developing Capacity.

The Strengths Workgroup considered additional information that would be useful to help them form 

recommendations. In addition to OGC’s analysis of areas where statutory authority can encompass 

sustainability, the Workgroup would like to receive:

 More information about the development timeframe for EPA’s sustainability plan.

 A copy of the draft sustainability plan or Listening Session input.

 A better understanding of ORD’s efforts in sustainability.
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 19

 The rationale for the termination of EPA’s Smart Growth program.

 An understanding of budgeting for community outreach.

 A list of common acronyms.

Dr. Di Chiro stated that prioritization is a key aspect of the budget, and Mr. Learner added that 

Congressional appropriation also plays a role. A participant noted that it was ironic that many of the 

programs that the Workgroup identified as strengths no longer existed. 

Regarding the coordination of leadership, Ms. Taylor stated that the focused mission of EPA encourages 

the alignment of the behavior and efforts of EPA staff and leadership. One strength is that many programs 

are implemented in different regions; however, a challenge is the development and execution of missions 

within silos. There is an opportunity to coordinate leadership through a sustainability steering committee 

empowered to coordinate sustainability efforts, execute sustainability accountability and pursue 

opportunities. The Interagency Working Group is a resource that can be leveraged to improve 

sustainability reporting.

Dr. Meissen commented that coordination would build on the laboratory of sustainability innovation. A 

lot of innovations happen in communities and companies; EPA could build on those efforts. Dr. Di Chiro 

commented that EPA acts as a clearinghouse for different programs to access community listservs, 

databases and organizational information. Additionally, EPA is uniquely poised with a common structure 

supported by common people, yet there is diversity in the programs. Another strength is the HUD-DOTEPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities interagency collaboration.

Ms. Kendall expressed appreciation for Ms. Taylor’s efforts in creating the draft presentation. 

Drs. Gallagher and Di Chiro agreed to format the Workgroup’s slides in advance of the morning 

presentation. 

Following a brief review of the schedule for the next day’s plenary session the meeting was recessed for 

the day.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 2012

Welcome 

Ms. Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Acting Director, OFACMO, EPA; 

Mr. Mark Joyce, Acting DFO for NACEPT, OFACMO, EPA; and

Mr. William G. Ross, Jr., (NACEPT Chair) Visiting Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy and 

Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University

Mr. Ross called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and thanked the Council members for their hard work

during yesterday’s meeting. Ms. Stephanie McCoy (EPA) explained reimbursement procedures for travel 

and distributed expense report forms and meeting evaluation forms to the NACEPT members. Ms. JonesJackson presented to Mr. Ross the official letter from EPA Administrator Jackson regarding his role as 

the NACEPT’s new Chair. She then presented the official letter from the Administrator to Dr. Mazique, 

the new Council member. 

Mr. Ross asked Mr. Joyce to provide context for the NACEPT as it moves forward in developing its next 

set of advice letters to the Agency. Mr. Joyce said that the session was an opportunity for the two 

workgroups to provide their current thinking on the priorities they identified and to request any additional 

information they need to complete the advice letters. The session also provided opportunity for the 

Council members to offer their input before the recommendations are prepared. He said that it is 

important for the NACEPT to remember that the advice it transmits to the EPA Administrator is most 

helpful if it is detailed, specific and as actionable as possible. General policy statements or statements of 

opinion are not as helpful as explicit guidance on what the Agency should be doing in certain areas. 
20 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Mr. Joyce added that the corollary to that perspective is that there are constraints to what the 

Administrator and the Agency can do. There are 78 congressional appropriations and authorizing 

committees that have authority over some aspect of EPA’s operations, and Congress guards its 

prerogatives. Appropriations committees often are very specific about what should not be funded and are 

quick to inform the Agency if they think it is transgressing the intent of Congress. In developing advice, 

the NACEPT members should bear in mind the Agency’s current statutory authorities and funding levels. 

Within that framework, EPA is looking for the Council to be creative in offering advice to help the 

Agency operationalize sustainability in all of its efforts. 

Dr. Meissen asked about EPA’s expectations regarding the timeframe for the Council to deliver its 

advice. Mr. Joyce responded that there is no firm deadline for the NACEPT’s advice, so the Council 

should take the time to prepare well-thought out recommendations. Ms. Kendall asked if EPA has a firm 

sense of what it wants the Council to provide, such as advice letters versus white papers or reports. After 

some discussion, Mr. Joyce said that, as the Council deliberates on the two letters, it could choose to 

incorporate both into one advice letter. The letter(s) must be approved in a public forum, such as a 

teleconference or videoconference, to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 

Mr. Learner said that the Council would be abetted in its efforts if EPA provided a timeline and directive 

on advice letters or a report so that members understand what the Agency is seeking and when. Mr. Joyce 

responded that he will converse with Ms. Corman, Ms. Ramona Trovato (EPA) and Mr. Hooks regarding

the schedule. Mr. Learner suggested that November 1, 2012, might be a good target date, with the 

possibility of revisiting that date after the Council’s morning discussions, and Mr. Joyce concurred. 

Ms. Kendall commented that other work on sustainability is moving forward, and the Council would 

benefit from previewing EPA’s sustainability plan as part of an iterative process. Mr. Learner proposed 

that Mr. Joyce contact Ms. Corman and others after the meeting to develop a timeline that takes into 

account EPA’s sustainability plan. In addition, Mr. Joyce should determine if a letter or report is expected 

from the Council. These steps would help satisfy the request for actionable advice from the NACEPT. 

Sustainability Workgroup Reports

Mr. Ross explained that the purpose of the discussion was for the full Council to hear from the 

sustainability workgroups and provide an opportunity for the members to pose questions, offer comments 

and provide feedback to the workgroups. 

Discussion of the Draft Advice Letter From the NACEPT Breakthrough Objectives Workgroup

DeWitt John, Thomas F. Shannon Distinguished Lecturer in Environmental Studies, Bowdoin College;

Robert L. Kerr, Co-Founder and Principal, Pure Strategies, Inc.;

Bridgett Luther (Co-Chair), President, Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute;

Judith Mazique, Assistant Professor and Program Director of Environmental Health, College of 

Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Texas Southern University;

Mark A. Mitchell, President, Mitchell Environmental Health Associates;

Olufemi Osidele (Chair), Senior Research Engineer, Geosciences and Engineering Division, Southwest 

Research Institute;

Edith Parker, Professor and Head, Department of Community and Behavioral Health, College of Public 

Health, University of Iowa; and

Yalmaz Siddiqui, Senior Director, Environmental Strategy, Office Depot

Dr. Osidele said that the presentation was intended to be a summary progress report of the Workgroup’s 

efforts and he welcomed Council feedback. He noted that in the first advice letter, the NACEPT

supported EPA’s adoption of recommendations in the NAS sustainability report. The letter recommended 

four critical steps for EPA: (1) adopt a sustainability vision; (2) adopt sustainability principles; 
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 21

(3) establish 3- to 5-year breakthrough objectives; and (4) establish several examples for 2023. He 

mentioned that there are multiple visions of sustainability, and a person looking far ahead would have to 

determine what immediate steps should be taken to reach those visions.

He discussed the charge question to the Workgroup, highlighting three key statements pertaining to the 

need for a sustainability vision, backcasting from the vision, and recommending actions for the next 3 to 5 

years. He also described the four questions dealing with sustainability measurement systems, tools to 

address the three pillars of sustainability, approaches to share the results, and new approaches that may 

arise in an evolving process through time.

Dr. Osidele noted that a breakthrough objective is an objective the Agency is capable of achieving, based 

on discussions with the Strengths Workgroup on current EPA capabilities, but extends beyond current 

capabilities and strengths. He described a number of Breakthrough Workgroup activities. The Workgroup 

held conference calls starting in April 2012. It developed an overview of the strategic planning process 

and met with staff from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). The initial two meetings

focused on evaluating existing planning documents, advice letters and the EPA strategic plan to identify

gaps and commonalities, along with EPA’s five strategic goal areas. The Workgroup also interviewed 

EPA staff members.

Based on its meetings and interviews, the Workgroup made a number of observations. Dr. Osidele 

highlighted some of the observations: 

 EPA should develop a national strategy and Agencywide sustainability principles. EPA has begun 

implementing sustainability recommendations, but the major gap is that sustainability is not 

addressed explicitly in its strategic plan. EPA should use its next strategic planning process to 

incorporate a cross-cutting sustainability strategy at the highest level in the Agency. 

 EPA should add a sixth strategic goal specifically for sustainability and provide a way to tie 

strategic plan elements to any reporting or performance measurement system. 

 EPA should seek to identify gaps and inconsistencies between the NAS report, the EPA strategic 

plan and other Agency planning documents. The objectives should be designed to harmonize and 

integrate environmental economic and social goals to fulfill strategic plan goals. 

 The Agency should focus on high-level programs and outreach as a first priority, then focus on 

more specific goal areas, such as air and climate change. 

 EPA should consider successful public-private partnerships in light of its strategic plan goals, and 

identify local enforcement programs where sustainability could be incorporated, as shown in 

examples from Region 9. 

Dr. Osidele provided some perspective for developing breakthrough objectives. The first question was: 

What are the best ways to develop and frame specific breakthrough goals? This pertained to the scope of 

the goals, whether they should be goals for the Agency or external to the organization. The second 

question asked: What assets can EPA bring to the table? This question overlaps with the NACEPT 

Strengths Workgroup. It calls for assessing EPA’s strengths and how they can be brought to bear to 

develop breakthrough objectives. The third question was: How should EPA regional and headquarters 

offices manage their work to frame and achieve breakthrough goals on sustainability? This refers, for 

example, to collaborations within the Agency and many concepts within EPA that the Workgroup has 

been discussing. The last question was: For what specific issues or topics should EPA set breakthrough 

objectives for sustainability?
22 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

The Workgroup formulated criteria for developing breakthrough objectives: “In keeping with the adopted 

definition of ‘breakthrough objectives,’ NACEPT’s recommendations must highlight new and/or more 

effective directions the Agency should take toward sustainability.” In addition, “the objectives should 

offer sustainable approaches to key environmental issues, using EPA’s Strategic Goals and Cross-Cutting 

Fundamental Strategies” and “should fully harmonize the three pillars of sustainability—social (including 

human health), environmental, and economic.” Dr. Osidele stressed that there is a great deal of emphasis 

on the three pillars of sustainability in the Workgroup’s thinking. 

Dr. Osidele explained that Workgroup members had spent time developing a collaborative sustainability 

vision for the Agency. The first step was to agree that the Workgroup needed to develop a bold 

Agencywide sustainability vision. The members imagined what they would say about EPA’s 

sustainability vision if they were to have 5 minutes to describe it to EPA Administrator Jackson. They 

reached agreement on common points that need to be captured in EPA’s sustainability vision statement. 

Dr. Osidele read the draft statement: “EPA’s sustainability vision is to build from its strengths as a 

compliance and regulatory agency to become the world leader as an innovation-oriented, collaborative 

organization that accelerates America’s journey toward meeting the needs of the present without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The statement tries to bring 

together all of the key words identified through extensive Workgroup discussion. 

Dr. Osidele described the Workgroup’s additional information needs for going forward. These include 

documents or statements expressing EPA’s sustainability vision. The Workgroup found various 

statements but none contained EPA’s sustainability vision. If such a document exists, the Workgroup 

would like to use it in drafting its advice letter. The Workgroup also would like to conduct additional

consultations with EPA headquarters offices, regional offices and national laboratories to garner further 

perspectives from Agency staff members, as well as more interactions with state environmental agencies 

and private businesses and industry. Lastly, the Workgroup favored more coordination with the NACEPT 

Strengths Workgroup. There is some overlap between the Breakthrough Workgroup’s efforts and those of

the Strengths Workgroup; therefore, more interaction is needed to avoid duplication and to create 

synergies between the two workgroups. 

Dr. Osidele presented the Workgroup’s reference documents, noting that the reference list is a good 

starting point. Lastly, he acknowledged EPA staff members for all their support. 

Discussion

Ms. Luther clarified that the groups worked on five subtopics: air and climate, water, communities,

chemicals and environmental regulations. Dr. Osidele explained that the members thought they needed to 

begin with a vision, which would establish the overall EPA direction and provide the cohesion that the 

Workgroup believes is missing. For that reason, the Workgroup prepared the draft EPA sustainability 

vision statement for consideration by the NACEPT. 

Ms. Kendall said that she appreciated the Breakthrough Workgroup’s specific steps for establishing 

breakthrough objectives. Ms. Luther noted that the Workgroup already has conducted a detailed review of 

EPA’s sustainability report in five areas; with the direction provided by a draft vision, it is easier to

evaluate objectives for specific topics. 

Dr. John commented that a review of EPA’s existing and anticipated air programs (those the Agency does 

not have yet but presumably will in the future to deal with clean energy and climate change) reveals that 

the key question is: How much will it cost to reduce U.S. carbon emissions and who will pay for it? A 

breakthrough objective would begin to lay out those issues. The national objective would call for impacts 

to be equitable within the United States and would point out economic growth opportunities in tackling 

the issue, thereby explicitly capturing sustainable social equity, economic and environmental quality goals 

expressed in numbers. 
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 23

Mr. Learner asked how the EPA Administrator would act on such an objective. Dr. John noted that the 

draft sustainability vision stipulates that EPA will build from its strengths to become a world leader as an 

innovation-oriented, collaborative organization. EPA already has a leadership role within the federal 

government—for example, in the Agency’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities collaborative work 

with the DOT and HUD—and other collaborative opportunities exist. A goal might be that 5 years from 

now five metropolitan areas with identified impacts on EJ communities have committed to reducing their 

greenhouse gas emissions by a specific percentage.

Mr. Learner responded that because of the CAA’s history and the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Massachusetts v. EPA, the Agency currently is moving forward with a rulemaking for greenhouse gases 

applied to new and existing sources. Although the rulemaking is highly controversial, EPA has said that 

the law is clear and, unless Congress changes it, the Agency is required to proceed. EPA cannot use a capand-trade system, which would fit into the model Dr. John described, because it lacks statutory authority

to do so. It is clear from court rulings that EPA must proceed under a fairly narrow set of prescripts as 

defined by the CAA, and is being challenged in some ways for taking a more flexible approach. 

Somehow, the NACEPT must determine how to identify innovative and collaborative approaches 

appropriate for EPA that mesh with the Agency’s compliance and regulatory actions, which comprise 80 

percent of EPA’s actions, and present challenges to the Agency’s flexibility. 

Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Learner’s summary of EPA’s dilemma. She stated that the NACEPT can 

provide useful advice to the Agency on how to address this dilemma; the Council can draw from its 

diverse in-the-field experience to offer EPA suggestions on how to proceed. Siemens has produced an 

index ranking 27 cities around the world on every continent, and 21 of those have climate plans, none of 

which are government mandated. That provides a rich body of information regarding other government 

agencies’ activities, absent any regulatory or statutory authority and under more constrained budgets than 

EPA’s. Siemens also identified others who are working on indices, providing a tremendous source of 

information that should be included on NACEPT’s list of additional information sources. Ms. Taylor said

that she believes the two NACEPT workgroups should collaborate on one advice letter to EPA. 

Mr. Ross noted that the Council seemed to be approaching a consensus to combine the two advice letters. 

Ms. Kendall agreed that commonality existed between the two workgroups and suggested that the 

Breakthrough Workgroup should identify specific areas where EPA could take some action. Ms. Kendall

thought that EPA should develop its own vision statement because the Agency must adopt it with 

conviction. The NACEPT can recommend that EPA’s vision reflect its mission, strengths and the goal of 

sustainability, all of which are contained in the draft statement. 

Ms. Luther offered comments about environmental regulations. She noted that it is difficult for EPA’s 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA) to pursue innovation because it is governed by 

regulatory forces; nevertheless, OECA has created excellent public-private partnerships—Green Power, 

Methane to Markets and especially Green Chill, which moves from the regulatory arena to an initiative 

that makes significant differences without the use of laws and regulations. Ms. Luther recommended

further conversations with OECA on what the Office regards as the next Green Chill-like partnership. 

Mr. Ross solicited Dr. Parker’s views on the discussion. She expressed appreciation for the enormity of 

the task of making EPA, a regulatory agency, more nimble and responsive to sustainability. Dr. Parker

suggested that the NACEPT focus on the organizational aspect of its task. 

Mr. Ross noted that Mr. Perciasepe spoke the previous day about collaborative processes and 

partnerships; the NACEPT might wish to include a breakthrough objective for that idea. Mr. Kerr agreed 

that collaboration is the key point. EPA would be able to draw on the many ongoing efforts to collaborate 

with NGOs, businesses and others. Given resource constraints, EPA could have a substantial impact by 
24 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

contributing to those efforts. For example, EPA has made a major contribution to DfE through technical 

expertise that has required very little time or resources.

Dr. Mitchell expressed concern that the draft vision statement was not specific enough to provide 

guidance to the Agency. He agreed there should be collaboration, but noted that industry has always had 

access to EPA whereas the community has not. It must be emphasized that the community also needs 

access to collaborative efforts. 

Mr. Ross called for a 15-minute break to enable the Breakthrough Workgroup to process the comments 

received and for the Strengths Workgroup to prepare for its presentation. 

Discussion of the Draft Advice Letter From the NACEPT Strengths Workgroup 

Fernando Abruña, Architect, Sustainable Architecture, Abruña and Musgrave, Architects;

Giovanna Di Chiro, Director of Environmental Programs, Nuestras Raices, Inc.;

Patricia Gallagher, Associate Professor, Provost’s Fellow in Sustainability, Department of Civil, 

Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Drexel University;

Sara Kendall, Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Sustainability and EHS, Weyerhaeuser Company;

Howard Learner, NACEPT Vice-Chair, University Professor, Environmental Science and Policy, George 

Mason University;

Ronald Meissen (Chair), Senior Director of Sustainability, Baxter International Inc.; and 

Alison Taylor (Co-Chair), Vice President, Sustainability-Americas, Siemens Corporation

Dr. Meissen thanked Mr. Joyce, Mr. Ross and Ms. Jones-Jackson for their assistance, noting that every 

meeting brings a better perspective of EPA and how the NACEPT should focus its recommendations. 

Dr. Meissen explained that some of the Workgroup members were not present at this meeting but had 

contributed to the development of the Workgroup’s presentation. He noted that the presentation 

demonstrates a high-level overview of the Workgroup’s recommendations, which hopefully will provide 

synergistic opportunities with the Breakthrough Workgroup’s recommendations.

Ms. Taylor remarked that the Breakthrough Workgroup’s vision was an excellent way to gain perspective. 

She restated Paul Anastas’ and the NAS Green Book quotes, noting that sustainability is consistent with 

EPA’s mission and is a great strength of the Agency. Ms. Taylor noted that, although EPA focuses on 

environmental sustainability, it is important to remember the other two pillars—the economy and social 

sustainability components. 

The suggested charge question to the Strengths Workgroup was repeated, and Ms. Taylor explained that 

the Workgroup approached the task by brainstorming about EPA’s strengths and which to focus on. The 

Workgroup members first gathered ideas of existing EPA programs related to sustainability, including 

popular programs such as Brownsfields and ENERGY STAR. Each identified strength was analyzed 

further according to the challenges and opportunities provided by this strength. 

Ms. Taylor described the conclusions of the External Stakeholder subgroup, noting that EPA has 

considerable strength working with external stakeholders with respect to sustainability strategies. EPA 

could leverage its convening power and credibility to build on the innovative programs of corporations 

and academia to learn from those connections. Additionally, EPA has a broad geographic presence, 

regional perspective and experience working with regions and communities. The Agency understands the 

challenges of drought in the West and industrial waste in the East. Because of its experience working with 

local and state entities, EPA’s expertise, understanding of challenges and credibility in working across the 

United States is a benefit. EPA also has a proven success record in education and there is an opportunity 

to develop a sustainability curriculum to educate the current and future workforce. EPA can manage 

complex data and help external stakeholders manage data. Challenges associated with external 

stakeholders include concern that EPA’s mission does not extend to sustainability issues. Many 
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 25

corporations enjoy the status quo and do not want EPA to introduce more regulations. Because companies 

are becoming more globally focused and supply chains reach beyond U.S. boundaries and EPA’s 

purview, the question arises of how EPA can have influence outside of the boundaries of its own 

jurisdiction. Finally, the current budget constraints and uncertain political environment also raise 

challenges.

The Strengths Workgroup described action opportunities for EPA, including disseminating best practices 

within the public and private sectors building on its reputation as a convener. EPA could collaborate 

better in developing a sustainability curriculum to reach and inspire students with interesting graphics and 

dynamic learning programs. Continuing to partner with cities to promote best practices and share ideas 

and resources to move forward is another action opportunity for the Agency. Developing a sustainable 

enterprise model for other agencies and outside stakeholders was another suggestion. 

Dr. Di Chiro explained that many of the Strengths Workgroup members have experience with community 

engagement and inclusion. She mentioned that the social justice component often becomes an 

afterthought, and concentrating on EJ aligns with the goals of Administrator Jackson. EJ communities 

deal with the burdens of a sustainable society. Social technologies are very important in terms of 

promoting sustainability; they help organize skills to accomplish specific tasks. 

The Community Engagement and Inclusion subgroup started from the “theory that genuine sustainability 

requires a focus on three pillars, and that active community engagement and meaningful community input

plus an investment of resources improves sustainability.” From this starting point, the subgroup asked

how EPA can best engage communities to advance its dual commitments to sustainability and 

environmental justice. Dr. Gallagher described the five topic areas within Community Engagement and 

Inclusion: (1) statutory/policy; (2) expertise/knowledge; (3) communications; (4) programmatic; and 

(5) resources. The subgroup discussed strengths, challenges and opportunities for each topic. ORD’s SHC 

program provides a good example of the vast expertise and knowledge within EPA. There is traditional 

ecological and environmental knowledge within tribal communities, and local knowledge within 

communities, to be collected and distributed. EPA, however, should conduct more research on the 

cumulative risk assessment research. Challenges include limited channels for community input to 

effectively influence governmental decisions. There is a lack of informed opportunities to engage in the 

process of planning, decisions and investments. It is critically important for EPA to continue funding 

programs that reach out to communities.

Dr. Meissen described the Strengths Workgroup conclusions regarding EPA Leadership, Coordination 

and Developing Capacity. EPA has control over and influencing power on many topics, such as green 

buildings. Dr. Abruña mentioned that high-performance green buildings provide many benefits in terms 

of education and health care. He explained how many EPA programs relate to green buildings. Some EPA 

programs are very similar to the main themes addressed in common green certification programs such as 

sustainable sites, water, energy efficiency, materials and indoor air quality. For example, EPA’s Air Plus 

program is related to indoor air quality. Although EPA has many programs that address those five themes, 

currently there is no coordination between those programs related to green building. A coherent national 

or federal certification program could be developed to build on these similar strategies and interest to 

create a robust system to develop green buildings across the Nation.

Dr. Meissen described strengths within EPA’s Coordination of Leadership. The EPA regions implement 

the same programs in different parts of the country, which is a great strength and opportunity. There is an 

opportunity to build on sustainability innovations both within and external to EPA. With all of the 

sustainability initiatives, harmonizing to support those programs would continue to build momentum. 

Ms. Kendall remarked that establishing a sustainability steering committee within the Agency and taking 

the concept to other agencies would help improve the momentum. The Interagency Workgroup could add 

sustainability as a topic to address.
26 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

The Strengths Workgroup identified additional information needs that would facilitate the drafting of its 

advice letter to the EPA Administrator. Most useful would be access to the OGC analysis of areas where 

statutory authority, including NEPA, can encompass sustainability; a better understanding of the level of 

detail in the advice offer to EPA and the timeframe of development of the sustainability plan; access to 

the draft sustainability plan and summary of the Listening Sessions; a better understanding of ORD’s 

sustainability programs; a list of common acronyms; and identification of the programs that are under the 

most pressure from a budgetary standpoint. 

Ms. Taylor mentioned that the purpose of this presentation was to catalyze the Council’s thinking about 

EPA’s strengths and to identify opportunities that need to be considered more carefully.

Discussion

The Strengths Workgroup solicited feedback about the identified strengths, challenges and action 

opportunities. Mr. Ross suggested adding “collaboration with other federal agencies” to the action 

opportunities list. He noted that Mr. Perciasepe had described examples of how EPA is reaching out to 

other agencies, and that should be pursued further.

Mr. Learner asked Mr. Joyce and Ms. Jones-Jackson whether it would be useful for the NACEPT to 

encourage EPA to continue funding particularly valuable programs. Mr. Joyce replied that promoting the 

continued funding of a few significant programs would be worthwhile. Ms. Jones-Jackson added that 

EPA’s budget is planned 2 years ahead of time; having the advice of advisory committees is very 

beneficial and can be cited as justification to maintain funding. 

Mr. Siddiqui noted that sometimes the act of creating a report crystallizes behavior in alignment with the 

vision or goals. He supported the creation of an annual scorecard that reports EPA’s achievements. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson acknowledged that the idea was reasonable and fit well with Administrator Jackson’s 

priorities. 

Dr. Osidele, as a member of the previous NACEPT session that addressed challenges faced by vulnerable 

communities, suggested that the Council peruse the case studies and extensive reports previously prepared 

to garner any valuable insights to inform the current advice letter. He agreed with Ms. Kendall that 

presenting examples of specific programs risks the appearance of endorsement. Examples should be 

selected and used carefully to support the broader message. 

Mr. Siddiqui asked whether the suggestion was to create an alternative to LEED®. Dr. Abruña responded 

that was not necessarily the objective, but a basic certification process could be developed. Ms. JonesJackson suggested that this could occur in collaboration with EPA partners such as HUD and DOT.

Public Comments 

Mr. Ross called for public comments and there were none. 

Chair’s Meeting Summary

Mr. Ross asked whether the Action Opportunities are candidates for Breakthrough Objectives. The 

NACEPT members agreed to combine the two advice letters because of the overlap and similarity 

between them. Each Workgroup will further refine its own product, incorporating comments from this 

meeting, before a smaller group with representatives from both workgroups will convene to merge the 

two letters. Mr. Ross, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Learner and Ms. Jones-Jackson will meet with the Workgroup 

Chairs to develop the final product. The NACEPT members agreed with that process. Dr. Osidele 

mentioned that it would be useful to show the final advice letter to one or more individuals who can speak 

to the feasibility of the advice and whether it lies within EPA’s purview before it is submitted to the 

Administrator. 
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 27

Dr. John remarked that each NACEPT member should write an informal paragraph describing his or her 

most important sustainability-related issue to ensure that everyone’s most important goal is included in 

the final sustainability advice letter. The Council decided that each member will submit that statement to 

their Workgroup Chair. 

Mr. Ross stated that the Workgroups should try to develop their combined sustainability letter by 

November 1, 2012. The goal will be to distribute the advice when it will have the maximum effect for the 

Agency.

Mr. Ross thanked the Council members for their attendance and participation. He was encouraged by the 

thoughtful and stimulating discussion and noted the progress made toward a product useful to the 

Administrator and the Agency. Mr. Ross also acknowledged Ms. Jones-Jackson, Ms. McCoy and Mr. 

Eugene Green (EPA) for their efforts in preparing for this meeting. 

He mentioned that, following the adjournment of the meeting, each Workgroup will have an opportunity 

to meet and continue the discussions based on the morning’s presentations. Mr. Joyce will distribute the 

final version of each Workgroup’s presentations. The next NACEPT face-to-face meeting will occur 

during or after January 2013. 

Mr. Ross asked for any final thoughts or observations. There being none, he adjourned the meeting at 

12:30 p.m. EDT. 
28 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Action Items

 Each Workgroup will incorporate comments from the meeting’s discussions into their advice 

products.

 Workgroup members will correspond via email and teleconference to continue work on the 

recommendations. 

 Mr. Green will coordinate Workgroup conference calls as needed.

 NACEPT members will submit a paragraph detailing their personal priorities for the sustainability 

letter to their Workgroup Chair.

 Ms. Jones-Jackson will ask Ms. Corman whether Listening Session results can be provided to the 

NACEPT members. EPA’s sustainability plan will be provided to the Council when it becomes 

available.

 After the OGC analysis is completed, the NACEPT will be granted access to the results.

 Mr. Joyce will ensure that all NACEPT members receive the final version of the Workgroup 

presentations.
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 29

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)

Meeting Participants

NACEPT Members

Dr. Fernando Abruña

Architect

Sustainable Architecture Abruña and Musgrave, 

Architects

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Dr. Giovanna Di Chiro

Director of Environmental Programs

Nuestras Raices Inc.

Holyoke, MA

Dr. Patricia M. Gallagher

Associate Professor

Provost’s Fellow in Sustainability

Department of Civil, Architectural and 

Environmental Engineering

Drexel University

Philadelphia, PA 

Dr. Dewitt John 

Thomas F. Shannon Distinguished Lecturer in 

Environmental Studies

Bowdoin College

Brunswick, ME 

Ms. Sara Kendall

Vice President

Corporate Affairs

Sustainability and EHS 

Weyerhaeuser Company

Federal Way, WA

Mr. Robert Kerr

Co-Founder and Principal 

Pure Strategies, Inc.

Reston, VA

Mr. Howard Learner (NACEPT Vice-Chair)

Executive Director

Environmental Law and Policy Center

Chicago, IL

Ms. Bridgett Luther

President

Cradle to Cradle Products

Innovation Institute 

San Francisco, CA

Dr. Judith Mazique

Assistant Professor and Program Director of

 Environmental Health

College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

Texas Southern University

Houston, Texas

Dr. Ronald Meissen

Senior Director of Sustainability

Baxter International Inc.

Deerfield, IL

Dr. Mark A. Mitchell 

President

Mitchell Environmental Health Associates

Hartford, CT 

Dr. Olufemi Osidele

Senior Research Engineer

Geosciences and Engineering Division

Southwest Research Institute 

San Antonio, TX

Dr. Edith A. Parker

Professor and Head

Department of Community and Behavioral 

Health

College of Public Health

University of Iowa

Iowa City, IA

Mr. William G. Ross (NACEPT Chair)

Visiting Professor of Environmental Sciences 

and Policy and Duke Cancer Institute

Nicholas School of the Environment

Duke University

Durham, NC
30 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Mr. Yalmaz Siddiqui

Senior Director

Environmental Strategy

Office Depot

Boca Raton, FL

Ms. Alison Taylor

Vice President

Sustainability-Americas

Siemens Corporation

Washington, D.C.

NACEPT Acting Designated Federal Officer

Mr. Mark Joyce

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach (OFACMO)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1601M)

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2130

Email: joyce.mark@epa.gov

EPA Participants

Daniel Amon

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-7509

Email: amon.dan@epa.gov

Geraldine Brown

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-4235

Email: brown.geraldine@epa.gov

David Cooper

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: (415) 972-3245

Email: cooper.david@epa.gov

Bicky Corman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-4332

Email: corman.bicky@epa.gov

Noha Gaber, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2179

Email: gaber.noha@epa.gov

Ammy George

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Phone: (434) 953-3775

Email: george.ammy@epa.gov

Eugene Green

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2432

Email: green.eugene@epa.gov

Ron Hoffer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-7633

Email: hoffer.ron@epa.gov

Craig Hooks

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-4600

Email: hooks.craig@epa.gov

James H. Johnson, Jr., Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (703) 347-8200

Email: johnson.jim@epa.gov
August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 31

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

Acting Director, OFACMO

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2321

Email: jones-jackson.cynthia@epa.gov

Robert Kavlock, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 T.W. Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 541-2326

Email: kavlock.robert@epa.gov

Stephanie McCoy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-7297

Email: mccoy.stephanie@epa.gov

Martha Otto

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (703) 603-8853

Email: otto.martha@epa.gov

Glenn Paulson, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-6811

Email: paulson.glenn@epa.gov

Bob Perciasepe

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-4700

Email: perciasepe.bob@epa.gov

Aditi Prabhu

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2473

Email: prabhu.aditi@epa.gov

Victoria Robinson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-6349

Email: robinson.victoria@epa.gov

Tamara Saltman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2781

Email: saltman.tamara@epa.gov

Natalia Saraeva

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Phone: (202) 564-3007

Email: saraeva.natalia@epa.gov

Seema Schappelle, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-3372

Email: schappelle.seema@epa.gov

Douglas Steele

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Phone: (202) 564-6759

Email: steele.doug@epa.gov

Margaret Walters

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 564-4107

Email: walters.margaret@epa.gov
32 August 2-3, 2012, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

George Wyeth

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone: (202) 566-2203

Email: wyeth.george@epa.gov

Other Participants

Melissa Bernardo

American Cleaning Institute

Washington, D.C.

Email: mbernardo@cleaninginstitute.org

Julia Farber

Underwriters Laboratories

Washington, D.C.

Phone: (202) 530-6500

Email: julia.Farber@ul.com

Jenny Hopkinson

Inside EPA

Washington, D.C.

Email: jhopkinson@iwpnews.com

Marci Kinter

Specialty Graphic Imaging Association

Fairfax, VA 

Email: marcik@sgia.org

Contractor Support

Jennifer McCulley, Ph.D.

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

Phone: (301) 670-4990

Email: jmcculley@scgcorp.com