Document ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0122-0014
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2013-06-05T04:00Z

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

April 4, 2013

Ariel Rios North, Room 3530

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460 

Meeting Summary

Welcome, Introductions and Overview of the Agenda

Mark Joyce, Associate Director of the Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Management and Outreach (OFACMO) and Acting Designated Federal
Officer (DFO) for the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy
and Technology (NACEPT), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 

William Ross, Jr., NACEPT Chair, Visiting Professor of Environmental
Sciences and Policy and Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University; and 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Acting Director, OFACMO, EPA 

Mr. William Ross, Jr. (NACEPT Chair; Duke University) welcomed the
NACEPT members participating in person and by
teleconference/videoconference and called the roll. He expressed his
appreciation to the NACEPT members for their great efforts in preparing
the second advice letter. Mr. Ross thanked the EPA leadership and staff
for their support as the NACEPT advises on sustainability topics. He
recognized the NACEPT workgroup chairs and commended them for their hard
work: Ms. Sara Kendall (Weyerhaeuser Company) and Dr. Ronald Meissen
(Baxter International, Inc.) who chaired the Strengths Workgroup, and
Ms. Bridgett Luther (Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute) and
Dr. Olufemi Osidele (Southwest Research Institute) who chaired the
Breakthrough Objectives Workgroup. Mr. Ross commented that the members
who had drafted the letter, especially Ms. Kendall, had created a
substantive advice letter that efficiently integrates the workgroup
recommendations.

Mr. Ross explained that during the meeting, the NACEPT members will
consider the substantive content of the draft advice letter and vote on
approving the letter to move the process forward. Minor edits or issues
will be addressed by a smaller group, including Ms. Kendall, Mr. Ross,
and Mr. Howard Learner (NACEPT Vice-Chair; Environmental Law and Policy
Center) following the meeting.

Mr. Ross then provided an overview of the agenda. Mr. Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator, Office of the Administrator (OA), EPA, will share
his thoughts about EPA’s sustainability initiatives. Ms. Kendall will
provide a description of the second advice letter and NACEPT
recommendations as well as present a few key points for discussion. Ms.
Bicky Corman, Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel (OGC),
will discuss current EPA sustainability efforts, and several EPA staff,
including Mr. Edward Fendley, Program Manager, Office of Sustainable
Communities (OSC); Ms. Lisa Garcia, Senior Advisor to the Administrator
for Environmental Justice; Dr. A. Stanley Meiburg, Deputy Regional
Administrator, Region 4;  and Dr. Michael Slimak, Director, Sustainable
and Healthy Communities Research Program (SHCRP), Office of Research and
Development (ORD), will speak about the social pillar of sustainability.
A public comment period will be provided prior to adjournment. Ms.
Cynthia Jones-Jackson (Acting Director, OFACMO, EPA) explained that
Adobe® Connect, a videoconference terminal, and a teleconference line
are being used to connect participants to the meeting. 

In referencing Mr. William Blake’s poem The Tiger, Mr. Ross encouraged
the NACEPT members to seize the fire of sustainability to help move the
Agency and Nation forward in that crucial direction. Mr. Ross then
welcomed Mr. Perciasepe, stating that the Council was honored and
delighted that he was present to share his thoughts about sustainability
and the NACEPT’s advice letter. 

Opening Remarks

Bob Perciasepe, Acting Administrator, Office of the Administrator (OA),
EPA

Mr. Perciasepe welcomed the NACEPT members and thanked them for all of
their efforts to advise EPA. He remarked that his comments will be brief
to allow adequate time for discussion. Mr. Perciasepe explained that he
is evaluating EPA’s budget details in preparation for upcoming
hearings. Congress passed a continuing resolution (CR) that will fund
EPA through the end of the year. Sequestration requires a $425 million
(M) reduction in EPA’s budget, and the Senate included an additional
$106 M reduction for EPA. Mr. Perciasepe is evaluating numerous options
within EPA’s operating plan to decrease the number of furlough days
for EPA employees, and he expressed hope that the furlough would be
reduced to fewer than 13 days.  

Mr. Perciasepe explained that the concept of sustainability is a
promising way to address the budget limitations. Identifying areas for
improvement can result in achievements beyond the usual and sometimes
expensive processes. Mr. Perciasepe expressed aspiration and confidence
that developing incentive-based programs or incorporating sustainability
concepts into regulatory programs will help EPA achieve the goals
mandated by Congress and expected by the American public. He asserted
that it was a productive place to begin the discussion. 

Another area to evaluate for efficiency includes partnerships with state
agencies, who themselves are experiencing broadly reduced budgets.
Sustainability is a good place to talk about the role of each partner
and how work can be accomplished more efficiently. Other technological
tools can improve EPA’s overall efficiency. Mr. Perciasepe pointed out
that Congress is asking the Agency to accomplish a great deal while
limiting the funding for its services. He reminded participants that
“necessity is the mother of invention.” EPA has a history of
innovation and must continue to pursue opportunities for efficiency.

Mr. Perciasepe thanked the NACEPT for all of its efforts to advise EPA;
the guidance to date has been very helpful. He explained that the Agency
continues to address the value proposition for embracing the
sustainability concept. For example, the case statement would explain
why EPA should be involved with sustainability and how building
sustainability concepts into EPA’s efforts facilitates great work
through improved efficiency. Another key is to build a foundation for
sustainability to facilitate and streamline future efforts. Mr.
Perciasepe acknowledged that EPA was in a leadership transition.
Ms. Lisa Jackson, the former EPA Administrator, supported
sustainability efforts and communicated their importance with EPA staff.
The recently nominated Administrator, Ms. Gina McCarthy, also is a
supporter of sustainability concepts. Following confirmation, EPA
leaders will convene to ensure that the continuity of sustainability is
articulated clearly to staff by Agency leadership. Mr. Perciasepe
remarked on the need for the NACEPT’s continuing observations and
encouragement.

Mr. Perciasepe noted that stakeholders (e.g., industry, communities,
tribes, states) benefit from discussions to share ideas and transform
them into action. Sustainability provides a safe and intellectual
foundation that might bring more comfort to stakeholders than regulation
or oversight. The power of sustainability is to bring people together
and expand partnerships. 

Discussion

Mr. Robert Kerr (Pure Strategies, Inc.) stated that encouraging
relationships between entities is a useful way to exploit opportunities.
Design for the Environment is an example of leveraging partnerships to
accomplish important goals.

Mr. Ross explained that Ms. Kendall had led the drafting of the
NACEPT’s second advice letter, and the group would appreciate Mr.
Perciasepe’s comments and observations as she presents the draft
letter.

Overview and Discussion/Approval of NACEPT’s Second Advice Letter on
Sustainability and the U.S. EPA

William Ross, Jr., NACEPT Chair, Visiting Professor of Environmental
Sciences and Policy and Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University;

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

NACEPT Members

Ms. Kendall presented the draft advice letter to participants using
Adobe® Connect and teleconference line. She reminded in-person
participants to use their microphones so that attendees participating
via teleconference could hear the comments. Ms. Kendall explained that
she would present a high-level framework of the advice letter and
mention several points for discussion. She assumed that all participants
had already received the letter, so only salient details will be
presented and discussed. 

Ms. Kendall summarized the charges to the NACEPT and the work approach
that was employed. The NACEPT began with two detailed charges and formed
two workgroups that considered different aspects of the charge
questions. The first charge was to describe the challenges, barriers,
opportunities, stakeholder engagement needs and recommendations to help
EPA implement a sustainability strategy, while the second charge was to
recommend a vision, mission, measurement system, ways to share progress,
tools and 3- to 5-year breakthrough objectives to propel EPA’s
sustainability implementation. The two workgroups developed separate
work products containing some content that was discussed at the prior
NACEPT meeting in August 2012, and some that had not yet been discussed
by the full Council. Ms. Kendall explained that as she received feedback
from the NACEPT members and EPA, the work products evolved into one
succinct advice letter with merged content. The content of both
workgroups is represented within the letter, and the logic flow is
maintained. She encouraged NACEPT members to indicate if the essence of
any discussion point had been missed in the draft letter. 

The NACEPT’s recommendations in providing an implementation roadmap
for sustainability address three areas: aligning EPA on its path to
sustainability, engaging stakeholders and demonstrating sustainability
leadership. Most of the recommendations address EPA’s internal
alignment. Many stakeholders are on their own sustainability journeys
and opportunities to leverage expertise would be beneficial. The NACEPT
recognizes that EPA already has demonstrated visible sustainability
leadership and has achieved numerous accomplishments, as presented by
Mr. Craig Hooks (Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and
Resources Management, EPA). It is clear that EPA has a solid foundation
of sustainability leadership and the recommendations are intended to
further that progression. 

The first five recommendations address internal EPA alignment on its
path to sustainability. EPA possesses significant strengths that can be
built upon to develop and deploy a sustainability strategy. A compelling
mission statement, vision statement and goals will help to move the
entire organization along that path. Showing leadership creates internal
alignment. 

The second group of recommendations addresses stakeholder engagement,
which EPA already encourages. Throughout discussions with EPA, the
NACEPT members sensed that one concern facing the Agency is how to
address the social pillar of sustainability. The NACEPT recommends
engaging with communities already working on sustainability or those
that would necessarily be involved in implementing a sustainable
approach. EPA should consider identifying opportunities to share
information, developing partnerships to leverage resources and
collaborating to find sustainable solutions. 

The third category recommends the demonstration of sustainability
leadership. The NACEPT recognizes the One EPA culture and finds
compatibility with the strong sustainability theme. EPA has developed
technology, programs and outreach activities, and has a strong presence
across the entire country. The NACEPT members believe that EPA could
demonstrate leadership for businesses, communities and within the
federal government. Partnering with other agencies could advance EPA’s
objectives and leverage the Agency’s strong foundation of addressing
the environmental and human health aspects of sustainability.
Ms. Kendall explained that the NACEPT recognizes EPA’s statute and
limitations boundaries, but acknowledges that the Agency has a lot of
resources (e.g., knowledge, experience) to demonstrate sustainability
leadership. 

The NACEPT’s second advice letter on sustainability provides details
for the recommendations and several subrecommendations where
appropriate. Ms. Kendall referred the meeting participants to three
topics discussed in depth by the workgroups that required consideration
by the full Council. 

The first topic for discussion relates to the proposed vision statement.
The draft advice letter currently presents two vision statements, and
the NACEPT members should consider whether both options should be
provided or decide on one to include. Ms. Kendall noted that both
statements incorporate elements of sustainability and intergenerational
needs that are not reflected in the existing EPA statement. The first
option contains specific details about sustainability elements and is
longer, while the second option is shorter and presented at a higher
level. 

The second discussion topic concerns Recommendation 3, the mission
statement. The vision statement is a declaration indicating EPA’s
objectives and how resources could be leveraged, but the mission
statement details how EPA will achieve that vision. The three mission
statement options developed by the NACEPT cover all aspects of
sustainability; differences exist in how the economic pillar is
described. The reference to quality of life in the first option infers
economic vitality. The second option employs the terms “well-being”
and “benefit,” which are less specific, and the third option
specifies the importance of long-term economic viability. The NACEPT can
elect to include all three options in the advice letter, choose one
option or create a different formulation altogether.

The third discussion point involves breakthrough objectives posited by
the NACEPT. Ms. Kendall commented that the Breakthrough Objectives
Workgroup successfully identified criteria to help EPA determine which
breakthrough objectives to select for implementation. Mr. Learner had
suggested adding an explicit statement to indicate that breakthrough
objectives must remain consistent with EPA’s statutory limitations,
which will be included in the final draft of the advice letter. Ms.
Kendall mentioned that the workgroup originally had included more
explicit details in the breakthrough objectives, which she had softened
because several members were concerned with EPA’s regulatory
obligations and the budget constraints facing the Agency. She encouraged
careful consideration of what the Agency could achieve given its
limitations. 

Ms. Kendall explained that the Breakthrough Objectives Workgroup had
created a spreadsheet containing 25 objectives that was reviewed by the
NACEPT; nine objectives were selected for inclusion in the letter. The
NACEPT can elect to include all nine breakthrough objectives in the
advice letter, providing EPA with the opportunity to select the best
options for the Agency, or the members can select three to include in
the letter. 

Ms. Kendall presented a graphic, developed by Mr. Yalmaz Siddiqui
(Office Depot), depicting EPA’s internal alignment. The graphic can be
used to align the 2020 breakthrough objectives and their goals,
indicators and metrics across EPA’s program offices and regions.

Ms. Kendall asserted that in addition to deciding and finalizing the
recommendations during the meeting, the NACEPT members would like to
receive feedback from EPA on the revised draft. The Council had engaged
in discussions with EPA staff throughout the drafting of the advice
letter, but it would be useful to receive feedback prior to submitting
the letter to the Administrator. 

Discussion

Mr. Ross expressed appreciation for the visionary graphic and thanked
Ms. Kendall for the presentation. He reminded participants to speak
clearly and loudly when offering their comments.

Ms. Kendall clarified that the NACEPT recommends that EPA select one to
three breakthrough objectives for implementation to allow proper focus
and mobilization. Agency officials indicated a preference for the NACEPT
to include all nine breakthrough objectives in its recommendations to
allow EPA to evaluate program priorities and progress with the options
that work well within EPA’s framework (e.g., greenhouse gas
reduction). 

Mr. Perciasepe thanked Ms. Kendall for the well-organized presentation
and asserted that the recommendations will be very helpful moving
forward. Mr. Perciasepe noted the relation between his opening comments
and the NACEPT’s ideas concerning EPA’s internal alignment around
sustainability. Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
EPA is required to revise its strategic plan every 4 years, an effort
that has commenced. A draft of the updated strategic plan will be
available in June 2013, and will include places where sustainability
concepts can be built into the Agency’s structure. Mr. Perciasepe
acknowledged the importance of incorporating sustainability into ongoing
work as opposed to creating different processes. EPA will decide how
sustainability can be manifested given the current goals. Cross-cutting
strategies were added to the previous strategic plan at the same stature
as traditional statute-driven goals that EPA is mandated to implement.
The inclusion of cross-cutting goals expanded the conversation of
environmentalism to include the role of all Agency staff. Current
discussions regarding sustainability involve how to build the concept as
an independent strategy or include it within media-specific goals. 

Mr. Perciasepe noted the challenge of “stovepiping” within the
Agency. Authorities granted by Congress tend to be problem-oriented and
media-specific, not cross-cutting in nature. It is important that EPA be
accountable to the responsibilities mandated by the U.S. Congress. A
breakthrough concept was the creation of equally weighted cross-cutting
issues that have been around for the past 4 years. NACEPT’s advice
letter is timely given the revision of the Agency’s strategic plan.
Mr. Perciasepe referred to the environmental justice (EJ) plan as an
example of a cross-cutting strategy that was initiated in the previous
strategic plan. The EJ plan identified high-level actions that were
built into the strategic plan, including performance indicators. GPRA
mandates the evaluation of key performance indicators. Mr. Perciasepe
acknowledged that this is a good opportunity to integrate strategies,
such as EJ and sustainability, into Agency management, and the
Administration is working hard to achieve that goal. 

Mr. Perciasepe was intrigued by the breakthrough objectives and remarked
that the ideas could be incorporated into the Agency’s structure. In
his State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama called for a 50
percent improvement in energy productivity by 2030. A current federal
program will double the fuel economy of automobiles by 2025. EPA’s
ENERGY STAR program will advance similar objectives. The Alliance to
Save Energy is a bipartisan, multistakeholder group that proposes to
reduce greenhouse gases by 33 percent and create 1.3 M new jobs. Another
breakthrough strategy pursued by EPA is to reduce the pollutants
affecting public health. Mr. Perciasepe noted several other instances
where EPA’s objectives and the NACEPT’s recommendations are aligned.

Ms. Bicky Corman (Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel,
EPA) expressed appreciation to Ms. Kendall and the NACEPT members for
their hard work in developing a great product. She commented that the
softened language of the breakthrough objectives within this draft was
preferable to the specific details that were included in previous
drafts. Breakthrough objectives should not be too expensive or
burdensome on the Agency. She also appreciated the inclusion of language
indicating that EPA intends to work with stakeholders and promote
others’ efforts to achieve the breakthrough objectives. Ms. Kendall
pointed out that EPA’s achievements were reflected in the draft advice
letter, and that breakthrough objectives could be achieved through
incentives or traditional regulatory approaches.

Mr. Hooks commented that EPA is recognized as a leader in
sustainability. He mentioned one challenge, which is to translate the
sustainability efforts from the operational front into the programmatic
front. This is even more challenging because budget constraints limit
the Agency’s capacity to take on new tasks. He thanked the NACEPT for
acknowledging these strengths and limitations within the draft advice
letter. Mr. Hooks cautioned, however, that some of the breakthrough
objectives might be worded too strongly. In particular, indicating
percentages for actions that would impact the private sector might be
interpreted as being too aggressive. EPA does not have the regulatory
leverage to affect industry as desired.

Mr. Perciasepe commented that EPA is analyzing the employment potential
of Agency sustainability efforts.

Dr. Alan Hecht (Director of Sustainable Development, Office of Research
and Development, EPA) commented that the NACEPT’s recommendations
match similar business objectives, such as waste reduction. These
similar objectives provide opportunities to partner and leverage
resources.

Ms. Kendall expressed her appreciation for the input and remarked on the
positive partnership between EPA and the NACEPT throughout the
development of the advice letter. She acknowledged that the NACEPT
understood the limitations imposed by GPRA and had an active discussion
on whether sustainability should be a separate cross-cutting strategy.
The Council ultimately decided that sustainability should be embedded in
all cross-cutting strategies. Breakthrough objectives can be used
efficiently to align programmatic goals and objectives across EPA. Ms.
Kendall suggested that the Agency select several recommendations from
the NACEPT letter for inclusion in the strategic plan. Mr. Ross
emphasized that NACEPT’s suggestion of a certain number of
breakthrough objectives provides further flexibility for EPA. 

Dr. Osidele acknowledged the challenge of integrating sustainability
into EPA’s next strategic plan. He pointed out that the advice letter
addresses where sustainability could be included within the strategic
plan. Dr. Fernando Abruña (Sustainable Architecture) praised Ms.
Kendall’s efforts in softening the language and creating a more
palatable advice letter. 

Mr. Learner recognized the opportunity and challenge in integrating
cross-cutting issues given the statutory responsibilities of EPA under
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA). The challenge is to
integrate sustainability in a way that is fully consistent with
responsibilities under operating governing statutes. He suggested that
responsibilities be layered within the existing statutory structure.
Earlier conversations indicated that the OGC could make room for
sustainability efforts under individual statutes on a program-by-program
basis. Mr. Kerr concurred with the importance of indicating the aspects
of statutes that relate to goal setting. 

Dr. Meiburg reiterated Mr. Perciasepe’s point about energy efficiency
and the importance of linking recommendations to that sector to the
extent possible. He suggested that breakthrough objectives and metrics
are useful in focusing energy and attention, even if the Agency does not
meet the goals. Mr. Siddiqui commented that breakthrough objectives are
obtainable, measurable goals that advance an organization in a direction
beyond its current capabilities. Given the complex economic climate and
statutory constraints, breakthrough objectives should be prioritized
based on the ability to deliver the most outcome in the shortest amount
of time.

Dr. Dewitt John (Bowdoin College) explained that the advice letter
includes language indicating that EPA should work with companies to set
ambitious objectives. The business community should be engaged as
partners in the process of implementing breakthrough objectives. Mr.
Ross noted that page 5 of the letter contains text on goals set by
companies. Mr. Hooks remarked that existing EPA programs (e.g.,
WasteWise, EnergyWise) collaborate with industry to achieve beneficial
objectives.

Mr. Perciasepe noted that the 1972 CWA and subsequent policies set
extensive goals within statutory mandates. Although the CWA set the goal
to eliminate the discharge of toxic pollutants, the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) allows toxic pollutants to be
discharged under certain circumstances. If the CWA had been implemented
to the maximum extent, the goals would not have been achieved. Thus, one
could argue that Congress must not be opposed to other incentive-based
efforts that stretch beyond what the country can currently achieve. Mr.
Perciasepe expressed no hesitation with partnering with industry and
other stakeholders to develop “stretch” goals that move beyond
EPA’s normal statutory authority efforts in a cooperative way.
Creating space for innovation is imperative to achieve country-wide
goals of no waste and water pollution. He cautioned, however, that EPA
cannot force people to do things beyond its authority.

Mr. Ross expressed appreciation for the comments from Mr. Perciasepe and
Mr. Hooks, who had other obligations and needed to leave the meeting. He
solicited thoughts from the NACEPT members about the 10-recommendation
format and asked if that met the Council’s general approval. Dr.
Osidele opined that 10 is a good number and the condensation of the
discussion into three groups of recommendations is appropriate. Mr.
Learner agreed that the format of the advice letter works well. He
approved of having several NACEPT members perform the final editing
prior to delivering the advice letter to the Agency and suggested that
any fundamental or substantive differences of opinion with regard to the
content of the letter should be raised now by the NACEPT members. Dr.
Edith A. Parker (University of Iowa) concurred with Mr. Learner and
agreed that the draft is well done and the Council should proceed as
suggested.

Mr. Ross solicited comments about the presentation of breakthrough
objectives. A participant remarked that language should be added to
indicate that the breakthrough objectives should be wholly consistent
with the Agency’s statutes. 

Dr. Osidele requested clarification regarding Mr. Hooks’ comment about
the recommendations being too strong. Mr. Derry Allen (Office of
Environmental Policy Innovation, Office of Policy, EPA) explained that
Mr. Hooks’ concerns were addressed in the current advice letter draft.
Ms. Marian Pechmann Cooper (Office of Administration and Resources
Management, EPA) elaborated that it is important to avoid placing
constraints on industry in the form of indicator percentages that EPA
might not achieve, although optimistic objectives provide a framework
for program offices. Mr. Ross opined that the letter suggests numerous
breakthrough objectives, and EPA can select the ones that are most
appropriate for the Agency. 

A participant commented that the Agency is experiencing severe financial
constraints, and the purpose of the NACEPT’s letter is to provide the
best environmental policy and technology advice possible. EPA will
decide how to act on the advice given the financial challenges. 

Ms. Kendall explained that she was taking notes during the discussion
and will redraft some sections of the draft advice letter based on the
NACEPT members’ and EPA’s comments. She called for any opinions
regarding the inclusion of multiple options for the mission and vision
statements within the letter. Ms. Kendall commented that the multiple
versions were included in the draft to respect all of the NACEPT
members’ input and to provide options for EPA to decide what works
best for the Agency. Dr. Osidele suggested including all of the mission
and vision statement versions to provide EPA with choices to suit its
needs. The participants reached consensus and agreed that all of the
mission and vision statement versions should be included in the advice
letter. 

Mr. Mark Joyce (Acting DFO, NACEPT; Associate Director, OFACMO) provided
a quote from Mr. Perciasepe to include for the placeholder on page 5 in
the advice letter. The quote read, “The work EPA does today to protect
human health and the environment is both critical and required by law.
Embracing sustainability will ensure that work continues, but in new
ways that enable the Agency to pursue its mission more efficiently, more
cost-effectively and more successfully.” 

Mr. Learner moved to adopt the advice letter substantially as edited to
reflect the NACEPT’s deliberations. The motion was seconded, and the
motion to accept the advice letter passed unanimously. Mr. Ross
expressed appreciation to Ms. Kendall on behalf of the NACEPT members
for her efforts in drafting the advice letter.

EPA’s Current Sustainability Efforts 

Bicky Corman, Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel (OGC),
EPA

Ms. Corman emphasized that EPA is in a transition period that will
continue until the nominated Administrator is confirmed. The Agency is
continuing to move forward, however, on several fronts. Prior to
departing, former Administrator Jackson sent a memorandum to staff
stating her conclusion that the Agency should be embracing fully the
principles of sustainability. 

Roundtable discussions were held in January 2013, to discuss the theme
of sustainable manufacturing with representatives from industry,
nongovernmental organizations and trade associations. The goal of
hosting the discussions was to embrace sustainability more rigorously
through Agency actions, and critical components include working with
stakeholders to usher in a new era of collaboration and promoting the
sustainability accomplishments of external organizations. Approximately
40 participants attended each roundtable discussion and expressed
appreciation and interest in collaborating with EPA. 

Ms. Corman indicated that propelling sustainability through
collaborative efforts enhances the objectives of partner organizations
as well as those of EPA. The Agency is integrating sustainability into
the fundamental cross-cutting strategies as well as other aspects of the
strategic plan, core infrastructure and institutional components.
Driving sustainability into EPA’s foundation will allow career
employees and managers to provide consistency as political appointments
depart the Agency.

Mr. Joel Makower (GreenBiz.com) published an interview with
Administrator Jackson in January 2013, describing her vision for the
social component of sustainability within the Agency, given that it is
not part of EPA’s mandate to protect human health and the environment.
Ms. Jackson emphasized that EPA needs to be careful not to exceed its
given authorities; the Agency is not responsible for increasing the
social good of Americans. EPA is concerned with ensuring that the burden
of environmental issues is borne equally and fairly. Many businesses
have incorporated the social pillar into their visions and are
evaluating EPA’s efforts. 

The Green Book, published in June 2012, indicated the need for a
rigorous social sciences research portfolio. EPA has been considering
what that means for the Agency. EPA has a solid record on EJ and has
accomplished many successes in the community arena. Communities could
drive the organization of sustainability approaches and application of
the sustainability lens. 

Ms. Corman appreciated the NACEPT’s acknowledgement that the social
aspect of sustainability is not expressly dictated in EPA’s statutory
missions; other federal agencies are charged with the social aspect. It
is important to identify where EPA can add value. 

Mr. Allen noted that the NACEPT meeting materials contain a document
entitled, “Sustainability: The Social Pillar,” which outlines
several questions that could inform the next charge question for the
NACEPT. The document also lists several areas of current EPA involvement
related to the social pillar of sustainability. Questions to consider
include EPA’s suggested role and how the Agency might be more
successful in incorporating elements of the social pillar into its
activities. 

Discussion

Mr. Osidele asked Ms. Corman if the economic pillar garnered as much
focus as the social pillar during meetings with the broad stakeholder
community. Ms. Corman replied that lively discussions always surround
the impacts of EPA activities on the economic arena; this has been
occurring for decades. She expressed confidence that sustainable
environmental interventions provide opportunities to increase the
economic and social good. There has been less focus on the economic good
of sustainability in stakeholder meetings.  

Ms. Corman disagreed that influencing the economic and social pillars
was beyond EPA’s capability and statutory authority. EPA has a lot of
scientific expertise related to economics, including cost-benefit
analyses. Economic scientists, but not social scientists, are employed
throughout EPA offices. One challenge to hiring social scientists in
response to recommendations is the severe financial constraint currently
imposed on the Agency. 

Mr. Ross asserted that protecting public health is a strong social
component. Ms. Corman explained that EPA has considered strongly whether
health belongs under the environmental or social pillar. The statutes
require protection of human health and the environment; EPA focuses on
the impact of pollution in various media on human health, which might be
a broader definition of health than that used by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). EPA could consider impacts of the
environment on mental health (e.g., the effects of green infrastructure
on mental health and productivity). Dr. Osidele remarked that
identifying the transition line between EPA’s responsibility and that
of other federal agencies is important. 

Mr. Kerr mentioned that the University of Washington’s Department of
Ecology evaluated epidemiologic health needs and linked them to
environmental health factors. The interdependence of these environmental
and health factors explains the high prevalence of obesity, learning
disorders and so forth. Mr. Allen agreed that this would be a relevant
concept as the NACEPT embarks on its evaluation of the role of EPA
within the social pillar. Mr. Ross remarked on the increasing interest
and action at the intersection of the social and environmental aspects
of sustainability. Ms. Corman agreed, noting that lead poisoning leads
to intellectual degradation at an economic and health cost to society.
Mr. Kerr commented that a broader application of the
environmental-health interdependence would be useful. 

Ms. Kendall cautioned EPA to refrain from viewing the social and
economic pillars as independent elements; rather, the Agency should seek
holistic solutions. Although EPA’s authorizing statutes might not
dictate the creation of social good or economic development, the Agency
has a strong history of incorporating these elements into its programs.
Ms. Kendall explained that the NACEPT specifically refrained from
recommending sustainability as a separate cross-cutting issue in favor
of infusing the strategy throughout all programs. She mentioned that
many businesses, including her own company, are trying to achieve the
same goal. Ms. Corman agreed that viewing the sustainability elements of
economic, social and environment as “pillars” might be
counterproductive because they are in fact holistic systems. She
emphasized that capitalizing on EPA’s strengths is important to
accomplish the greatest impacts given the available tools. 

Mr. Ross welcomed and introduced the panelists to discuss EPA’s
efforts related to the social pillar of sustainability. He expressed
appreciation for their efforts in preparing for and attending the
meeting. The presentations were sent via email to NACEPT members
participating by teleconference.

The Social Pillar of Sustainability I

A. Stanley Meiburg, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4, EPA

Dr. Meiburg described a regional view of EPA and social sustainability.
He remarked that the term “sustainability” is applied in different
ways depending on the speaker. Sustainability can be viewed through a
community lens, ecosystem lens, or within an industrial and
manufacturing context. These related perspectives all present different
aspects, which can create uncertainty. Dr. Meiburg encouraged clarity
when discussing sustainability and explained that his presentation would
address the community lens as it relates to the social pillar.

Dr. Meiburg acknowledged that the social pillar has not been EPA’s
core historic focus. The Agency’s prescribed work already is
overdetermined given all of its statutory obligations. The historic
skill set of EPA includes scientists, engineers and attorneys, and its
historic tools involve regulation and enforcement. The social pillar
matters, however, because EPA’s mission is to protect human health and
the environment, which requires many tools in addition to statutory
ones. Core tools are essential but not sufficient, and voluntary actions
are as important as required actions in achieving the Agency’s
mission. Dr. Meiburg asserted that the mission statement should be
changed, but its broad perspective is a strength. 

EPA is challenged by the social pillar because communities constantly
request actions (e.g., Superfund, enforcement context) that exceed
EPA’s authority and/or resources. For example, a zoning requirement
may be an underlying issue in addressing a community problem, but EPA
does not control local zoning. Although EPA has 17,000 employees, the
Agency still must partner with state and other entities when its
resources are exceeded (e.g., stationing people in a particular
location). 

Dr. Meiburg noted that another challenge is that EPA’s technical
standards and regulations do not promote community trust. It is
important, therefore, that EPA correct misunderstandings and communicate
effectively to communities. 

The final social pillar challenge involves community problems, such as
environmental issues, that are outside of EPA’s jurisdiction (e.g.,
provision of street lighting). Communities might think that EPA is being
nonresponsive, when in actuality the Agency cannot address the issue as
requested. Dr. Meiburg acknowledged the significant challenge for the
NACEPT in evaluating EPA’s role relating to the social pillar. 

Importantly, EPA’s partners possess additional tools that can be
leveraged to achieve greater effectiveness, so the way to move ahead is
to forge strong collaborative partnerships. Partnerships accomplish many
objectives, including reframing issues, providing additional tools,
leveraging resources, translating bureaucratic language (e.g., decoding
acronym-heavy terms), educating communities and fostering a common
understanding. A successful collaboration such as the Partnership for
Sustainable Communities between EPA, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) leverages resources, funding and technical expertise
to accomplish the program objectives. Partnerships can build on a
foundation of trust (e.g., local universities or health care providers)
to engage communities in EPA’s efforts. 

Pursuing partnerships requires that EPA operate as a convener and
facilitator in addition to its historic role as a regulator. The role of
facilitator is consistent with EPA’s mission to protect human health
and the environment. Facilitation requires augmented skill sets,
including improved communication as well as social and behavioral
science research to produce insights about how to produce real change in
a community. As a social scientist, Dr. Meiburg asserted that increasing
the numbers of social scientists at the Agency would be useful.

EPA’s statutory mandates pose a challenge to incorporating the social
pillar into Agency efforts because resources already are oversubscribed.
Another challenge is the acceptance of a broader perspective of EPA
responsibilities, which might conflict with the mandated
responsibilities and what must be done to achieve the mission. The final
obstacle to incorporating the social pillar is limited resources.
Despite these challenges, it is important for the Agency to consider
implementing the social pillar of sustainability to achieve its
objectives. 

Discussion

Dr. Abruña stated that, in his experience as an architect, he has
observed the inherent difficulty engineers have in understanding the
community design process. 

In response to a question from Ms. Corman, Dr. Meiburg explained that
his foundation as a social scientist allows him to ask questions from a
different perspective and understand the government framework. This
perspective also is useful in understanding how communities organize,
where the center of influence is located, and how to communicate
effectively. Social science also seeks understanding for effective
communication and how to ensure that communities hear and understand EPA
messages. For example, in a Superfund site community, samples may be
taken from many different yards, but only some require remediation;
effective communication reduces confusion within the community about the
process and the actions. Explaining the resource constraints and science
underlying the contamination standards requires a high level of skill. 

Dr. Parker asked if social scientists should be integrated within ORD.
Dr. Meiburg explained that social scientists are helpful in regional
offices that work directly with communities. Project managers who can
assess contaminant risk and understand the dynamics of communicating to
a community forum are most useful. 

Dr. John commented that the NACEPT’s prior advice letter, which
addressed EPA’s workforce, emphasized the need for EPA to hire
individuals with different types of expertise, including social
scientists. He remarked that scientists trained in the past 10 years
have been exposed to interdisciplinary training that incorporates
technical as well as social aspects. Dr. John acknowledged that EPA is
in a difficult position, given the sequestration, temporary lack of a
confirmed Administrator and loss of faith by some environmental groups.
He asked if there were actions that could strengthen EPA’s capacity at
the regional level. Dr. Meiburg responded that EPA’s statutes are
quite constrained and have existed for 25 years without a major
reevaluation. The statutes were created with the perspective of a
different era; they work well in some areas but are less effective with
communities. A thoughtful revisitation of the statutes might allow the
Agency more flexibility to pursue the broader mission of protecting
human health and the environment. Dr. John expressed concern with the
complication of revisiting statutes through Congress and suggested
approaching the issue using a bottom-up approach. Identifying successful
regional activities might be useful. 

The Social Pillar of Sustainability II

Lisa Garcia, Senior Advisor to the Administrator for Environmental
Justice, EPA

Ms. Garcia focused her remarks on EPA’s EJ priority and the desire to
integrate EJ into all EPA activities. The concept of sustainability
embraces EJ and much synergy exists. The first principle of EJ is
meaningful engagement and outreach. Meaningful engagement of
stakeholders (e.g., industry, government) in processes—such as
pollution management planning—allow the development of innovative
ideas and holistic solutions that accomplish sustainability objectives.
Ms. Garcia asserted that the NACEPT provides an understanding of all
possible ways to inform decision making and advance sustainability in
all EPA actions. 

Another principle of EJ speaks to the fair treatment of all people,
focusing on low-income minority and tribal populations, which tend to
experience disproportionately high rates of conditions such as obesity.
When considering the levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), EPA
evaluates levels across the Nation but also considers the location of
PM2.5 “hotspots” because pollution loading in certain populations
poses a greater burden. For example, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Permits evaluate the level of pollutant in addition
to asthma rates of the local population. A further evaluation of
low-income, minority areas with a high burden of asthma rates encourages
the consideration of what can be done within EPA’s authority to
develop alternative solutions.  

Community benefits should be considered when evaluating alternative
sustainability efforts. Encouraging community engagement of the public
and academia will provide better alternatives than would be identified
by an isolated laboratory scientist. An example of this occurs during
the siting of a power plant. Different interest groups advocate for
either water or air cooling of the plant. One group opposes water
cooling because of its effects on marine life, while another group of
citizens opposes air cooling because it is very loud and produces
disruptive steam. In this situation, alternatives need to be analyzed
carefully in consideration of the effects on all stakeholders. 

When considering EJ principles from the context of the social pillar,
evaluating community-based priorities and including everyone “at the
table” is important. Ms. Garcia noted that the advice letter
effectively speaks to stakeholder engagement, as well as improving
community-based outreach and coordination throughout the Agency.
Especially in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, community resiliency and
adaptation is an important avenue of research, in addition to topics of
climate change, EJ and innovative technology.

Discussion

Dr. Osidele asked about social science research priorities for EPA’s
ORD. Ms. Garcia commented that given the Agency’s financial
constraints, it is difficult to choose between hiring a toxicologist or
social scientist, but an individual who understands the cumulative
effects of pollution on overburdened areas can be helpful in addressing
relevant social science issues. EPA scientists are beginning to
investigate cumulative risk assessments. Historically, analysts would
monitor the emissions of one smokestack in one facility, but it is
important to evaluate the cumulative effect of emissions from all
smokestacks in the area, as well as the traffic burden and other
potential sources in that area. Social scientists can assess why obese
individuals who lack health care access are more vulnerable and how that
information can be incorporated into risk assessments.

Mr. Kerr remarked that other federal agencies possess social science
expertise that EPA could potentially tap. He mentioned an example in
which an agency collaborated with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) to obtain the epidemiological expertise needed for a
project. Doing so leveraged resources and was more efficient and cost
effective. One idea would be to collaborate with the HHS to obtain data
on health disparities and correlate the information with locations of
polluting facilities. Mr. Ross added that universities, particularly
their schools of public health and the environment, also could be of
service to EPA by supplying social science and other expertise not
available within the Agency.

Dr. Parker informed participants that the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) collaborated with EPA on a project
to conduct extensive exposure assessments near roads to examine
particulate matter and associated health effects. Thinking strategically
and encouraging participatory research will elicit great dividends. 

Ms. Corman asked for suggestions for breakthrough objectives for social
science that would be the most effective. Dr. Parker replied that
cumulative exposure is one such avenue for research, as well as
embracing participatory approaches. A recent application of the
community participatory approach in Detroit, Michigan, allowed community
members to direct the location of monitors. Dr. Parker cautioned against
hiring many social scientists without first exploring the expertise
available through EPA partners. Dr. Osidele agreed that it would not be
a good use of EPA’s financial resources, as much social science
research is being performed already. In response to an earlier comment
by Ms. Garcia, Dr. Osidele stated that the best EPA staff member would
be an individual with broad systems thinking who can cross disciplinary
borders, as the NACEPT recommended in its first advice letter. 

Dr. Hecht suggested that EPA consider the driving forces behind EJ as it
considers communicating and implementing sustainability concepts.
Identifying lessons learned from the EJ movement will enable EPA to
propel sustainability forward.

The Social Pillar of Sustainability III

Michael Slimak, Director, SHCRP, ORD, EPA

ORD is the research arm of EPA that serves all programs and regions.
Regional research programs are designed and organized to support
regional decision making. Several years ago, former EPA Assistant
Administrator, Dr. Paul Anastas, requested that ORD be reorganized
around a sustainability paradigm. As a result, ORD created six national
programs that all contain a sustainability focus. The SHC is at the
forefront of adopting sustainability concepts. Dr. Slimak presented a
conceptual framework for a sustainable community, which leads to the
conservation of natural capital, community-level economic resilience,
and better health outcomes and increased well-being. Economically
resilient communities are able to overcome the effects of natural
disasters, which relates to the economic pillar. Whether human health is
part of the social or environmental component of sustainability has
generated an intense debate. It is clear, however, that all three
sustainability pillars are inextricable and interdependent. 

A community that achieves sustainable environmental quality will result
in positive outcomes in economic and social pillars. This hypothesis
will be tested within the SHC, focusing on the environmental pillar and
resulting health outcomes and improved social well-being. Although ORD
is not conducting research on the economic pillar, available data can be
used to support or disprove the hypothesis. The SHC will address
questions such as whether forms of governance of a community or
geophysical location are important variables in achieving
sustainability. New Orleans, Louisiana, for example, is significantly
different than Denver, Colorado, and understanding the different
approaches to achieve sustainable outcomes is important.

EPA needs to conduct more social science research, yet is limited by
resources and human capital. Many new scientists possess a more
transdisciplinary research background. Researchers seek to understand
human behavior and individual value systems. For example, they might try
to understand why some participants brought a plastic bottle of water to
the meeting while others brought a reusable bottle. Understanding human
behavior will help address the social pillar. EPA is required to
implement enumerated and limited statutes, and individual or collective
behavior research is viewed as outside of the Agency’s mission. 

Working with the conceptual framework, a community that is sustainable
will protect and improve the health and well-being of all residents,
provide opportunities for public and private investments, enhance social
equity, conserve its natural resources and promote open space.
Communities rarely focus on all of the principles, but a systems-based
approach will improve a community’s ability to simultaneously address
all of the objectives. 

Dr. Slimak explained that the SHC has identified the sectors most
important to community decision making, including land use,
transportation, infrastructure, drinking water and waste management.
Communities spend a lot of time thinking about these issues, but tend to
consider them independently. The SHC is designed to help communities
develop tools to better understand the community decision sectors from a
systems perspective. Dr. Slimak commented that the SHC’s detailed
research plan can be found on ORD’s website. 

Discussion

Dr. Osidele and Ms. Corman asked what social science research efforts
would be most valuable to the Agency. Understanding and categorizing
human behavior enables the development of tools to address technology
and decision making. Dr. Osidele referred participants to a cartoon
depicting people drawing water out of a well: the person with the
powerful pump does not support limits on water use, while the other
individuals support such limits. Dr. Slimak suggested developing tools
to identify and understand human behavior and determine what is needed
to adjust the behavior. He mentioned that newly hired social scientists
would be asked to evaluate the conceptual framework and identify
research questions to understand why certain individuals are more
interested in sustainable issues (e.g., green technologies, roof
gardens) and to identify what drives individual behavior. Other research
questions might address education or EJ issues. There are many questions
in the realm of the social science arena that are important to
understanding and achieving sustainability.

Dr. Parker asked if university research provides a source of information
that EPA could leverage. Dr. Slimak asserted that much research exists
in academia and the literature, regarding environmental quality, public
health, and ecosystem goods and services, and the SHC intends to utilize
those resources to develop testable hypotheses. It is conceivable that
EPA might not need to conduct much original research because of the
wealth of available information. Some of that research, however, might
be conducted in a way that is not relevant to the concept of
sustainability that is being developed in the SHC. 

The Social Pillar of Sustainability IV

Edward Fendley, Program Manager, OSC, EPA

Mr. Fendley presented the OSC’s sustainability perspective on smart
growth and the social pillar of sustainability, which inherently cuts
across media of land, air and water. He explained the OSC’s efforts to
address the environmental, economic and social pillars of
sustainability. The OSC applies tools to assist communities with their
implementation of sustainable approaches rather than dictate
regulations. Mr. Fendley noted that the approach has been successful,
resulting in friendships and increased trust of EPA in communities. 

Smart growth generates compact, mixed-use communities that are
beneficial to community sustainability, and EPA Smart Growth technical
assistance contributes directly to participation and social cohesion in
recipient communities. Smart growth contributes to each of the social
pillar elements, including awareness of sustainability, participation,
equity and social cohesiveness. Social cohesiveness contains an element
of community integration and is related to the notion of equity. The
smart growth approach allows for people of different income levels,
professions and ethnicities to live together and interact through
walkable neighborhoods and choices in housing and transportation. In
this respect, the smart growth built environment increases equity,
community engagement and diversity. 

Mr. Fendley remarked that humans lived in sustainable community
settlements for 10,000 years. Only in the latter part of the 20th
century have communities deviated from that strategy in the form of
dispersed housing, shopping and jobs. Evidence indicates that the
traditional approach is rising in favor. Compact, mixed-use communities
have cleaner air and water, better human health and a smaller carbon
footprint. Describing how the built environment affects environmental
sustainability builds awareness, and communicating these concepts
contributes to engagement with the social pillar of sustainability. 

Community engagement and participation include the propensity to form
associations. Traditionally, this occurred in the form of a town
meeting, but the participatory model changed in the 20th century. A
quote from a 1964 newspaper indicated that, “When the highway
engineers have concluded that a highway should be built, then experts
should be satisfied and permit the program to go ahead,” indicating
that the decision, which affected communities, would not be subjected to
community debate. This results in severe consequences, including the
separation of residential zones from shopping areas and challenges in
traveling between them. Current participation models encourage community
engagement in decision making, and the OSC has experienced much success
with the model. For example, in Brownsville, Pennsylvania, community
members, including youth, participated in a community visioning process
to develop a community park. Young people are optimistic and have fresh
ideas. 

Smart growth and EJ have overlapping goals with regard to equity,
including the importance of investing in existing communities and the
provision of transportation and housing choices. Transportation choices
are not equitable if people who are unable to drive (e.g., due to age or
lack of a vehicle) cannot get to their destinations. Affordable housing
is very important. People feel welcome where these equitable principles
are applied. 

Social cohesiveness includes “infrastructure planning that supports
social integration and environmental sustainability,” and is the
suggested lens to analyze the social pillar. Smart growth provides
public and quasi-public spaces to promote incidental interaction, which
is beneficial for the social pillar of sustainability but also
encourages innovation and improves the economy.

Discussion

Dr. Abruña concurred with the importance of architecture, public space,
transportation and infrastructure design in promoting the social
component of sustainability. New urbanism and traffic-oriented
development are current concepts pursuing the ideals of smart growth. 

Public Comments

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

Next Steps

Ms. Corman expressed appreciation for the opportunity to learn about how
environmental interventions yield a social impact. A corollary is how
EPA can influence the social arena to accomplish particular
environmental objectives. Dr. Slimak agreed with the importance of
modifying human behavior to favor sustainable actions; effective
communication will play a large role. 

Mr. Allen opined that an exploration of the social pillar is an
excellent subject for the NACEPT to address next, and the OP is willing
to help the Council organize around the topic. The first step will be to
develop a charge question for the NACEPT. The questions provided in the
“Sustainability: The Social Pillar” document, provided in the
meeting materials, comprise a starting point, and additional questions
could evolve as the process continues. There is potential for the NACEPT
to explore additional dimensions of sustainability beyond the social
pillar. EPA might value broader advice during the transition period.

Ms. Jones-Jackson expressed appreciation to Ms. Corman and Mr. Allen for
developing questions for the NACEPT to inform the next charge question
addressing the social pillar. Mr. Ross concurred that the questions
provide a good starting point. He suggested that several interested
Council members participate in an exploratory discussion to formulate a
path forward. Mr. Kerr and Drs. John, Parker and Osidele agreed to
participate in the exploratory meeting. The invitation to participate in
a preliminary discussion will be extended to NACEPT members who did not
attend the meeting.

Ms. Kendall commented that it would be useful to consider how EPA can
demonstrate resiliency in the face of budget constraints by creatively
assessing opportunities to do things differently. For example, EPA can
leverage social science resources at external organizations, which might
be more complicated than doing the work in-house, but also might be more
robust. EPA has thoughtfully addressed issues of environmental justice
and risk assessment even when not specifically mandated by statutory
authorities. Dr. Osidele suggested that the charge question include an
investigation and inventory of resources available outside of EPA. A
literature review would be a useful place to begin to identify available
resources in the research community and industry. Dr. John commented
that an analysis of EPA’s needs could be correlated with the external
resources.

Mr. Joyce reiterated the two tasks facing the Council: complete the
second advice letter on sustainability and further refine the next
charge question. He suggested that Council members send any specific
word changes for the advice letter to Ms. Kendall by April 12, 2013, and
she will incorporate them into the final draft. Ms. Kendall also will
modify the draft to reflect the Council’s deliberations during the
meeting and add the quote from Mr. Perciasepe. Ms. Kendall stated that
she preferred to receive comments and revisions in the form of an
edited, redlined document. The final draft will be reviewed by Mr. Ross
and Mr. Learner prior to distribution.

Mr. Joyce solicited comments on how the charge questions could be
further refined to provide greater direction to the NACEPT. Ms. Corman
clarified that the NACEPT is being asked to provide guidance on the
social pillar of sustainability. Mr. Allen stated that the Council
should address the social pillar, and additional topics might be added
as the deliberations proceed. 

The participants discussed the format of future NACEPT meetings, which
most likely will occur via teleconference/videoconference given the
current budget limitations. Ms. Jones-Jackson mentioned that there might
be a face-to-face meeting scheduled in August or September 2013, but it
is not definite. Mr. Joyce said he expected the format of future
meetings to be the same as this meeting, at least for the remainder of
the fiscal year. Ms. Kendall opined that working on a targeted charge is
preferable; organizing the process by teleconference will be more
complicated. 

In response to a question, Ms. Jones-Jackson explained that
teleconferences can be scheduled monthly or at any other interval deemed
necessary by the Council. Mr. Ross stated that the NACEPT will conduct
one or two exploratory calls to refine the charge and then will develop
an effective plan and schedule to accomplish the objectives.

Mr. Ross extended his gratitude to the EPA staff members for their
assistance in planning the meeting and providing input on the substance
of the advice letter. He congratulated the NACEPT members, especially
Ms. Kendall, for their hard work in responding to the charge question
and drafting the second advice letter on sustainability. Ms.
Jones-Jackson expressed appreciation to the NACEPT members under the
leadership of Mr. Ross for their efforts and invaluable advice. She also
thanked the EPA personnel for their assistance and contributions.

Mr. Ross asked for any final thoughts or observations. There being none,
he adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m. EDT. 

Action Items

Ms. Kendall will incorporate the discussion comments and revisions, as
well as the quote from Acting Administrator Perciasepe, into the draft
advice letter.

NACEPT members will send any additional suggestions for specific word
changes for the draft advice letter to Ms. Kendall by April 12, 2013.
These comments/revisions should be in the form of a tracked changes
document.

Ms. Kendall, Mr. Ross and Mr. Learner will review the final draft of the
advice letter prior to submission to the Agency.

NACEPT members who are interested in exploring the social pillar of
sustainability will participate in an exploratory discussion to
formulate a path forward to address the topic. The invitation to
participate in a preliminary discussion will be extended to NACEPT
members who did not attend the meeting.	

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT)

Meeting Participants

NACEPT Members

Dr. Fernando Abruña

Architect

Sustainable Architecture Abruña and Musgrave,

Architects

San Juan, PR

Dr. Patricia M. Gallagher

Associate Professor

Provost’s Fellow in Sustainability

Department of Civil, Architectural and

Environmental Engineering

Drexel University

Philadelphia, PA 

Dr. Dewitt John 

Thomas F. Shannon Distinguished Lecturer in

Environmental Studies

Bowdoin College

Brunswick, ME

Ms. Sara Kendall

Vice President

Corporate Affairs

Sustainability and EHS 

Weyerhaeuser Company

Federal Way, WA

Mr. Robert Kerr

Co-Founder and Principal 

Pure Strategies, Inc.

Reston, VA

Mr. Howard Learner (NACEPT Vice-Chair)

Executive Director

Environmental Law and Policy Center

Chicago, IL

Dr. Olufemi Osidele

Senior Research Engineer

Geosciences and Engineering Division

Southwest Research Institute 

San Antonio, TX

Dr. Edith A. Parker 

Professor and Head

Department of Community and Behavioral

Health

College of Public Health

University of Iowa

Iowa City, IA

Mr. William G. Ross (NACEPT Chair)

Visiting Professor of Environmental Sciences

and Policy and Duke Cancer Institute

Nicholas School of the Environment

Duke University

Durham, NC

Mr. Yalmaz Siddiqui

Senior Director

Environmental Strategy

Office Depot

Boca Raton, FL

NACEPT Acting Designated Federal Officer

Mr. Mark Joyce

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee

Management and Outreach (OFACMO)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1601M)

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-2130

Email: joyce.mark@epa.gov

EPA Participants

Derry Allen

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (CHL)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 566-2167

Email: allen.derry@epa.gov

Daniel Amon

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (3204R)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-7509

Email: amon.dan@epa.gov

Denise Benjamin-Sirmons

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (3903R)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-6771

Email: benjamin-sirmons.denise@epa.gov

Marian Pechmann Cooper

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (3101A)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-0620

Email: cooper.marian@epa.gov

Bicky Corman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (2310A)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-4332

Email: corman.bicky@epa.gov

Edward Fendley

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (1807T ) 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 566-9555

Email: fendley.ed@epa.gov

Ann-Marie Gantner

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (1601M)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-4330  

Email: gantner.ann-marie@epa.gov

Lisa Garcia

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (1101A)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

 (202) 564-1259

Email: Garcia.lisa@epa.gov

Eugene Green

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (1601M)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-2432

Email: green.eugene@epa.gov

Alan Hecht, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (8101R)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-4772  

Email: hecht.alan@epa.gov

Craig Hooks

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (3101A)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-4600

Email: hooks.craig@epa.gov

Yvette Jackson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (3204R)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-7231  

Email: jackson.yvette@epa.gov

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

Acting Director, OFACMO

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (1601M)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-2321

Email: jones-jackson.cynthia@epa.gov

Stephanie McCoy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (1601M ) 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-7297

Email: mccoy.stephanie@epa.gov

A. Stanley Meiburg, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. (9T25) 

Atlanta, GA  30303

Phone: (404) 562-8357  

Email: meiburg.stan@epa.gov

Bob Perciasepe

Acting Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (1101A)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-4700

Email: perciasepe.bob@epa.gov

Aditi Prabhu

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (2355A)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: (202) 564-2473

Email: prabhu.aditi@epa.gov

Nadia Rhazi

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (2723A)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Phone: 202-564-1883

Email: rhazi.nadia@epa.gov

Michael Slimak, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (8601P)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

(703) 347-8524

Email: slimak.michael@epa.gov

Pamela Swingle

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. (9T25) 

Atlanta, GA  30303

Phone: (404) 562-8482

Email: swingle.pamela@epa.gov

Beth Termini

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 3

1650 Arch Street (3EA40)

Philadelphia, PA  19103

Phone: (215) 814-5683

Email: termini.beth@epa.gov 

Other Participants

David Cooper

Public

Jenny Hopkinson

Inside EPA

Washington, D.C.

Email:   HYPERLINK "mailto:jhopkinson@iwpnews.com" 
jhopkinson@iwpnews.com 

Contractor Support

Jennifer McCulley

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

656 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 210

Gaithersburg, MD  20878

Phone: (301) 670-4990

Email:   HYPERLINK "mailto:jmcculley@scgcorp.com"  jmcculley@scgcorp.com

  PAGE  2 	  	April 4, 2013, National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary

April 4, 2013, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology (NACEPT) Meeting Summary	  PAGE  1