U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Office of Inspector General

                   At   a   Glance
                                                             09-P-0147
                                                          April 29, 2009
                                                                 Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review

The Office of Inspector
General (OIG) conducted this
review in response to a request
from the former U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Deputy
Administrator. We evaluated
I whether (1) current laws,
regulations, guidance, and other
relevant requirements for EPA
expert peer review panels are
adequate to produce objective
scientific reviews; and (2) the
current system of populating
and managing such panels
could be improved.

Background

Peer review is a process for
enhancing a scientific or
technical work product so that
the decision or position taken
by the Agency, based on that
product, has a sound, credible
basis.  EPA's National Center
for Environmental Assessment
produces highly influential
scientific assessments such as
human health risk assessments;
thus, it is one of EPA's primary
users of peer review services.

For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs
and Management at
(202)566-2391.

I To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2009/
20090429-09-P-0147.pdf
EPA Can Improve Its Process for Establishing
Peer Review Panels
 What We Found
The laws, regulations, guidance, and other relevant requirements governing
EPA's peer review process are adequate to produce objective scientific reviews,
but certain areas of EPA operating guidance can be better defined.

When we compared the EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment's
(NCEA's) peer review panel selection process with the processes used by other
major science-based organizations, we found that NCEA's process does not differ
in many aspects from those other processes. However, NCEA's current system
for populating and managing expert panels can be improved:

  •  Although NCEA strives to select "impartial" panelists, this concept is
     vaguely defined and not explained in any NCEA-specific operating guidance.
  •  NCEA does not have procedures for addressing conflicts of interest or
     potential biases that become known after a panel has completed deliberations.
  •  There was no clear documentation of authority and responsibility for making
     final determinations regarding panel selection or how  potential conflicts of
     interest were resolved.

Following a prior OIG report, NCEA improved its peer review process by
developing a questionnaire for EPA contractors to use in identifying potential
conflicts of interests or biases of prospective panel members. Also, according to
the NCEA Director, NCEA recently started to document its peer review process
and is implementing a quality assurance checklist to ensure EPA contractors
follow EPA's procedures.
 What We Recommended
We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development, which oversees NCEA, improve management controls by better
defining the concept of "impartiality" and maintaining records of all management
decisions pertaining to the selection of peer reviewers, particularly resolution of
potential conflicts of interest. We also recommended that the Assistant
Administrator develop guidance to address conflict of interest issues that arise
after panel formulation and amend contracts for external peer review services to
require that panelists re-certify their conflict of interest status prior to the panel
convening. The Office of Research and Development agreed with our
recommendations, and the Assistant Administrator's planned actions meet the
intent of our recommendations. Additional information is needed regarding the
timeframe for the Agency's implementation of one of our recommendations.

-------