May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 1

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology 

(NACEPT) Meeting

May 19-20, 2011

Hilton Garden Inn

815 14th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

MEETING SUMMARY

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2011

Welcome and Introductions

Mark Joyce, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 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); 

James H. Johnson, Jr., NACEPT Chair; and 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson, EPA, Acting Director, OFACMO

Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO), Acting DFO, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m., welcomed the 

Council members and thanked them for their participation. He announced that Mr. Bob Perciasepe, EPA 

Deputy Administrator, and a number of other senior officials from the Agency would be speaking to the 

Council at this meeting. He then turned the meeting over to Dr. Johnson. 

Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr., (Howard University), NACEPT Chair, noted that it was the group’s third 

meeting and the Council now has reached the point where it will have some more advice to submit to the 

EPA Administrator and senior staff for their evaluation. He expressed his gratitude to the members of 

NACEPT for their hard work between meetings, and thanked the guests for coming to share their 

knowledge with the Council so that a better product would result. 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson, EPA, Acting Director, OFACMO welcomed the members of NACEPT and 

thanked them for the work they had done up to that point. She also thanked the workgroup leaders for 

their leadership role in the Council’s endeavors. She extended a welcome to Mr. Perciasepe, and 

recognized other senior leaders who would be speaking to the Council, including Dr. Paul Anastas 

(Science Advisor and Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Research and Development [ORD]), Ms. 

Nanci E. Gelb, (Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Administration and Resources 

Management [OARM]), Mr. Raul Soto, Jr. (Associate Assistant Administrator, Outreach, Diversity and 

Collaboration, EPA OARM), Mr. James W. Newsom (Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and 

Management, EPA Region 3), and Mr. Rafael DeLeon (Director, EPA Office of Civil Rights). She then 

reviewed the day’s agenda, and introduced Mr. Perciasepe. 

Opening Remarks

Bob Perciasepe, EPA Deputy Administrator

Mr. Perciasepe thanked NACEPT for inviting him to speak and for the work conducted by the Council. 

Copies of the EPA 2011- 2015 Strategic Plan were distributed to the members, and he noted that 

NACEPT had offered advice on earlier materials that went into the plan. EPA is trying something new 
2 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

with this Strategic Plan; one of the new ideas in the plan is called cross-cutting strategies. EPA has 

statutory and Constitutional responsibility to be responsive to the laws of the U.S. Congress that the 

Agency must implement, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The laws that give EPA the 

authority to act to protect human health and the environment have led to the concept of “stovepiping.” For 

example, there is a long “to do” list from Congress that must be done to clean up the Nation’s air. A 

similar “to do” list exists for cleaning up our Nation’s water. Commonalities exist across these different 

areas of expertise, however, so instead of a strategic plan that addresses only clean air and water, for 

example, this plan also identifies important cross-cutting strategies. This is the first time EPA has 

attempted this; NACEPT noted in its comments that the concept was not quite fleshed out, but EPA will 

continue to develop these concepts and make them more vibrant. Mr. Perciasepe noted that some concepts 

in the cross-cutting strategies are Agency priorities and align with NACEPT’s charges. One such concept 

is environmental justice (EJ). EPA’s work is not confined to headquarters, and nowhere is that more 

important than in EJ. EPA has the capacity to be in communities and bring the public into the work 

conducted by the Agency. EPA is required by law to conduct a public process, but the Agency is not 

limited in how to accomplish this. EPA could, for example, hold public meetings in the evening at a local 

elementary school, versus conducting the meetings during regular business hours. EPA must determine 

how to reach out effectively to these communities, and technology and how EPA uses technology plays 

an important role. The “digital gap” is narrowing and the EPA Administrator is now using blogs and 

Twitter to communicate with the public. 

There are 13 EJ screening tools that are used to determine which communities are overburdened. They 

have many similar characteristics, so EPA is working to determine which are best and have these serve as 

the baseline. Even at the permit level, the Agency must have some consistency when deciding what will 

be done in a geographic area. 

NACEPT’s first advice letter on strengthening the Agency’s workforce outlined some of the challenges 

EPA is facing in this area. The issues of science and technical competencies must be addressed, as must 

embracing the workforce and building mechanisms that allow it to evolve and strengthen. Administrator 

Lisa Jackson could not be at this meeting because she is with President Obama this morning presenting

awards for excellence in math and science. Pursuit of the fields of math and science is important to EPA, 

and the Agency is trying to do more to build enthusiasm for EPA’s mission so that hiring managers are 

presented with a diverse pool of qualified, talented candidates. EPA is looking forward to NACEPT’s 

input on this issue. 

Other workforce issues are more difficult to address. For example, how can the quality of life at EPA be 

improved? The 17,000 employees at EPA work hard, and the environment in which they work should be 

one that promotes enthusiasm for accomplishing the Agency’s mission, is supportive of their professional 

goals, and offers rewarding experiences. Despite the fact that EPA is facing some difficult times in terms 

of budget constraints the Agency has done some remarkable work. During a recent town hall meeting, the 

Administrator announced an additional thrust for the quality of life at EPA under the broad rubric of 

continuing to make EPA one of the best places to work in the Federal Government. This policy is based 

on three pillars. The first pillar is creating a supportive work environment, and one way to accomplish this 

will be through simpler business systems. More flexibility also is important. EPA needs to change its 

mindset to recognize that teleworking is not a benefit, but a workforce efficiency tool. The second pillar is 

professional development. When a new employee comes to EPA, the Agency could reach out to the 

employee to include him/her in brainstorming sessions or social events, rather than focusing on 

completing the paperwork. EPA is working on a “universal welcoming package” that will help new 

employees to learn their role, and where they fit in the Agency. By building on some of the self-started 

entities such as the Emerging Leaders Network, the Agency can ensure that employee welcomes are more 

interactive and career building. The final pillar is benefits and amenities. EPA wants to better share 

information through a directory of expertise in the Agency. The Emerging Leaders Network already has 

brainstorming sessions that cut across different disciplines. EPA also tries to encourage employees to use 

fitness programs, which leads a better balance of work and life. Most EPA facilities have some access to 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 3

physical fitness facilities, and the Agency wants to make sure its employees are aware of these and other 

amenities. 

The “One EPA” concept is building a new culture of thinking within the Agency. EPA’s senior career 

leaders have put forward a set of principles that are distributed to everyone in the Agency. These 

principles are: 

1. Being outcome-oriented so day-to-day actions are connected with extraordinary outcomes. 

2. Aligning efforts so EPA develops a shared understanding of its challenges and the solutions that 

can help to confront them. 

3. Maintaining strong and collaborative relationships inside and outside the Agency based on 

effective communication and mutual respect. 

4. Seeking diverse views and tools that build in creative integrated solutions to support an inclusive 

environment. 

5. Delivering on the promise to the public and each other and EPA’s mission by feeling ownership of 

the Agency as a whole. 

This last principle is the most powerful. Feeling ownership of the Agency creates a different way of 

thinking about daily work, and it is empowering to think that, as an employee, one has a “piece of the 

action” of the Agency as a whole. Mr. Perciasepe thanked NACEPT for its work; the Council’s first 

letters have helped to mold the strategic plan and the kind of workforce that EPA needs. 

Discussion

Ms. Ella Filippone (Passaic River Coalition), NACEPT member, asked for a copy of the “One EPA”

principles. Mr. Perciasepe responded that they were posted on the EPA intranet, but could be shared with 

the group. 

Ms. Arleen O’Donnell (Eastern Research Group, Inc.), NACEPT member, asked Mr. Perciasepe to 

discuss the major impacts of the budget reductions on EPA. He responded that EPA’s budget was $8.6 

billion of the $3 trillion federal budget. He stressed that EPA understands that it has to be part of dealing 

with the reality of the deficit. Belt-tightening at EPA is in order. Under President Obama’s first term, 

EPA’s budget saw its highest level ever in pure dollars; a big part of that increase was the infrastructure 

programs and ensuring that grant programs to the states were robust. The increase did not amount to a 

large growth in the Agency’s operating budget. Additional money was put into the State Revolving Fund 

(SRF). These are funds provided to state banks for low interest loans and for loan forgiveness. The 

argument could be made that EPA could reduce its spending, but it should be noted that the Agency is 

trying to maintain an increase in state grant funds. States have been hit very hard, and they must operate 

without a deficit. In the operating plan for the 2011 budget, EPA switched some funds around so that it 

could increase funding for state and tribal grants. 

With respect to its operating budget, EPA is on the brink. The Agency has 1,500 fewer full-time 

equivalents (FTE) than it did 10 years ago. With state reductions and EPA’s lack of growth, it will be 

difficult for the Agency to maintain the same kinds and level of oversight. EPA will constrain how 

turnover is conducted in the workforce, and will be examining travel, contracting, and different programs

to maximize cost savings. EPA also will take a hard look to identify and eliminate duplication of effort

throughout the Agency. EPA will be forced to increase efficiency. Simplifying the lives of its workers 

and reducing the complexity in the work place can have a financial benefit by increasing worker 

productivity. Mr. Perciasepe closed by stating that our Nation’s environmental protection system relies 

on careful orchestration among state authorities, state resources, federal authorities, and federal resources. 
4 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Overview of NACEPT’s Second Advice Letter on EPA Workforce Planning: Strategies to 

Obtain and Retain Scientific and Technical Expertise and Leadership Capabilities and Culture

for “One EPA”

Howard Learner and Sara Kendall, NACEPT Workforce Workgroup Co-Chairs 

Paul T. Anastas, Science Advisor and Assistant Administrator, EPA ORD

Nanci E. Gelb, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA OARM

Raul Soto, Jr., Associate Assistant Administrator, Outreach, Diversity and Collaboration, EPA OARM

James W. Newsom, Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management, EPA Region 3

Dr. Johnson introduced the panel and invited Mr. Howard Learner (Environmental Law and Policy 

Center), NACEPT Vice-Chair, and Ms. Sara Kendall (Weyerhaeuser Company), NACEPT member, to 

present first. Ms. Kendall noted that Mr. Learner had compiled all of the input to the letter. When the 

workforce workgroup convened in January to look at its charge, the workgroup’s efforts were 

consolidated into four topical areas: (1) identifying EPA’s options for recruiting scientific and technical 

talent; (2) developing recommendations for developing diverse scientific and technical talent; (3) trying to 

achieve the “One EPA” culture; and (4) identifying recommendations for developing both the mission 

critical skills and mission critical talent and diversity building into EPA leadership. 

The workgroup held a series of conference calls with helpful EPA staff to discuss what has been done in 

each of these four areas. Much material was available to the workgroup to research and synthesize, and it 

became clear that it was too much to handle in a thoughtful and intelligent way. The workgroup made the 

decision to start with the first charge on how to recruit, hire, and retain the needed scientific and technical 

talent, and how to achieve the “One EPA” culture. The second advice letter reflects that division of duties 

based on the two topics. The workgroup also recruited some additional help, Mr. Effenus Henderson, the 

Chief Diversity Officer at Weyerhaeuser Company. The workgroup will focus a third letter on diversity 

and leadership. The third letter may include an integrating piece to tie the four areas together, or that will 

be addressed as a separate letter, to round out the whole year’s work. Mr. Learner will discuss the two 

topics in the letter and the workgroup’s recommendations. 

Mr. Learner said that the workgroup’s goal was to do a good job addressing two pieces of the charge. The 

framework and charge by topic are laid out on the first page of the letter. Strategies for the Agency to 

conduct recruitment and hiring and retention are addressed first, followed by a set of overall 

recommendations. This is followed by the One EPA issue and another set of recommendations. He 

acknowledged that because none of the workgroup members actually worked at EPA, the letter probably 

missed some of the complexities of working at the Agency on a daily basis. He explained that the 

workgroup is “parachuting in” and hopes that the members have done their homework so that the advice 

makes sense to EPA. Advisory councils are designed to provide advice, and EPA can choose to take that 

advice when it makes sense and reject it if it does not. Mr. Learner also pointed out that the workgroup 

was not composed of management and human resource (HR) consultants, but of people who have 

experience dealing with similar problems and situations in their own businesses, nonprofit organizations, 

or academic institutions on a day-to-day basis. 

Pages 2-5 of the letter include some comments and charts, and some discussion of the hiring process. 

Universities are churning out a lot of scientific and technical talent, and this talent is readily available 

because of the downturn in the economy. Pages 5-7 deal with recruitment, including comments about 

ways in which it works well and ways in which it could be accelerated. Even if one looks at the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) standards, hiring at EPA is slower than it could be. As a result, the 

Agency risks losing some of the people it would like to hire. Pages 7-10 of the letter address employee 

retention. The Agency’s attrition rate is not that high when compared to other complex agencies. EPA is 

known as a good place to work according to the results of the 2010 employee viewpoint survey and 

several outside surveys, and employee reactions are favorable. The single best way for the Agency to 

retain the individuals it wants to retain is for the employees to be aligned with the EPA mission. That 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 5

finding leads to the set of recommendations on pages 10-11 of the letter. Some recommendations are very 

specific; the workgroup’s goal was offer specific ideas and identify specific opportunities rather than 

provide sweeping broad recommendations. Page 12 transitions into the section on “One EPA.” The first 

several pages contain commentary on the value of “One EPA,” and the challenges of its implementation. 

Cross-media approaches are discussed, but the statutes under which the Agency operates are media 

specific (for air, water, or other single media). Pages 14-15 of the letter contain fairly specific 

recommendations related to achieving the “One EPA” culture. He noted that other NACEPT members 

may have some suggestions. 

Dr. Johnson explained that the NACEPT members would have an opportunity to discuss and provide 

input on the letter later in the day. The panel would speak next, and offer input to the workgroup and 

Council. NACEPT members then can seek clarification from the panel or pose specific questions. 

Mr. James Newsom thought the letter had hit the mark, and stated that his remarks would focus on the 

work and challenges of the EPA regions. The primary hiring mechanism for the 10 regions 

(approximately half of EPA) over the last 4 to 5 years has been the Federal Careers Intern Program 

(FCIP). That recruiting mechanism allowed EPA to address all of its entry grade needs regardless of the 

disciplines or skills needed. The diversity pool was enormous. More focused recruiting could be 

conducted as required; about 30 people per year were brought into the Agency through this program. 

They were organized as classes to help them develop relationships with each other and to develop an 

identity in the organization. That authority, however, is no longer available to the Federal Government 

because the FCIP has been cancelled. Now, the Agency uses delegated examining authority, and the 

regions have had to redesign the way it recruits for specific positions. Every job at EPA, aside from some 

student positions, is filled through the USAJOBs website. For most of these jobs, only the first 50 

applicants are accepted for consideration. To ensure that qualified candidates apply, region staff attend 

job fairs to provide job seekers advice on how to apply for EPA jobs through the website. 

In terms of the advice letter, he suggested that the workgroup might want to look at how the hiring 

process has changed with the elimination of the FCIP. He also proposed that the workgroup consider how 

to address some of the problems associated with the current electronic employment opportunity system 

through the USAJOBs website. Ms. Kendall responded that the workgroup had learned about the impact 

of losing the FCIP; particularly, how its elimination has resulted in a loss of diversity. Therefore, it will 

be covered in the third advice letter. 

Dr. Paul Anastas commented that the Agency has benefitted from taking NACEPT’s advice in the past. 

When EPA looks across the current state of its scientific and technical workforce, it is important to 

recognize that the second letter is inextricably linked to the first. Because EPA is doing excellent work 

does not mean that it is working on the right things. EPA has a tremendous amount to be proud of, and 

tremendous advances have been made. A point in the first letter, however, is that different skills and 

perspectives are needed. The charts in the letter indicate that there are plenty of scientists and engineers 

graduating from our universities, but environmental challenges are changing and science is evolving. 

Therefore, we may not be asking the right question. Right now, EPA has a workforce that has been in 

place for decades, but almost all are single discipline scientists trained in reductionism. The integrated 

systems thinking that is needed today, will require some hard thinking about the future workforce. This 

challenge will not be met simply by determining how many scientists and engineers are out there. EPA 

needs to be more effective and efficient. By including these integrated transdisciplinary systems thinkers 

on the workforce, the Agency can have greater impact and achieve greater cross-cutting goals and be 

more effective in each of the goals, rather than continue doing what it has done for the past 40 years more 

efficiently. What type of individuals and tools are needed to advance excellence, efficiency, and 

effectiveness? What are the constraints? 

Looking specifically at ORD, the workforce is not diverse. This is an ongoing challenge, and it is not due 

to lack of focus. In addition to the systems issues, the Agency also needs to focus on how it can continue 
6 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

to do a better job to bring in employees that increase EPA’s diversity for the long term. Regarding “One 

EPA,” the single biggest advantage that EPA has in recruiting and retaining excellence is its mission. The 

more employees understand their impact on achieving our mission, the greater their commitment. It is a 

disservice to the Agency and to its employees when they cannot see how their work plays a role in 

achieving the EPA mission. Dr. Anastas stated that he chairs the Agency’s Science and Technology 

Policy Council (STPC), which cuts across EPA. One of the STPC’s goals is to show people how all of

these pieces come together to address the broader goals of EPA. The Agency will have a pressing need to 

bring in people at the higher levels as well. That is something that this group may wish to discuss further 

in its advice letters. There are other mechanisms beyond permanent hires, such as the Title 42 authority to 

bring in expert contractors. Did the workgroup identify any commonalities or best practices in its 

research? In closing his comments, Dr. Anastas noted that The Scientist magazine, based in the United 

Kingdom, listed best places for postdoctoral candidates to work. Of the 100 institutions that were ranked, 

EPA came in 12th. He thanked NACEPT for the opportunity to speak. 

Mr. Learner asked how to best recruit the sort of multidisciplinary science and technical candidates 

coming out of graduate schools. Dr. Anastas responded that only a few university programs produce such 

candidates, and EPA looks to those institutions for recruiting. 

Dr. Daniel Kammen (University of California, Berkeley), NACEPT member, indicated that he currently 

serves as the Chief Technical Specialist for Renewable Energy at the World Bank, which is similar in size 

to EPA. He thought Dr. Anastas’ comments about the systems approach and the need to hire individuals 

with varied skills touched on two key aspects. He thought the need areas identified and the comments and 

recommendations in the letter did not match up. There needs to be a process for identifying the future 

directions of EPA and for nurturing new scientists with the required knowledge areas. Dr. Kammen 

introduced his Ph.D. student, Ryan Shelby, who is studying mechanical engineering but also working 

with tribes in California. Dr. Kammen said that he was not certain of how to encourage students at the 

Ph.D. level to take the kinds of risks needed so that they graduate with the transdisciplinary strength and 

systems thinking that EPA is seeking. Knowledge of past protocol does not generate diversity or new 

thinking. 

Ms. Vivian Loftness (Carnegie Mellon University), NACEPT member, asked to what extent does the 

workforce letter need to deal with the statement that transdisciplinary and systems thinking are needed, 

and she asked what EPA is doing to address this need. Dr. Anastas responded that it would be excellent to 

have the letter state that explicitly. The last time he spoke to NACEPT, he talked about the way this 

approach could be institutionalized. The way the scientific and technological foundations have been 

realigned across the Agency means that ORD works with programs and regions. Cross-disciplinary, 

cross-life cycle approaches are used. EPA is looking at formulating its scientific questions, approaches, 

and solutions in the systems perspective, so that it moves away from the old fragmented approach. 

Although EPA will never be finished, because that is what agility looks like, the Agency already is taking 

this approach. 

Dr. Olufemi Osidele (Southwest Research Institute), NACEPT member, stated that Dr. Anastas had 

discussed system skills being acquired on the job. When recruiting, EPA advertises for a programmer, for 

example. How does the interviewer determine if a candidate has a systems attitude? Dr. Anastas replied 

that it was a great question and it is quite a challenge. Some of the best systems thinkers at the Agency 

now were not trained formally in systems thinking. Understanding the person’s ability to think more 

broadly is critical. EPA must make it clear to the hiring managers that they need to ask the right questions 

in the interview process to glean this information. 

Ms. Nanci Gelb expressed her gratitude for the draft letter. She is very passionate about bringing energy 

and challenge into the workforce. She echoed the earlier statements that EPA is a great place to work.

Many of the people who are leaving are doing so because they have reached retirement age. EPA will do 

its very best to make the Agency a better place to work and to bring in new energy, but EPA also needs to 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 7

bring in senior people who have perspective on new work environments. She noted that any advice 

NACEPT could provide on how to bring in more seasoned people with the needed perspective would be 

appreciated. 

Ms. Gelb then addressed the 80-day standard that OPM established for hiring. Although EPA wants to 

make its hiring process more efficient, this has been a challenge. EPA’s hiring process appears to take 

much longer than some other federal agencies, but there are steps along the way where other agencies are 

stopping the clock and EPA is not. She looks forward to receiving NACEPT’s advice on how to recruit 

people who are systems thinkers, have the competency to learn and grow, and have the foresight to see 

emerging issues. She noted that the government used to have a training and recruitment program called 

Presidential Fellows, which was an excellent way to cull out graduate students who had some of those 

skills and traits. Ms. Gelb also stated that EPA needs to figure out ways to provide opportunities and 

growth for newer employees through which they can interact with and be exposed to more senior decision 

makers. 

Mr. Raul Soto thanked Dr. Johnson for the opportunity to speak to NACEPT. Since he last spoke to the 

Council, he has been able to work side-by-side with many committed individuals in the Agency. There are 

many passionate and committed individuals at EPA, but unfortunately, sometimes it is the system that 

constrains their ability to affect change. The questions posed in the electronic recruiting process can lead 

down a certain path in terms of skill sets, and that may not be the direction that you want to go. Who 

determined these questions and how can we be sure that these questions are valid? He sees an opportunity 

for EPA to enhance its skill set and competency through effective succession planning. 

EPA needs to engage middle managers so that they understand that succession planning and recruiting a 

qualified, competent workforce is part of their responsibilities, an important aspect of the Agency’s 

current mission, and critical for the future of EPA. The Agency has been analyzing its hiring and other 

data, and has developed a comprehensive database containing information on hiring, awards, and so on. 

He noted that the Department of Defense has reached out to private organizations for an information 

technology (IT) swap, and this public-private sector nexus is something EPA could explore. The Agency 

has data on the applicant pool, but does not maintain data on how many people actually apply for an 

opening. Mr. Soto noted that outreach is only effective if the Agency is reaching out to the right people at 

the right times. He mentioned that 43 percent of the EPA workforce is hired on the basis of technical 

prowess. There should be distinct recruitment campaigns for three strata: entry level, middle management, 

and senior leadership. Pipelines for candidates must be developed to recruit from many different 

organizations. In addition, to increase diversity, EPA needs to move away from focusing recruitment 

efforts on single minority academic institutions. The Agency needs to develop stronger relationships with 

consortia of minority academic institutions to leverage and optimize its resources. 

Discussion

Mr. Learner thanked the members of the panel for their comments. 

Dr. DeWitt John (Bowdoin College), NACEPT member, stated that the systems with which EPA must 

work in carrying out its mission include people, organizations, communities, and businesses. Does EPA 

look for people who are social scientists who understand how people work, but have adequate training in 

the sciences to work closely with scientists? Mr. Newsom commented that there is a difference between 

the skills needed for ORD headquarters and the regions. Regional employees are in the field conducting 

compliance inspections, and they are out working with community groups at night. The regions would not 

seek history majors, for example, but they do look for people who have good skills in communication and 

collaboration. The Agency does hire public affairs specialists, and those who know how to communicate 

with communities. EPA is trying to make that an element of the interview process. He noted that a

divergence of need exists between policy and regulation writing as it relates to inspections, particularly in 

the area of community outreach. Ms. Gelb added that history majors, for example, may not necessarily be 
8 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

a good fit for the field and laboratory work conducted by EPA. Across the Agency, however, EPA does 

look for people who can write, analyze, and communicate effectively. 

Mr. Kurt Erichsen (Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments), NACEPT member, responded to 

Mr. Newsom’s comments about depending on the USAJOBS website for recruiting. Does use of 

USAJOBS have any impact, positive or negative, on the diversity of the applicants? Mr. Newsom replied 

that it is difficult to determine if there has been any effort it increase diversity when using the electronic 

process. When there is focused recruiting, specific efforts are made to include diverse candidates. With 

electronic recruiting, he may only interview 20 out of 100 applicants, and he has no data on the others 

who applied. Mr. Newsom stated that more veterans now are applying for positions, and there appears to 

be more diversity among that pool than in the past. Mr. Soto added that hiring authority is a big issue 

when EPA is compared to other organizations; it can be disheartening when others can hire on sight. He 

believes that the dependence on USAJOBS for hiring will have an impact on diversity, although it will 

take some time for it to be documented. The question is what can the Agency do about it now to prevent 

the negative impact. 

Ms. Erica Bannerman (City of Alexandria), NACEPT member, commented to Ms. Gelb that she had 

spoken with Dr. Noha Gaber, who is the founder of the Emerging Leader Network. Dr. Gaber indicated 

that she is enthusiastic about addressing workforce issues. 

Mr. Clayton Matt (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes), NACEPT member, asked what the Agency 

is doing to recruit candidates from small communities. He has not observed efforts to reach out to small 

schools in small communities. Mr. Soto responded that many of those efforts are being handled by the 

regions, as are many of the tribal outreach efforts. The Executive Order on community colleges that was 

issued late last year emboldened EPA to reach out, particularly to Hispanics, 50 percent of whom go to 2-

year colleges before they receive their degree from 4-year institutions. Mr. Soto’s group is working with 

the Office of International Tribal Affairs to develop a comprehensive outreach strategy for the tribal 

partners. He was at Haskell University recently as part of a consortium effort discussing potential 

opportunities. Mr. Newsom added that the Administrator’s office has an interest in improving EPA’s 

relationships with minority institutions. His region has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with five 

of the 11 historically black colleges in his region. These MOUs range from providing grant money to 

assisting in starting environmental programs at the colleges. These colleges are in need of money, and 

EPA’s inability to provide it often gets in the way of collaboration. He also is using the Intergovernmental 

Personnel Act, through which the Federal Government can work with academia. The human resources 

officer in Region 3 also is a professor at Lincoln University, and he is working on creating a human 

resources program. Mr. Soto added that in October 2010, EPA provided significant funding to historically 

black colleges through Region 4 to develop an environmental curriculum. Additionally, last fall, EPA 

officially launched the eco-ambassadors program, which has three pillars: the on-campus component, 

tribal component, and EJ component. 

Dr. Johnson thanked the panelists for their participation. 

Discussion of NACEPT’s Third Workforce Advice Letter on Achieving Greater Diversity 

in EPA

Overview and Initial Thoughts on NACEPT Diversity Charge

Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr., NACEPT Chair

Mr. Effenus Henderson, Diversity Consultant to the NACEPT Workforce Workgroup 

Dr. Johnson noted that there are vacancies on the workforce diversity team, because the current team 

lacks diversity. He introduced Mr. Effenus Henderson (Weyerhaeuser Company), consultant to the 

NACEPT workforce workgroup on diversity issues. He has prepared a draft document for discussion that 

will form the basis of the workgroup’s third letter. Recommendations will be made on the definition of 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 9

diversity, the methods of tracking diversity, and advocacy for diversity. The letter should be completed in 

2011. 

Mr. Henderson commented that it was an honor and privilege to be working with NACEPT. He noted that 

diversity of inclusion is a significant issue for the Agency because EPA engages not only employees but a 

diverse set of stakeholders. He heard comments earlier that, as a mission-driven organization, it is 

important to attract people to the Agency’s mission. EPA needs to consider who currently is not at the 

table but should be. Mr. Henderson has found that people define diversity very differently and there is a 

significant degree of difference in how people define the concept of inclusion. In simple terms, diversity 

is the mix all employees bring to the organization, and includes the diversity of thinking styles, 

organizations, and backgrounds. Inclusion is how to make the broad richness of difference come together. 

To shape the work of this particular area, it must be considered from an overall Agency systems point of 

view. (Note: This presentation will be continued after Ms. Barbara Bennett’s remarks.) 

Overview of FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan

Barbara J. Bennett, EPA Chief Financial Officer

Dr. Johnson stated that NACEPT had provided comments on the draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-2015 

Strategic Plan. Ms. Bennett explained that, at the previous meeting, she could not go into much detail 

about the plan because it was a draft; she was pleased to be able to discuss it now, along with how 

NACEPT’s comments were taken into consideration. The approach for the Strategic Plan (SP) was to try 

to simplify it and make it more meaningful. To focus the Agency’s efforts and priorities, EPA wanted to 

streamline the SP and focus on the most important issues. 

The SP starts with the Administrator’s priorities and core values to ensure that the SP could set Agency 

direction and would be used as a management tool. A top-down, policy-driven approach was taken, rather 

than the historical bottom-up approach. The goal of streamlining an executive plan was met. The SP itself 

serves as the blueprint for how EPA will focus its work. The plan has five goals, which are similar to past 

goals, but amended based on the Administrator’s priorities and comments, including those from 

NACEPT. The goals are: (1) taking action on climate change and improving air quality; (2) protecting 

America’s waters; (3) cleaning up communities and advancing sustainable development; (4) ensuring the 

safety of chemicals and preventing pollution; and (5) enforcing environmental laws. A major change in 

this SP was the inclusion of cross-cutting fundamental strategies: expanding the conversation on 

environmentalism; working for EJ and children’s health; advancing science, research and technological 

innovation; strengthening state, tribal and international partnerships; and strengthening EPA’s workforce 

and capabilities. EPA was able to streamline the SP’s strategic measures by approximately 40 percent. 

The cross-cutting fundamental strategies are about changing the way EPA works, and are supported by 

annual action plans. 

A key component of the plan was public comment, and nearly 500 comments were received through the 

www.regulations.gov website. The commenters included states, tribes, local governments, businesses, 

public interest groups, the federal agencies, academia, and individuals. 

EPA had posed specific questions to NACEPT for comments on the draft plan: Do the draft SP’s goals 

effectively advance achieving the Administrator’s priorities and EPA’s statutory mission outcomes? Do 

the cross-cutting fundamental strategies improve the way that EPA carries out its mission? 

NACEPT’s response was on target and quite helpful to Ms. Bennett’s office and to the program offices 

with which the full responses were shared. In particular, she appreciated the confirmation of the priorities 

and the plan’s overall focus. On addressing the challenges of the state budget crises, EPA is continuing to 

deal with the issue. EPA addressed how the budget challenges potentially affect the ability to achieve its 

goals but the SP is limited in what it can say about resource constraints. In addressing NACEPT’s 

comment on articulating means for achieving cross-cutting fundamental strategy visions and principles, 
10 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

the intention is for the SP to articulate a 5-year vision with accompanying principles for achieving each of 

the visions. EPA tightened the introductory language to include specific wording about developing annual 

action plans. The five FY 2011 action plans are posted on EPA’s website, and are meant to evolve each 

year. Expanding the scope of the goal “cleaning up our communities” based on NACEPT’s comments to 

emphasize the broader goals of land preservation and restoration, led to the goal title “cleaning up our 

communities and advancing sustainable development.” On integrating climate change, EPA 

acknowledged NACEPT’s comments related to greenhouse gas activities and the perspective on the 

relative priorities, which stated that the first two bullets in goal 1 were not the highest priorities, but nearterm goals, and the initial order was kept. A group of climate analysts at the Agency developed new 

cross-Agency adaptation and mitigation measures for this SP. In terms of integrating EJ and children’s 

health in achieving EPA goals, these are Administrator priorities. There is a cross-cutting fundamental 

strategy specific to EJ and children’s health, which stresses their importance. Lastly, on NACEPT’s 

comment on utilizing environmental education as a tool, EPA does not specifically identify environmental 

education as a program in the SP, but outreach and education are discussed in the indoor air work section 

of the goal 1 chapter. EPA also deliberately added a principle to the environmentalism strategy that 

focused on educating and empowering individuals and Agency partners. Ms. Bennett thanked NACEPT 

for its comments, and though all were not incorporated, the key items were addressed. 

EPA is attempting to refocus the performance management aspect of the Agency. EPA gives equal weight 

to the programmatic (what EPA does) and cross-cutting fundamental strategies (how EPA does it). 

Strategic planning leads to annual planning and budgeting, which lead to operations and executions, 

which lead to results measurement, reporting, and accountability. The latter is fed back into strategic 

planning. Using the programmatic example “protect and restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems”, the 

longer term SP involves the strategic goal “protecting America’s waters”, and the strategic measure to, by 

2015, attain water quality standards for all pollutants and impairments in identified water bodies. The 

annual budget measure involves the number of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) established or 

approved by EPA, and the internal operational measure captures regional and state contributions to the 

number of TMDLs established or approved by EPA. Progress, or examples of activities discussed at 

senior-level meetings could include number of TMDLs approved, backlogs and challenges, stakeholder 

input, and specific geographic water body issues. An example of a cross-cutting fundamental strategy, 

“working for EJ and children’s health,” also was included in the presentation. Because cross-cutting 

strategies are a new component to the SP, EPA needed to ensure they were elevated to the same level as 

programmatic issues. 

Dr. Johnson posited that EPA has merged the programmatic and strategic cross-cutting principles together 

such that what EPA does and how EPA does it could be put into one annual review. Ms. Bennett 

responded that this was discussed during the conversations and check-ins. That is part of the process in 

the review. 

Ms. Kendall mentioned that there had been much discussion about the need for systems thinking at EPA, 

and that also is connected to the cultural change Mr. Perciasepe is helping to lead through “One EPA.” 

These management metrics in the SP drill down to a level of specificity that has to go back to the 

media/silo from which they come. How can both objectives be accomplished? Ms. Bennett replied that 

cross-cutting fundamental strategies are supposed to be cross-cutting, and although the goals look more 

media specific, EPA has tried to incorporate multi-silo elements. EPA wants elevating fundamental 

strategies to pervade the Agency. Individual cross-cutting strategies also will incorporate performance 

reviews. The strategies are supposed to evolve each year, whereas the goals have more budget framework 

associated with them. EPA did not want to tie the strategies to the budget dollars. Ms. Bennett, 

Mr. Perciasepe, and the Program Manager will meet three times each year: one meeting will be goal 

specific and one will be strategy specific. 

Mr. Learner commented that when the advice letter was written, NACEPT was painfully aware of the 

state budget crises. The situation is even more challenging today in terms of states being able to complete 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 11

their historical responsibilities. Additionally, he complimented the Agency for using the prism of 

children’s health for overall chemical management. EPA’s approach seemed somewhat cross-cutting 

there, but not on the air or water side, and that is key. Ms. Bennett answered that only one example had 

been presented. The annual action plan has an example from each. Mr. Learner thanked her for her work. 

Ms. O’Donnell noted that the SP looked good, and appreciated that it had been streamlined. On page 48, 

increasing wetlands in the United States, and in particular coastal wetlands, is mentioned. She hoped that 

some numbers can be spliced out, and asked where the progress toward these goals will be reflected. 

NACEPT has commented in the past that there should be a strong link between SPs and the Report on the 

Environment. How can EPA ensure that some of the important details are not lost in the report? 

Ms. Bennett responded that EPA took into account the Report on the Environment when developing the 

SP. 

Dr. Karl Benedict (University of New Mexico), NACEPT member, mentioned the SP’s emphasis on 

working with stakeholder communities and increasing interaction with external research. He did not see 

any strategic measures related to improving access to data being generated as they are generated by sensor 

systems or observation systems, or measures that would track progress toward being able to deliver data 

and information to those communities. Ms. Bennett replied that Cynthia Giles wants to continue

electronic reporting, and it was made a highlighted item in the 2012 budget, but because there were seven 

measures in place, not all are mentioned. It may not be specifically identified, but will be incorporated in 

the future. EPA agrees with making data available and continuing to be more transparent. Mr. Newsom 

commented that much of the data used is generated in the states. There are 12 priority data flows that 

cross all of the EPA media, but there are major gaps. In the past month, Mr. Perciasepe issued a 

memorandum to the Assistant and Regional Administrators stating that filling data gaps is a priority.

Dr. Marian Chertow (Yale University), NACEPT member, asked about the mix of complexity and 

bureaucracy inherent in working at EPA. When is this issue discussed at senior-level meetings? 

Ms. Bennett responded that in the past year, EPA has spent significant time on program updates. There 

was not a consistent mechanism for discussion. EPA put together the SP at the same time it was 

developing the annual action plans for the strategies. To set the new framework for going forward, the 

Agency set key performance indicators (KPIs) (previously senior management measures were used). The 

KPIs indicate which measures are working. EPA determined KPIs for each goal and strategy and ensured 

that they were given equal weight. KPIs will be first order of business at meetings. Mr. Barry 

Worthington (United States Energy Association), NACEPT member, noted that with the cross-cutting 

fundamental strategies, EPA should consider the thread of diversity in each of them. For example, the 

Agency needs to build relationships to increase the diversity of those involved in the conversation on 

environmentalism. With respect to EJ and children’s health, the majority of children in America will be of 

color in the future, making diversity an important aspect of this area as well. Ms. Bennett agreed, and 

thanked Mr. Worthington for the comments. 

In closing, Ms. Bennett stated that technology is a key element of EPA’s regulatory strategy. EPA is 

working on existing rules that may benefit from new technologies, and looking for real technology 

opportunities to inform options for new regulatory frameworks. EPA is working with federal partners to 

accelerate environmental technology clusters. For example, in January, EPA announced the Water 

Technology Innovation Cluster in partnership with the Small Business Administration among others. EPA 

also is working with the Department of Commerce to support the i6 Green Challenge, a $12 million 

competition in which winning teams will receive funds to drive technology commercialization. Finally, 

EPA is working to broaden the conversation on environmental technology innovation, starting with a 

water technology workshop to be held on May 23, 2011. She thanked NACEPT for its continued 

engagement, noting that workforce issues will be a key component for EPA going forward. 
12 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Discussion of NACEPT’s Third Workforce Advice Letter on Achieving Greater Diversity 

in EPA (Continued)

Overview and Initial Thoughts on NACEPT Diversity Charge

Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr., NACEPT Chair

Mr. Effenus Henderson, NACEPT Workforce Diversity Co-Lead

Mr. Henderson noted that a diverse workforce was not enough; it must be leveraged to achieve 

organizational outcomes and goals. The workgroup would like to examine how diversity and inclusion 

align with the SP. The workgroup is finding that more inclusive leaders are needed, and the circle of 

influence must be expanded. The question is how to shape the behavior of leaders in such a way that 

employees are engaged to optimize outcomes outlined in the SP. Regarding data and reporting, as EPA 

examines information such as a telephone survey or attrition report, it should note the significant 

variations in terms of how those people are leaving and differences in satisfaction across the groups. The 

Agency is looking at a targeted outreach strategy to enhance and improve the interview to hire ratio of 

diversity in candidates. 

Overview of EPA Diversity Programs and Activities and Additional Guidance for NACEPT 

Workgroup

Mr. Raul Soto Jr., Associate Assistant Administrator, Outreach, Diversity and Collaboration, EPA OARM

Mr. Rafael DeLeon, Director, EPA Office of Civil Rights (OCR)

Mr. James W. Newsom, Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management, EPA Region 3

Mr. DeLeon noted that he, Mr. Soto, and Mr. Newsom could not do their jobs without their staffs and the 

technical experts who would be working with the workforce workgroup during tomorrow’s session. The 

outline for the third letter is an excellent start, and it will provide the Agency some much needed advice. 

He thanked NACEPT for the work it had done so far, and said he looked forward to the Council’s future 

comments on diversity. He mentioned that the panel members all work closely with EPA’s Office of 

Human Resources, and they have done much in the past few months in the regions. A meeting was held 

with the regions as part of a broad, Agency-wide effort to bring all the necessary people together to 

discuss employment and civil rights, and the intersection between the two. The meeting included 

employees from OCR and the Office of Human Resources, as well as program management officials and 

others.

As EPA receives advice letters from NACEPT, it is useful to hear from outside groups about what the 

Agency should be doing better. Civil rights and equal employment opportunity (EEO) are not solely 

OCR’s responsibility. To the extent that NACEPT can enforce the notion that civil rights and EEO are 

Agency-wide responsibilities throughout all of the Council’s recommendations, it should do so. He 

thanked Dr. Anastas for being candid about the lack of diversity in ORD. EPA welcomes comments on 

the SP, and Mr. DeLeon sees OCR as taking an important role in the cross-cutting strategies of the 

workforce issues. EPA wants NACEPT to continue to advise the Agency beyond the report stage to help 

EPA with implementing specific recommendations. In addition, NACEPT also should give some thought 

to how EPA can be held accountable for the recommendations. 

All EPA regions and program offices have MD715 action plans, in which they take ownership for their 

actions in terms of civil rights. Each program or region was supposed to submit its action plan last week. 

NACEPT may want to ask EPA to share these action plans with the workgroup. EPA also welcomes 

NACEPT’s assistance with developing our national recruitment and outreach strategy. EPA’s human 

resources staff now is developing such a program. This advice may have to be provided in the fourth 

letter. 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 13

Mr. DeLeon has supported the minority academic institutions programs, but asked NACEPT for advice 

on how to reach the other minority institutions that are not historically black institutions. It is estimated 

that 75 or 80 percent of minority students graduate from non-historically black institutions. 

NACEPT should ensure that its recommendations on hiring and recruiting are balanced and not overly

ambitious. Recommendations often do not take into account some of the challenges faced by the Agency. 

It would be beneficial if NACEPT’s recommendations can be attained by EPA. Mr. DeLeon said he did 

not see anything in the outline about recruiting individuals with disabilities. The two most 

underrepresented groups in the Agency are Hispanics and people with disabilities. Finally, NACEPT 

should ensure that all the strategies recommended to improve diversity are consistent with law. EPA has 

constraints on how much hiring can be done based on race and ethnicity. 

Mr. DeLeon agreed that FCIP was one of the best hiring authorities, but it can no longer be used. The 

FCIP, however, was used in conjunction with centralized hiring. Now, hiring is very decentralized. 

NACEPT may want to consider a recommendation to centralize the hiring process. Mr. Newsom has been 

one of the champions of EEO and diversity throughout his entire career. ORD and other organizations 

within EPA that are not diverse need similar champions. In the MD715 process, EPA observed that the 

Agency was losing minority staff through attrition. In 2010, EPA hired, for example, 29 black women, 

but 27 left the Agency. All the effort to recruit these minorities resulted in a net zero gain. Mr. Learner 

asked Mr. DeLeon to examine the comments NACEPT made on exit interviewing to see if they are 

helpful to the Agency. Mr. DeLeon noted that, in the public sector, the selecting official cannot see the 

racial composition of the applicants. EPA can conduct assessments post-hire, however, to assess the 

diversity of the applicant pool to determine if recruitment efforts paid off. Mr. DeLeon said he is looking 

forward to receiving NACEPT’s recommendations. 

Discussion

Ms. Kendall commented that when the workgroup began addressing this topic, it had a session on 

understanding some of the real constraints. Given the significant constraints, the workgroup had thought 

about having a workshop for the diversity team. An advantage of that workshop would be to bring in 

those who have greater knowledge of the legal constraints at EPA. Mr. DeLeon said he would commit 

EPA lawyers in the Office of the General Counsel to take part in that workshop.

Dr. Kammen noted that a strategy the World Bank found particularly effective was to recruit several 

individuals at once from a university. 

Mr. Newsom encouraged NACEPT to note the differences between headquarters offices that develop 

policy and establish strategic direction and regional offices that have large field staffs, bench chemists, 

and community involvement staff. Different parts of EPA have different needs. Many of the regional 

needs are akin to those of states.

Mr. Matt asked if contract employees can be included in diversity challenges. Mr. Soto responded that the 

EPA Office of Small Business Programs would be responsible for ensuring that the Agency’s contracts 

and grants include diversity. There also is a group within OARM that ensures that contracting is 

equitable. 

Mr. Soto said that there were 38 individuals interested in a position that he was trying to fill when he 

started with OARM, and he decided to interview all of them to be inclusive. His office has reached out to 

the Executive Management Group to help them define and develop a sustainable diversity initiative. 

Diversity must be integrated into the daily mindset values and the accountability of the organization. 

OARM is working on developing EEO elements through the MD715 as well as putting into place a 

performance management process. In addition, they are working to leverage EPA’s existing 

programmatic opportunities. The Agency is looking at leveraging programs such as the National Estuary 
14 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Program to develop a multi-textured approach to incorporating diversity (e.g., the limited English 

proficiency that can be found in the Gulf Coast, with a significant tribal component). OARM also is 

working on developing a strategy that incorporates nongovernmental organizations to ensure the inclusion 

of a trainer component. EPA is looking to NACEPT to help it define and expand the role and definition of 

diversity, because the Agency is at a critical nexus right now. 

Dr. Chertow noted that Mr. Newsom suggested that NACEPT address regional needs. According to the 

“best places to work” survey, two regions were at the top of the Federal Government, Region 1 and 

Region 9. Do these regions have best practices? What are they doing right? Do they have best practices 

with respect to ensuring/enhancing diversity? Mr. Newsom encouraged NACEPT to look at the “data 

behind the data” in the “best places to work” survey. This survey examines only 3 questions from an 

employee viewpoint survey that contains approximately 40 questions. The survey is an excellent 

recruiting tool, but all the data should be examined. Dr. Chertow asked if NACEPT should look to 

Regions 1 and 9 for best practices. Mr. Newsom responded that it could, but he thought the Council 

should examine the whole employee viewpoint survey, which has six or seven areas of competency. 

Mr. DeLeon noted that by focusing on just two regions, NACEPT might miss out on what can be gleaned, 

in terms of best practices, from the other regions and offices. Mr. Newsom added that all regions have 

special emphasis employment programs under the EEO rubric. In Region 3, that is a useful resource to 

bring people together as well as a recruitment tool. It has been particularly helpful as it relates to the 

Asian Pacific community. Dr. Chertow commented that something about the survey must be useful, 

because it is a helpful recruiting tool. 

Dr. Ben Dysart (Dysart and Associates, Inc.), NACEPT member, asked to what extent cross-cutting 

factors are relevant to qualify for executive performance bonuses. Mr. DeLeon responded that each 

member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) must write up his/her accomplishments at the end of the 

year, and identify goals at the beginning of the year. All of those ratings then go before a performance 

review board that has to review the SES member’s proposed rating. If the performance does not justify 

the rating, a bonus will not be approved. 

Mr. Henderson encouraged NACEPT to consider some of the diversity practices of the regions. One 

might be doing the best job with outreach while another is doing the best job with professional 

development. This information would be useful to the Agency. 

Mr. Newsom commented that some of this information can be gleaned from the MD715 reports. 

Mr. DeLeon asked Ms. Megan Moreau (EPA, OFACMO) to send the NACEPT members the MD715 

template for action plans. 

Public Comments

Dr. Johnson called for public comments at 12:00 noon. There were no public comments. 

Council Discussion of Second Advice Letter on EPA Workforce Planning

Dr. Johnson noted that the discussion of the advice letter should be at high level; specific issues such as 

wording changes should be sent to Ms. Moreau. By the end of tomorrow’s session, the Council should 

reach consensus about what the letter will look like in its revised form. Mr. Learner added that the larger 

and substantive points in the letter should be dealt with during tomorrow’s session. If there are any 

fundamental disagreements, they will be resolved by the end of the meeting. Next week or the week after, 

the smaller working group will begin putting the revised letter in order, integrating the substantive points 

that have been made into a revised letter in addition to making any editorial changes that have been sent 

to Ms. Moreau. He hoped that the workgroup would have the final letter ready within 2 to 2.5 weeks; that 

letter will be approved via a teleconference to be held approximately 1 month from now. The revised 

letter will be sent to all members within about 2.5 weeks so that it can be approved before the end of June. 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 15

Ms. Jennifer Nash (Harvard University), NACEPT member, suggested that it would be helpful if the letter 

could refer back to the first letter and some of the long-range, visionary, and creative aspects that were in 

that letter. Perhaps the letter could show how these aspects would be carried forward. 

Ms. Loftness noted that on page 14, item 4, the importance of systems thinking is referenced, but it seems 

that there is an equally important issue—it is not just who is hired, but how they are put to work. That 

needs to be stated, and public-private-university interchanges should be considered. Canada has a 

tradition of these that is incredibly beneficial. The individuals who are not part of government learn a 

great deal about it, and the government agencies get the benefit of private sector or academic thinking. 

Dr. Benedict commented that, with centralized hiring, some of the screening seems to be conducted in a 

black box. It would be useful to have some secondary review as to the quality of that screening as a way 

to continuously compare the pools coming out to the pools going in. That relates to the introduction of 

additional ability components in terms of the transdisciplinary focus, and that will be a new review area 

for the evaluation process. It may require some additional coordination and oversight in that initial 

screening process, and that could dovetail with the diversity information capture that also was discussed 

to evaluate those hiring cycles. A few references were made to statistics in terms of managerial 

satisfaction with the screening process as consistent with other agencies. He asked what those standards 

were, and whether “good” was enough. 

Ms. Kendall added that this was a complex point to try to address. Good “flow in” versus “flow out” data 

are not available because of the arbitrary USAJOBS cut offs (e.g., the first 50 applicants). The best 

candidates might be in the 100-175 applicant pool, but they will not get into the system. The electronic 

hiring process presents some real challenges; the tool omits data that are relevant to addressing the 

questions on diversity. 

Dr. Johnson mentioned Dr. Kammen’s comment that he did not see real connectivity between the SP and 

the second advice letter. He was examining whether the advice letter would help EPA to achieve some of 

the goals in the SP. Dr. Johnson thought it might be useful to see if any of the SP issues are embraced by 

the workgroup’s charge. 

Ms. Kendall stated that the smaller workgroup had started to discuss the planning of work and identified 

the need to write a fourth letter, referred to as the integrating letter, and it may be the best way to more 

fully address the SP. Dr. Johnson noted that the workgroup will draft a letter that pulls together the 

overarching pieces and provides connectivity among the other letters. Relating those letters to the SP is a 

good addition to that fourth letter. 

Mr. Robert Olson (Institute for Alternative Futures), NACEPT member, suggested that the letter be more 

specific with regard to the Agency’s ability to attract talented employees, and the need for systems 

perspectives and systems thinking. He noted that these are not easy to track. Mr. Learner acknowledged 

this difficulty. If EPA is seeking people with distinct cross-disciplinary skills, it looks to certain programs 

in the country that are leading in that area. Although this approach makes sense from a recruiting 

perspective, it makes it difficult to achieve diversity, and this is an issue within ORD (which represents 

43% of EPA). It is difficult to reconcile this issue. 

With respect to using USAJOBS, Mr. Henderson commented that some of the more sophisticated 

electronic systems do allow screening of candidates based on criteria as opposed to accepting only the 

first 50 applicants. The first 50 may not be the most qualified individuals for the job, so there needs to be 

some flexibility in the system. In addition, the applicant pool can be examined to assess the diversity of 

the applicants in the pipeline. Although a hiring manager cannot examine demographic information, 

others in the Agency can look at those data to assess any trends and the diversity of the pipeline. In terms 

of recruiting individuals with broad systems thinking skills, EPA needs to build core ability within the 
16 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Agency to identify and engage people about those kinds of skills. If EPA is hiring such people but the 

leadership is not prepared to manage such skills and is still operating in a traditional mindset, that Agency 

will not benefit from these new skills. EPA must look at both sourcing candidates with these kinds of 

skills and building the capability of the leadership to manage a staff with these skills. Dr. Johnson noted 

that Ms. Bennett referred to the SP as a top-down plan; therefore, Agency leaders would be the plan 

implementers and the ones out in front in making sure that the plan’s goals and actions are accomplished. 

Dr. Chertow believes that the workgroup needs to strengthen the relationship between the statements in 

the body of the letter and the recommendations. Dr. Johnson agreed. Dr. Chertow added that the 

environmental leadership issue had become so prominent that perhaps it should be moved from the 

recommendations to the body of the letter. It would elevate this issue to mention what a large part it has 

played in the Agency’s culture. 

Mr. Learner asked for input on the optimal or maximum appropriate length for the advice letter. 

Mr. Joyce responded that there was no limit to length. Dr. Johnson noted that the length of the letter 

might determine its organization. For example, a long letter may require a summary up front. 

Based on the workgroup discussions, Ms. Kendall stated that more work is needed on the two topics that 

will be addressed in the third letter. The fourth letter will pull the other letters together. In the second 

advice letter, there are specific discussions and observations about recruitment and “One EPA.” Should 

the “One EPA” charge be addressed in its own letter? Perhaps it could be the context to the fourth letter. 

After a robust discussion, the workgroup decided to keep the two pieces together in the second letter. 

Mr. Olson suggested that two advice letters could be submitted simultaneously, one on recruiting and one 

on “One EPA.” 

Mr. Matt commented that much time was spent discussing the stovepiping at EPA, but there was little 

consideration of how EPA coordinates with other agencies. This might be worth mentioning. 

Dr. Johnson suggested that the transition between the two topics was not as smooth as it could be, so if 

the workgroup decides to keep the two topics in the same letter, a transitional piece should be prepared. 

Mr. Learner asked Dr. Johnson if he had a preference for one or two letters. Dr. Johnson suggested 

keeping them together with a smooth transitional piece connecting them. 

Ms. Bannerman thought that pages 4 and 5 needed more citations because she was unsure of the source of 

the data. Dr. Osidele said he had contributed the data, and he would add citations. 

With regard to the diversity letter, Dr. Chertow thought it would be good to discuss Mr. Henderson’s 

presentation. Dr. Johnson said that no work would be done on the diversity letter at this meeting, but 

Mr. Henderson will be available for questions tomorrow. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson stated that Ms. Gelb had just sent her the “One EPA” principles and Ms. Moreau will 

send them out to the NACEPT members. 

Council Discussion of Second Advice Letter on EPA Workforce Planning

Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr., NACEPT Chair

Dr. Johnson reminded the workgroup of its charges, and noted that the charges provided some loose 

boundaries for things that should be considered in the letters. He suggested that someone be designated to 

serve as a final reader for the second advice letter. Dr. Benedict agreed to read the letter and determine if 

it is responsive to EPA’s charge.

The first advice letter from the workforce workgroup has been sent to EPA; the second advice letter will 

be submitted between now and September 2011; the third advice letter will be discussed at the September 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 17

meeting and move toward approval at that time; and the overarching fourth letter will be submitted at the 

end of 2011. 

The vulnerable populations group is addressing the following three questions: 

1. What currently is known about major environmental and related health risks faced by vulnerable 

populations? 

2. What technologies are most useful (i.e., accessible, affordable, understandable, easy to implement) 

in monitoring, communicating, and reducing these risks, in particular, specific technologies that are 

now emerging as “game changers”? 

3. How can EPA identify and address the barriers to the development and deployment of such 

technologies? 

This workgroup is using case studies as a forum for answering the questions. It plans to select 7 of the 14 

case studies during the break out session. One means of reducing the number is to ask if the study leads to 

a technology development that is needed. Before the end of this meeting, the workgroup will reach 

agreement on the case studies to be included in the report. By September, there should be a draft for 

NACEPT consideration. 

Ms. Loftness said she was surprised that the case studies were 6 to 8 pages in length; she was more 

surprised that the number of case studies would be reduced to six or seven. The diversity of case studies is 

critical for making a case for the diversity of technologies, and she wondered if the workgroup had made 

a wrong turn in deciding to eliminate so many case studies. The SP is a reminder of the arenas in which 

the case studies should be placed. Dr. Johnson commented that the number of case studies is not the issue; 

it is more important to ensure that the case studies address the diversity of technologies that need to be 

developed. Five case studies on the same technology are not needed. Mr. Joyce pointed out that the case 

studies selected for inclusion should be actionable by EPA. Dr. Fred Hauchman (EPA, ORD, Office of 

Science Policy) will be with the group during tomorrow’s session, and he has reviewed the 14 draft case 

studies to determine which ones would be most useful to ORD. 

Workforce Issues and Vulnerable Populations Workgroup Concurrent Sessions

Workforce Issues Workgroup Session

The Workforce Issues Workgroup session included the following NACEPT members: Ms. Bannerman, 

Dr. Marian Chertow, Ms. Christine Costopoulos (Empire State Development), Dr. Jim Johnson (CoLead), Ms. Sara Kendall, Ms. Leah Anne Lamb (Utah Department of Environmental Quality), 

Mr. Howard Learner, Mr. Robert Olson, and Dr. Olufemi Osidele. Mr. Effenus Henderson served as a 

consultant and Co-Lead. 

Outline for the NACEPT Workforce Workgroup’s Second Advice Letter (Exhibit 1, Flipchart 1)

Ms. Kendall discussed adding more differentiation in the workgroup’s second advice letter to EPA in the 

recommendations for entry-level positions (where supply and demand are key), mid-level positions, and 

other, more senior positions. She recommended moving some of the pieces that has been written to the 

third letter on diversity and senior leadership. She suggested that there should be some foreshadowing of 

these issues in the second letter. Also, based on the information presented earlier today, it might help to 

focus more on issues associated with using the electronic hiring process, which might be presenting some 

barriers to the Agency’s goals. She proposed changing some of the questions asked or screening tools so 

that EPA does not lose the richness of the applicant pool. Mr. Learner pointed out that there might be 

legal constraints about which the workgroup is unaware. Ms. Claire Milam (EPA, Executive Resources 

Division) added that EPA is about to change over to the new version of USAJOBS, USAJOBS version 3 
18 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

(USAJOBS3). There are some differences; for instance, applicants can upload resumes and there are new 

procedures for entering and outputting data. There may be additional important revisions of interest to the 

workgroup, so she will find out more details.

Ms. Kendall said that she and Dr. Osidele participated in a conference call about USAJOBS3. Dr. Osidele 

pointed out that one issue will be how to deal with the 75-applicant cutoff for job advertisements. 

Ms. Milam responded that there are legal ramifications associated with the new system and issues that are 

beyond EPA’s ability to control or influence because this is a government-wide change. Ms. Kendall 

asked Dr. Osidele to write some paragraphs about the challenges that USAJOBS3 could present to EPA’s 

hiring process in the next week. She also asked him to suggest some steps that the Agency could take to 

work around those challenges, particularly, the concern that EPA might miss good candidates in the 

targeted areas in which they are looking to hire because of the applicant cutoff.

Another topic that was raised by the Council, which Ms. Kendall thought had been discussed in an earlier 

workgroup session but was deferred to the advice letter on hiring for leadership positions, was that EPA 

does not always have to hire candidates who are experienced interdisciplinary systems thinkers, because 

new hires can learn skills on the job and through rotational assignments, and public/private rotations. She 

suggested touching on this idea in the second letter and developing it further in the leadership letter. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson pointed out that the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) was another program 

through which EPA staff could gain some of these skills.

Dr. Chertow was concerned that these types of programs may be cut back or eliminated because of tight 

budgets. The respondents in her survey who were in EPA fellows programs were among the most 

frustrated, because they did not think they could get a permanent position at the Agency. Dr. Chertow 

suggested that the workgroup focus on the main issues of hiring, recruitment, and balance of supply and 

demand rather than “luxuries” like the fellowship programs. Her survey also provided feedback that using 

USAJOBS was tedious and frustrating, although perhaps USAJOBS3 will be better. Ms. Kendall asked 

Dr. Osidele about USAJOBS3, and he replied that it will be essentially the same as version two, although 

it will allow applicants to upload multiple resumes. Ms. Milam confirmed that EPA fellows do not gain 

any advantage in the Agency’s hiring process, but there are internships, like the Student Temporary 

Employment Program (STEP), which can lead to jobs at EPA. Dr. Chertow speculated about the legality 

of knowing the demographics of applicants to STEP.

Ms. Milam stated that the FCIP had been discontinued because a lawsuit was brought against the Federal 

Government by veterans’ rights groups. She added that President Obama was committed to the idea of 

rotations between the federal and other hiring sectors, which is practiced by his own management council. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson pointed out that the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) allows civilian federal 

personnel to work up to 3 years outside the public sector before returning to their government positions. 

Employees of qualifying institutions may serve for similar periods for federal agencies.

Ms. Bannerman suggested moving the section on developing leadership to the front of the letter, because 

that is part of EPA’s Strategic Plan. Relating to that topic, Ms. Milam suggested revisiting the group’s 

recommendation about merit-based raises for senior executives. Mr. Learner asked whether 360 degree 

feedback reviews were aligned with how evaluations were done. In response, Ms. Milam described how 

the evaluation process for SES personnel. There is a five-tier system designed so that an “effective” rating 

is the norm, but in practice, fewer than 20 percent of SESers receive a rating of effective or lower. Most 

receive a rating of commendable. Ms. Kendall suggested that the workgroup defer making 

recommendations on merit-based pay because she did not think the Workgroup had enough information 

on the subject, which is primarily a human resource issue. She recognized that this topic could be related 

to EJ issues, but NACEPT has little experience dealing with human resources issues. Ms. Milam 

promised that she would investigate the 360 degree review process further so that she could provide more 

information to the workgroup. She knew that many organizations use it, and EPA currently uses it for 

developmental purposes, but not for performance appraisals. Mr. Learner asked Ms. Bannerman, who
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 19

wrote the recommendation about introducing 360 degree reviews, to hone it further to reflect the issues 

discussed.

Mr. Olson proposed two improvements to be added to the letter. One was for EPA to bring in consultants 

to help develop multidisciplinary projects, and the other was for the Agency to develop a directory of 

multidisciplinary expertise using the web and social media. This directory would need to be continuously

updated. Ms. Milam suggested linking the proposed directory to a resume database.

The workgroup turned to addressing the overall organization and timing of writing the second letter (see 

Exhibit 1, Flipchart 1): 

Mr. Olson will be adding recommendations on building One EPA, 

Ms. Bannerman will hone the recommendation on the 360 degree review process (incorporating 

what Ms. Milam provides).

Dr. Osidele will address the electronic hiring process. 

These pieces should be finished by May 27. Mr. Learner and Ms. Kendall will prepare a final draft letter 

by June 6 and send it out to the workgroup members for final review by June 10. The workgroup 

members will submit their comments by June 17, and Ms. Kendall and Mr. Learner will revise letter and 

submit it to the Council. NACEPT will vote to approve the letter by conference call by July 1.

In terms of general changes to the letter, Ms. Kendall suggested that text needs to be added to: link topics 

in the first and second letters, foreshadow topics to come, and link the two topics within the letter. 

Dr. Chertow noted that the tone of the workgroup’s first letter was uplifting and creative, and she thought 

the second letter could be made more interesting. Although she recognized that it needs to contain a lot of 

statistics and discussion of process, adding some points like advice on advanced technology jobs would 

help to make it livelier. Ms. Kendall thought that putting the part about “One EPA” up front would help 

make the letter more visionary and uplifting, but because the topic of hiring talent is more mechanical the 

letter was necessarily written in a more mechanical way. Dr. Johnson suggested that it might help to 

remove the tables, because that information was summarized in the graphical presentation. Dr. Osidele 

noted that the group had discussed items to put in an appendix. Dr. Chertow suggested making the figures 

smaller and the captions larger.

Mr. Learner pointed out that there was a tradeoff between expediting the completion of the letter and the 

amount of rewriting that could be done. Ms. Kendall stressed the importance of resolving any issues 

about the letter during this meeting, before participants returned to their other responsibilities. 

Ms. Kendall added that she was pushing to get the outline of the second letter completed, because the 

workgroup needs time to work on diversity and leadership, and no one wants to be working on the letter 

in December. Ms. Jones-Jackson stated that EPA recognizes and is thankful for the Workgroup’s 

commitment; she realizes that serving on the Council is very time consuming. EPA does not want to 

overburden the NACEPT members, but it would be beneficial if the issues on senior managers could be 

addressed, because that charge originated from senior EPA administration. Dr. Johnson suggested that it 

might be helpful if EPA could provide assistance with editing and putting together the pieces drafted by 

the Council members, the final product could be produced faster and it would be more coherent.

Senior Executive Service (SES) Leadership Development 

Mr. Learner commented that a number of issues were raised by the workgroup that need to be addressed 

by EPA. They are not all easily reconciled, because they affect different parts of the Agency. He proposed 

that the workgroup come up with a list of issues to address that are manageable. Right now, the 

workgroup’s advice focuses heavily on entry-level concerns, but the workgroup also needs to advise EPA 
20 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

on how to address mid-level attrition. Ms. Kendall agreed that the workgroup should try to incorporate 

issues affecting mid-level staff.

Ms. Kendall observed that there was a tension between EPA’s goals of choosing interdisciplinary 

thinkers, who usually come from a small subset of schools, and achieving diversity. She thought that 

NACEPT should point out to EPA’s senior leadership the need to select a path. She hesitated to 

recommend developing another study or program, because these can become a distraction. She proposed 

instead to encourage the Agency to be thoughtful and develop a plan. Mr. Learner said he did not know 

how to resolve the issue that only a modest number of schools produce transdisciplinary students, but the 

Agency has a goal of increasing the diversity of its workforce. He suggested that the workgroup write a 

few sentences about the tension between these two goals and encourage the Agency to think give it 

careful consideration. Ms. Milam added that there also are potential hires who have a lot of experience 

but lack formal education. Currently, EPA cannot hire them because of the structure of the system.

Ms. Moreau suggested that it would be helpful to have a few other people provide their perspectives on 

how to get the workgroup’s message out and who should receive it. Ms. Milam asked if the workgroup

planned to produce a letter or a report. Ms. Moreau responded that they had not determined the format, 

and Ms. Jones-Jackson added that any format would be appropriate.

Mr. Ismael Martinez (EPA, Office of Civil Rights) volunteered that his office produces an affirmative 

employment report each year, which compiles responses about five elements dealing with hiring and 

recruitment. The report will come out at the end of October. The report is released in two parts: the first 

covers what actions have been done and the second discusses the results. The first part is coming out this 

week. Ms. Jones-Jackson asked if the report could be made available to the Council. 

Mr. Martinez responded that he can provide them access to the report. He will summarize it for the 

workgroup and outline EPA’s diversity policy and procedures and how and where the Agency recruits. 

Ms. Kendall thanked Mr. Martinez for the information on the report and when it will be available. The 

workgroup will add information about it in the integration letter. She thought a discussion of the report 

would fit best under the topic of diversity. Ms. Kendall suggested that the workgroup wait for 

Mr. Henderson, who will be present for tomorrow’s session (May 20), to discuss diversity further.

Ms. Kendall said that in January the group identified the following issues for EPA to address: adding the 

development of technical skills and talents to the leadership development process and studying retention. 

Mr. Learner led a team in January in which Dr. Osidele worked on strategies and Mr. Kobi Wright 

(Cummins, Inc.), NACEPT member, and Ms. Kendall focused on retention. They looked at these issues 

across the Agency, not just in the senior management corps. Now, the workgroup needs to think about 

how to address these issues and divide the work. Mr. Learner said that the workgroup should look at the 

pieces that are completed and figure out how to pull them together.

Mr. Learner asked for Dr. Osidele’s thoughts on what the Workgroup should say about leadership 

development and he asked if the workgroup wanted to start listing points for discussion. Ms. Kendall 

suggested that two topics to address are retention and attrition. Ms. Milam mentioned that Mr. Martinez 

has data on retention, which he confirmed. It is divided by race and national origin. Mr. Martinez stated 

that he also has data on recognition, awards, and promotions. 

Mr. Learner asked if the workgroup can address attrition qualitatively. He believes that EPA has an 

enormous problem with senior level people leaving, not based on their age but on when their last child 

graduates from college. He listed three issues to address: a retention strategy (What can be done to keep 

senior personnel?), a leadership development plan for mid- or below-SES staff, and Agency actions to 

bring in personnel to fill gaps laterally. Ms. Kendall added that there is a fourth issue. EPA needs to 

decide whether to fill vacant mid-level positions. It is possible another staff member might be able to take 

over those duties. Mr. Learner noted that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) do this. Not everyone 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 21

EXHIBIT 1. FLIPCHARTS FROM EPA WORKFORCE WORKGROUP 

BREAKOUT SESSION

May 19, 2011

Outline for Second Advice Letter (flipchart page 1 of 4)

One EPA/Recruiting/Retention/Diversity Strategies (The How)

Co-Chairs: Howard Learner and Sara Kendall (will compile drafts into one letter)

I. Recommendation on 360° reviews – defer to third letter?

(Responsible Workgroup Member: Erica Bannerman)

A. 5-tier system

B. “Effective” is expected to be the norm but 75% receive “commendable”

C. Issue: development vs. merit

II. One EPA – move to beginning of the letter

(Responsible Workgroup Member: Robert Olson)

A. Recommend bringing in consultants to cross boundaries

B. Create a directory of expertise using the web and social media

C. Link directory to résumé database

III.Other changes

A. Draft linkage paragraphs with the first letter

B. Foreshadow next letters

C. Link the two topics

D. Make it more uplifting

E. Replace tables with graphs

F. Move section on the distinction about issues at Regions vs. Headquarters

G. Structurally differentiate between entry/mid/senior level issues/recommendations

H. Reflect more total systems thinking in hiring/retention recommendations (Robert 

Olson)

I. Diversity in recommendation

IV.To do's

A. Redraft based on Council input (Howard Learner, Sara Kendall) – by June 6

B. Draft section on electronic hiring process challenges and recommendations (Femi 

Osidele) – by May 27

C. Draft section on One EPA (Robert Olson) – by May 27

D. Review final draft (Workgroup) – by June 10

E. Review final draft (Council) – by June 17

F. Approve letter by conference call (Council) – by July 1

who leaves is replaced. Ms. Milam responded that EPA does that as well. Ms. Milam commented that 

there is a fifth item related to leadership development: accelerated development.

Ms. Lamb observed that when staff members retire, it offers the Agency an opportunity to fill those 

positions with innovators who may not always be the ascension candidates. Ms. Milam agreed, noting 

that this point was raised earlier and that it is somewhat true for EPA. The question is whether it is better 

to improve or be more efficient. The “old guard” piece is part of the conversation. There are fears that 
22 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

managers will not be able to hire externally and will have to groom new leadership from internal 

candidates. They will have to start the leadership development process very early.

Ms. Lamb asked how many SES positions are filled internally. Ms. Milam answered that, historically, 73 

percent of the positions were filled by individuals already employed by the Agency, there were some 

intragovernmental transfers, and 18 percent came from outside the government. Mr. Martinez commented 

that these statistics are partially the result of the hiring process. All SES vacancies are announced 

internally first. If that is not successful, the announcement is made externally. He pointed out that there 

may be only a small group of eligible GS-14 and 15 candidates. Ms. Milam explained that EPA has 

chosen this hiring path to promote retention.

Ms. Kendall suggested that managers can learn interdisciplinary thinking. Ms. Lamb concurred, observing 

that there currently is a lot of mobility within EPA.

Ms. Kendall stressed that there are key things the workgroup needs to address at this session to carry out 

its charge, including identifying the right EPA resources. Mr. Martinez suggested Debbi Hart as a 

resource. Ms. Hart is working for John Taylor on a succession management plan that will cover topics 

such as how many people are needed and whether EPA needs a given position. Ms. Kendall thought it 

would be useful to understand EPA’s approach to succession before the workgroup reads the MD715 

reports. Mr. Martinez volunteered that Ms. Antoinette Powell-Dickson would be another good resource, 

and Ms. Milam added that Susan Smith would be a good resource as well. Ms. Kendall asked Ms. Moreau 

to contact these individuals and set up a conference call to make sure the workgroup understands these 

issues. Mr. Learner stated that he can participate in a call scheduled after June 17, 2011.

Ms. Kendall asked for volunteers for the leadership development subgroup. Ms. Lamb, Ms. Kendall, 

Dr. Osidele, and Mr. Learner volunteered. Ms. Lamb will lead the subgroup. Mr. Learner will participate 

after he finishes his current task of completing the second advice letter. The EPA headquarters resources 

on leadership and development are Mr. Martinez, Ms. Milam, Ms. Sharon Ridings, and Ms. PowellDickson. Mr. Stan Meiburg will serve as a regional resource.

Ms. Kendall asked for input from EPA on what would be most helpful on the topic of leadership 

development. Ms. Milam identified several issues: (1) knowledge/experience transfer/acceleration from 

SESers, GS-15, and GS-14 personnel who are retiring, with a focus on GS-12 and GS-13; (2) how to push 

supervisor levels lower or accelerate development; (3) how to handle employees who are technical but not 

people leaders; (4) moving from individual to collective base development; (5) focusing on the strategic 

base of the Agency; (5) on-the-job learning; and (6) projects that cross the silos of the Agency.

Ms. Bannerman questioned if there was any relation between age and GS level. Ms. Milam thought it was 

more accurate to talk about career stage rather than age. She added that cross-generational mentoring is a 

great suggestion because there is not enough of it at EPA. Mr. Martinez noted that there is a “Leaders and 

Learners” mentoring program that is growing, and it is cross-generational. Ms. Jones-Jackson mentioned 

that this program just started in January, so it is in its very early stages. Ms. Bannerman commented that 

she would like to know more about access to the program and how individuals participate in it.

To ensure that EPA achieves its leadership development goals, Ms. Kendall suggested that it would be 

helpful for the workgroup to identify relevant issues and possible responses. Possible responses are 

evaluating connections to the strategic plan and rewarding leaders who help with the development of 

other leaders. Leaders who do not do this weaken EPA. Ms. Milam stated that SESers cannot get 

promoted, but they can get bonuses, which are based on performance. Mr. Martinez mentioned that EPA 

uses Individual Development Plans (IDPs), but these are voluntary. Some staff members do not choose to 

participate. He thought this would be a good point to address in the letter.
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 23

Ms. Bannerman asked about the cap on SES salaries. Mr. James Hiscock (EPA) answered that, in 2011,

the minimum salary is $119,554 and the maximum is $179,700. Ms. Jones-Jackson commented that at 

one time SES had levels. Ms. Kendall added that there once was an award for being “SESer of the Year,” 

and that was a meaningful incentive. Ms. Milam pointed out that there are still awards and bonuses for 

SES staff.

Ms. Bannerman wanted to know more about the incentives for SES staff and how they were awarded. 

Ms. Milam explained that there is a 5-tier rating system. Very few SESers receive a rating of effective or 

below, however. By the time employees reach the level of SES, they almost always receive a rating of 

superior. She suggested that the workgroup may want to do some research on benchmarking SES ratings.

Mr. Martinez noted that EPA currently has 289 SES staff members. The cap for the Agency is 300. It is 

difficult to recruit senior people if nearly all of the SES positions are filled because there would be no 

room for advancement. Ms. Kendall asked if there are benchmarks on how many leaders are needed. 

Ms. Milam replied that those numbers are changing.

Ms. Kendall pointed out that EPA has a great deal of material on these topics, but there are different 

documents on leadership, retention, and attrition. It might become overwhelming quickly, so it would be 

best to divide up the work. Ms. Moreau asked whether specific documents could be identified before the 

subgroups meet.

Ms. Kendall stated that Mr. Wright could not attend this meeting, but he has done the reading. She will 

add him to the subgroup on Retention and Attrition to work with Ms. Lamb and Ms. Costopoulos. 

Ms. Costopoulos will be the leader of that subgroup.

Ms. Kendall recalled that when NACEPT originally organized this workgroup, EPA asked about growing 

a more diverse leadership. The workgroup plans to address diversity and leadership in the next letter. 

Ms. Kendall noted that when the workgroup discussed the charge of leadership development, attrition, 

retention, and growing diversity were identified as the three key subtopics. There was a specific diversity 

charge. Diversity cuts across all these things. She was concerned that having one subgroup on diversity of 

leadership and another on diversity in general might be duplicative. Ms. Milam responded that diversity is 

EPA’s key issue. How can EPA bring in outside talent to increase diversity? Vision and application have

to come from the higher levels. Ms. Kendall agreed and concluded that the subgroup would discuss

diversity to a fuller extent.

Dr. Johnson pointed out that some people might only read the section on SES leadership development. 

Ms. Milam believes that EPA’s greatest challenge is to grow a diverse SES staff from within. 

Mr. Martinez emphasized that the workgroup’s efforts should be centered on the Executive Core 

Qualifications. Ms. Kendall thought that Dr. Johnson made a good point. If people tend to read only one 

section, perhaps diversity should be discussed under each section. There could be a specific section on 

diversity that would go into deeper detail. Dr. Johnson suggested that there should be references to the 

diversity section even in the leadership development and retention sections.

Reviewing the Workgroup session, Ms. Kendall felt that under the leadership topic, the Workgroup had 

developed a good plan for both subtopics. She anticipated that in July the subgroups will kick off their 

work in two separate conference calls, even though the subtopics are related. Dr. Johnson pointed out that 

Ms. Lamb is a member of both groups, so she can ensure that there is continuity but not overlap.

Dr. Chertow wondered if there is a college network for Hispanic academics. Ms. Kendall proposed that 

Dr. Johnson pose that question to Mr. Roger Rivera (National Hispanic Environmental Council), 

NACEPT Member. Ms. Milam questioned Mr. Martinez about whether he has connections with the 

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and if he could tell the workgroup about it. LULAC 

might be a resource for the diversity subgroup. She noted that Mr. Rivera, who could not attend this
24 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

NACEPT meeting and may not be able to continue to serve on the Council due to personal reasons, is 

very active in Hispanic leadership. Ms. Kendall thought that Mr. Rivera understands the issues faced by 

Hispanic environmental professionals, which may be similar to or different from those facing AfricanAmericans. Mr. Martinez noted that the low participation of Hispanics is one of the biggest diversity 

issues in EPA. 

Ms. Kendall raised the issue of outreach to people with disabilities. Ms. Jones-Jackson suggested that 

Mr. Eugene Green (EPA OFACMO) would be a good resource for that, and he will attend the workgroup 

meeting tomorrow (May 20). Ms. Bannerman asked whether the workgroup will consider veterans’ issues 

as well. Mr. Martinez pointed out that there are many veterans with disabilities.

Ms. Kendall stated that the workgroup had finished its main task for today—completing the outline of the 

second advice letter. She suggested that the workgroup consider the integration of diversity and 

leadership development issues during tomorrow’s meeting.

Mr. Martinez asked about the next steps. Ms. Kendall responded that the subgroup leaders (Mr. 

Henderson, Ms. Lamb, and Ms. Costopoulos) will coordinate with Ms. Moreau on setting up conference 

calls. Ms. Moreau asked that the workgroup copy her on any e-mails concerning the conference calls. 

Ms. Bannerman suggested that it would be helpful if someone would take notes during the conference 

calls. Ms. Kendall stated that EPA had been very helpful identifying the relevant documents. The 

workgroup needs to think about organizing the topics. The next NACEPT meeting will be held in 

September so a final report must go out to the Council members by early September.

Vulnerable Populations Workgroup Session 

The Vulnerable Populations Workgroup session included the following NACEPT members: Dr. Karl 

Benedict, Dr. Ben Dysart, Mr. Kurt Erichsen, Ms. Ella Filippone, Dr. DeWitt John (Co-Chair), 

Ms. Vivian Loftness, Mr. Clayton Matt, Dr. Mark Mitchell (Co-Chair), Ms. Jennifer Nash, Ms. Arleen 

O’Donnell, and Dr. Edith Parker.

Dr. John thought that the schedule for the workgroup’s efforts might be the appropriate place to start. The 

timeline can be changed, and is intended to convey the idea that the report will be approved in December. 

The schedule is tight as it stands. He suggested that the workgroup present summaries of the case studies 

under consideration for the report. 

Ms. Loftness expressed concern about the intention to reduce the number of case studies. It makes more 

sense to ensure that the cases cover all three categories of technologies under discussion, and that they 

discuss at least the major categories of EPA goals (climate change, water, air quality, land and soils, etc.). 

It would show good faith to discuss the need for technologies in each of the arenas. Dr. John responded 

that he thought of these points as criteria for selecting the cases, but perhaps the workgroup should run 

through the cases currently available, and think about how this report can be useful and sufficiently broad 

and inclusive. There are some difficult decisions to make on how many case studies to include and the 

length of each. The group will vote on this after the cases are described. 

Ms. Filippone described the Passaic River case study; the issue is legacy pollutants in a tidal river. EPA 

continuously postpones a decision for a focused feasibility study on cleaning up the river. Better 

technology is needed for dredging, dewatering, and destroying the contaminants. Technologies are 

available, but EPA has not adopted or examined any of them. The EJ part of this is that there are 16 

municipalities along this stretch of the river that include vulnerable populations (minorities and recent 

immigrants); the area is 45 percent white. Dr. Mark Mitchell (Connecticut Coalition for Environmental 

Justice), NACEPT member, noted that another EJ issue is subsistence fishing and resulting increased 

exposure. Ms. Filippone added that this case has a great deal of replicability in other polluted rivers in the 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 25

United States. Dr. Mitchell noted that need for a fish testing technology that is more readily available and 

provides instantaneous results.

Dr. John noted that the group had discussed including three areas of technologies: those for problem 

identification, those for problem assessment and communication, and those for problem solution. The 

workgroup’s charge is to determine the need for technologies, but another aspect is the ability to deploy 

the technology in communities that have EJ characteristics and the potential resistance to using the 

technology. Ms. Filippone commented that when contaminated sediments are removed from a river, the 

only option is to transport them to a landfill. Such transport is expensive, and it is wrong to transport the 

problem to another state. 

Mr. Matt presented the case study written by Ms. Kristie Orosco (San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians), 

NACEPT member. She had studied the problem of mold in tribal housing, but Mr. Matt broadened it to 

mold and other environmental hazards created by poor housing construction methods. The case involves 

the need for technologies for monitoring, mitigating, and remediating these problems. In addition, there is 

a need for policies that require those technologies, because without such policy, those in need will not 

receive the technology. EJ issues involve the need for more programmatic involvement at the tribal level 

to address remediation and mitigation and housing construction. Additionally, EJ issues include 

substandard co-housing and the lack of control in communities. Ms. Loftness added that if the problem is 

that the houses were built in inappropriate locations, there is a need for a technology that will help in 

selecting more appropriate locations. Ms. Filippone added that for houses with mold that are located in 

floodplains, community members also would have to work with the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA). Mr. Shelby noted that the lack of ownership of design and control of homes and energy 

efficiency are key EJ concerns, because many of the homes were energy inefficient. Community members 

want to understand the issues associated with poor home design. 

Dr. Mitchell described the Hartford trash incinerator case, in which one of the largest incinerators in the 

country often is out of compliance, but the community has not been able to demonstrate the 

noncompliance. In addition, there are many upsets, exposures, and fires at the incinerator. Toxins released 

are not captured even though they cause health effects. Continuous emissions monitoring of toxics 

coming out of the stack is the technology needed to keep the facility functioning well and in compliance. 

Instead of having one annual test where the company hires a consultant and schedules a time for a test, the 

stack output would be continually tested. This is needed because the toxicity of the emissions varies from 

minute to minute. This is an urban community, and Connecticut burns more trash than any other state in 

the country. The largest trash incinerators are in the biggest cities, and Hartford brings in trash from 70 

surrounding towns. Dr. Edith Parker (University of Iowa), NACEPT member, asked if the technologies 

would be better defined. There are many assessment aspects to the issue, including air monitoring and 

health effects. Ms. Loftness noted that this effort was a natural partnership with the National Institutes of 

Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The best case would include the use of data 

analysis and risk analysis technologies. Dr. Parker said the field study aspect was important as well; some 

of the methods were still very cumbersome. Ms. O’Donnell noted that the website www.EJnet.org lists 40 

pollutants, including a long list of toxics that can be monitored continuously. This is a useful case study 

because the technology is available. Ms. Nash added that the workgroup’s charge did address deployment 

technologies. 

Dr. Mitchell described the Waterbury food-to-energy facility. He explained that there are many 

experimental technologies proven only at small scale that then are scaled up. This facility was supposed 

to be the largest in the country; food waste was to be brought in from all over the state to the facility 

where it would be composted under pressure over a 30-day period to produce gas that can be burned to 

create electricity. The concern is that the technology had not been proven at this scale and that these types 

of facilities often have accidents. Additionally, the facility had not considered what to do with the waste. 

Ms. Loftness commented that Dr. Kammen had wanted to examine the risk assessment analysis that had 

to be conducted for any of the fossil fuel alternatives under development. This facility is trucking in food 
26 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

waste and is not examining the ramifications of the trucking. Dr. Kammen may merge this case with the 

Marcellus Shale story. The technology needed is a middle ground technology, and could be a whole new 

solution set technology, but in this case the risk assessment was not done before the action was cleared. 

Dr. Kammen said that EPA has the best and longest standing risk assessment procedures, but does not 

seem to be able to apply them in these settings. Dr. Mitchell added that this facility is in a predominantly 

Latino neighborhood. 

Dr. Mitchell then described a case study on New Bedford polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Several 

factories in New Bedford produced capacitors, but they closed down in the 1970s when the Toxic 

Substances Control Act went into effect. The factories were located along the New Bedford harbor, and it 

was unclear whether the PCBs spilled into the harbor during loading and unloading, but after the facilities 

closed, the PCBs were placed in dumps at about six locations around the city, filling up the wetlands. 

Over the years people started building on these locations, and it now is unclear where the PCBs were 

deposited and whether people have built houses on or near the dumps. When children play in some of the 

barren areas around the city, they get rashes. When it rains, there is typically 18 inches of water standing 

in the yards of these homes. Is there a way to test for the presence of dioxin and PCBs in the schoolyards 

that were built in these areas? Remediation was attempted at some locations, but hotspots for PCBs and 

dioxins are still being found in certain areas. Simple testing technologies are needed for communities to 

use to test the soil for PCBs and dioxins. Dr. Benedict asked about plans for a database to compile and 

capture this information into a usable form, because the knowledge will be gone in a year. The schools are 

largely attended by people of color. 

Dr. Mitchell summarized the Rubbertown case study as well. Rubbertown is a section of west Louisville, 

Kentucky, along the Ohio River that contains a stretch of 11 chemical plants across the street from an

African American neighborhood and adjacent to a low-income white neighborhood. There have been a 

number of explosions and fires at these plants, and there are frequent releases of toxic chemicals. Air 

monitoring is conducted over 24-hour periods. Residents want to be able to conduct testing immediately 

after a release to get data on the peak concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the air 

after these releases rather than the 24-hour averages. Control technologies are needed, as is real-time 

community monitoring. Ms. Nash asked whether there were cumulative impacts from exposures other 

than through the air. Ms. Loftness added that human testing for cumulative impacts could be considered. 

Therefore, the technologies needed are biomonitoring, air monitoring, control technologies, and 

community monitoring. There also needs to be a communications method to notify the public of releases. 

The plant representatives claim that the high levels of VOCs in the air are from the automobiles, and not 

from their facilities. 

Dr. Dysart described the Graniteville train wreck case study. Graniteville, South Carolina, is one of many 

mill towns with abandoned facilities and legacy pollutants. A chlorine tank car exploded during the train 

wreck. By the time the regulators arrived at the location, all the people affected by the release were in the 

hospital. Because the regulators found no injured people, they focused on the fish in the creek. Lawyers 

settled the case before any health information was available on the first responders. Sensors were needed 

to assess the exposure of the 250 to 300 people who were hospitalized after the wreck. This involves both 

technology and technology deployment. Exposure cannot be estimated without data. The lack of low-cost, 

reliable sensors serves a lot of interests. If no data are available, no one can be held accountable. Followup medical studies of those who were hospitalized identify continuing problems, particularly with the 

children of this low income minority community. Ms. Loftness suggested that it might be useful to 

include the number of people affected by each of these stories to get a sense of scale. In the building 

industry, for example, it is mandatory to install fire sensor technology in every building. This is not 

conducted outside of the building arena. Perhaps there should be a distributed sensor requirement for any 

toxicity. Dr. Mitchell noted that a sensor would be useful on the vehicle itself. The largest source of 

chlorine releases is trucks that are involved in accidents going to sewage treatment or water plants. 

Mr. Erichsen suggested that part of the solution is for these facilities to switch to ultraviolet 

decontamination instead of chlorine. Dr. Dysart noted that the tanks of chlorine involved in the train 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 27

wreck were en route to a mill, and because of the accident, the company went out of business. This is a 

non-fixed location scenario, and dispersion modeling could apply. 

Dr. Dysart then described a case in the Louisiana/Texas “chemical corridor” along the Mississippi River.

A large number of communities there still are being exposed to toxic chemicals. Petrochemical and 

chemical refineries release pollutants in the air, groundwater, land, and surface water. This case includes 

EJ issues, and one community could be used to illustrate many others. Low-cost, easy-to-deploy, reliable 

sensors are needed to provide timely credible and actionable data and to alert people to the problems in 

the community. Although the problems are multimedia, Dr. Dysart suggested focusing on air. 

Mr. Erichsen discussed a Lake Erie Beach case, where the issue is beach contamination. This problem is 

endemic in the Great Lakes, and causes direct exposure of anyone swimming in the public beaches. 

Source identification technologies are needed. Because many of these beaches are close to combined 

sewers, the usual presumption is that the sewer overflows are causing the problem. Mr. Erichsen’s 

suspicion, however, is that the sources of contamination are from the watershed, and the combined sewer 

overflows may not be the problem with most beaches. The EPA literature on the subject does blame 

combined sewers, with septic tanks as an afterthought, and little discussion of watershed sources. DNA 

sampling has been tried without productive results, it is not clear that this is a practical technology. There 

is a real need for better methods of source identification for the many potential sources of pathogens that 

affect these beaches. Another technology being used in this area is coastal habitat and wetlands as a 

means of cleaning water before it gets to beaches. This would be a development and deployment 

opportunity. The third applicable technology is predictive modeling. If a sample is collected and 

incubated, it takes several days before the water quality is determined; predictive modeling, however, 

could predict the water quality at a given time. The most impacted vulnerable population is children, 

because the beach is a state park and the most inexpensive access to the beach. Impacts on low income 

groups are more tenuous. The people who live in the watershed are not as impacted as those who use the 

park. Pathogens are the toxins present, and the usual indicator is E. coli. A question exists as to whether 

the source is biosolids, because sampling has been inconclusive. This watershed is worse than 

neighboring watersheds, so there is something different about it. Ms. Loftness noted that there might be a 

suite of watershed indicators that would make the area safe for farm animals and recreation. 

Mr. Erichsen noted that the Ottawa River case was not presented because of similarities to the Passaic 

River case.

Mr. Erichsen then summarized the Toledo Brownfields case, which involves an industrial neighborhood 

abandonment issue, community sustainability, redevelopment, and ways to live in a community impacted 

by old contamination. This case has a direct link with economic redevelopment, and can be characterized 

as a cross-cutting strategy. The case study involves three unrelated brownfields sites that are close to each 

other. The affected community is almost 100 percent African American and low income. A number of 

projects for assessment and remediation are under way in the area. A need exists for communication 

between the scientific and impacted communities. Uses of the land that will be productive and beneficial 

to the community should be found. Soil is being tested for potential use in urban agriculture, but soil may 

be brought in for raised beds. One of the technologies being considered is phytoremediation, but there is 

some controversy over its viability. 

Mr. Shelby discussed Dr. Kammen’s study on energy and poverty, which is based in Nicaragua. Some 

rural communities are not able to connect to the national grid, and instead are using diesel generators that 

are rather expensive and polluting. The Nicaraguan government worked with the communities to design 

mini microgrids utilizing some diesel to generate power. The Nicaraguan government and citizens 

pursued this only after it was proven to them that sustainable development paths could actually save 

money. Dr. Kammen was working on developing mitigation curves with the local and national 

governments to show that the solutions would save money and reduce poverty, but also reduce air 

pollution. The technologies are foldable tank systems. Ms. Loftness suggested that the case could be 
28 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

bundled with the tribal housing case. Mr. Erichsen asked if there are locations where the technology could 

be used in the United States. Mr. Shelby has been working with Dr. Kammen on tribal housing, and could 

add to the case study. The communities want to be educated on the available solutions which are real and 

tangible. Dr. Benedict added that there might be a Navajo Nation location where this could apply.

Ms. Loftness stated that Dr. Kammen will write a case study on shale gas drilling. This is a case that 

would highlight the need for risk assessment. He believes that our country is moving to develop 

alternative combustion fuel sources without examining all of the environmental ramifications. Without 

analysis and risk assessment, there could be serious hazards associated with these alternative sources. 

Ms. Loftness sent a study on the hazards to the workers digging for shale gas to the workgroup members. 

There are papers available about onsite storage of the water used in the process. Mediation technologies 

are needed. Dr. John added that he understood that deep gas drilling was substantially unregulated in 

many places. Ms. Loftness noted that this was an EJ issue because the more informed customers typically 

do not sign up to have the process conducted on their land. 

Ms. Filippone mentioned another possible case study on groundwater contamination from legacy 

pollutants by industries. The pollution plumes extend under people’s homes, and they contain a variety of 

pollutants. The VOCs that are released from the groundwater affect the indoor air quality, which causes 

health problems that cannot be pinpointed to anything in particular. 

Ms. Loftness suggested two further case studies on: (1) fire retardants (sensor technologies and 

alternatives) and (2) combined storm sewer overflows. Ms. O’Donnell suggested another case study on 

diesel from mobile sources (issue is technology deployment to communities). Case studies already are 

written on this topic. 

Mr. Joyce commented that there had been much discussion on a number of different issues, but ultimately 

the report and recommendations should be useful to and actionable by EPA and ORD. During tomorrow’s 

meeting, Dr. Hauchman will be able to provide some direction to the workgroup on those case studies that 

would be most useful to EPA. Perhaps the workgroup should wait for his input before eliminating or 

adding case studies. Drs. John and Mitchell decided that a vote should be taken, and that Dr. Hauchman’s 

recommendations would likely echo those of the Workgroup. 

Dr. Mitchell noted that case studies should be selected based on the technological and vulnerable 

populations issues associated with the case. 

Ms. Loftness commented that some of the case studies can be linked because they focus on similar 

challenges. She is hesitant to eliminate any of the cases, and would prefer to shorten them. Dr. Mitchell 

suggested that, after the vote, the workgroup should discuss the possibility of expanding the scope of 

some of the case studies. 

Dr. Benedict suggested that the case studies be grouped by need area and Mr. Shelby agreed. It was stated 

that actionable technologies would be a more useful way of grouping the studies. Dr. Mitchell 

recommended that the group vote on the case studies and then group them. Dr. John thought it was 

important to vote on the cases because the case studies have to be drafted in a month; there may be some 

natural combinations among the selected case studies. 

A vote was taken with the following outcome (selected case studies received four or five votes):

Cases selected (4-5 votes)

Passaic

Housing on tribal lands

Hartford

Rubbertown
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 29

Toledo

Graniteville

Cases not selected

3 votes Diesel, New Bedford

2 votes CSOs, Chemical Corridor, Lake Erie, Fire retardants, Groundwater

1 vote Shale gas

0 votes Waterbury

Ms. Loftness suggested that some of the cases selected could be bundled. 

Dr. Mitchell asked if anyone was uncomfortable with removing any of the cases that were now off the 

list. 

Ms. Loftness suggested that the Waterbury study could be combined with the Hartford study, because 

both are incinerators and power plants in low-income neighborhoods. She also thought the case studies 

should be tightened so that they are presented in a page, if possible. 

Dr. Parker noted that mobile sources of diesel did not make the cut, and that was a large issue. 

Ms. O’Donnell suggested that a paragraph on diesel be added to the report and the case studies 

referenced. 

Mr. Erichsen agreed, of the case studies he had written, the Toledo case had a greater connection to EJ 

issues than the Lake Erie case. 

Dr. Johnson commented that he had not heard any comments on how well the case studies represent the 

breadth of technologies that need to be developed. Each should have an EJ component, but they also 

should address different classes of technologies so that the field is covered sufficiently. 

Mr. Matt noted that the selected cases did involve technology and EJ issues, but they do not identify 

technologies to help empower vulnerable communities that face EJ issues. Is EPA interested in such 

technologies? If so, that element seems to be missing. Perhaps some of the narrative can be expanded to 

include this issue. Workgroup members agreed that such technologies should be included. Ms. Filippone 

noted that some sensors mentioned could immediately alert communities to a problem. It was stated that 

another example of communication technology might be advising the local communities; for example, 

providing the community advice about what should and should not be grown in a garden planted in areas 

with contaminated soils. Dr. Johnson asked Mr. Matt to provide an example of what he thinks is not being 

addressed by the selected case studies. Mr. Matt responded that communities need processes as well as 

monitors. Communities, cities, and small governments should be thinking about these issues in the same 

way as tribes. They need to figure out what they can do for themselves and what resources EPA can 

provide to assist them. The workgroup will not be able to include examples that define all the problems 

and identify all the technology needs. Given that realization, what process can be included in the studies 

that will empower communities to bring their resources to bear on the problem? Ms. Filippone agreed 

with Mr. Matt in terms of process, but noted that the discussion focused on technology. Mr. Erichsen 

commented that a low-cost way of conducting outreach is to put information on a website, but that 

method does not necessarily reach the population in low-income communities. Dr. Johnson added that the 

case studies could mention the need for developing a process that would allow communities to use the 

technologies to help themselves. 

Dr. Parker noted that the charge stated the workgroup should give EPA suggestions on working directly 

with vulnerable populations to identify environmentally related health issues as well as the need for new 

and improved technologies. Given that the workgroup is gravitating toward discussions of EJ, Mr. Matt 
30 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

said he found three EPA reports on EJ in Indian Country and one that was as recent as 2010 from a group 

called the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and the Law. 

Dr. John commented that some of the cases not chosen could enrich another selected case study. 

Ms. Loftness asked if Dr. John was assuming that the case studies would be 6 to 10 pages. Dr. John 

confirmed that assumption. Because shorter expositions would be preferable for some audiences, it was 

suggested that the full case studies 6 to 8 pages and that there be an executive summary that boiled the 

text down to one-half of a page. Ms. Loftness commented that the formats of the studies were so different 

that they were not consistent in identifying the issues. Dr. John stated that perhaps both a 1-page box 

summary and a full, longer case study were needed. Ms. Loftness noted that the workgroup’s charge will 

not have been met if the case studies make up the heart of the report; to meet its charge, the workgroup 

needs to discuss the types of technologies in the three tiers mentioned by EPA. Dr. Benedict suggested 

that the shorter case studies be in the report, and the longer versions in the appendix. 

Dr. Dysart asked about the detail needed to identify the technologies. Dr. Mitchell said he thought they 

should be as detailed as possible. 

Ms. O’Donnell agreed with Ms. Loftness and Dr. Benedict that the Workgroup’s charge was to answer 

the question. If the report is only case studies bracketed by an introduction and conclusion it will be 

insufficient. The first charge question will require a literature search of some kind to answer it effectively. 

The case studies are just examples, and do not address what currently is known. 

Ms. Loftness suggested that members discuss their own case studies relative to the technologies in those 

three categories during tomorrow’s session. Dr. Parker asked if the workgroup needed to examine the 

charge and determine what could be gleaned from the case studies to answer it. Some questions deal with 

process and policies that need to be in place. Ms. Nash noted that a plan was needed for how the group 

would address some of the other aspects of the report. Dr. Benedict commented that with more 

specifically defined technologies, the group was in a better position to answer charge question 3. 

Mr. Joyce explained that the intent of the report is to identify needs. Ms. Filippone responded that if there 

is no technology available to address a cleanup issue that is a need for a technology to be developed. 

Mr. Joyce agreed. EPA’s hope has been that the workgroup would identify needs for technologies to 

better meet unresolved ongoing environmental issues in vulnerable populations. A specific technological 

solution does not need to be offered. 

Dr. Mitchell commented that lower income people have more of access to cell phones than to other 

technologies, so perhaps this could be part of the communications solution. Mr. Matt stated that he had 

been under the impression that people were trying to aim for new technologies, but in vulnerable 

populations, the real issue may be access to existing technologies. Mr. Joyce agreed that this issue was 

important for addressing many of these problems, but that is not the central task for the report. ORD is 

asking the workgroup to identify needs for known technological solutions. If there are situations in which 

there is a need but no known solutions, or known solutions that have not been implemented because the 

political will is not there, there is no role for EPA. Congress controls the funding and passes the laws that 

determine what EPA can do. Dr. Mitchell suggested that a key issue is getting communities organized to 

put pressure on their political leaders. 

Dr. John commented that the next task is to examine the charge and determine how the selected case 

studies can inform the charge questions. The workgroup can meet as a whole and address this, or meet in 

small groups, taking similar case studies. Dr. Mitchell was interested in determining who will be working 

on what cases, because each case should be addressed by several people. 

Ms. Filippone said that the workgroup should revisit the mission statement to determine what has and has 

not been accomplished. The workgroup then should develop an outline for the case studies so that they all 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 31

are similar in format and are easier to read. Ms. Loftness suggested that more discussion was needed on 

the range of technologies needed. Ms. Filippone asked what Dr. Hauchman would be expecting from the 

workgroup. Mr. Joyce stated that Dr. Hauchman had reviewed the case studies, but it would be useful for 

the workgroup to explain to him why these cases have been identified as a priority, and then get a sense 

from him whether EPA already is conducting work in that area and whether there is a role for EPA. Also, 

as much as possible, the workgroup should identify technological needs for each case study. 

Ms. Nash noted that the research conducted thus far was only a subset of what needed to be done. 

Ms. Loftness agreed, and thought they needed Dr. Hauchman’s input on more than the case studies. The 

workgroup needs a sense of where EPA believes some of the frontiers to be in terms of technology. 

Dr. Dysart mentioned that the workgroup had been asked to give ORD advice. Mr. Erichsen added that 

the workgroup may want to provide recommendations on prioritizing the work related to these case 

studies in which the Agency already is involved. Dr. Mitchell brought up many technologies in the 

discussion that were not included in the case studies. 

Dr. John presented the agenda for the next day’s discussion with Dr. Hauchman based on the members’ 

comments. Mr. Joyce suggested that the charge is malleable, and the workgroup should not fixate on the 

one specific document. The ultimate charge is to identify ongoing severe environmental problems in 

communities of vulnerable populations that have unaddressed needs that can be met by technology. 

Mr. Joyce explained the report process to the workgroup. Once a draft of the major sections is completed, 

then it goes to the contractor to be edited, and that becomes the working draft so that everyone is using 

the same draft. At that point, members will identify what might be missing or what should be revised. 

Dr. Dysart composed a brief definition sheet that he distributed to the members. Mr. Shelby will help 

write the tribal case study. 

The meeting was recessed for the day following the concurrent sessions.

FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2011

Council Approval of Second Advice Letter on EPA Workforce Planning

Mr. Joyce welcomed the NACEPT members back to the meeting and thanked them for a productive first 

day. 

Dr. Johnson suggested the dates of September 19-20 or 22-23, 2011, for the next NACEPT meeting. 

Another possibility is September 26-27, 2011. By show of hands, the members indicated their availability 

for the proposed meeting dates. The next meeting will be held on September 19-20 or 26-27, 2011.

Dr. Johnson suggested that EPA staff search for meeting space to see what is available on those two dates. 

Also, EPA should contact the members who are not present at this meeting to determine their availability, 

so that the meeting can be held on the date when most members can attend. Dr. Johnson asked the 

Council members to hold both sets of dates open until the final date is determined. If a member is needed 

to participate in a workgroup discussion and is unable to attend in person, perhaps a teleconference can be 

arranged, but the line must be open to the public. 

Dr. Johnson then reviewed the preliminary workplan that has been developed by Mr. Henderson for 

achieving greater diversity and inclusion within EPA. He sought feedback on the workplan, and noted 

that it should be benchmarked against the charge to ensure that the charge issues are being addressed. The 

workplan offers definitions of the topical areas that will be addressed and a preliminary recommendation. 

The workgroup has been expanded with the addition of Dr. Chertow. In June, the Workforce 

Workgroup’s diversity subgroup will participate in a session with EPA to discuss diversity issues. 
32 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Mr. Henderson noted that he had met with OPM the previous day, because there had been some questions 

about hiring practices, and the subgroup could discuss this. The MD-715 reports are going to be very 

important to informing the discussion and the outcomes in the June meeting, and will be very helpful to 

have. 

Dr. Johnson asked the Council if there was a need to revisit the second advice letter. The letter will be 

revised based on input both from the panel and the Council’s comments and that draft will be circulated to 

the workgroup members before it is submitted to NACEPT for a final review. Ms. Kendall confirmed that 

EPA would work with the NACEPT members to schedule a conference call in June or early July to 

review and approve the second advice letter. 

Returning to Mr. Henderson’s summary of the diversity component of the third letter, Dr. Johnson asked 

if the members had any feedback. Dr. Chertow said that she had examined previous meeting minutes 

about ensuring diversity at EPA, and she thought that the goals posted the previous day were generic 

rather than aimed at EPA. She suggested that the Council’s goals be clarified. A diverse and technically 

astute SES pool is needed. More specificity with respect to the goals is needed. Mr. Henderson agreed 

that his initial framework was generic because the Council had not yet convened to delve into the goals. If 

anyone has any suggestions, he would welcome them. Dr. Chertow added that the group did not discuss 

the definition of diversity. Ms. Kendall responded that the EPA charge provided a definition of diversity. 

Dr. Johnson stated that the EPA definition should be used. 

Ms. Loftness commented that there might be some overlap between the definition of diversity and the 

definition of vulnerable populations. Dr. Dysart has a two-page summary of the key issues with 

vulnerable populations. Representation of vulnerable populations within EPA would help the Agency to 

address challenges in this area. Ms. Kendall noted that the first advice letter addressed how EPA’s 

mission is changing because of more complexity; the discussion about diversity should bring that in as 

well. This issue is not just whether EPA can recruit more scientists and engineers from diverse 

backgrounds; rather, the mission of EPA is going to be different in the future to address EJ concerns. 

Dr. Chertow commented that she believed Mr. DeLeon was seeking more African American and Hispanic 

experts and technical staff for the Agency. Achieving diversity in thinking should not stop with the 

existing work on diversity that EPA has been conducting. Mr. Henderson concurred that this was an 

important point, and stated that as the framework for the diversity strategy is shaped around workforce 

representation and the pipeline for talent at EPA, those MD-715 reports will be very important, and will 

show the various areas where there is the most significant underutilization. For example, in a particular 

specialty area, African American women may be the most significantly underutilized group, so short-term 

strategies can be developed to target recruitment of African American women for that area. The recruiting 

and retention report mentioned that African Americans were concentrated at lower-level jobs. That is the 

information that the subgroup needs to develop its advice and recommendations. 

Dr. Johnson asked if the Council had any broad guidance for the workgroup. Mr. Erichsen asked how the 

diversity goals can be implemented when the hiring managers cannot consider race or ethnicity in 

recruiting or hiring. Dr. Johnson commented that the pool of candidates being considered has to be rich in 

diversity. Mr. Henderson stated that OPM informed him that hiring managers cannot target a specific

racial or ethnic category on the final list of candidates, but they can look for ways to broaden the applicant 

pool through targeted recruiting and targeted venues to assure larger representation of underrepresented 

minorities in the candidate pool. 

An EPA staff member advised that the Council may be confusing EEO categories with diversity. EPA is 

looking for a broader definition of diversity, including diversity of thinking. 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 33

Workforce Issues and Vulnerable Populations Workgroup Concurrent Sessions 

(continued)

Workforce Issues Workgroup Session

Dr. Johnson introduced and welcomed Mr. Eugene Green (EPA, OFACMO). He will be working with the 

NACEPT Workforce Workgroup and gradually be taking over the support responsibilities of Ms. Megan 

Moreau (OFACMO). He stated that the workgroup will be talking about its charge of advising EPA on 

achieving workforce diversity. He introduced the members of the workgroup and noted that a subgroup of 

the workgroup will meet in June to address diversity issues.

Mr. Henderson reported that he had spoken with OPM Deputy Director Christine Griffin about current 

governmental hiring processes. He learned that it was common practice to use a cutoff of 50 for the size 

of the applicant pool, but it was not a policy. USAJOBS is the primary way people apply for government 

positions, but agencies have different staffing systems. Taleo is one of the methods used to track staffing. 

Mr. Henderson said he focused his questions to Ms. Griffin on outreach to find out whether EPA can do 

targeted outreach (e.g., at an event or a particular university). She informed him that EPA does that all the 

time; the Agency cannot allow a hiring officer to favor particular applicants within a hiring pool, but 

outreach to create the pool is acceptable. Mr. Henderson suggested that the workgroup may be getting 

confused about the Office of Human Resources’ discretion with regard to the hiring pool. If the 

workgroup schedules a June meeting, Ms. Griffin is willing to attend and speak about hiring categories at 

EPA. Mr. Henderson supported her participation at the June meeting to provide the members a better 

sense of the parameters for diversity and inclusion.

Dr. Johnson asked whether applicants to EPA’s fellowship programs provide demographic data. 

Ms. Powell-Dickson responded that unless they provide information voluntarily, EPA cannot ask for that 

data. Mr. Martinez explained that EPA tries to increase the opportunity for minorities to apply rather than 

focus on the numbers. This is how EPA uses targeting to attain greater diversity. Mr. Henderson pointed 

out that in the private sector, businesses are required to keep applicant logs and this now is being enforced 

more strictly.

Ms. Jones-Jackson asked Mr. Martinez about the data that are available on applicants. He replied that his 

office will have collected an entire year of information in 2011. He noted that his office just started to 

track applicant demographics. Mr. Martinez explained that to comply with the EEO Management 

Directive 715 (MD-715) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for establishing 

affirmative programs of equal employment opportunity, EPA examines five areas: outreach, recruitment 

(i.e., Is the Agency getting the diverse applicant pool it wants?), hiring (i.e., Is the Agency hiring them?), 

development (i.e., Are those hired happy and are they moving up?), and retention (i.e., What tools should 

the Agency use to keep them?).

Dr. Johnson pointed out that the workgroup needs to ask the proper questions to answer its charge, and 

these questions will guide the June meeting. For example: How can EPA ensure access to the best and 

most technologically advanced applicant pool? What can EPA do to ensure diverse applicants are 

selected, retained, and promoted in the SES? What can EPA do to ensure that the SES is held in high 

esteem? What can EPA do to define and track diversity in the SES in the broadest sense? The scope is 

broader than EPA’s charge because it includes thinking styles, educational backgrounds, family 

experiences, etc. Each of the Workforce Workgroup’s letters mentions diversity and points to the third 

letter, which will focus on it. He suggested that the approach to achieving diversity among the SES staff 

could be very different from achieving it among the technical staff.

Ms. Milam stated that the charge was not well written to distinguish between the EEOC’s definition and a 

broader diversity definition. Does EPA have representation of the civilian workforce in the SES? Is EPA 

bringing the diverse thinking styles into the SES? Ms. Powell-Dickson confirmed that EPA needs the 
34 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

workgroup to address diversity in the SES but also to examine EPA’s culture of diversity. MD-715 is fine 

as a definition for the EEO, but diversity outreach needs to go beyond that definition at EPA and change 

the Agency’s culture. Managers are hiring people like themselves, but EPA needs diverse thinking so that 

it can meet the needs of the diverse citizens.

Dr. Johnson clarified that there are two approaches to addressing diversity at EPA: understanding and 

following the EEOC definition versus using a more broadly defined diversity approach. He maintained 

that the workgroup needs to address the first approach. Ms. Powell-Dickson noted that Ms. Gelb and 

Mr. Soto at OARM wrote the original charge to NACEPT and she acknowledged that the EEO definition 

is the basis for the Office of Human Resources’ work on diversity. Although EEO forms the legal basis, 

Ms. Powell-Dickson hoped that the workgroup could address some of the issues raised by Mr. DeLeon. 

Ms. Bannerman pointed out that if the workgroup is going to use a broader definition for diversity, 

different references are needed than those that are listed. Ms. Kendall thought the workgroup should start 

identifying questions for the June meeting, and then they can select different references.

Dr. Johnson suggested that EPA needs both to recruit people to enhance diversity and to study what 

makes EPA a good place to work. The Agency should strive to have a diverse applicant pool and be a 

place where people flourish. Mr. Henderson asked how leaders set the tone within EPA. He maintained 

that this is important to building a diverse pool.

Dr. Johnson reminded the workgroup that it should be outlining the agenda for the June meeting and 

examining the available resources. The workgroup needs to make adequate progress to prepare for the 

June meeting. In terms of a timeline, Ms. Kendall proposed that it would be helpful to have a draft of the 

advice letter by August. The Council needs a draft final letter by September 10. The writing will have to 

be done in June and July. Therefore, it would be productive to develop an outline and identify the 

questions to address at the June meeting. The workgroup may need more data for the June meeting and 

EPA will need time to gather than information. Ms. Bannerman asked Mr. Martinez when the MD-715 

report will be available. Ms. Moreau asked if the workgroup could get access to the full report, and 

Mr. Martinez replied that he would check and get back to her.

Basis for the Agenda for the June Meeting

As a basis to forming an agenda for the June meeting, Ms. Kendall began by asking EPA for suggestions 

about the best references on diversity and whether the workgroup can get a summary or overview of 

EPA’s MD-715 plans. Mr. Martinez said that it might be difficult to identify the best references. He noted 

that the diversity office is new at EPA, but he could provide the workgroup with information from other 

agencies. Ms. Kendall stated that even a verbal summary of the MD-715 would be helpful to the 

workgroup. Mr. Martinez explained that EPA submits an MD-715 report to the EEOC each year. From 

that, EPA creates an action plan to help senior management. Ms. Moreau posited that the workgroup 

might like a summary of both documents. Ms. Milam was of the opinion that the workgroup would 

benefit most from the full report. Ms. Powell-Dickson cautioned, however, that EPA has a very 

conservative legal office that may not want to release the entire report.

Ms. Kendall identified two items to consider for the agenda: (1) whether leaders are held accountable for 

promoting diversity and (2) the legal constraints to promoting diversity. Ms. Bannerman suggested adding 

a discussion of best practices at EPA, including the regions, as well as at other agencies. Dr. Chertow 

continued that it might be useful to meet with representatives from other agencies. Mr. Martinez 

recommended Ms. Griffin (OPM), which Mr. Henderson seconded. Ms. Powell-Dickson remarked that 

EPA views the Veterans Administration (VA) as a model for its diversity program, and VA has a booklet 

of best practices. The workgroup could ask Ms. Georgia Coffey (or a member of her staff), who runs the 

diversity office at the VA, to come to the June meeting and offer her insights. There is a lot of information 

on how a diversity program could work in the Federal Government on the VA website. Ms. PowellDickson added that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is another agency that 

has a very good diversity program. Ms. Susan Wong, the Special Assistant for Diversity at the Goddard 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 35

Space Flight Center, is on detail to Ms. Veronica Villalobos to help establish the Office for Diversity and 

Inclusion at OPM. Ms. Kendall suggested that EPA’s attrition data, broken down by national origin, race, 

and gender, would be helpful. Ms. Powell-Dickson will check with legal to determine what information 

can be shared with the workgroup. Ms. Bannerman added that if information on net loss is available, it 

would be useful. Mr. Martinez promised to check whether he can provide statistics from 2007-2010. 

Mr. Henderson indicated that he would like more information on the FCIP. Ms. Powell-Dickson 

responded that a lawsuit about the program was brought against EPA by veterans groups, so the program 

was discontinued. She stated that EPA can provide information on the replacement program, which has 

not been implemented yet. Ms. Bannerman asked how EPA addresses disabilities and how the workgroup 

should include this issue in the diversity discussion. Mr. Henderson suggested that the hiring of veterans 

might be pertinent. Ms. Milam suggested that the workgroup discuss the capabilities of USAJOBS3, 

because it could change human resources at EPA. 

Mr. Henderson proposed that the workgroup assign a lead person for each of these questions, which will 

form the basis for the agenda for the June meeting. The workgroup did so (see Exhibit 2, Flipchart 1, 

questions A-L). The workgroup also identified EPA personnel who could serve as resources for each 

question, and these also are indicated in Exhibit 2. Ms. Kendall pointed out that the order of the questions 

as listed might not be the best flow for the agenda. Ms. Bannerman thought she might need time to 

process these issues, in response to which Ms. Kendall proposed that a series of conference calls in 

advance of the June meeting to talk through these questions might be worthwhile.
36 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

EXHIBIT 2. FLIPCHARTS FROM EPA WORKFORCE DIVERSITY 

WORKGROUP BREAKOUT SESSION

May 20, 2011

One EPA/Recruiting/Retention/Diversity Strategies (The How)

Co-Leads: Effenus Henderson and Jim Johnson

Diversity workgroup session questions (flipchart page 1 of 3)

I. Basis for agenda for June meeting

A. What are the best references?

(EPA Resources: Ismael Martinez, Antoinette Powell-Dickson)

B. Can the workgroup get a summary or overview of MD 715 plans?

(EPA Resources: Ismael Martinez, Michael Butkovich, Antoinette PowellDickson)

C. Are leaders held accountable for promoting diversity? What emphasis on diversity is 

expected of the leadership (critical job elements, communication for managers, and 

diversity action plan for SES vacancies)?

(EPA Resources: Claire Milam, Antoinette Powell-Dickson)

D. What legal constraints are there in promoting diversity?

(EPA Resources: Antoinette Powell-Dickson, Julia Rhodes)

E. Are there best practices in EPA or in other agencies?

(U.S. Office of Personnel Management [OPM], Office of Diversity and Inclusion: 

Veronica Villalobos, Director; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of 

Diversity and Inclusion: Georgia Coffey, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Christine 

[Christy] Compton, Equal Opportunity Specialist; NASA)

F. What does attrition data look like by national origin, race, and gender?

(EPA Resources: Antoinette Powell-Dickson will check data availability with 

EPA’s legal staff and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission [EEOC] 

advisory council)

G. What are the net loss statistics from 2007-2010? 

(EPA Resource: Debbi Hart)

H. Can OPM talk about the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP) replacement, the 

Pathways Programs framework? 

(Responsible Workgroup Members: Effenus Henderson, Christine Griffin)

(OPM Resource: Veronica Villalobos)

I. How does EPA frame the accommodation of disabilities in its diversity charge? (EPA 

Resources: Eugene Green, Tex Gomez)

J. What does EPA do to accommodate disabilities and veterans in its current programs? 

(EPA Resources: Debbi Hart, Bill Haig)

K. What will USAJOBS version three offer? How will it change human resources at EPA? 

(Responsible Workgroup Members: Effenus Henderson, Christine Griffin)

L. How will USAJOBS version three change EPA’s role?
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 37

Structure of the advice letter (Exhibit 2, Flipchart 2) 

A. Outreach

B. Recruitment

C. Hiring

D. Onboarding 

(EPA Resources: Emerging Leaders Network [ELN]–GS, Claire Milam–SES)

E. Employee development (EEOC, external hiring for SES, silo mentoring program)

F. Retention/engagement (ELN, affinity/employee resources, Special Emphasis Program 

Managers [SEPMs])

Structure of the Advice Letter on Leadership

Ms. Milam noted that every SES member is evaluated by the same performance measures. Mr. Martinez 

clarified that the five-tier system used to be applied just to SES personnel, but now it has been expanded 

to all management and supervisors. Ms. Powell-Dickson concurred, stating that Administrator Jackson 

recently required it for all leaders within the Agency. Mr. Henderson stated that he would be interested in 

any communications from the Administrator on this topic.

Ms. Milam told the workgroup that most discussion of diversity at EPA is related to the EEOC definition, 

not to the broader one; Ms. Powell-Dickson disagreed, however. Mr. Martinez pointed out that senior 

management provided the specific language for the workgroup’s use. EPA must develop a diversity 

action plan whenever there is an SES opening specifying how the Agency will do outreach to attract a 

diverse applicant pool. Ms. Powell-Dickson noted that EPA also is seeking to implement a diversity 

action plan before announcing vacancies for all management positions.

Ms. Kendall suggested that the workgroup structure the advice letter on achieving diverse leadership at 

EPA around several broad issues (see Exhibit 2, Flipchart 2). In June, the workgroup members could add 

what they have heard and their thoughts on these issues. Mr. Martinez commented that EPA’s Shared 

Service Centers view outreach, recruiting, and hiring as one process. EPA Headquarters breaks it down, 

however. Mr. Henderson mentioned that he would like to know more about onboarding versus orientation 

at EPA. He emphasized that onboarding helps facilitate engagement and inclusion when taking on new 

people. He asked if there is a similar process at EPA. Mr. Green replied that a workgroup was recently 

formed to focus on that topic. He suggested Brian Tillman as a resource for further information about it. 

Ms. Milam said that OPM and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are piloting onboarding for 

SES, but Mr. Green was referring to something specific to the Office of the Administrator. The Emerging 

Leaders Network (ELN) is an informal organization that was formed to meet the onboarding needs of 

young staff members and they are doing a very good job. Someone from the ELN would be a great 

resource for the workgroup about onboarding at the GS level. Ms. Milam said that EPA had developed 

diverse applicant pools for SES positions in the past, but that process did not seem to be effective for 

hiring from other agencies. She gave an example of a hiring process she ran several years ago in which 30

percent of the 30 applicants for SES positions were from other agencies, but none of them were hired.

Ms. Powell-Dickson noted that EPA does not have a formal mentoring program. EPA has informal 

mentoring and rotational development, but no general mentoring. Ms. Jones-Jackson disagreed, pointing 

out that EPA recently started such a program called “Leaders and Learners.” Ms. Powell-Dickson 

clarified that some offices are using mentoring, but it is not Agency-wide. The Office of Water (OW), for 
38 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

example, has been doing it for a long time. Ms. Jones-Jackson countered that “Leaders and Learners” is a 

pilot program and, at the end of next year, it will be applied across the Agency.

Mr. Martinez suggested that the workgroup’s report address the perception of a glass ceiling at EPA. The 

Agency does not know why it exists. Perhaps the NACEPT Workforce Workgroup could help by 

studying barriers and how they have formed. Mr. Martinez noted that Special Emphasis Program 

Managers (SEPMs) are used as a resource to recruit African-Americans for management positions. 

Cross-Cutting Issues

Ms. Kendall suggested that to structure a discussion of diversity issues, the workgroup should focus on 

recruiting and hiring. Within those issues are cross-cutting issues: silo programs, glass ceilings, the 

historical mission of EPA, systemic barriers, and the One EPA initiative.

Ms. Powell-Dickson stated that poor planning for succession is an Agency-wide problem. Sixty-eight 

percent of EPA’s SES population is eligible to retire, but the SESers are slow to leave the Agency. That is 

part of why there is a glass ceiling: there are no open positions. If EPA had succession planning, it might 

encourage mid-level employees who are seeking advancement.

Ms. Milam commented that there is a connection between diversity and the other workgroup’s topic of 

protecting vulnerable populations. Mr. Henderson echoed her observation. Ms. Milam thought the 

workgroup should state why diversity is so important beyond compliance. Ms. Powell-Dickson noted that 

this is in one of the Administrator’s goals. Ms. Kendall suggested that diversity is a tool to achieve the 

goals stated in EPA’s strategic plan. Ms. Powell-Dickson thought that environmental justice and diversity 

should be woven into the strategic plan.

Mr. Henderson stated that employee engagement and satisfaction need to be considered through the 

diversity lens. He wanted to know what programs EPA currently has in place. Ms. Powell-Dickson 

answered that EPA has plans to start doing employee surveys and town hall meetings. The Agency did 

not have time this year, but these are planned for 2011-2012. Mr. Martinez observed that for the “One 

EPA” concept, the Agency needs to move towards communication between offices. There are many silos 

and much repetition at the Agency. EPA’s Office of Human Resources has a large number of programs, 

but other departments do not know about them. Ms. Jones-Jackson stated that this is one of the reasons 

that “One EPA” was considered.

Meeting Logistics

The workgroup discussed the meeting date and location. Ms. Kendall thought a 1-day meeting would be 

best. The workgroup decided that an all-day meeting on June 14 would be sufficient. The attendees of that 

meeting will be Dr. Johnson, Dr. Chertow, Ms. Bannerman, Mr. Rivera, and Mr. Henderson. The 

following EPA staff also will participate: Mr. DeLeon, Mr. Soto, and Ms. Gelb, as recommended by 

Ms. Jones-Jackson. Mr. Henderson asked that Mr. DeLeon and Mr. Soto be invited for the entire day. 

Ms. Moreau responded that she already sent them an invitation. Ms. Jones-Jackson proposed that the 

workgroup might want to invite Stan Meiburg as well. Ms. Powell-Dickson suggested the Julia Rhodes 

might also be able to participate. Ms. Milam asked that Karen Higginbotham be added to the list.

Mr. Henderson asked who will do the logistics to organize the June meeting and set up a schedule for 

briefings on the topics of the meetings. Ms. Moreau volunteered to take the lead. Ms. Jones-Jackson 

proposed that everyone start feeding information to Ms. Moreau and Mr. Green, and EPA will create an 

agenda. Mr. Henderson thought some topics should come before others, but Ms. Powell-Dickson 

responded that the agenda likely will depend on the schedules of EPA attendees.
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 39

Mr. Henderson proposed a working lunch during the June meeting given the scope of the agenda. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson said that she had a conference room available that would accommodate 25 people. 

Mr. Henderson did not think the group would be larger than 25 so he thought the room would work. 

Closing Remarks

Ms. Kendall noted that the workgroup will need to do a report out when the main session reconvenes after 

the break. Mr. Henderson asked whether there was anything that had been left out. He summarized the 

objectives and desired outcomes for the June meeting. The objectives are to use the agenda developed in 

today’s meeting to review current practices and strategies that affect diversity at EPA. The outcome will 

be to review that data and make a series of preliminary recommendations based on them for a letter to be 

reviewed by the workgroup and later the Council in September.

Ms. Milam encouraged the workgroup to think of diversity as an imperative. In the past, the workgroup 

has focused on the stability of the workforce. Mr. Henderson suggested that this might be an action item 

to add to the June meeting. He would like an EPA person to take the lead. Ms. Milam thought it would be 

good to get the strategic planning staff at EPA involved in the discussion. Ms. Powell-Dickson agreed 

that after this meeting, it would be worthwhile to meet with EPA staff about the strategic plan.

Ms. Milam observed that this would be a first for the Agency. It is not part of EPA’s culture to hold such 

brainstorming sessions. That is why it would be best to frame out the issues before meeting with EPA. 

Ms. Powell-Dickson told the workgroup that they would have to present to EPA the direction the group is 

going before the discussion begins. Ms. Milam agreed because the meeting will be open to the public, and 

Inside EPA and other trade journals attend NACEPT meetings. Mr. Henderson proposed that the 

workgroup have a conversation about this after the June meeting. He thought it was important to frame 

the issue to the Agency that diversity goes beyond workplace representation to EPA’s charter. Ms. JonesJackson indicated that Ms. Milam may want to talk to her managers first about participating in a public 

conversation. Ms. Milam agreed that this is an important discussion for EPA’s senior leaders, however, it 

is one that they have not discussed yet. She thought this would be a great opportunity for it, and 

Ms. Jones-Jackson agreed.

Mr. Henderson reminded the workgroup of the need to stay focused for the June meeting because there 

would be a very full agenda. He thought the workgroup had accomplished what it needed to do so he 

adjourned the workgroup session at 11:00 a.m.

Vulnerable Populations Workgroup Session 

Dr. Hauchman joined the workgroup to discuss the case studies. Dr. John pointed to the list of case 

studies selected by the workgroup and explained the selection process to Dr. Hauchman. He suggested 

that the members briefly inform Dr. Hauchman of the case study topics and Dr. Parker further 

recommended that the technologies be the focus of the descriptions. 

Dr. Hauchman confirmed that the workgroup wanted to know if the recommendations in the case studies 

would be useful to EPA. Ideally, EPA would like to take the recommendations and act on them, and ORD

is the office that is most immediately within the relevant sphere of influence. He will be listening for the 

type of technology needed and whether it is innovative. He brought a sheet on technologies from his 

colleague Chris Saint that outlines three basic types of technologies: data collection, data management, 

and risk management. When listening to the group, he will try to place the technologies into one of these 

three groups as a useful way of thinking about them. 

Ms. O’Donnell commented that the case studies will not address the questions in the charge. She thought 

it would be useful to hear from Dr. Hauchman, after the case studies are described, regarding how to 

supplement them. Dr. Hauchman mentioned that the Office of Environmental Justice has made 
40 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

presentations on disproportionate impacts, and there had been a conference to examine the science behind 

EJ. It was a groundbreaking conference that brought a lot of people together in March 2010. EPA 

committed to responding to the recommendations with a 100-day report, and there are draft report 

responses to the conference available on the EPA website, and one of them is on science. Dr. Hauchman 

agreed to send the link to members. 

Ms. Filippone described the Passaic River case study. Dr. Hauchman agreed that existing technologies for 

dredging are inadequate. Because of the areas where contaminated sediments exist, would the group 

recommend an assessment or evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of available technologies? 

Ms. O’Donnell added that there are technologies that have been identified outside the United States. 

Ms. Filippone noted that EPA needs to “bless” these technologies before they will be used in this country, 

and that has not happened yet. Dr. Hauchman noted that there can be legal obstacles to doing that, and he 

would recommend an evaluation of new technologies. 

Dr. John stated that Ms. Orosco had e-mailed a summary of what she thought to be the priorities. 

Ms. Loftness added that this was useful because she had not presented the full case study, but the actions 

that are needed to address the case and the recommendations of the workgroup. That is a totally different 

approach than the one the workgroup has been taking. A decision must be made as to how to proceed. 

Mr. Joyce commented that Dr. Hauchman had agreed to make subject matter experts available to the 

committee members as they are drafting these cases. They may be able to answer questions such as why 

these technologies have not been used. 

Mr. Matt described the case study on tribal housing. Mr. Shelby added that this would include tools used 

to collect the data. Dr. Hauchman stated that this was an excellent example of a case in which a call can 

be scheduled with the Office of Indoor Air and those at ORD who are familiar with these technologies. If 

this issue will have a particular emphasis on tribal issues, ORD coordinates with the Tribal Science 

Council (TSC). A process has just been completed in which the TSC leaders indentified their priorities, 

and they may be interested in hearing input from NACEPT. 

Dr. Mitchell summarized the Hartford case study. Dr. Hauchman confirmed that only average 

measurements were being taken, and the peaks were not measured. Dr. Mitchell then discussed the 

Rubbertown case study. Dr. John commented that Rubbertown was a place with multiple stressors. There 

are technological issues and issues regarding how to deploy the technology. Dr. Hauchman stated that 

tools are being developed (such as C-FERST) that will allow communities to plug into the model and 

identify the highest priority needs within a complicated exposure scenario. Cumulative risk assessment 

and impact analysis are part of the charge as well. Mr. Joyce noted that the C-FERST presentation and all 

of the other presentations from the past meetings should be available on the NACEPT website. 

Mr. Erichsen described the Toledo Brownfield case study. Dr. Hauchman said he was listening for a 

recommendation about the deployment of technologies. Dr. Mitchell commented that a qualitative testing 

technology was needed for the community. Ms. Loftness emphasized that the question is how much 

measurement is needed before the need to remediate is evident. One of the challenges to the workgroup is 

determining whether more monitoring/sampling is needed or whether a solution technology already is 

needed. Dr. Mitchell countered that sampling is needed to determine the location of the contamination. 

Mr. Matt said that much of the discussion focused on informational rather than technical issues. For 

example, how does EPA communicate the problem to the community in a way that empowers the effected 

community to act? Ms. Filippone added that the VOCs from the groundwater get into people’s homes, 

and the causes of the resulting illnesses are not identified. The importance of using indoor emissions 

monitoring and treatment systems must be communicated to future property owners. 

Dr. Dysart summarized the Graniteville case study. Dr. Mitchell added that in addition to communitybased monitors, a sensor could be placed on the train. Dr. Hauchman noted that each of the case studies 

had a definite community empowerment component. The workgroup could explore what might be 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 41

helpful, such as applications for cell phones, and easy access to a web-based source of information. ORD 

has a lot to offer in terms of information technologies, but the workgroup could assist EPA by being as 

descriptive as possible about what would be most helpful. The breadth of the case studies is quite large. 

The workgroup should take advantage of the opportunity to talk to people at the Agency who can better 

speak to these issues. This will enhance the quality of the workgroup’s recommendations as well. 

Mr. Joyce suggested that an initial draft of the case study might be useful to Dr. Hauchman for 

determining the best people at EPA to speak to each issue. Dr. Hauchman added that it would be useful to 

have a concise write-up of each case study to give to the subject matter experts. Dr. John commented that 

his one-page summary focused on technology issues. Dr. Hauchman pointed out that EPA staff would 

understand that this was only part of the overall workgroup effort. Mr. Erichsen stated that he would like 

to have a conference call with subject matter experts in Toledo before submitting a one-page summary on 

the case. 

Ms. Loftness said the cases also could be considered as generic in terms of the scope of problems with 

which they deal. There are mobile toxins, tribal housing, brownfields, and legacy toxins. When the list of 

needed technologies is generated, the workgroup should consider the generic, not just the specific case, 

challenge. 

Dr. Benedict noted that some key challenges have been identified, and in some cases there may be 

existing technologies to deal with them. Through the more specific definition of those challenges and 

what the workgroup sees as the potential technical solutions to the challenges, the workgroup then would 

need to engage with the experts at EPA. The first charge question can be addressed in this way. The third 

charge question, barriers to the use of existing technologies, also can be addressed. 

Dr. John stated that more information might be needed by EPA staff than what was contained in his onepage summaries. Mr. Joyce noted that these could be sent to staff at EPA. Dr. John will send the case 

profiles to Dr. Hauchman including contact names for each of them. Dr. Hauchman then will begin to call 

the relevant EPA staff members. Dr. Mitchell asked how long it would take for Dr. Hauchman to identify 

the appropriate experts at EPA. Dr. Hauchman answered that, depending on people’s availability, he 

could set up telephone calls in a few weeks. The calls will be informal, and can be done relatively 

quickly. 

Ms. Loftness stated that in the technology arena it would be best to state that “the following technologies 

are critically needed,” as a recommendation. She has been trying to write a generic statement about each 

of the three clusters of technology. The first class is sensing technology. The second class is data and risk 

assessment. The last is the solution set technologies. Ms. Nash asked if the information technologies 

would fall into the sensing solution set. Ms. Loftness responded that GPS and GIS are analysis tools. 

Ms. Nash sees information technology going both ways so that the community has an opportunity to 

communicate concerns to the decision makers. Ms. Loftness thought such information technologies 

would fall into the second category. Dr. Hauchman added that he liked what had been said about generic 

examples. The workgroup may want to consider the top line of the case studies as “indoor air” as opposed 

to the name of the location of the case. That would have more appeal to EPA. 

Dr. John commented that at least two people should work on each case study. Ms. O’Donnell added that 

the case studies should have a consistent format. She suggested that because there are primary authors, 

perhaps a reviewer could be added to each case instead of a secondary author. 

Dr. Benedict mentioned that it might be worthwhile to identify the IT component within each of the case 

studies and discuss it as a cross-cutting issue. He will take the lead on this aspect of the report. The 

assignments are identified in Exhibit 3. 
42 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Exhibit 3. Case Studies from the May 19th NACEPT Vulnerable Populations/ 

Environmental Justice Work Group Meeting

Six Selected Case Studies Technology Needs Identified

Lower Passaic River Sediment Dredging, dewatering, remediation, fish

Contamination testing

(Ms. Filippone and Mr. Erichsen)

Housing IAQ on Tribal Lands Monitoring, mitigation, remediation,

Energy Efficiency communication, siting

(Ms. Orosco, Mr. Matt and Mr. Shelby)

Hartford’s Trash Incinerator Continuous emissions monitoring, health effects

(Dr. Mitchell and Ms. O’Donnell) monitoring, air testing, data analysis, stack pollution 

control retrofit.

Rubbertown Plants, Louisville, KY Real time air monitoring, pollution control technology,

(Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Parker and Dr. Dysart) biomonitoring, handheld VOC community monitoring, 

communications, emissions reductions.

Graniteville, SC Train Wreck Low-cost, easy-to-deploy air toxics sensors, GPS of tank

(Dr. Dysart and Ms. Nash) cars, mobile sensors, data management systems, warning 

systems, dispersion modeling. 

Toledo Housing Brownfields Assessment and remediation, soil testing, indoor air

(Mr. Erichsen and Dr. John) monitoring, phytoremediation, communication of health 

risks. 

Ms. O’Donnell said that she will ask her intern to do a web search on current knowledge about major 

environmental and related health risks to vulnerable populations. Mr. Shelby will do a literature review on 

the first charge question. 

Mr. Joyce informed the workgroup that it is more compelling if there is a list of sources being cited. He 

asked the members to keep the source materials organized so that the references can be included as 

endnotes in the final report. 

Ms. Nash suggested that other cross-cutting issues besides IT should be addressed. Ms. Loftness noted 

that this is where EPA could be of great help to the workgroup. Maybe there is enough information at 

EPA on these topics and on systems thinking approaches to deal with the environmental challenges of 

vulnerable populations that could be cited. 

Dr. John suggested that someone could begin drafting broad recommendations before the case studies 

were finished; the case studies will inform the recommendations. 

Mr. Erichsen asked who would develop the format for the case studies. He also asked if any graphics 

would be needed for the report. Mr. Joyce said that the contractor would be able to help the workgroup 

with graphic needs for the report; members should think about which graphics and images would be 

useful to reinforce the information in the case studies. Dr. Mitchell said it would be helpful to have a 

model case study so that everyone could follow the format used in that one. 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 43

Dr. John suggested that the EPA Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) program could 

be contacted and informed of the scope of what the workgroup is doing; CARE staff might be able to 

contact the 100 communities and ask them about issues that are important to them. He further suggested 

that workgroup members start an e-mail conversation about other cross-cutting issues. 

Ms. Filippone asked if it was possible, when addressing the first charge, for a member to submit a 

commentary to Ms. O’Donnell about what is known or not known about vulnerable populations based on 

a project that they are working on. This could be used as part of the discussion on what is known about 

health effects. 

Dr. Parker asked about the timeline for the workgroup’s efforts so a timeline was developed (see Exhibit 

4). 

Exhibit 4. Timeline for Vulnerable Populations Workgroup Report

May 20 Select cases; give profiles to Fred Hauchman

May 27 Case study technology 1-pagers to DeWitt John, etc. from 1st/2nd authors 

June 1 Descriptions plus case study 1-pagers to Fred Hauchman

To chairs: 5 pages single spaced with references, etc., report outline 

June 3 Phone calls to ORD

June 20 Submit 2nd draft case studies and cross-cutting papers

July 1 Workgroup phone call

Send draft to ORD for initial help

July 20 3

rd draft of case studies and an initial draft of the rest of the report (grid, intro, 

recommendations)

3

rd workgroup phone call?

July-August Help from ORD and editors

August 15 Draft report to full workgroup

September 1 Comments from workgroup members; phone call?

September 15 Initial report to NACEPT

December 1 Review draft to NACEPT: final edits and approval. 

Mr. Joyce noted that when case studies and other parts of the report are submitted, they should be sent to 

Dr. John, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Orosco because they are the workgroup chairs. They should, in turn, send 

the items to Mr. Joyce. Ms. Loftness has crafted a draft report that attempts to put some of the framework 

around the case studies, and she will send that to the workgroup members. 

The workgroup discussed the fact that the timeline may be overly ambitious, but Dr. John noted that it 

was a target, and would give the members some sense of the urgency of preparing the report. Mr. Joyce 

advised that the more specificity in the case studies, the better. Generic comments are not as helpful as 

detailed, specific comments. Dr. John said an outline of how the case studies should be organized would 

be available by the end of next week. Dr. Hauchman shared the document “Environmentally Just 

Technology”, which examines the social dimensions of EJ, with the workgroup. 

Dr. John agreed to send members the list of case studies and assignments. 

Workgroup Report Outs

Dr. Johnson advised members that they would soon receive an e-mail about scheduling a conference call 

sometime in July for approval of the Workforce Workgroup’s second advice letter. The date needs to be 

set as soon as possible, because a 15-day notice must be published in the Federal Register. 
44 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Dr. Johnson reminded members to save both sets of dates discussed for the September meeting. 

Workforce Issues Workgroup Report

Mr. Henderson reported that the workgroup started with a discussion of the recommendations and 

drafting of the letter to be delivered in time for the September meeting. The workgroup discussed the 

questions that required more data and determined who might be able to help to acquire this data. The 

group decided to schedule a full-day meeting on June 14, 2011, and a number of questions will be 

answered at that meeting. An EPA staff member will help to set the agenda for this meeting, and 

representatives from OPM will be invited to talk about the constraints and parameters for the diversity 

work that is being conducted. Ms. Kendall helped to describe the structure of the information that will be 

developed in the letter to EPA. Accountability was assigned to a staff member who will be assembling 

that information. The subgroup will reflect on information gained from the June meeting, and using a 

structured set of questions, will begin developing the recommendations to EPA. 

Ms. Loftness confirmed that the subgroup was holding a meeting in Washington, DC, to gather further 

information from EPA. She noted that this was a different methodology than the one the Vulnerable 

Populations Workgroup had discussed, and it might be a useful idea for that workgroup as well. 

Dr. Johnson noted that the workgroup outlined the second part of the third letter as well. Ms. Kendall 

stated that the other topic in the third letter would be a discussion regarding concerns on attrition in the 

SES staff. That portion of the letter will be focused on attrition/retention issues that are specific to the 

SESers. The workgroup will be covering all the issues around retention and trying to attract new staff 

from outside the Agency. Then the workgroup will discuss leadership development. These topics contain 

diversity issues that the workgroup will touch on, but this will be informed by the work that the diversity 

subgroup is conducting. The workgroup will be using some documents that EPA already has provided. 

Ms. Lamb will be leading the section on leadership development, and Ms. Costopoulos will be leading the 

section on attrition and retention.

Dr. Johnson noted that both of these projects seemed to be on target in terms of the timeline that has been 

proposed. Mr. Henderson indicated that a discussion was held about attempting to tease out the 

organizational imperative toward diversity as it relates to the strategic plan and any other broader issues 

that the Agency has been bringing forth, but because of the amount of work in front of the group, that will 

be revisited at a future date. Ms. Kendall noted that it might be a useful topic to address in the fourth 

letter. 

Vulnerable Populations Workgroup Report

Dr. Mitchell noted that the workgroup had accomplished a lot at this meeting. The workgroup has decided 

to focus on the case studies in the report. The workgroup selected six case studies that are illustrative of 

the types of technologies that are needed in EJ and other vulnerable communities. The studies illustrate 

problems in air, water, and contaminated soils and cut across the different types of technologies from 

sensor technologies to information and other types of technologies. The workgroup’s timeline is very 

ambitious, and much work still remains to be completed to complete the report. The workgroup is 

dividing up the work on the case studies, and EPA staff will be identified who can provide expertise for 

each case study. These EPA experts will assist the workgroup with the technical issues associated with 

the case studies. The workgroup hopes to have the first draft of the report ready to share with the full 

Council by the September meeting. 

Dr. Johnson noted that Ms. Bennett had informed the Council on which pieces of its advice were used, 

which was demonstrative of the fact that NACEPT has given thoughtful and useful advice to the Agency. 
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 45

He emphasized that NACEPT is an independent group; it should be helpful to the Agency and produce 

advice in a timely manner. 

Public Comments

Dr. Johnson asked if there were any public comments, and there were none.

Chair’s Summary and Next Steps

Ms. Jones-Jackson thanked the NACEPT members for all of the work they had conducted during the past 

2 days. She introduced Mr. Green to the Council. He will be performing much of the work that now is 

being done by Ms. Moreau. Mr. Green is cognizant of some of the processes involved and very 

responsive, so members should feel free to carbon copy him when sending information to Ms. Moreau. 

Mr. Joyce added his thanks to the members, and reminded them that EPA is paying attention to NACEPT; 

this was demonstrated by the staff members who made themselves available to the Council during the 

meeting. He further thanked EPA staff who had attended the meeting and who will continue to work with 

the Council and the workgroups. He stressed that their assistance is essential in terms of NACEPT 

providing the best counsel possible to the Agency. 

Dr. Johnson thanked the Council members for the work they did at the meeting as well as the work they 

did and will do outside the meeting. 

Mr. Joyce thanked everyone again for their participation and energy. OFACMO staff will contact 

members soon with information about the dates in September. He adjourned the meeting at 12:06 p.m. 
46 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Action Items

 Ms. Moreau will e-mail all members the MD-715 template for action plans once received from 

Mr. DeLeon. 

 Dr. Osidele will add citations to pages 4 and 5 of the Workforce Workgroup’s second advice letter.

 Ms. Moreau will e-mail the “One EPA” principles to all members.

 The following action items were identified for the Vulnerable Populations Workgroup:

 Mr. Shelby will help write the tribal case study.

 Dr. Hauchman will send the link for the draft of the EPA 100-day report on the science behind EJ 

to members. 

 Dr. John will send the case profiles (with additional information from authors) to Dr. Hauchman 

including contact names for each of them. Dr. Hauchman then will begin to call the relevant EPA 

staff members. 

 Members will complete assigned case studies by June 20, 2011. 

 Ms. O’Donnell will ask her intern to do a web search on current knowledge of environmental 

health risks to vulnerable populations.

 Mr. Shelby will do a literature review on the first charge question by June 3, 2011. 

 Case studies should be sent to Dr. John, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Orosco, and they will send them to 

Mr. Joyce.

 Ms. Loftness has crafted a draft report that attempts to put some of the framework around the case 

studies, and she will send that to the workgroup members.

 Dr. John will send the members the list of case studies and assignments. 

 The following action items were identified for the Workforce Issues Workgroup:

 Dr. Osidele will draft a section on electronic hiring process challenges and recommendations by 

May 27.

 Mr. Olson will draft a section on “One EPA” by May 27.

 Mr. Learner and Ms. Kendall will redraft the second advice letter based on the Council’s input by 

June 6.

 The workgroup members will review the final draft of the second advice letter by June 10.

 The Council will review the final draft of the second advice letter by June 17.

 NACEPT will approve the second advice letter via conference call by July 1.

 The leadership development and retention and attrition subgroups will meet by conference call in 

July.

 Subgroup on recruiting/retention/diversity strategies will meet June 14 at EPA.
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 47

 Mr. Martinez will provide the workgroup with EPA’s full MD-715 report or a summary.

 Mr. Martinez and Antoinette Powell-Dickson will provide the workgroup with references on 

promoting recruiting/retention/diversity strategies.

 Mr. Martinez will provide the workgroup with data on the ascension pool for SES (GS-13, 14, 

and 15).

 Ms. Powell-Dickson and Julia Rhodes will provide the workgroup information on legal 

constraints to promoting diversity.

 Ms. Powell-Dickson will check data availability on attrition at EPA by national origin, race, and 

gender.

 Debbi Hart will provide the workgroup with statistics on net loss (2007-2010).
48 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)

Meeting Participants

NACEPT Members

Ms. Erica Bannerman

Senior Environmental Specialist

Department of Transportation and

 Environmental Services

Office of Environmental Quality

City of Alexandria

Alexandria, VA

Dr. Karl Benedict

Director

Earth Data Analysis Center

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM

Dr. Marian Chertow 

Associate Professor

Center for Industrial Ecology

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

Yale University

New Haven, CT

Ms. Christine Costopoulos

Director of Environmental Policy

NYS Department of Economic Development

Empire State Development

Albany, NY

Dr. Ben Dysart 

Principal

Dysart and Associates, Inc.

Nashville, TN

Mr. Kurt Erichsen 

Vice President

Environmental Planning

Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of

 Governments

Toledo, OH

Ms. Ella Filippone 

Executive Director

Passaic River Coalition

Morristown, NJ

Dr. Dewitt John

Thomas F. Shannon Distinguished Lecturer in 

Environmental Studies

Bowdoin College

Brunswick, ME

Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr. (NACEPT Chair)

Professor and Dean Emeritus

Department of Civil Engineering

Howard University

Washington, DC 

Dr. Daniel Kammen

Professor of Energy

Energy Resources Group

University of California

Berkeley, CA

Ms. Sara Kendall 

Vice President

Environment, Health and Safety 

Weyerhaeuser Company

Federal Way, WA

Ms. Leah Ann Lamb 

Assistant Director

Division of Water Quality

Utah Department of Environmental Quality

Salt Lake City, UT

Mr. Howard Learner (NACEPT Vice Chair)

President and Executive Director

Environmental Law and Policy Center

Chicago, IL 

Ms. Vivian Loftness 

Professor of Architecture

Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, PA

Mr. Clayton Matt

Director of Tribal Services

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Pablo, MT
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 49

Dr. Mark A. Mitchell 

President

Connecticut Coalition of Environmental Justice

Hartford, CT

Ms. Jennifer Nash

Executive Director

Regulatory Policy Program

Harvard Kennedy School

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA 

Ms. Arleen O’Donnell 

Vice President

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

Lexington, MA

Mr. Robert L. Olson

Senior Fellow

Institute for Alternative Futures

Alexandria, VA

Dr. Olufemi Osidele 

Senior Research Engineer

Geosciences and Engineering Division

Southwest Research Institute

San Antonio, TX

Dr. Edith A. Parker 

Associate Dean and Associate Professor

Department of Health Behavior and Health 

Education

School of Public Health

University of Michigan 

Ann Arbor, MI

Mr. Barry Worthington

Executive Director

United States Energy Association

Washington, DC

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, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2130

E-mail: joyce.mark@epa.gov

EPA Participants

Paul Anastas

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-6620

E-mail: anastas.paul@epa.gov

Barbara Bennett

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-1151

E-mail: bennett.barbara@epa.gov

Rafael DeLeon

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-4899

E-mail: deleon.rafael@epa.gov

Nanci Gelb

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-1146

E-mail: gelb.nanci@epa.gov

Andrew Geller

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 TW Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Phone: (919) 541-4208

E-mail: geller.andrew@epa.gov

Eugene Green

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2432

E-mail: green.eugene@epa.gov
50 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

Peter Grevatt

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-8954

E-mail: grevatt.peter@epa.gov

Debbi Hart

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2011

E-mail: hart.debbi@epa.gov

Fred Hauchman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-3151

E-mail: hauchman.fred@epa.gov

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

Acting Director, OFACMO

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2321

E-mail: jones-jackson.cynthia@epa.gov

Debbie Lake-Hinkle

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2622

E-mail: lake.debbie@epa.gov

James Hiscock

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-7645

E-mail: hiscock.james@epa.gov

Ismael Martinez

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-1866

E-mail: martinez.ismael@epa.gov

Stephanie McCoy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-7297

E-mail: mccoy.stephanie@epa.gov

Claire Milam

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-5320

E-mail: milam.claire@epa.gov

Megan Moreau

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-7582

E-mail: moreau.megan@epa.gov

Jim Newsom

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 3

1650 Arch Street

Mail Code: 3PM00 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Phone: (215) 814-5152

E-mail: newsom.jim@epa.gov

Michael Nieves

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 566-1478

E-mail: nieves.michael@epa.gov
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 51

Dennis O’Connor

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 343-9213

E-mail: oconnor.dennis@epa.gov

Bob Perciasepe

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-4700

E-mail: perciasepe.bob@epa.gov

Antoinette Powell-Dickson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 566-0738

E-mail: powell-dickson.antoinette@epa.gov

Raul Soto

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-4600

E-mail: soto.raul@epa.gov

Shawna Green Whitehurst

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 T.W. Alexander Drive

Mail Code: N229-01

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 541-3499

E-mail: whitehurst.shawna@epa.gov

Other Participants

Matthew Field

Inside EPA

E-mail: mfield@iwpnews.com

Effenus Henderson 

Chief Diversity Officer 

Director, Workforce Representation &

 Diversity 

Weyerhaeuser Company

Federal Way, WA 

E-mail: effenus.henderson@weyerhauser.com

Jenny Hopkinson

Inside EPA

E-mail: jhopkinson@iwpnews.com

Patty Kalla

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Aaron Lovell

Inside EPA

Phone: (703) 416-8536

Ryan Shelby

University of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

Phone: (510) 761-6192

E-mail: b-westlake@acs.org

Brittany Westlake

American Chemical Society

Phone: (202) 872-6274

E-mail: ryan.shelby@berkeley.edu

Alexandra Woodruff

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Contractor Support

Jennifer Lee

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

656 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 210

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

Phone: (301) 670-4990

Fax: (301) 670-3815

E-mail: jlee@scgcorp.com

Mary Spock

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

656 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 210

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

Phone: (301) 670-4990

Fax: (301) 670-3815

E-mail: mspock@scgcorp.com
52 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

National Advisory Council for

Environmental Policy & Technology

Final Agenda

May 19-20, 2011

Hilton Garden Inn

815 14th Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: 1-202-783-7800

Thursday, May 19, 2011

8:00 am Registration

8:30 am Welcome and Introductions

 Mark Joyce

NACEPT Acting Designated Federal Officer

EPA Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

 Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr.

NACEPT Chair

 Cynthia Jones-Jackson

Acting Director

EPA Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

8:40 am Opening Remarks

 Bob Perciasepe

EPA Deputy Administrator

9:00 am Overview of NACEPT’s Second Advice Letter on EPA Workforce Planning: 

Strategies to Obtain and Retain Scientific and Technical Expertise and Leadership 

Capabilities and Culture for “One EPA”

 Howard Learner and Sara Kendall

NACEPT Workforce Workgroup Co-Chairs

 Paul T. Anastas

Science Advisor and Assistant Administrator

EPA Office of Research and Development
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 53

 Nanci E. Gelb

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator

EPA Office of Administration and Resources Management

 Raul Soto Jr.

Associate Assistant Administrator

Outreach, Diversity and Collaboration

EPA Office of Administration and Resources Management

 James W. Newsom

Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management

EPA Region 3

10:00 am Break

10:15 am Discussion of NACEPT’s Third Workforce Advice Letter on Achieving Greater

Diversity in EPA

 Overview and Initial Thoughts on NACEPT Diversity Charge

o Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr.

NACEPT Chair

o Roger Rivera and Effenus Henderson

NACEPT Workforce Workgroup Diversity Co-Leads

 Overview of EPA Diversity Programs and Activities and Additional Guidance for

NACEPT Workgroup

o Raul Soto Jr.

Associate Assistant Administrator

Outreach, Diversity and Collaboration

EPA Office of Administration and Resources Management

o Rafael DeLeon

Director

EPA Office of Civil Rights

o James W. Newsom

Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management

EPA Region 3

11:15 am Overview of FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan

 Barbara J. Bennett

EPA Chief Financial Officer

12:00 pm Public Comments

12:15 pm Lunch (on your own)
54 May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

1:15 pm Council Discussion of Second Advice Letter on EPA Workforce Planning

2:45 pm Break

3:00 pm Review Workgroup Charges and Deliverables

 Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr.

NACEPT Chair

3:15 pm Workforce Issues and Vulnerable Populations Workgroups meet in 

separate, concurrent sessions.

6:00 pm ADJOURN

Friday, May 20, 2011

8:30 am Council Approval of Second Advice Letter on EPA Workforce Planning

9:30 am Workforce Issues and Vulnerable Populations Workgroups meet in 

separate, concurrent sessions.

11:15 am Break

11:30 am Workgroup Report-Outs

12:30 pm Public Comments

1:00 pm Chair’s Summary, Action Items, and Future Meeting Dates

2:00 pm ADJOURN
May 19-20, 2011, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary 55

Chair Certification

I, Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr., Chairman of the National Advisory Council for Environmental 

Policy and Technology (NACEPT) certify the meeting minutes for May 19-20, 2011 are 

complete and accurately reflect the discussions and decisions of said meeting.

/Signed/ August 10, 2011

_____________________________________ _________________

Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr. Date

NACEPT Chair