UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C, 20460
EPA-SAB-RSAC-89-026
June 16, 1989
OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
The Honorable William K. Reilly
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M, Street, S.W,
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Reilly:
The Advancement Criteria subcommittee of the Science
Advisory Board's Executive Committee has completed its review of
the office of Research and Development's (GRD's) criteria for
promoting research scientists and engineers as stipulated in
"Career Ladders for ORD Field Scientific and Engineering
Positions." The Executive Committee of the science Advisory
Board, in turn, has reviewed the Subcommittee's report and
changes recommended by the Board have been incorporated herein.
The review was requested by the Assistant Administrator for ORD,
and was conducted on January 31, 1989 in Washington, D.C.
The major conclusion is that both the criteria and the
process are too internally directed. Therefore, participation by
scientists and engineers external to the Agency and with stature
in their fields in the review and evaluation of the
accomplishments of candidates for promotion is recommended. Such
participation of external parties is essential to the success of
the advancement system in promoting scientific excellence within
the-Environmental Protection Agency,
Recommendations are provided to ensure credibility and
equity in the evaluation system. Other suggestions are offered
to provide for individual growth opportunities and to promote
involvement of high quality researchers.
The Subcommittee appreciates the opportunity to conduct this
review. We request that the Agency formally respond to the
advice transmitted in the attached report.
Sincerely,
Executive Committee
Dr. Paul F. Deisler, Jr.
Chairman, Advancement Criteria
Subcommittee
-------
United States Office of the Administrator EPA-SAB-RSAC-89-026
Environmental Protection Science Advisory Board June 1989
Agency Washington, DC 20460
&EPA Report of the
Science Advisory
Board
Evaluating ORD's
Criteria for Career
Advancement
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the conclusions and recommendations of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board
summarizing a review of EPA's "Career Ladders for ORD Field
Scientific and Engineering Positions". The Board's major
conclusion is that both the criteria and the process are too
internally directed. Therefore, participation by scientists and
engineers external to the Agency and with stature in their fields
in the review and evaluation of the accomplishments of candidates
for promotion is recommended. such participation of external
parties is essential to the success of the advancement systems in
promoting scientific excellence within the Environmental
Protection Agency,
Key Words: Career Advancement? scientific management? laboratory
managment
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOTICE
This report has been written as a part of the activities of
the Science Advisory Board, a public advisory group providing
extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator
and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Board is structured to provide a balanced expert assessment of
scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency. This
report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency; and
hence, the contents of this report do not necessarily represent
the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or
other agencies in Federal government. Mention of trade names or
commercial produces does not constitute a recommendation for use.
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY 'BOARD
ADVANCEMENT CRITERIA SUBCOMMITTEE
roster
CHAIRMAN
Dr. Paul Deisler
University of Houston
11215 Wilding Lane
Houston, Texas 77024
MEMBERS
Dr. Eula Bingham
Department of Environmental Health
University of Cincinnati Medical College
3223 Eden Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45267
Dr. Benjamin B. Ewing
Professor of Environmental Studies
University of Illinois
408 s. Goodwin
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Dr. Robert Neal
center in Molecular Toxicology
Department of Biochemistry
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Nashville, Tennessee 37232
Dr. Norton Nelson
institute of Environmental Medicine
New York University Medical Center
550 First Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Dr. John Neuhold
Department of Wildlife Sciences
College of Natural Resources
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
FEDERAL LIAISON
Dr. Ron Hart
National Center for Toxicology Research
Rural Route 2
Jefferson, Arkansas 72079
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Ms. Janis C. Kurtz
Environmental Scientist & Executive Secretary
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary ................ 1
2.0 Introduction , . ..,.*.....2
2.1 Request for Science Advisory Board Review 2
2.1.1 Background 2
2.1.2 charge 2
2.2 Subcommittee Review Procedures 2
3.0 General Comments ........... 4
3.1 Adequacy of Criteria 5
3.2 Adequacy of the Advancement Process 7
Career Ladders for ORD Field Scientific and
Engineering Positions
-------
1.0 EXECPTIVg SUMMARY
EPA'3 Office of Research and Development (ORD) requested
that the Science Advisory Board review the criteria developed to
provide their staff with career advancement opportunity beyond
the GM-15 level. The Advancement Criteria Subcommittee, an Ad
Hoc Committee, was established and charged with preparing a
report for the Science Advisory Board's approval.
The Subcommittee discussed the special circumstances of
EPA's research scientists and engineers, and described the need
for credibility and equity in any evaluative system. The
criteria and process as presented in the ORD document "Career
Ladders for ORD Field Scientific and Engineering Positions" was
believed to be fundamentally appropriate and well presented.
The major conclusion is that the criteria are essentially
adequate, but that both the criteria and the process are too
internally directed. The participation of scientists and
engineers external to the Agency and with stature in their fields
is therefore recommended. Such participation is essential to the
success of the advancement system in promoting scientific
excellence within the Environmental Protection Agency.
Other recommendations include incorporation of provisions
for down-grading along with advancement of researchers to ensure
continued quality in the senior grades and provision of room for
individual growth at the top. Procedures for out-placing
researchers should be incorporated into this process.
Recommendations are provided on ways to establish and
maintain the credibility of the peer review process. Actual
decisions to reward, promote (or demote) should lie in the hands
of internal EPA management. Finally, existing systems of other
organizations should be studied by ORD staff and relevant, tested
practices should be incorporated into the final process.
l
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Request for Science Advisory Board Review
2.1.1 Background
The Office of Research and Development (ORD) is exploring
mechanisms for providing their staff with career advancement
opportunity beyond the GM-15 level. Scientists who excel in
research pursuits, rather than management pursuits, would be
eligible for this advancement. ORD has asked the Science
Advisory Board to review the criteria developed to guide this
process based on their experience and understanding of the
characteristics and attributes of senior career scientists in
academia, industry, and other government installations.
2.1.2 Charge
The Advancement Criteria Subcommittee will review a set of
criteria generated by ORD. ORD proposed to use these criteria in
evaluating candidates for promotion to levels beyond GM-15.
Conclusions will be provided by the Subcommittee as to the
appropriateness of these criteria. In addition, the
recommendations will be provided for improving the process or the
criteria themselves.
The Board will not be involved directly in applying these
criteria to selection processes involving specific individuals
since this is the appropriate domain of Agency management.
Members may nominate qualified scientists or engineers to serve
on selection committees, if the Agency so desires.
The Board has been requested to consider two topics in its
review of the Advancement Criteria for promoting Agency
scientists. They are as followsJ
a. Are the proposed criteria adequate for identifying
personnel for promotion?
b. Is the process for applying the criteria appropriate?
2-2 Subcommittee Review Procedures
The Advancement Criteria Subcommittee met on January 31,
1989 in Washington, D.C. Briefings were provided on the criteria
formulation process by Dr. Roger Cortesi, Sandy Wells and Rick
Garman of the ORD. In addition. Hector Suarez of the Office of
Human Resource Management provided insight and information.
Prior to receiving this briefing, the Committee was provided
with a document entitled "Career Ladders for ORD Field Scientific
and Engineering Positions". This document is attached as
Appendix A. Following the receipt of the draft document
and the described briefings, the Committee discussed the
2
-------
guidelines in detail* Suggestions, conclusions, and
recommendations were developed at the meeting. In addition, both
general and specific written comments on the guidelines were
submitted for assembly by the Chair* These comments were
assembled into a draft report, which was circulated for comment
and consensus.
3
-------
3.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
EPA scientists are a special lot. They and their activities
cover the spectrum from the fundamental to the very applied and
include engineers, along with the physical and biological
scientists. The scientific issues they have to face are often
inter- or multi-disciplinary, requiring a greater share of team
work than one would find in academia or in a discipline-specific
laboratory. The working mode is often that of problem solution -
reacting to what amounts to political exigencies. Deadlines are
often court-mandated requiring" the scientist to come up with an
"answer" before research efforts have ripened. Add to this the
requirement to transfer all research findings and technological
advances to program offices and state enforcement agencies.
These necessary tasks result in a mix that most non-Agency
scientists would find difficult to evaluate.
Any peer review system developed for evaluation must have
credibility. The system must have credibility and equity for
those who are affected and those who use the results in their
decision-making. It is important to bear in mind that the
ultimate decisions evolving from such a system have significant
impacts on individuals, their organizations, their co-workers and
their families. With this in mind, it is particularly important
to involve managers and the employees affected by the process in
the development of and critique of the specific criteria and
guidelines* Ideally, the peer review system should be designed
by those individuals within the system who are recognized within
and without as being highly productive research scientists. To
do otherwise gives rise to an imposed system rather than a
collegial system.
The advancement criteria as presented have an overall
shortcoming in their internal focus. The process is too
internal, and, in many respects, the criteria are also too
internal. The basis for promotions or rewards for scientists
should include recognition of their accomplishments as scientists
in the respective areas of expertise. These accomplishments
should be reviewed and evaluated by the peers and deans of their
disciplines, not by their administrators and close working
colleagues. Recommendations based on these evaluations should go
to the appropriate administrator for his/her consideration in
making a recommendation for promotion.
In larger measure than current proposals, this peer
representation must come from outside the agency - certainly from
outside the candidate's immediate office or laboratory. This
will provide for greater balance between external and internal
reviewers.
It is also recommended that a companion procedure be
developed for the opposite event. It may be necessary to demote
individuals to prevent perpetuating undeserved tenure at these
high levels. This will continue to assure that quality is
4
-------
maintained and that there is room within the organization for
individual growth based on recognition and accomplishment.
3.1 adequacy of Criteria
In general, the procedures and criteria outlined in the
document are appropriate and well presented. It is important
that the evaluation be thorough and critical, but that it remain
a subjective evaluation and not be reduced to formulae.
Assessment of qualifications, achievements and professional
stature (paragraph 3.a.) is appropriate. The evaluation should
assess the nominee's continuing growth, particularly since the
last previous promotion in grade. One attribute of a superior
scientist or engineer at the senior level is continuing growth in
knowledge and stature. The criteria should be structured to
assess the new knowledge, techniques, or skills that the nominee
has acquired since previous promotion. In addition,
considerations of professional stature should include evaluation
of the candidate's role in professional and other related
societies and groups. Recognition by peers for honors, awards
and election to leadership positions in professional or
scientific society offices can be quantified although the latter
is sometimes the result of astute politicking or willingness to
serve rather than real, scientific accomplishments.
Quantification may be useful but unquestioning reliance on a
numerical system as a kind of formula should be avoided. The
quality represented by the numbers is also of importance.
The bullets listed (Appendix 2 of Appendix A, page 10
[C.3.a]) do not appear to be in any priority order. Projects
executed successfully may deserve a higher priority than projects
conceived but not without question. This points to the need for
careful assessment, case'by case.
Although one significant discovery is better than many
insignificant ones or no discoveries at all, several significant
discoveries are better than one. In other words, quality and
quantity are not necessarily independent of each other. The
number of significant publications in highly regarded, peer-
reviewed journals is an important criterion for measuring an
individual's quality as a scientist.
An attempt should be made to evaluate the nominee's
contribution to co-authored papers, reports, etc. Is the nominee
the senior author? Did the listing as co-author signify a
substantial contribution or was it a recognition of a senior
staff person's position in the research organization. In
addition, the criteria should be structured to allow
determination of the sequence of publications, especially the
most important papers. Were the best of them all published early
in the nominee's career or has there been evidence of continued
productivity? The criteria should provide weighted advantage to
5
-------
a continuous stream of publications and evidence of recent high-
quality papers in refereed journals.
Evaluation of citations is a proper tool for. assessing the
impact of a publication. Citation review should be subjective,
however, and not dependent on citation indices which merely
enumerate citations* In particular, self-citation of the authors
previous papers in his/her subsequent publications should not be
considered as important as citation by other workers in the same
field.
The bullets in Appendix 2 of Appendix A (page 10, [C.3]) are
very appropriate. The EPA'» own award for excellence in
published papers should be included, since the awards are
recommended by a review panel of the Science Advisory Board
adding an additional layer o£ independent peer review.
The first paragraph of section [C.3.b], "Work situation", is
very good. The importance of the "relative role and significance
of the incumbent's contributions'* should be stressed.
The issue of technology transfer could be resolved with the
creation of technology transfer units in each of the laboratories
taking the burden of that responsibility from the scientist and
freeing the scientist for science. The only technology transfer
he/she should be responsible¦ for is the production of peer-
reviewed scientific papers and necessary internal reports. In
any case, evaluating the effectiveness of technology transfer is
an administrative responsibility and should be evaluated
independent of scientific accomplishment.
Evaluation criteria should vary with the level of maturity
of the candidate to allow consideration of a progression of
activities and accomplishments from grades 11 through 18. The
maturation of a scientist can be viewed as falling into three
major stages: l) The early career, creative stage when fresh
ideas seem to come easily to those young, fertile minds
unencumbered by a lot of inhibitory knowledge; 2) the mid-career
paradigmatic stage when the scientist spends much of his/her time
demonstrating earlier ideas? and finally 3) the mature career
stage when the scientist has gained a breadth of knowledge to
allow synthesis and integration to come easily. There are
exceptions-, of course, but one would not expect an entry level
scientist at the- 12, 13 level to perform at the super grade
synthesis level and would evaluate those people accordingly.
Those who maintain a font of fresh ideas, demonstrate the
capacity to synthesize and receive the respect and acceptance of
their peers should, perhaps, be the only ones advanced to an 18
level.
6
-------
3.3 adequacy of the Advancement Process
Effective, peer review is of prime importance to the
credibility and• 'operation of system* To be effective, the panel
should truly be peers, not only in the real sense, but in the
perceived sense as well. Having review bodies with fixed
memberships provides for continuity, but does not necessarily
result in true peer review. It is important to assure
flexibility for expanding any review body to accommodate to the
expertise of the person being reviewed, Also, peer review, if
done well, is a labor intensive effort and that effort should be
shared so as not to become burdensome.
Broad participation will prevent the system from talcing an
the cast of any one individual and will provide an appropriate
balance of internal and external scientific and technical
viewpoints. Final selection of participants should remain with
the chair/Agency,
Also, review committees may solicit letters of
recommendation or reference from external scientists of relevant
disciplines. A side benefit is that those on the outside become
more familiar with the skills and accomplishments of Agency
staff. Reviewers or references should be scientists of stature
including members of the National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, National Institutes of Health and Science
Advisory Board.
The wisdom of appointing the Deputy Assistant Administrator
(DAA) as Chair of the review committee was questioned* This
assumes that the DAA has scientific or engineering expertise, and
this is not always the case. The Chair should not be in a
position of direct line management or line authority. ultimate
decisions, to promote or not to promote, must be made by line
managers and this aspect of personnel action should be completed
separately to ensure objectivity of incorporation of-* scientific
peer review recommendations.
The plan should recognize and specify that the individual
being reviewed has substantial responsibility for preparing the
materials that will form the basis of the review. Such an
approach has the effect of educating individuals, providing them
with some control over their destiny, and most importantly
assures the accuracy and currency of information.
The credibility of the process is also reflected by and
contingent on the implementation of the process, it is important
to define the interactions and implications of other or outside
factors that affect the process. Numerous factors, controls and
requirements from outside the Agency may come into play in the
overall advancement process, and these should be specified to
ensure system credibility. If the system and peers accord
recognition to an individual and their accomplishments, then it
is imperative that management see to it that those results are
implemented quickly and efficiently.
7
-------
Finally, it is recommended that EPA obtain and become
familiar with systems developed for similar purposes and
activities, such as those developed by the National Centter for
Toxicology Research in Jefferson, Arkansas. Careful scrutiny of
these systems may allow EPA to profit through the experience of
others and adopt aspects that are both relevant and proven to be
effective.
s
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Washington DC 204-60
Office of Research ana
Development
Washington QC 20^60
Career Ladders for
ORD Field
Scientific and
Engineering
Positions
-------
Contents
Page
Career Ladders for ORD Field Scientific and Engineering Positions
I, Introduction . , . . 1
II. Coverage ,, 1
Hi, Career Ladder Guidelines 2
IV. Peer Panels 3
V. Supergrade Panels ¦ 3
Appendix 1 Career Ladder Chart 4
Appendix 2 Peer Panel Guidelines 7
I. Introduction 7
II, Policy • 7
III, Coverage • 7
IV. Membership 7
v. Peer Panel Chairperson S
vl. Responsibilities - ¦ - 8
vil. Procedures 9
Vlil, Annual Position Review 9
IX. Supergrade Panel 9
\
-------
Foreword
If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to fulfiil its role of providing a
clean healthy environment to the American people, it must maintain and foster
the excellence of its most precious asset—the people who are the organization.
The Career Ladders for ORD Scientific and Engineering Positions handbook
contributes to this effort. The handbook firmly establishes the Agency's
commitment to a dual-career path for all ORD scientists and engineers working
in the laboratories making it possible for a scientist or engineer to progress based
on technical expertise or on supervisory/managerial responsibilities. It estab-
lishes the ORD policy for the use of peer panels in position classification
evaluations of laboratory and field positions when the grade is based on the
technical expertise of the incumbent and provides guidance for administering
the peer panel process, A section covering GS-16 and above positions- is also
included.
The guidelines in the handbook are based on existing Office of Personnel
Management classification standards. Qur intent in publishing these guidelines
is to provide a uniform approach throughout ORD for the classification of
positions and to provide employee awareness of the distinctions between grade
levels and the duties and responsibilities that can be undertaken to develop and
advance one's career.
This document was developed with input from the three servicing Personnel
Management Divisions, Michael Watkins, lead person; key officials in ORD,
Robert Booth, lead person; and members of the ORD Staffing Flexibility Task
Bernard D. Goldstein
Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management
-------
Career Ladders for ORD Field Scientific and Engineering Positions
I, Introduction
GRD scientists and engineers and the Personnel
Management Division have developed a career
ladder for all ORD field and laboratory scientific
and engineering positions. The career ladder
defines promotional opportunities to the GS-1S
level based on technical expertise and responsi-
bility regardless of managerial or supervisory
responsibility. This will create a dual career
ladder for ORD personnel whereby a scientist or
engineer may achieve the GS-14 and 15 levels
based on technical expertise and responsibilities
or on supervisory/managerial responsibilities.
Positions proposed for upgrading to the GS-14
and 15 levels based on technical expertise will
be subject to peer panel review.
Employees who are recommended for super-
grade status based on technical expertise and
responsibility will be reviewed and ranked by a
panel of scientists and engineers and compete
for any available supergrade slots.
It. Coverage
A career ladder is defined as a series of
developmental positions of increasing difficulty
in the same line of work'through which an
employee may progress based on his or her
personal development and performance.
A. Categories of Scientific and Engineering
Positions
Before establishing a career ladder, it is neces-
sary to define the major categories of scientific
and engineering positions Within ORD and to
identify the classification standards used to
analyze and grade these positions,
ORD has five major categories of scientific and
engineering positions.
1. Research; The Research Grade Evaluation
Guide is used to classify positions engaged in
basic or applied research in the biological,
medical, agricultural, physical or mathemat-
ical sciences, in engineering or in psychology.
The Guide defines research a$ "systematic,
critical, intensive investigation directed to-
ward development of new or fuller scientific
knowledge of the subject studied. It may be
with or without reference to a specific
application. Such research includes but is not
limited to, theoretical and experimental in-
vestigations {1) to determine the nature,
magnitude and interrelationships of physical,
biological and psychological phenomena and
processes; (2) to create or develop theoretical
or experimental means of investigating such
phenomena and processes; and (3) to develop
principles, criteria, methods, and a body of
data of general applicability for use by
others."
To determine whether or not a scientist or
engineer is engaged in research, it is necessary
to review the purpose of the position as deter-
mined by management as well as the output or
products of the position and the qualifications
and stature of the incumbent.
2. Development: The Equipment Development
Grade Evaluation Guide is used to classify
positions involved in the systematic applica-
tion of scientific knowledge to create new or
substantially improved equipment, systems,
materials, processes, techniques and proce-
dures that will perform a useful function or be
suitable for a particular duty. Like research,
development is a creative process involving
theoretical, experimental, and/or applied
concepts. Like research, development ad-
vances the state of the art. However, the
primary focus of development is the creation
of new or substantially improved end items in
the form of equipment, processes, procedures
and techniques.
3. Operations; Operational positions are pro-
fessional scientific and/or engineering posi-
tions which require the application of scien-
tific or technical training equivalent to that
represented by graduation from a college or
university. The essential difference between
research and operational positions lies in the
objectives of the work. Operational positions
involve the following types of activities;
a. Collection, processing, and analysis of
scientific or engineering data that support
scientific research but stop short of theo-
retical and experimental utilization of data
to develop new or fuller scientific knowl-
edge of the subject studied.
r
-------
b. Management of and exclusive participation
in scientific data processing, storage, and
retrieval systems.
The appropriate classification standard, i.e..
Chemist, GS-1320, Environmental Engineer,
GS-819, etc., is usedto evaluate these positions,
4, Contracts or Grants: The Research Grants
Evaluation Guide is used to evaluate positions
primarily concerned with the analysis, evalu-
ation, planning, organizing, coordination, and
approval of scientific research programs that
are carried out by educational, research, or
other institutions.
It is important to remember that the scientist
or engineer who is responsible for inhouse
research activities may also use contracts to
continue or extend his/her own work and
may monitor contracts, advise the contractor,
and evaluate the findings. The evaluation of
this scientist's position would be based on
his/her primary research responsibility since
the extramural research duties are an exten-
sion of that responsibility,
5. Mixed: Some positions within ORD involve a
combination of operational, research, devel-
opmental and contracts and grants work.
These positions will be evaluated by the use
of the various classification standards cited
earlier as appropriate.
B, Occupations
The career ladder includes ORD laboratory and
field positions in the following disciplines:
Occupation
Series
Biological Sciences
(GS-400)
Biologist/Toxicologist
GS-401
Microbiologist
GS-403
Pharmacologist
GS-40S
Ecologist
GS-408
Physiologist
GS-413
Entomologist
GS-414
Botanist
GS-430
Plant Pathologist
GS-434
Plant Physiologist
GS-435
Horticulturalist
GS-437
Geneticist
GS-440
Soil Scientist
GS-470
Agronomist
GS-471
Engineering
{GS-800) '
General Engineer
GS-801
Civil Engineer
GS-81G
Environmental Engineer
GS-813
Mechanical Engineer
GS-83G
E.ectrica! Engineer
GS-850
Electronics Engineer*
GS-855
Biomedical Engineer
GS-85S
Mining Engineer
GS-880
Agricultural Engineer
GS-890
Chemical Engineer
GS-893
Occupation
Series
Health Sciences
fGS-600)
Health Scientist
GS-601
Medical Officer
GS-602
Industrial Hygienist
GS-690
Physical Sciences
(GS-1300)
Physical/Environmental
Scientist
GS-13Q1
Health Physicist
GS-1306
Physicist
GS-1310
Hydrologist
GS-1315
Chemist
GS-1320
Geologist
GS-135Q
Oceanographer
GS-1360
Mathematics
(GS-1500)
Operations Research
Analyst
GS-1515
Mathematician
GS-1520
Mathematical
Statistician
GS-1529
Statistician
GS-153Q
Psychology
(GS-1SO)
Psychologist
GS-180
III. Career Ladder Guidelines
A. Appendix 1 is a chart which shows the
career ladder for the five major categories of
ORD positions- The chart contains general
information on the work situation, supervi-
sion received, guidelines and professional
qualifications that would be found at each
grade level as well as typical work assign-
ments found in ORD. These descriptions
should be considered as general character-
istics of a particular grade. Literal confor-
mance with every item in the descriptions is
not necessary. For example, greater em-
phasis would be placed on professional
qualifications and scientific contributions
for a research position than for an opera-
tional position. For a research contracts and
grants position greater emphasis might be
placed on the work situation and supervision
factors,
i
B. The career ladder cannot replace or change
existing classification standard®. It is in-
tended to provide O^D scientists. i'"i~ si'"
2
-------
and management with a general guideline
as to how positions are graded, the dif-
ferences between the grade levels and the
activities they must undertake to develop
and advance their careers.
mended for supergrade status by their Labor-
atory Director or Headquarters Office Director
The AA ORD will use this list as supergradr
slots become available (see Appendix 2 <
more details).
IV. Pear Panels
ORD laboratories and field programs will use
Peer Panels to assist in the evaluation of
employees recommended for GS/GM-14/1S
level positions in research, development and
research contracts and grants and for the
GS/GM-13,14 and 15 level operational scien-
tific or engineering positions.
A Peer Panel is composed of a Chairperson
(normally a Laboratory or Deputy Director) and
three to five voting members, consisting of a
representative of the Servici ng Personnel Office
(SPO) and scientists and/or engineers familiar
with the work of the position and who can
evaluate the qualifications and scientific con-
tributions of the candidate/incumbent. At least
one scientific or engineering member of the
Panel and the Chairperson must be from an
EPA organization outside the laboratory/
program where the position is located. At least
one of the scientific or engineering membersof
the Panel must come from outside EPA.
Scientific and/or engineering Panel members
must be at the same or higher grade level,
equivalence than the position being evaluated
and must not have a supervisor/subordinate
relationship with the candidate.
Peer Panels are especially helpful in classifying
positions at these levels. The scientists and
engineers who serve as Panel members provide
an authoritative professional review of the
candidate's qualifications, stature, research
accomplishments and tech meat expertise.
Concurrently, the SPO provides the required
expertise on the factors used in classification
of the positions, i.e., work situation, work
assignments, supervision received^guideiines,
and how these relate to the candidate's
professional qualifications and scientific con-
tributions. These elements are critical in the
classification of positions at these levels. The
Peer Panel process encourages the mainte-
nance and retention of a high quality cadre of
scientists and engineers in both research and
nonresearch positions in EPA QRO (see
Appendix 2 for more details).
V. Supergrade Panels
A panel of supergrade scientists and engineers
will review and rank all candidates recom-
3
-------
Appendix 1
Career Ladders for ORD Field Scientific and Engineering Positions
Work Situation
Conducts scientific investi-
gations of limited scope
with readily definable ob-
jectives. Participates in
problem definition, plan-
ning. execution, analysis
and interpretation and
reporting of findings, Pro-
jects are expected to result
in a contribution to the
development of a new or
recognizably improved
method or technique.
Typical Work
Assignment
Examples)
Incumbent is responsible
for the preparation of trace
organic sample concen-
trates for water and waste-*
water analyses by modify-
ing and adapting standard
methods and procedures.
The changes are designed
W improve the efficiency
and accuracy of the me-
thods and to extend their
applicability to other sub-
stances or situations. The
incumbent writes techni-
cal instructions for the
development and prepara-
tion of these organic
samples and prepares re-
ports which are used in
the design of future sam-
ples of various organic
pollutants.
Supervision
Received
GS-11
Supervisor assigns a spe-
cific problem with instruc-
tions s$ to scope and
objectives and advises on
problem definition and the
development of a plan of
attack. The researcher is
responsible for the com-
pleteness and adequacy of
the study- Receives tech-
nical guidance on unusual
or complex problems. Com-
pleted work is reviewed for
adequacy of method, com-
pleteness and results.
Guidelines
Existing theory and me-
thods are generally appli-
cable, to most parts of the
problem. The researcher
must select and adapt
available methods and
techniques. Only a limited
amount of innovation or
modification of procedures.
Professional
Qualifications and
Scientific Contributions
Requires sufficient profes-
sional training and experi-
ence to perform as a fully
trained researcher capable
of performing the neces-
sary background studies,
developing a plan of attack,
conducting the research
ami evaluating the results
with some direction as to
objectives and occasional
technicalguidance. Serves
as assistant to higher level
scientist who is responsible
for a subject matter or
program area.
Carries out complex or
novel assignments requir-
ing the development of new
or improved techniques or
procedures. Takes respon-
sibility for the assigned
study and pursues it to
completion. Work is ex-
pected to result in the
development of new or
improved techniques, equip-
ment or procedures.
Incumbent has primary
responsibility for reviewing
the quality of air monitor-
ing data and advising pro-
ject manager as to what
corrective actions art need-
ed prior to data output. As-
signments include; reviews
of sample collection pro-
cedures, sample handling
methods, laboratory pro-
cessing, and data proces-
sing, involves personnel in
state/ local agencies and
regional offices at all levels
prepares instructions and
oversees contractor per-
sonnel working on data
validation; conducts meet-
ings to bring together per-
sonnel from different
phases of air monitoring to
resolve problem areas;
participates as team leader
on special projects which
requires s^pertise in all
ureas yf sir monitoring.
GS-12
Supervisor makes assign-
ments and provides guid-
ance on overall objectives,
critical issues, new con-
cepts end policy methods.
Carries out assigned re-
search independently ana-
lyzes and interprets results
and prepares reports of
findings. Consults with
supervisor concerning un-
usual problems and devel*
opments, Completed work
is reviewed for soundness
and for overall results.
Existing theory and avail-
able guidelines are insuf-
ficient. The researcher
must use advanced tseh-
niques and must be able to
modify and extend existing
theory, practices and tech-
niques, Problems studied
are characterized as com-
plex.
Represents the organiza-
tion in conferences to re-
solve important questions
end to plan and coordinate
work for assigned area of
responsibility. Is expected
to make decisions inde-
pendently on scientific
and/or engineering prob-
lems and methods. Work
may have resulted in se-
condary authorship of
major reports or primary
authorship of minor reports
or papers.
-------
Work Situation
Typical Work
Assignment
Examples}
Supervision
Received
Guidelines
Professional
Qualifications and
Scientific Contributions
QS-1 3*
Plans and conducts re*
search on a problem area
of considerable scope and
complexity The scope of
the problem is such that it
must be approaches
through a series of com-
plete and conceptually re-
lated research studies.
Problems are typically dif-
ficult to defin#, reouire
unconventional or novel
approach#® and require
sophisticated research
techniques,
As a technical authority,
incumbent is responsible
for developing, adapting,
and evaluating methods
that detect, identify, and
quantify Specified pollutant
emissions. Develops and
evaluates stationary source
emission test methods.
Conducts and coordinates
field studies at appropriate
sites to determine whether
methods developed and
evaluated under laboratory
conditions will produce re-
liable results under condi-
tions representative of
actual use. Develops new
methods evaluation tech-
niques and applies such
techniques to the evalua-
tion of stationary source
emission test methods.
Identifies research needs,
formulates hypotheses,
develops and carries out a
plan of attack, analyzes and
interprets results and fire-
pares reports of findings.
Keeps the supervisor In*
formed of general plans
and progress of the work,
The Supervisor makes final
decision concerning the
direction of the work,
changes in research direc-
tion and major investments
of time and equipment
Completed work is review-
ed to evaluate overall re-
sults
Available guidelines are
limited in usefulness, con-
tain critical gaps or are only
partially related to the
problem. The researcher
uses originality in adapting
and/or extending existing
theory, in developing new
approaches and methods
and interpreting results.
The problems studied are
highly elusive and very
complex.
The researcher typically
has authored one or more
publications of consider-
able interest or value to the
field and has presented
papers to professional soci-
eties, Represents the as-
signed area of specializa-
tion within and outside the
organization. The research-
er's ideas serve as the basis
for productive studies by
others. The researcher is
sought out to Serve on
important committees Of
professional groups.
Provides technical leader-
ship and guidance m a
subject matter area of
major importance to the
Agency. Conceives, plans,
and conducts investiga-
tions of broad areas of
considerable novelty and
importance for which pre-
cedents are lacking in areas
critical to the Agency's
programs, Studies are ex-
pected to result in major
technological advances or
m solutions to exceptionally
difficult problems Deci-
sions and interpretations
are recognized as authori-
tative and have an impact
on important Agency pro-
grams.
Serves as a recognwed
leader and authority on the
development of methodol-
ogy for characterizing or-
ganic gases, vapors and
particulate matter in ambi-
ent atr Conceives, plans,
and conducts research
investigations in these
areas. Follows national and
international developments
m the areas of hazardous
organic air pollution and
defines specific problem*
related to these develop-
ments. Represent* the
Agency in collaborative
national and international
research activities. Partici-
pitit in interlaboratory
conferences on hazardous
pollutants, and serves on
technical committees. Di-
rects research projects
through extramural con-
tracts.
GS-14**
Receives administrative
supervision limited to ap-
proval of staffing, funds,
facilities and broad agency
policies, Conceives and
plans investigations to fur-
ther Agency objectives and
carries them through to
completion. Decisions and
interpretations are recog-
nized as authoritative end
have an important impact
on Agency programs.
Demonstrated creativity,
foresight and judgment are
required to solve unprece-
dented problems in areas
critical to the Agency's
programs. Problems are
characterized as exception-
ally difficult and unyielding
to research analysis so that
their solution would repre-
sent significant advance-
Serves as a consultant to
scientists and engineers
both within and outside the
Agency. Scientific advice
and interpretations are ac-
cepted as authoritative.
The researcher typically
hM contributed new i nven-
tions. designs, or tech-
niques which are regarded
as major advances in their
field. Typically, the re-
searcher has written a
number of important pub-
lications for recognized
technical journals.
S
-------
Typical Work Professional
Assignment Supervision QuaSftcation? ancj
Work Situation Examples) Received Guidelines Scientific Contributions
Responsible (or formula-
ting and guiding a rssuareh
attack on problems which
have been recognized as
critical obstacles to pro-
gress or develop me lit in
areas of exceptional inter-
est. Ordinarily serves as a
leader of a research team
but may function as an
individual researcher. The
solution of such problems
would represent a major
advance, opening the way
for extensive related devel-
opment.
Responsible for formula^
ting, guiding and conduc-
ting in-house and extra-
mural research on the
prevention, control and
abatement of multi media
pollution from oil and
hazardous material spills
and oil and gas producing
facilities. Functions as an
Agency expert in the field
of chemical and hazardous
chemical emergency re-
sponse activities. Functions
asan authority in the man-
agement of hazardous
malarial incidences and
serves as a national and
international technical
spokesman for the Agency
in this 3rea of expertise.
GS-1 5*"*
Recti ves broad adm inistra-
tive supervision, takes com'
plate responsibility for
formulating research plans
and hypotheses and carry-
ing them through to com-
pletion, for planning and
organizing programs and
facilities, for interpreting
findings, including their
applicability to activities
and interests of the Agency
and their broader applica-
bility to basic scientific
methodology. These inter-
pretations are accepted as
technically authoritative
and becomes the basis for
necessary administrative
action within the Agency,
i
Applies a v^ry high degree
of imagination and creativ-
ity in the solution of prob-
lems of marked importance
to the scientific field, to
health or to major seg-
ments of the national econ-
omy. Problems are charac-
terized by an almost com-
plete absence of applicable
guidelines, pertinent liter-
ature and methodology.
Sought is a consultant by
colleagues who are, them-
selves, specialists in the
subject matter field. The
subject matter field may be
a broad area or may be a
narrow but intensely spe-
cialized field. The research-
er typically has written a
number of important pub-
lications which have had a
major impact on the field or
are accepted as definitive
of importance to the scien-
tific field, the Agency or the
public. Contributions at this
level are of such impor-
tance that other research-
ers must take not# of the
advance in order to keep
abreast of development in
the field. As a recognized
authority, the researcher
receives invitations to ad-
dress national professional
organizations and performs
extensive advisory and
consulting work.
"QS-13 non-research (operational) positions are subject to peer panel review-
* "Positions at this level must be reviewed by a peer panel. \
4.
*
-------
Appendix 2
Peer Pane/ Guidelines
Introduction
This document states the ORD policy for the
use of peer panels in position classification
evaluations of laboratory and field positions,
provides guidance for administering the peer
panel process, and assigns responsibility for
its execution.
II. Policy
ORD laboratories and field installations wilt
use peer panels in position classification
evaluations to provide an authoritative pro-
fessional review of an incumbent's qualifica-
tions, stature, contributions and technical
expertise, including;
• the quality of the research conducted by
the candidate,
• the relevance, significance and importance
of engineering/scientific achievement to
the mission of the lab, program, ORD, tho
Agency ar d to the engineering/scientific
discipline.
• the extent to which the incumbent repre-
sents the Agency or laboratory in dealing
with regions, other laboratories, other
federal and non-federal agencies, private
industry, etc.
• recognition by peers as an expert in one's
field.
• impact of the incumbent's recommenda-
tions and interpretations on Agency and
office programs.
• the quality, quantity, and relevance of any
publications authored or co-authored.
III. Coverage
A, Promotion recommendations to non-
supervisory/monmanagerial scientific
and engineering positions in research,
development and research contracts and
grant positions at the GS-14 and 15
levels.
8. Promotion recommendation® to non-
supervisory/nonmanagerial operational
scientific and engineering positions at the
GS-13, 14, and 15 levels.
C. Promotion recommendations to supervi-
sory scientific and engineering positions
in research development and research
contracts and grants positions at GM-14
andGM-15 when the grade level is based
on personal technical expertise rather
than supervisory/managerial responsibil-
ities,
D. Promotion recommendations to supervi-
sory/managerial operational scientific
and engineering positions at the GM-13,
14, and 15 level when the grade level is
based on personal technical expertise
rather than supervisory managerial re-
sponsibilities.
E. Reassignment or "new hire" actions at
the GS/GM-13, 14, and 15 level if the
SPO determines that the grade level
proposed is dependent on the technical
expertise of the candidate.
IV. Membership
A, Peer Panels consist of a chairperson and
three to ftve voting members including a
representative of the SPO. Scientific and
engineering panel members must be at
the same or higher grade level equiva-
lence than the position being evaluated
and must be technically knowledgeable
of the expertise required by the position.
Panel members may not have a super-
visor-subordinate relationship with the
candidate under review. At least one of
the scientific or engineering members of
the panel must be from an EPA organiza-
tion outside the Laboratory where the
subject position is located. In addition, at
least one of the other scientific and
engineering panel members must come
from outside EPA.
-------
B. A representative of a professional bar-
gaining unit may be permitted as an
observer to a peer review process if called
for in the Union contract or otherwise
negotiated. This representative will not
be a voting member of the peer panel.
V. Peer Panel Chairperson
A, The peer panel chairperson must be a
Laboratory or Deputy Laboratory Director
or equivalent and must be from outside
the laboratory/program where the posi-
tion is located.
B, The SPO will consult with the Laboratory
Director and/or AA ORD to determine the
methods for selecting a peer panel chair-
person, Options include selecting two
chairpersons from different organizations
to serve in an alternating capacity, selec-
ting a single chairperson from ORD
headquarters or appointing a chairperson
on a case-by-case basis. The SPO Will
consult with the Laboratory/Program
Directors and/or the AA ORD to select •
the Peer Panel Chairperson.
C, Peer panel chairpersons may serve a two-
year term and may be reappointed,
VI. Responsibilities
A. A A ORD
1. Nominate qualified headquarters
employees to serve as peer panel
chairpersons as appropriate.
2. Approve the need to establ ish positions
in accordance with existing ORD dele-
gated authorities.
B. Program/Laboratory Directors
1. Recommend the establishment of
positions at the GS-13/14 and 15
levels in accordance with existing ORD
delegated authorities.
2. Recommend qualified employees to
serve as peer panel chairpersons.
3. Recommend individuals (both em-
ployees and non-employees of EPA) to
serve as peer panel members, upon
request from the SPO or peer panel
chairperson.
C. Peer Panel Chairperson
1. Select peer panel members from nom-
inations received from Laboratory/
Program Directors, selecting officials,
SPO or from own knowledge of exper-
tise available from within or outside
the Agency.
2. Chair individual panel meetings, ex-
plain process to panel members, pre-
pare reports of the results of panel
meetings, arid submit a summary
memorandum of the panel's recom-
mendations to SPO.
3. Serve as tie-breaker if panel cannot
reach majority decision,
D, Peer Panel Members
1. Review and evaluate the information
provided in each case. The evaluation
of qualifications and experience will
be made in accordance with the ap-
, propriate guidance provided by the
Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) and SPO and shall be made
without regard to race, sex, religion,
national origin, age or handicap.
2. Request additional information as
needed, interview the candidate and/
or the supervisor and any other indi-
vidual necessary to evaluate the posi-
tion.
3. Prepare a written recommendation to
the peer panel chairperson indicating
whether the candidate's impact upon
the position warrants the proposed
grade.
Servicing Personnel Office
1. Consult with Laboratory/Program
Directors and/or the AA ORD to select
the Peer Panel Chairperson,
2. Determine when a peer panel is
needed in accordance with this policy
and request the peer panel chairperson
to convene a panel meeting.
3. Request supporting documentation
from nominee and review for com-
pleteness.
4. Provide a representative to serve as a
voting member on all peer panels,
5. Provide technical advice at all panel
meetings.
6. Exercise final classification authority
on all actions resulting from panel
recommendations,
7. Assure that a report is properly fifed
documenting the recommendation of
each panel.
3
-------
8, Notify the professional bargaining unit
of peer panel meetings and notify the
chairperson that an "observer" will be
attending the panel meeting as appro-
priate.
9, Maintain separate files for each peer
panel case including the panel sum-
mary memorandum and official posi-
tion description. Panel rating forms
and summary memorandum must be
attached to the file copy of the position
description and maintained in the SPO
organizational files.
VII. Procedures
A. Laboratory/Program Director submits an
SF-52 that has received all required
approvals within ORD, position descrip-
tion, a listing of proposed peer panel
members, and an appropriate peer panel
support package to the SPO in accordance
with local procedures. Peer panel support
package should include such items as the
incumbent's updated SF-171, listing of
publications, presentations, member-
ships, awards, and other recognitions as
well as a narrative of significant accom-
plishments and contributions- Require-
ments for peer panel support packages
will be detailed in local procedures.
B. SPO reviews position description and
peer panel package to assure complete-
ness and conformance with local proce-
dures and determines that a panel is
required.
C. SPO notifies Peer Panel Chairper son that
a panel is required
D. Peer Panel Chairperson reviews the
position description and support package,
confers with SPO and finalizes panel
membership.
£. SPO sets up panel meeting, sends neces-
sary information to panel members, and
notifies the professional bargaining unit,
if required, of panel's meeting.
f. Panel members review the position de-
scription and peer panel support package,
request any additional information they
may need, interview the supervisor
and/or incumbent if necessary, and
document the results of their review and
recommendations for the Chairperson.
G. Chairperson summari2es"the results and
prepares a memorandum of the panel's
findings for the SPO.
H. SPO reviews the panel's findings, classi-
fies the position, notifies the Laboratory/
Program Director of the final results and
maintains required records and files.
/. If the employee is dissatisfied with the
final classification decision, he or she
may lodge a position classification appeal
at any time with the Headquarter's Per-
sonnel Office or with the appropriate
Office of Personnel Management. This
appeal is a formal, written request by an
employee to have the pay category, title,
series, or grade of his or her position
changed. An employee need not appeal
through EPA channels before appealing
to OPM, but the latter encourages em-
ployees to use Agency channels first
before appealing to OPM.
VIII. Annual Position Review
All peer panel approved actions will be
reviewed as part of the annual position
classification review. Individuals will be
requested to update personal qualifications
and accomplishments, if necessary. The
SPO and the supervisor will review position
descriptions to assure they are accurate and
current.
The SPO will determine which, if .any,
positions require peer panel re-evaluation.
(X. Supergrade Panel
Because the number of supergrade slots is
limited, employees recommended for super-
grade status based on technical expertise
and responsibility will be reviewed and
ranked by a panel of scientists and engineers
in the following manner:
A. At the request of the AA. ORD, an ORD-
wide supergrade panel wilt be convened
as needed (normally once every 12
months) to review non-managerial posi-
tions recommended for promotion to
supergrade level (C3S-16,17,13}.
8. The Panel will consist of the following six
members:
1. Chairperson - the DAA for ORD
2. Headquarters - two designees of the
AA for ORD
B
-------
3, Laboratories - three Laboratory Direc-
tors selected by the Chairperson
4. The Director of OHRM, or designee,
will serve as an advisor to the Panel.
C. Procedures:
1. The AA for ORD wili request Laboratory
Directors and Headquarter's Office
Directors nominations through appro-
priate channels.
2. SPOs will assist Laboratory Directors
and Headquarter's Office Directors in
the preparation of position descriptions
and supplemental information needed
to document classification at the
supergrade level.
3. The Panel win review all recommen-
dations with special attention to the
following factors which are indicative
of professional growth to the super-
grade level:
a- Qualifications, Achievements, and1
Professional Stature of Incumbent
This "factor is concerned with the
knowledges, abilities, personal
qualities, professional stature, con-
tinuing growth, contributions, pro-
ductivity, and attainments of the
incumbent as measured by the
following: ,-
(1) Specific accomplishments in
one's field as evidenced by:
• theories or concepts evolved
• techniques and methods devel-
oped
• inventions and developments
accomplished
• technical criteria developed
• projects conceived and/or exe-
cuted
• impact or influence of work on
Agency objectives on the Agency *
and on the state of the art
(2) Publications authored including
government reports and papers in
professional Journals and books
considering the quality, recency,
and impact as evidenced by reviews,
citations, and developments in the
field (undue weight will not be
accorded to mere numbers ofpubli-
csticns;.
{3} Specific professional stature in
the government, professional and
academic communities as a leader
and scientific authority, including:
• extent to which he or she is
sought out as a consultant and
advisor by specialists and others
in and out of the field.
• reliance placed on his or her
advice and recommendations,
• awards and honors received from
local, national, OI" international
organizations or institutions.
b. Work Situation
This factor is concerned with the
nature and effort of studies under-
taken, consultative and advisory
services and participation in pro-
gram planning, coordination, and
evaluation. Included here are the
difficulty, complexity, and novelty of
work activities as these require
creativity, mastery of one's field.
Scientific and engineering leader-
ship; the scope and importance of
programs affected by the incum-
bent's recommendations and ad-
vice: and the relative role and
significance of the incumbent's
contributions.
Typical assignments at the super-
grade level are the following:
• Responsibility for formulating
and guiding a broadseale attack
on problems in frontier areas
which are of critical importance
to major national programs or
are subject to widespread public
and Congressional concern and
scrutiny. The project is of such
complexity and scope that it
must be subdivided into numer-
ous planning, experimental and
theoretical phases, several of
which require significant scien-
tific or technological contribu-
tions.
• Responsibility for attacking prob-
lems of such novelty, importance,
and extraordinary difficulty that
(1) there have been numerous
attempts by competent scient jets
to exptore the area and gain a
fundamental understanding of
the processes and phtncT.jr-.;,
-------
(2) new hypotheses, concepts
and techniques must" be devel-
oped for attack, analysis, and
interpretation; and (3) the suc-
cessful performance of the work
will lead to new theory, major
modification of current theory, or
a new level of scientific or
technological capability.
• Extensive use as a consultant by
other agencies, by higher author-
ity within the organization, and
by the professional community
for critical evaluation and advice
on proposed new projects, new
approaches, and complex prob-
lems in a broad or intensely
specialized area of investigation
at the frontiers of science and
technology. At higher levels such
consultation may have a broader
coverage and impact, e.g., across
many diverse fields of interest to
a bureau.
(4) The panel will rink nominations
for supergrade submission in ac-
cordance with the above listed
factors and forward the rankings to
the AA QRD.
(5} The AA, QRD will use this
ranked list, along with other rele-
vant information, for assigning
supergrade "slots" as they become
available. The rankings will be
upgraded as neededjnormally once
every 12 months).
------- |