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 , NACE PT is providing this high

- level review focused on how the Plan addresses key strategies to achieve the A gency's mission and communicates that message to a diverse audience, including the general public and key partners and stakeholders. We believe that th is 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

a dvice 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 healt h 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 f ocuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic performance s

. Moreover, the Plan a ligns 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 in to 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
go als 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, i mpacts 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 partn erships and workforce development

, and, in particular

, the cross

- cutting fundamental strategy “ Work ing 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 gener al, EPA has elevated the mention of sustainability in this Plan , as compared to previous strategic plans , but has not been consistent in recognizing sustaina bility principles throughout this Plan . By including principles of sustainability in some areas of the P lan , 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 through out 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 in to 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 indi cators on energy use, water use and materials use. This is commendable. However, no statement clearly a nd directly associates the other six APGs with the Agency’s sustainability initiatives. This is a missed opportunity. As two

- year operational targe ts, 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 add ing as APGs the development and beginning implementation of an annual action plan for each of the Cross

Cutting 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 scientif ic research, emergency response and enforcement associated with extreme weather and clima tic events

– notably floods, rising ocean levels and storm surges , and hurricanes. However, the Plan misses out on reoccurring drought, an extreme climatic phenomenon wit h 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 bet ter prepare fo r future droughts and reduce their impact s 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 inc luded primarily under Goal 2 and s upported 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 strat egies ) . 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) nee d 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 desc ribes 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

, includi ng environmental justice issues, are n ot separate from sustainability. EPA does recognize in the Plan ( page 26) that sustainable development and environmental justice go als are not mutually exclusive. This language could be made more consistent with the introductory paragraph on p age 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 Lake s Restoration Initiative and the A gency’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 prior ity in EPA’s Plan (page 21). Nuisance growths of the cyanobacterium m icrocystis are a crucial issue because they disrupt the aquatic ecosyste m and discourage recreation, they produce a toxin not regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and they threaten t he safety of public water supplies. The impacts of HAB toxins should also be recognized u nder “Water Safe for Swimming” (page 70)

.

 Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development

– There is no mention of city/community planning, whic h is an essential s ustainable development activity. This section is primarily focused upon hazardous waste issues and mentions, only in a short paragraph, the challenge s faced by cities with respect to climate adaptation and resiliency. There is also no m ention 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 focus ing

more attention on fundamental city/community issues such as urbanization trends and human health effects including water, energy and resource /food supp ly as well as healthcare access

.

 EPA might consider a collaborative effort to learn from states , cities and Tribes abo ut major issues and then form strategies on how EPA can help to ad dress the priority issues and challenge s. In particular, EPA and the Regional Offices can work with the states, cit ies 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 e xample

, the City of Chicago has the Sustainable Chicago 2015 Action Agenda, which focuses on se ven key sustainability elements: climate change,4

waste and recycling, water a nd 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 communi cate best pract ices, 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 th e Agency for emphasizing the need for reform ing 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 stakeho lders in chemical safety assessments. It has the potential to help reduce chemical hazards in the environment and in consumer products. W e suggest that the EPA revise the f irst 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 alt ernatives assessments” (page 39). Design for the Environment’s (DfE) “Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazard Evaluation” states: “The results of the alternatives a ssessments provide EPA and stakeholders with a comprehensive picture of the hazards of a chemical and its alternatives.”

 Under the strategic measure s 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 wo rk 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, ind ustrial and medical applications, the topic is mentioned only once as part of a paragraph under “Su mmary of Program Evaluation” (page 46). Given the rapidly growing importance of nanomaterials in products and manufacturing, and the often different chemist ries o f

nano particles 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 Generation5

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 complianc e 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 pe riod 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. Corresponding ly , the annual civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases being concluded over the five

- year period ending in 2018 also ap pear to decline to 2,000 enforcement cases from the present baseline of 3,000

– 3,800 annual cases. Numbers, alo ne,

can not tell the whole story; however, these stated reductions in EPA enforcement activities do not appear to reflect the strategic intent t o “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 sus tainability 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 Partners hip for Planning and Sustainability)

, it is crucial and timely for the benefit of all the Cross

Cutting 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 t here are a few references to education in the Plan

, more e ducational 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 C ross

- Cutt ing Fundamental Strategy. Many junior colleges and u niversities are teaching sustainability related courses, are working to become more sustainable

, and have f ull

- 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 sustain ability 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 a dvance 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 Sus tainability (RCN

- SEES). With its sustainability mission

, the RCN

SEES program aims to support interdisciplinary research and education, build linkages through project partners, and develop a future workforce trained to address the co mplex issues of sustai nability.

 The EPA sh ould consider modifying its funding and grant criteria to align with sustainability priorities and goals so that cities, universities, NGOs and other organization s working toward sustainability have greater access to funding . The EPA s h ould consider providing recognition in some respect to cities

, universities, NGOs and other organizations

– criteria and gr oups to be defined

– which are excelling in advancing sustainability consistent with EPA’s sustainability strategies and goals.

NACEPT appreciate s 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 y ou for your consideration.

Sincerely,

William G. Ross , Jr. Chair

Howard A

. Learner Vice Chair and Work Gr oup 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 Diversi ty NACEPT Members