1

National Advisory Council for

Environmental Policy and Technology

December 30, 2013

The Honorable Gina McCarthy

Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington D.C. 20460

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) 

appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft 

FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan. Within the short timeline available, NACEPT is providing 

this high-level review focused on how the Plan addresses key strategies to achieve the Agency's 

mission and communicates that message to a diverse audience, including the general public and 

key partners and stakeholders. We believe that this Draft FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan

very much points in the right direction and sets the Agency on an effective strategic course 

moving forward. We appreciate the Administrator’s consideration of NACEPT’s previous

advice letter on sustainability, dated April 5, 2012, and the recommendations provided therein.

NACEPT members believe that incorporating sustainability principles and practices into the FY 

2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan is fully in line with EPA’s historical mission to protect human 

health and the environment, and enhances the Agency’s concomitant delivery of economic and 

social benefits. The Plan is in keeping with the National Environment Policy Act’s (NEPA) 

mandate to “create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive 

harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future 

generations of Americans.” 42 USC § 4331(a). The Plan is responsive to Executive Order 

13514, which sets sustainability goals for Federal agencies and focuses on making improvements 

in their environmental, energy and economic performances. Moreover, the Plan aligns EPA with 

the movement among international organizations, corporations, NGOs and governments to adopt 

sustainability as a common framework for addressing environmental, social and economic 

issues. 

Incorporating sustainability considerations into its vision and processes and into areas of 

decision-making where EPA has sufficient regulatory discretion and into its non-regulatory 

programs can help to achieve important benefits for EPA and the nation. The Plan helps the 

Agency pursue its historical and statutory mission by encouraging a constant search for 

innovative win-win-win approaches that advance the Agency’s environmental and public health 

goals and optimize social and economic benefits as well. A focus on sustainability can also help

to build, over time, EPA’s capacity to deal with complex cross-cutting problems such as 

biodiversity loss, resource depletion, climate change, impacts of emerging technologies and 

entrenched poverty.
2

We commend, in general, the Plan’s cross-cutting fundamental strategies around principles of 

sustainability, healthy communities, stronger partnerships and workforce development, and, in 

particular, the cross-cutting fundamental strategy “Working Toward a Sustainable Future.” We 

suggest that sustainability principles be raised earlier in the Plan as an overall framing 

consideration. We offer the following specific recommendations for your and the EPA’s 

consideration:

 EPA should adopt a sustainability vision and expand its current mission statement to reflect a 

sustainability approach. In general, EPA has elevated the mention of sustainability in this 

Plan, as compared to previous strategic plans, but has not been consistent in recognizing

sustainability principles throughout this Plan. By including principles of sustainability in 

some areas of the Plan, rather than throughout, the implication is that certain areas of Agency 

activity are not ripe for application of sustainability principles. We suggest that EPA should 

build sustainability principles throughout its vision and processes and incorporate them into 

regulatory programs in areas of decision-making where EPA does have sufficient legal 

authority and regulatory discretion and into its non-regulatory programs.

 Consistent with recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) report 

Sustainability and the US EPA, one of the new cross-cutting Agency Priority Goals (APGs)

is aimed at selecting a small set of sustainability indicators on energy use, water use and 

materials use. This is commendable. However, no statement clearly and directly associates 

the other six APGs with the Agency’s sustainability initiatives. This is a missed opportunity. 

As two-year operational targets, APGs fit well within and can be linked explicitly to the 

three-to-five year timeframe recommended by NAS for achieving sustainability breakthrough 

objectives at the program level. We suggest that the Agency consider adding as APGs the 

development and beginning implementation of an annual action plan for each of the CrossCutting Fundamental Strategies. The Agency has committed (page 48) to develop those 

annual action plans, and it seems a logical, appropriate and effective measure to translate that 

commitment into an APG for each Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategy.

 The Plan very appropriately incorporates EPA’s strategies to address climate change in 

support of the President’s Climate Action Plan. We commend the various objectives to 

reduce and mitigate carbon pollution and to adapt to climate change impacts. Also, the Plan

rightly addresses scientific research, emergency response and enforcement associated with 

extreme weather and climatic events – notably floods, rising ocean levels and storm surges,

and hurricanes. However, the Plan misses out on reoccurring drought, an extreme climatic 

phenomenon with potentially adverse and severe impacts on the social, economic and 

environmental well-being of the nation. As part of the President’s Climate Action Plan, an 

interagency National Drought Resilience Partnership was recently created to help 

communities better prepare for future droughts and reduce their impacts on livelihoods and 

the economy. EPA is a member of this partnership. Because drought is directly connected to 

water resources, we suggest that EPA strategies to address drought resilience be included

primarily under Goal 2 and supported with discussions under Goal 1.

 One of EPA’s greatest challenges in advancing sustainability is the fragmented nature of the 

Agency resulting from the media-oriented structure of the EPA program offices. The Plan, 
3

while elevating mention of sustainability, could say more about how a cross-cutting strategy 

will be implemented, especially as the Plan itself remains organized in programmatic areas 

(and some of which barely discuss sustainability in the underlying strategies). EPA should 

give more consideration to how it will encourage cross-media activity because cross-cutting 

strategies will be impeded without cross-media collaboration and implementation. The 

methods of collaboration cited on page 50 (e.g., networking and leading by example) need 

more specificity and gravitas – this is a major culture change, not a minor initiative.

 In the Plan’s introductory paragraph explaining the cross-cutting strategies (page 5), the EPA 

describes incorporating sustainability into major Agency activities and, then, separately, in 

the same paragraph describes the desire to enhance communities. Enhancing communities is 

part and parcel of sustainable thinking; in other words, community concerns, including 

environmental justice issues, are not separate from sustainability. EPA does recognize in the 

Plan (page 26) that sustainable development and environmental justice goals are not 

mutually exclusive. This language could be made more consistent with the introductory 

paragraph on page 5. 

 Goal 2: Protecting America’s Waters – There is no mention of water conservation or water 

efficiency, including demand-side strategies, which EPA can productively encourage through 

research and tool development, data development and technical assistance. In addition, the 

Obama Administration has made restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem a priority strategy 

and focus for action. We commend the Administration’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 

and the Agency’s goal to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. There are both longstanding 

pollution problems which need to be addressed and newly emerging issues. For example, 

Lake Erie’s Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) warrant a priority in EPA’s Plan (page 21).

Nuisance growths of the cyanobacterium microcystis are a crucial issue because they disrupt 

the aquatic ecosystem and discourage recreation, they produce a toxin not regulated by the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, and they threaten the safety of public water supplies. The impacts 

of HAB toxins should also be recognized under “Water Safe for Swimming” (page 70).

 Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development – There is no 

mention of city/community planning, which is an essential sustainable development activity. 

This section is primarily focused upon hazardous waste issues and mentions, only in a short 

paragraph, the challenges faced by cities with respect to climate adaptation and resiliency. 

There is also no mention of collaboration with mayors, city planners and city leaders on this 

issue even though EPA is the lead agency on climate change. EPA should consider focusing

more attention on fundamental city/community issues such as urbanization trends and human 

health effects including water, energy and resource/food supply as well as healthcare access.

 EPA might consider a collaborative effort to learn from states, cities and Tribes about major 

issues and then form strategies on how EPA can help to address the priority issues and 

challenges. In particular, EPA and the Regional Offices can work with the states, cities and 

Tribes to advance sustainability and help support the states, cities and Tribes with their 

sustainability programs. Many U.S. cities have well developed sustainability action plans,

which they are implementing. For example, the City of Chicago has the Sustainable Chicago 

2015 Action Agenda, which focuses on seven key sustainability elements: climate change, 
4

waste and recycling, water and wastewater, energy efficiency and clean energy, economic 

development and job creation, transportation options, and parks, open space and healthy 

foods. The EPA could benchmark with these sustainability programs, work with cities to 

identify and communicate best practices, and provide forums (including on-line) through 

which cities can share experiences and benefit from the best practices of others. 

 Goal 4: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution – We commend the 

Agency for emphasizing the need for reforming and updating of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). The initiative to make TSCA chemical data more widely available to 

the public through the Chem View Portal is a major step that will help engage many more 

stakeholders in chemical safety assessments. It has the potential to help reduce chemical 

hazards in the environment and in consumer products. We suggest that the EPA revise the 

first full sentence at the top on page 36 to read: “TSCA is outdated and should be revised to 

provide stronger and clearer authority for EPA to collect and act upon critical data regarding 

chemical hazards and risks.” This edit would be consistent with the second bullet under 

“Fostering the development of P2 innovations” in subsection “Promote Pollution Prevention” 

– the “Establishing technical criteria of chemical alternatives assessments” (page 39). 

Design for the Environment’s (DfE) “Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazard 

Evaluation” states: “The results of the alternatives assessments provide EPA and 

stakeholders with a comprehensive picture of the hazards of a chemical and its alternatives.” 

 Under the strategic measures for “Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks” in Objective 

4.1, Ensure Chemical Safety (page 80), the Agency should consider an additional measure 

regarding the role of DfE in supporting chemical safety measures in additional product 

categories. DfE’s product labeling program and alternatives assessment work with industry 

are respected and have helped to shape the development of voluntary chemical alternatives 

assessment programs by both manufacturers and retailers that increasingly focus on reducing 

the hazards of chemicals in consumer products. Because increasing percentages of consumer 

products sold in America are manufactured overseas, such voluntary initiatives – often 

addressing hazards beyond federal regulatory requirements – can have positive impacts on 

the design of products upstream in supply chains. DfE’s role provides a good example of 

how EPA’s technical expertise, in collaboration with efforts by diverse stakeholders 

(government, industry and NGOs), can contribute to worldwide sustainability initiatives.

 While nanomaterials are becoming increasingly prevalent in a wide range of consumer, 

industrial and medical applications, the topic is mentioned only once as part of a paragraph 

under “Summary of Program Evaluation” (page 46). Given the rapidly growing importance 

of nanomaterials in products and manufacturing, and the often different chemistries of 

nanoparticles from those of standard elemental materials, EPA’s Plan should begin to 

explore development of specific goals, objectives and measures for assessing and managing 

their potentially unique health and environmental impacts.

 Goal 5: Protecting Human Health and the Environment by Enforcing Laws and Assuring 

Compliance – We commend the Agency’s recognition that “[v]igorous civil and criminal 

enforcement plays a central role in achieving the goals EPA has set for protection of health 

and the environment” (page 42), and the Agency’s plans to deploy “Next Generation 
5

Compliance [that] takes advantage of new information and monitoring technologies to enable 

EPA, states, and tribes to get better compliance results, and tackle today’s compliance 

challenges” (page 42). We do question, however, what appears to be a reduction in 

enforcement actions reflected in the “Strategic Measures” presented at page 82. For 

example, the federal inspections and evaluations being conducted over the five-year period 

ending in 2018 appear to decline to 14,000 annual inspections from the present baseline of 

20,000 – 21,00 annual inspections. The annual civil judicial and administrative enforcement 

cases being initiated over the five-year period ending in 2018 also appear to decline to 2,300 

new enforcement cases from the present baseline of 3,000 – 3,900 annual new cases. 

Correspondingly, the annual civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases being 

concluded over the five-year period ending in 2018 also appear to decline to 2,000 

enforcement cases from the present baseline of 3,000 – 3,800 annual cases. Numbers, alone, 

cannot tell the whole story; however, these stated reductions in EPA enforcement activities 

do not appear to reflect the strategic intent to “maintain enforcement presence” (page 82) and 

should be reconsidered by the Agency in light of Goal 5’s stated purposes of “vigorous civil 

and criminal enforcement” (page 42), which we support as necessary to protect human health 

and the environment and to “ensure that companies that do the right thing and are responsible 

neighbors are not put at a competitive disadvantage” (pages 43 – 44).

 We suggest expanding the focus of the third Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategy, 

“Launching a New Era of State, Tribal, Local, and International Partnerships” (page 48) to 

add two other categories of partnerships that are central to the success of the national 

environmental program: partnerships with other federal agencies and with regional alliances 

focused on sustainability and the conservation of natural resources. Although the Agency is 

working effectively in many ways with federal agency partners (e.g., HUD, DOT and DOD)

and with regional alliances (e.g., Gulf of Mexico Alliance, Southeastern Regional Partnership 

for Planning and Sustainability), it is crucial and timely for the benefit of all the CrossCutting Fundamental Strategies to launch a new era of partnerships with federal agencies and 

with regional alliances in addition to the other categories already identified in the Plan.

 Although there are a few references to education in the Plan, more educational elements 

could be added or strengthened through interdisciplinary, collaborative research. Given the 

importance of education in sustainability for meeting future challenges, EPA should consider 

ways to add this education element as a Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategy. Many junior 

colleges and universities are teaching sustainability related courses, are working to become

more sustainable, and have full-time campus sustainability coordinators. The EPA could 

benchmark with these university sustainability programs, adopt best practices and even work 

to support favorable aspects of these programs with other key elements of city/state and 

national sustainability strategic action plans. For example, the University of Michigan has a 

strong sustainability program with dozens of elements. The University of Wisconsin –

Platteville launched a minor and, then, a major in Sustainable and Renewable Energy 

Systems, which has attracted rapidly growing student participation. EPA can work with 

many groups, including the National Environmental Education Foundation, to advance 

sustainability education. Among other partnership initiatives, EPA should consider engaging 

with universities and research institutions nationwide through the National Science 

Foundation’s ongoing Research Coordination Networks Program on Science, Engineering, 
6

and Education for Sustainability (RCN-SEES). With its sustainability mission, the RCNSEES program aims to support interdisciplinary research and education, build linkages 

through project partners, and develop a future workforce trained to address the complex 

issues of sustainability.

 The EPA should consider modifying its funding and grant criteria to align with sustainability 

priorities and goals so that cities, universities, NGOs and other organizations working toward 

sustainability have greater access to funding. The EPA should consider providing recognition 

in some respect to cities, universities, NGOs and other organizations – criteria and groups to 

be defined – which are excelling in advancing sustainability consistent with EPA’s 

sustainability strategies and goals. 

NACEPT appreciates the opportunity to comment and work with you and your colleagues at the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency on this important topic. We will be pleased to 

offer any additional advice that you may require in the future. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, 

 

William G. Ross, Jr.

Chair 

Howard A. Learner

Vice Chair

 and Work Group Chair

cc: Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator 

Craig E. Hooks, Assistant Administrator

 Office of Administration and Resources Management

Maryann Froehlich, Acting Chief Financial Officer

Vivian Daub, Director, Planning Staff, Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability, 

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Mark N. Joyce, Acting Designated Federal Official, NACEPT

 and Associate Director, Office of Diversity

NACEPT Members