Comprehensive list of Scientific
Integrity Activities

I.	FY 2020 Agencywide Meeting

II.	Listing of FY 2020 Scientific Integrity Activities

I. FY 2020 Agencywide Meeting

EPA AGENCYWIDE MEETING ON SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

June 17, 2020
Virtual Meeting
MEETING SUMMARY

Participants

Over 1,000 participants attended the virtual meeting and represented every EPA
program office and region.

Introductory Remarks

Doug Benevento, Associate Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), welcomed participants to the meeting and congratulated EPA staff for
their work protecting human health and the environment for the past 50 years. He
credited EPA's success to its strong culture of scientific integrity but noted that such
integrity still can be improved.

Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, EPA's Acting Science Advisor and Office of Research and
Development Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, thanked everyone for their part
in improving the scientific integrity of EPA. She noted that scientific integrity, scientific
quality, the peer-review process, and quality assurance all improve the scientific
foundation of EPA and foster public confidence in EPA's work. Maintaining this strong
culture of scientific integrity will require EPA to remain informed about the Agency's
accomplishments in scientific integrity; the different initiatives of the scientific integrity
program; and the scientific integrity contributions of different EPA employees,
contractors, grantees, fellows, and interns.

Scientific Integrity 2019 Highlights

Francesca Grifo, Scientific Integrity Official at EPA, introduced EPA's scientific integrity
program and updated the attendees on the program's progress. The implementation of
scientific integrity at EPA ensures objectivity, clarity, reproducibility, and utility of

-------
scientific results by providing insulation from bias, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism,
interference, and censorship. Having scientific integrity means that individuals must
adhere to professional values and practices when conducting, communicating,
supervising, and utilizing scientific information. EPA follows practices that ensure high
scientific and research integrity involving quality-control methods, the validation of
protocols, the accreditation of facilities, clearance procedures, and a robust peer-review
practice. Scientific integrity also is applied once research data are acquired when those
data are communicated and used for decision-making. EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy
(Policy) supports the Agency's culture of scientific integrity, enhances transparency, and
assures protections of government science. Information regarding and resources
surrounding the Policy can be found on EPA's website.

Francesca Grifo introduced the scientific integrity team members and Scientific Integrity
Committee. The scientific integrity team writes and oversees policies, performs scientific
integrity training, listens to concerns about EPA's scientific integrity, and provides
outreach efforts. The team also generates an annual report, establishes language for
grant agreements and requirements for upholding scientific integrity, and determines
best practices for authorship and clearance. The team develops a charter for the
Scientific Integrity Committee, drafts procedures for addressing concerns, finds
solutions to resolve scientific conflicts, and specifies roles and responsibilities for
upholding scientific integrity for managers and supervisors at EPA. Finally, the team
presents on scientific integrity, provides advice concerning scientific integrity, and
adjudicates violations of the Policy.

Francesca Grifo presented an update on the scientific integrity team's work. The Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report on scientific integrity that included
results of a 2018 survey. The 2018 survey indicated that EPA staff had increased
awareness of several Scientific Integrity Policy components since the previous survey
was taken in 2016: 93 percent of staff were aware of the Policy, 68 percent of staff were
familiar with the contents of the Policy, 50 percent of staff knew how to report scientific
integrity allegations, 69 percent of staff agreed that they could freely express scientific
views provided they specify that they are not speaking on behalf of EPA, and 34 percent
of staff indicated that their clearance procedures are consistent within their office.
Francesca Grifo noted that the scientific integrity team is actively working to standardize
clearance procedures.

The survey also revealed some areas of decreased awareness since the previous
survey that were in need of improvement: 47 percent of staff stated that their
management chain consistently stands behind staff who put forth scientifically
defensible positions that may be controversial; 52 percent of staff stated that, within
EPA, they can openly express scientific opinions about the Agency's scientific work
without fear of retaliation; 51 percent of staff stated that they have the right to review,

-------
correct, and approve the scientific content of an Agency document that identifies them
as an author or represents their scientific opinion before public release; and 29 percent
of staff stated that scientific and technical products they contributed to are released in a
timely fashion. EPA is working to address this decreased awareness.

Francesca Grifo discussed the status of scientific integrity allegations and advice. From
February 2012 through mid-June 2020, EPA received 78 allegations and 178 requests
for advice. Allegation submissions covered the following topics: data quality, authorship,
delay/suppression, interference, plagiarism, other science integrity topics, and topics not
related to scientific integrity. Allegations were submitted from program offices, regions,
external sources, and unknown sources. Allegations were directed at program offices,
the Office of the Administrator, regions, and other areas. Of the submitted allegations,
28 percent are not substantiated, 22 percent are substantiated, 15 percent are
withdrawn, 11 percent are not related to scientific integrity, 7 percent were transferred to
OIG, and 17 percent are active. Advice submissions covered the following topics: peer
review, retaliation, authorship, clearance, delay/suppression, interference, topics not
related to scientific integrity, data quality, differing scientific opinions, general advice,
and other topics. Advice was submitted from program offices, regions, external sources,
and unknown sources. Advice was directed at program offices, the Office of the
Administrator, regions, and other areas. Of the submitted advice requests, 25 percent
were averted; 2 percent were closed; 3 percent have been moved to allegations; 7
percent were not related to scientific integrity; 3 percent were transferred to OIG; and 3
percent were withdrawn. As of this report, 56 percent have no current allegation, and 1
percent are on hold.

Because EPA is both a research and regulatory agency, maintaining scientific integrity
is uniquely challenging. Tensions exist between science and policy, and these tensions
must be mediated effectively. Transparency and documentation facilitate mediation by
providing evidence to guide actions made in response to allegations and advice
requests.

EPA Whistleblower Protections

Lori Ruk, EPA's Whistleblower Protection Coordinator (WPC), OIG, presented on
whistleblower protections. The Inspector General Act of 1978 requires each inspector
general to designate an individual within their office to serve as a WPC. WPCs must
educate Agency employees about prohibitions on retaliation for whistleblowing, as well
as employee rights and remedies if an employee is subjected to retaliation for making a
protected disclosure. WPCs also provide information about the role of OIG, the Office of
Special Counsel, and the Merit Systems Protection Board, as well as the timeliness of
cases, the availability of alternative dispute mechanisms and avenues for potential
relief. WPCs cannot provide legal advice or act as legal representatives.

-------
Disclosures from whistleblowers help WPCs prevent and detect waste, fraud, and
abuse. Agency employees can contact the WPC program via email, phone, or the
contact information on the OIG website. Employees who contact WPCs are provided
with confidentiality.

Lori Ruk highlighted the protected disclosures that are related to scientific integrity. The
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 clarified that protected disclosures
include those made by federal employees revealing censorship related to scientific
research, analysis, or technical information if the censorship causes or will cause any
gross mismanagement; violation of law, rule, or regulation; gross waste of funds; abuse
of authority; or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Similarly, it is
illegal for a subcontractor, employee of a federal contractor, grantee, sub-grantee, or
personal services contractor to be discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated
against as a reprisal for making a protected disclosure if the disclosure is related to a
federal contract or grant and filed within 3 years of the alleged reprisal.

Further information on this process can be found on the OIG website. Lori Ruk
concluded by emphasizing the critical service whistleblowers provide for the public and
EPA.

Getting Assistance with Scientific Integrity Concerns

Francesca Grifo thanked Lori Ruk for her presentation and, with Kevin Collins, EPA
National Hotline Manager, OIG, discussed the process of requesting assistance for
scientific integrity concerns. She recommended that individuals seek help early, and she
provided her contact information and a schedule of office hours reserved for this
purpose.

In addition, Francesca Grifo encouraged individuals to seek out their Deputy Scientific
Integrity Official, who are listed online. Three main entities receive allegations and
requests for advice: Francesca Grifo, Deputy Scientific Integrity Officials and the OIG
Hotline. Information from reports is shared by these entities on a need-to-know basis. It
is helpful for the process when the reporter provides information on which policies are
being violated. It also is helpful when managers support reporters and carefully listen to
concerns without interrupting.

II. Listing of FY 2020 Scientific Integrity
Activities

¦ -iiI'M 'i mi -Iid Radiation

• The Office of Air and Radiation's (OAR) Office of Atmospheric Program (OAP)
completed and is now implementing an EPA's Lean Management System (ELMS)
Project called the "OAP Journal Publication and Data Transparency Process." The
project focuses on improving the system by which staff, who author a journal

-------
publication, can comply with the requirements for public access to data. The
development of this ELMS project coincided with the Agency's recent
implementation of these publication and data transparency and accessibility
processes.

OAP sought opportunities to communicate science externally with the public through
participation in scientific conferences, federal interagency work-products,
international technical and scientific collaboration, and invitational presentations in
classroom settings. Fiscal year (FY) 2020 examples include OAP's support for the
U.S. Global Change Research Program's federal climate change indicators platform
by providing scientifically sound and externally peer reviewed indicators to this
initiative.

OAR also responded regularly to inquiries and requests from Congress, public
officials, and program stakeholders by providing clear scientific and technical
scientific findings, along with a discussion of underlying assumptions and associated
uncertainties.

Products are reviewed both internally and through the peer review process.

Scientific findings are disseminated in a timely manner through posting on the web,
publishing in peer-reviewed journals, hosting and presenting at conferences and
symposiums, and through answering inquiries. OAR has also continued efforts to
make progress in establishing procedures and practices which facilitate compliance
with the key elements of the policy.

In the past year, OAR's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) initiated an ELMS
project to evaluate the review and approval process for ORIA scientific and technical
products. By mapping out the process and tracking the flow of product review, they
have been able to decrease the time it takes for scientific and technical products to
go through the internal review process.

Professional Development/Training Professional development in OAR is strongly
encouraged and accomplished through training, mentoring, and participation in
scientific conferences and workshops.

The Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) is continuing its comprehensive staff
education campaign, which had begun in 2017, to counter the impact of staff
retirement on its internal radiation expertise. In 2020, they focused on several
different concurrent approaches: hosting expert speakers and brown-bag lunches
remotely and in person; sharing valuable on-demand training videos on a
SharePoint site; and facilitating an intense Advanced Health Physics course using
an online university course. This education campaign has been successful in
increasing the depth of radiation protection knowledge in ORIA.

The Office of Atmospheric Programs (OAP) also encourages scientists to obtain
specialized or advanced training, including in methods to effectively communicate

-------
scientific results. In FY 2020, several OAP scientists engaged in advanced
geographic information system training and opportunities to improve the visualization
of data through data modernization systems. OAR supports professional
development opportunities including participation in annual meetings of professional
scientific organizations.

•	OAR programs continue to integrate scientific integrity procedures and practices into
their overall operations so that scientific integrity-related activities are integral, rather
than an add-on, to current practices. For example, OAR's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has developed a procedure for conducting formal
review and approval of staff proposals to conduct research and analysis for
publication in scientific journals as part of the normal workflow. The requirements are
such that all work conducted using Agency resources is approved and authorized
before the work is initiated. Additionally, an electronic flow board was implemented
to track the review of proposals for research and analytical activities and
manuscripts throughout the entire clearance process. This allows staff to view the
status of review of their proposals and manuscripts in relation to defined timelines
and facilitates the approval of proposals and manuscripts in a systematic and
consistent manner. OAR programs are also utilizing the ELMS to evaluate and
improve SI and related activities.

Offic . >! I in i :ement and Compliance Assurance/Nation I I in hi cement

Investigatior

•	All new staff and management were trained on the National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC) and Agency level quality management systems, along
with overviews of NEIC's two International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 17025 accreditations.

•	NEIC conducted internal audits of the quality management system. These audits
identified a few non-conformities with ISO/IEC 17025 and other requirements. All
non-conformities were addressed through NEIC's robust corrective/remedial action
process. Additionally, identified areas of potential concern that do not reach the level
of a non-conformity or potential quality-related improvements were also tracked and
addressed, when possible, including those identified through the annual
management system review. This is an indication of NEIC's mature management
system programs and commitment to rigorous quality and scientific integrity.

Office of Resea	velopment

•	The Office of Research and Development (ORD)'s Office of Science Information
Management (OSIM) continued to work with other Assessable Units to meet ORD
Scientific Data Management (SDM) policy requirements. The OSIM-managed
Science Hub is used by all EPA program offices and regions and is a system that is
used to help manage EPA's research data throughout the life of a research project.
Data and metadata are made publicly available in accordance with EPA's Public
Access Plan, and better guarantees the transparency of and easy access to EPA's
scientific data used in published articles and documents. In this way, OSIM helps

-------
EPA to collaborate and meet data transparency requirements as well as meet the
expectations of our external customers. See the SDM website, including information
on ScienceHub, at: https://intranet.ord.epa.gov/science/scientific-data-management

The Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division uses the Scientific and Technical
Information Clearance System and Science Hub to control and review products that
are produced for internal use or released external to the agency (public view). This
creates records that are available for Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) and give
public access to publication data. This emphasizes the critical need for a researcher
to apply their knowledge and practice of high-level scientific integrity to their
gathering of research data, documenting study methods and following Quality
Assurance Project Plans prior to developing and releasing their products internal to
the EPA and externally to the public.

An integral aspect of the Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure
(CCTE)'s commitment to scientific integrity is providing public access to all chemical
data, code, software, online tools, models, and research publications. This aligns
with the Agency's commitment to make its science and research results transparent
and available for anyone to use to help inform decisions. Publicly releasing CCTE
research also helps communicate the research for stakeholders outside EPA and to
solicit feedback regarding advances in computational toxicology research; this can
be used to accelerate the pace of chemical testing. All CCTE data, code, software,
online tools, models, and research publications are available on the EPA website
through the FTP site, Git Hub, and other online portals. Downloadable data:
https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/downloadable-computational-toxicology-
data, Online tools: https://comptox.epa.gov and code:

https://aithub.com/search?q=ora%3AUSEPA+c,omptox&unscoped q=comptox

Staff routinely complete Science Hub entries to provide public access to datasets
used for publication of peer-reviewed journal articles which supports Scientific
Integrity. As of April 24, 2020, 100% of FY2020 through FY 2016 peer-reviewed
journal articles have published datasets. (Total number: fiscal year 2020(20), fiscal
year 2019(72), fiscal year 2018(63), fiscal year 2017(78), and fiscal year 2016(92)).

All research products and outputs, except for internal reports that are provided to the
ORD National Research Programs, are externally peer reviewed.

The Office of Research and Development's Immediate Office of the Assistant
Administrator (IOAA) encouraged all managers, who had not previously taken
Scientific Integrity training, to participate and work with the Agency Scientific Integrity
Official to coordinate Scientific Integrity training to all staff in major facilities of
Washington DC, Cincinnati, and Research Triangle Park.

In fiscal year 2020, IOAA supported the Office of Science Advisor, Policy and
Engagement (OSAPE) and the Scientific Integrity Official in recruiting additional
Scientific Integrity staff to replace retirements.

-------
•	OSAPE: The program continues to build a culture of scientific integrity at EPA by
holding quarterly meetings of the Scientific Integrity Committee with the Scientific
Integrity Official (SIO); an Annual Employee Conversation with the SIO; quarterly
meetings with the Office of General Counsel; and quarterly meetings with the Office
of Inspector General (OIG).

•	In addition to independently led external triennial assessments conducted at each of
CEMM's five locations, the Center's Quality Assurance (QA) team conducts internal
assessments to ensure its research projects comply with quality system
requirements. These assessments may include, but are not limited to, Technical
Systems Audits, Audits of Data Quality, Data Quality Assessments, and field audits.
Currently, CEMM has 372 identified projects requiring Quality Assurance Project
Plans (QAPPs) with 88% of these operating under approved QAPPs, 1% in
development, 4% in review by QA staff, and 7% in revision by technical leads. From
1 st quarter through 2nd quarter of fiscal year 2020, the CEMM QA team conducted
55 QAPP reviews, 28 extramural package reviews, 173 product reviews, 1 technical
systems audit, 5 audits of data quality, 1 data quality assessment, and 2 field audits.
All findings from audits/assessments have been addressed with appropriate
corrective actions. To facilitate continued competency with organizational quality
requirements during the reorganization transition, the CEMM QA Team has
conducted four (4) Center-wide training sessions in FY 2020 Q1 and Q2, which
resulted in high rates of participation. Topics covered during the training sessions
included research notebooks, QAPP development, and laboratory practices.
Providing expeditious public access to CEMM scientific and technical information is
a high priority for the Center. To that end final drafts of peer-reviewed articles are
transmitted via ORD's Scientific and Technical Information System (STICS) for
public release as soon as they are accepted for publication in scientific journals.
Additional administrative resources (eg, contractors) have been installed to remedy
delays in posting data that support such articles for public access when necessary
(eg, articles principally authored by non-ORD scientists). The report from an external
peer review panel's evaluation of CEMM's Community Multiscale Air Quality
(CMAQ) modeling site, conducted during the summer of 2019, is posted for public
view on the CMAQ website (www.epa.gov/cmaq/cmaq-publications-and-peer-
review).

Office of Water

•	Data quality is essential to the development of products we use to support
regulations, guidance, and major policy decisions. As such, EPA continues to
address challenges with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) in the
environment. In fiscal year (FY) 2019 the Office of Water (OW) published EPA's
PFAS Action Plan (https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan ). As part of the
2019 Action Plan, EPA proposed in February 2020 to regulate Perfluorooctane
Sulfonate and Perfluorooctanoic Acid. As part of this action, EPA requested
information and data on other PFAS substances as well as sought comments on
potential monitoring requirements and regulatory approaches EPA is considering for

-------
PFAS chemicals, https://www.epa.gov/iiewsreleases/epa-aiiiiouiices-proposed-
decision~requlate~pfoa~and~pfos~drinkinq~water.

In FY 2020, the OW posted quarterly occurrence data obtained as part of the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) on EPA website at,
https://www.epa.qov/dwucmr/occurrence~data-unrequlated~contaminant~monitorinq~
rule#4. Monitoring and data collection began under the UCMR 4 in 2018, which
involves gathering data on 30 contaminants of emerging concern from all large
public water systems (PWSs) and a representative set of small PWSs.

OW invested in improved access to data, metadata, and web-based reporting of
results and findings from National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS) water quality
assessments. The OWhas also made strides in making data and information more
transparent through How's My Waterway. How's My Waterway allows users to
navigate the wealth of data contained within OW, and this increased transparency
continues to improve the data.

In FY 2020, our scientists represented EPA and promoted OWs mission at
conferences held by the following professional organizations: Society of Toxicology,
The Toxicology Forum, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
American Public Health Association, National Association of Black Geoscientists,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Pittcon Conference, American Council of
Independent Laboratories, and the Great Lakes Beach Association. In addition, staff
participated in meetings held by a number of stakeholder associations and
organizations: Association of Clean Water Administrators, Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators, American Waters Works Association, Massachusetts
Bay National Estuary Program, Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, Delaware's Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control National Association of Clean Water
Agencies, National Rural Water Association, and International Water Association.
Staff also attended meetings with states and other stakeholders on program
implementation and on technical topics such as nutrients, harmful algal blooms,
recreational criteria/swimming advisories, coliphage (viral indicator), perfluorinated
compounds, water quality benefits assessments, emerging contaminants, and
effluent guidelines. Finally, to support water quality standards development, OW
offers the Water Quality Standards Academy, which presents classroom-based and
online courses, along with occasional webinars.

OW is responsible for developing and implementing the nation's drinking water
regulations. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires the Administrator to use the best
available peer-reviewed science and supporting studies conducted in accordance
with sound and objective scientific practices as well as data collected by accepted
methods or best available methods (if the reliability of the method and the nature of
the decision justifies use of the data). [SDWA Section 1412(b)(3)(A)]

-------
•	The Office of Water continued to adhere to the Information Quality Control and Peer
Review guidance for reports and products. The Office of Water implemented Quality
Assurance Project Plans for both contract work and Agency work for EPA/State
National Aquatic Resource Surveys.

•	The Permitting and Water Quality Branch hired and trained (2) new staff in water
quality standards as well as (1) in wetlands programs; hosted a virtual Program
Manager's meeting with state agencies on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permitting, oversight, and water quality standards June 2020; and conducted
a Review of a state's Department of Environmental Quality and Department of
Agriculture, Food, and Forestry implementation of authorized program in August
2020.

•	Office of Water staff are encouraged to have an Individual Development Plan (IDP)
and to discuss their professional development goals with their manager at least
twice per year. Ninety eight percent of Office of Science and Technology staff have
an IDP, which has been reviewed within the last year.

•	The Office of Water expanded the use of electronic field data applications for tablet
devices, enabling NARS field crews to collect data electronically and submit it
directly (or as soon as they have internet access). The use of the tablets and field
application is designed to enhance the quality of data and speed input of data into
the NARS database.

•	The Office of Water continues to support monitoring and adaptive management
development for restoration work in the Gulf of Mexico, as a Deepwater Horizon
(DWH) Trustee and member of the Trustee Council (NOAA, DOI, EPA, USDA, and
Gulf states). The DWH Trustees have recognized the need for robust monitoring and
adaptive management to support restoration planning and implementation, given the
unprecedented temporal, spatial, and funding scales associated with the DWH oil
spill restoration effort. Monitoring provides feedback to inform decision-making
through adaptive management. Adaptive management is a science-based approach
to decision-making. It is iterative and involves monitoring and the use of improved
scientific understanding to repeatedly fine-tune restoration projects for improved
results.

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

•	The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) continues to
ensure that the scientific information we use in the implementation of TSCA, as
amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
(2016), the Pollution Prevention Act and the Toxics Release Inventory is of high
quality for its intended use.

•	In 2017, EPA finalized the Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the
Amended Toxic Substances Control Act (Risk Evaluation Rule)
(https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-

-------
evaluations-chemicals-under-tsca) and Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for
Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (Prioritization Process
Rule) (https://www.epa.gov/assessinq~and~manaqinq~chemicals~under-tsca/federal~
regis	). EPA is required to meet the scientific

standards in TSCA for best available science, utilizing a weight-of-scientific evidence
approach when conducting risk evaluations. The Risk Evaluation Process Rule
defines "best available science" as science that is reliable and unbiased and
involves the use of supporting studies conducted using sound and objective science
practices, including peer reviewed studies when available and data collected using
accepted or best available methods. The definition also states that EPA will
consider, as applicable, the extent to which the scientific information is reasonable
for and consistent with the intended use of the information and is relevant for making
a decision about a chemical substance or mixture, the degree to which clarity and
completeness are documented, the extent to which variability and uncertainty are
characterized, and the extent of independent verification or peer review. The rule
further describes the process EPA will use to evaluate hazard and exposure,
exclude consideration of costs and other non-risk factors, use scientific information
and approaches in a manner that are consistent with the requirements in TSCA for
the best available science, and ensure decisions are based on the weight-of-
scientific-evidence. EPA is following these procedures in all chemical risk
evaluations being performed in FY 2020.

•	OPPT also released Guidance to Assist Interested Persons in Developing and
Submitting Draft Risk Evaluations Under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(https://www.epa.gov/assessing~and~managing~chemicals~under-tsca/guidance-
assist~interested~persons~developing~and~Q). This guidance describes the science
standards, data quality considerations, and the steps of the risk evaluation process
that external parties should follow when developing draft TSCA risk evaluations.

•	In June 2018, OPPT released for public comment the Application of Systematic
Review in TSCA Risk Evaluation document which describes the implementation of
these scientific standards throughout the risk evaluation process
(https://www.epa.gov/assessing~and~managing~chemicals~under-tsca/application~
svstematic~review~tsca~risk~evaluations). This document continues to guide the
Agency's selection and review of studies and provides the public with transparency
regarding how EPA plans to evaluate scientific information. This document expands
upon EPA's initial work on systematic review as described in the supplemental files
for each TSCA scope document, which include the Strategy for Conducting
Literature Searches and the Bibliography for each chemical. An example of this
document can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/assessing~and~managing~
chemicals~under-tsca/risk~evaluation~asbestos~Q#scope. During FY2020, OPPT has
implemented innovations to literature searching and screening through the use of
new, automated techniques to identify studies for use in risk evaluation. Additionally,
screening tools and the use of active-learning techniques have been used to
enhance and speed the process of screening studies. OPPT has also developed
additional criteria and workflows to strengthen TSCA's systematic review process.

-------
EPA has held up its commitment to have the systematic review procedures peer
reviewed by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
(NASEM). An ad hoc committee of the NASEM is currently evaluating and before the
end of 2020 will provide recommendations to EPA on its application of systematic
review for TSCA risk evaluations, focusing on whether it is comprehensive,
workable, objective and transparent. EPA has presented to committee twice in 2020
and has an additional two meetings to share information on innovations in searching
and screening.

The Risk Evaluation Rule requires that all draft risk evaluations undergo peer review,
and OPPT uses the Agency's Peer Review Handbook and OMB guidance for this
purpose. EPA's Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC)
(https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review), a FACA committee established under
authority of the Lautenberg Act, provides independent scientific advice and
recommendations to the EPA on the scientific and technical aspects of risk
assessments (and certain other activities) for chemicals regulated under TSCA. The
SACC is comprised of experts in toxicology, environmental risk assessment,
exposure assessment and related scientific disciplines. In 2019 and 2020, EPA
convened public meetings of the SACC to obtain independent review of the science
underlying its draft risk evaluations for all of the first ten initial risk evaluations, The
agency has, and will continue use the input from the committee, along with public
comments, to inform the final risk evaluations for these chemicals. EPA's risk
evaluation process thus ensures the integrity of scientific data used in actual risk
evaluations by providing a rigorous framework of standards, guidances, peer review
procedures, and other internal controls as outlined in the regulation and other
publications described above. These controls are being put into practice in the
course of the risk evaluations now in progress.

OPPT often uses data with Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims. OPPT
has implemented all procedures and strict internal controls to ensure the security of
these data while conducting assessments of these chemicals. To further enhance
transparency, OPPT has been working to implement the provisions of TSCA Section
14, which requires EPA to review and make determinations on many claims,
including those made for health and safety data submissions. OPPT has also
updated websites and performed outreach to stakeholders to describe the processes
for the use of CBI in the evaluation of new chemical submissions, and the
prioritization of chemicals, and risk evaluation of existing chemicals.

OPPT continues to be in compliance with the Agency's Quality Policy and with the
office's own Quality Management Plan and related quality documentation. In FY20,
OPPT planned to conduct a QA Audit in compliance with the OPPT-wide QMP. In
FY 2020, OPPT seamlessly transitioned from one QAM to another, the new QAM
would oversee the FY 2020 QA audit.

OPPT's New Chemical Review Program employs a number of practices to ensure
scientific integrity of chemical data. Each pre-manufacture notice submitted by a

-------
chemical manufacturer is reviewed by a multidisciplinary team of experts trained in
standard review protocols. The agency has published an extensive set of guidance
to help manufacturers develop submissions that will meet EPA standards for data
sufficiency and quality, and thereby facilitate effective chemical review. The agency
has developed standard assessment methods, databases and predictive models to
ensure consistency in the new chemical review process. Information is available in
the use of these models.

•	The following are examples of key activities the TRI Program uses to help ensure
the scientific integrity of its data:

•	Pursuant to National Program Managers (NPM) Guidance, the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) Program Division (TRIPD) completes at least 600
data quality checks annually as part of various ongoing data quality activities
intended to optimize the quality of TRI data submitted by industrial facilities
and federal facilities.

•	The TRI Program uses an innovative electronic TRI reporting software called
Toxics Release Inventory - Made Easy Web (TRI-MEweb) that numerous
data field-level and batch-level data quality checks and enables facilities to
file a paperless TRI report, all of which

•	The Office of Program Management Operations (OPMO) mission is to use
customer-focused approaches in leading, coordinating and resolving program
management and administrative matters that help OCSPP achieve its broader
mission of protecting the American public and the environment from potential risks
from pesticides and toxic chemicals. Specific to scientific integrity, OPMO's role is to
raise awareness of and compliance with EPA's scientific integrity policies and
practices. As just one example of implementing this role, OPMO is using its bi-
weekly "Musings" newsletter, which is electrically distributed to all OCSPP, to bring
attention to scientific integrity. For example, the June 8 issue introduced CarolAnn
Siciliano as OCSPP's Deputy Scientific Integrity Official, pointed to the EPA
Scientific Integrity policy, promoted the upcoming Agency-wide scientific integrity
meeting, and shared contact information for EPA's Scientific Integrity Official
Francesca Grifo. As a reoccurring feature in these newsletters, scientific integrity
was also highlighted in the June 22 issue that conveyed some highlights from the
Agency's training and provided a link to the Whiteboard Video produced by EPA's
Office of Scientific Integrity. At OPMO's suggestion, the Scientific Integrity Official
addressed OCSPP senior leadership and reiterated key aspects of the Scientific
Integrity Policy. The Deputy Scientific Integrity Official has also established Office
Hours, publicized in the biweekly newsletter, and has adopted as her A3 project
streamlining clearance of scientific products.

•	Office of Pesticides Program (OPP) has a robust internal peer review system that
helps ensure both the quality and scientific integrity of our scientific work products.
OPP managers determine and are accountable for the level of peer review required
for each risk assessment case and the scope of that review.

-------
In the Health Effects Division (HED) there are two main types of cross-divisional
internal peer review panels which are consulted during the preparation of disciplinary
chapters and human health risk assessments to provide technical advice and to
confirm certain scientific decisions. Each type is described as follows:

Science Assessment Review Committees (SARCs) are used by the division to
ensure that scientific decisions are sound, and that current risk assessment policies
and procedures are consistently applied. Each SARC has a standard operating
procedure for its operation, and all decisions and documents are available to all staff
members.

Science Advisory Councils (SACs) and other scientific review committees/teams are
consulted for specific disciplinary questions and to conduct quality assessments of
major disciplinary assessments. There is a SAC for each of the following disciplines:
residue/product chemistry, dietary exposure evaluation, toxicology, and occupational
and residential exposure. In addition, HED has Residues of Concern Knowledge-
based Subcommittee and a Dose Adequacy Review Team. All disciplinary scientists
are encouraged to attend the meetings. This structure ensures that disciplinary
policy decisions are disseminated rapidly throughout the division and that
disciplinary policies are applied consistently across the division. Each SAC has a
standard operating procedure for its operation, and all decisions and documents are
available to all staff members.

After a staff member has prepared a draft document, it is subjected to an internal
peer review, also known as a secondary review. Each branch has its own
procedures for the internal peer review, and the extent of the peer review is task
specific. Generally, disciplinary assessments or reviews are subjected to a
secondary review by one or more scientists within that discipline, while a risk
assessment is reviewed by the team responsible for preparing the individual
elements used in its preparation. If a branch does not have sufficient depth to
conduct a secondary review, it will call upon other resources in the division to ensure
an adequate secondary review is performed. The Branch Chief and/or a designated
senior scientist review and approves all scientific documents.

Before any work product is finalized by the branch, it must be reviewed by a primary
or group of disciplinary experts that are designated by the Branch Chief. The
disciplinary expert/senior scientist signs-off on branch products (there may be more
than one disciplinary expert selected for branch product review in each branch). The
disciplinary expert/senior scientist may consult with other disciplinary experts within
the branch or division before approving any document under their purview.

OSCP conducted an ELMS project titled: OCSPP Technical Product Clearance

•	Improves current process across OCSPP which includes the scientific integrity
review procedures

•	Designing workflow for clearance

-------
Offic . 'ill 'hi' 11 ' I in. rgency Management

•	The Superfund program (Program) collaborated with regional staff to develop
technically sound plans for investigating/assessing environmental contamination and
reducing over time exposures to chemical contaminants arising from environmental
contamination. The Program has endeavored to communicate scientific information
with honesty, integrity, and transparency, both within and outside the Agency and to
dispassionately review the quality and scientific soundness of scientific information
prior to use or dissemination. The Program continues to periodically
facilitate/arrange training and information-sharing sessions for interested EPA staff,
led by practitioners or experts, about human health risk assessment, environmental
processes, radiation, vapor intrusion, and other matters. The Program endeavors to
keep abreast of technical developments and research pertaining to environmental
processes, risk assessment, and environmental remediation methods; to collaborate
with EPA researchers in these areas; and to be cognizant of and understand and
appropriately communicate the specific programmatic statutes that guide our
branch's work.

•	Each Brownfields Assessment, Cleanup, Multipurpose and Revolving Loan Fund
(RLF) cooperative agreement has an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) that is unique to the project(s) and helps both Brownfields grantees and
environmental consulting firms understand what is required and expected while
collecting and using environmental data. In addition to EPA regional project officers
working with grant recipients, the Office of Land and Emergency Management
(OLEM)'s EPA funded technical assistance providers also help communities to
develop or prepare their sampling and analysis plans and their QAPP in accordance
with their specific projects, when requested. Additionally, OLEM has completed
revisions to a final report on the environmental benefits of brownfields
redevelopment. This report was reviewed by ORD and OLEM experts and their
comments were incorporated. The report will not be published in peer-reviewed
literature, so OBLR sought internal Agency peer review.

•	OLEM's Federal Facility Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) continues to meet
with other Federal Agencies to promote the use of the Uniform Federal Policy for
Quality Project Plans (UFP-QAAP). FFRRO is also working with DOD to review the
Army and Air Force Sampling Project Plans for PFAS PA/SI investigations.

•	The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) strives for a fair, balanced, and
peer-reviewed research when organizing studies and developing technical materials.
OUST assigned staff to act as the OUST's Peer Review Coordinator, Data Quality
Manager, and a member of the OLEM's Clearance Policy Workgroup. The
Workgroup is currently drafting OLEM's Policy for Clearance of Scientific Products.

•	OLEM's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) completed the following actions in
FY20:

Wide-Area Biological Decontamination and Restoration Projects

-------
The Analysis for Coastal Operational Resiliency (AnCOR) is a collaborative EPA,
DHS, USCG, and DTRA field demonstration project, which originated from gaps
identified by EPA and the National Laboratories during the DHS Underground
Transport Restoration (UTR) Project from FY'15 - FY'17. Specifically, the UTR
Project identified the connectivity between the underground transit systems and
many of aboveground outdoor areas (including coastal environs). As a result,
the US Coast Guard is proactively trying to determine methods for data
management, sample characterization, fate and transport, decontamination
options (including vegetation, vessels, critical infrastructure), waste management
and clearance sampling for above ground coastal areas. Specific
accomplishments include the following.

•	EPA is developing for AnCOR a Category B Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) prior to the collection of any data. The QAPP will be followed
throughout the test and a Quality Assurance Manager will be present during
much of the testing to note any observations and relevant findings.

•	AnCOR includes an entire segment of this research effort that is dedicated to
data management (methods, procedures, innovative solutions, etc.) and
information sharing to facilitate scientific discussion. To ensure the integrity
of the data, it will be stored on an EPA server where only the project team has
access. The collected data and final report will undergo review for scientific
accuracy by the inter-Office and inter-Agency project team as well as the
Quality Assurance staff.

Fixed and Mobile Chemical Labs

The OEM fixed and mobile chemical laboratories (known as the Portable High-
Throughput Integrated Laboratory Identification System or PHILIS) provide the
emergency response community with ability to rapidly analyze large numbers of
environmental samples to identify hazardous chemicals, including chemical
warfare agents. Scientific integrity is integral to their successful
operation. Specific accomplishments include the following.

•	OEM fixed labs and PHILIS must undergo routine audits under the National
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) to maintain
accreditation. This allows the labs to fulfill one of their primary missions by
generating confirmatory analytical data for the EPA's regions, program
offices, stakeholders, and other outside agencies. EPA conducts these audits
at least annually, in accordance with NELAP accreditation requirements.

•	All OEM fixed and mobile chemical laboratories maintain and update all
laboratory standard operating procedures, Quality Management Plans, Data
Management Plans, and Chemical Hygiene Plans. We make this a
requirement in our support contract based on the requirements under the
NELAP accreditation program (http://www.nelac-institute.org/).

•	The PHILIS laboratories are part of the EPA's Environmental Response
Laboratory Network (ERLN) which promotes uniformity in operational SOPS,
QA/QC criteria as well as data integrity, and uniformity and sharing
(https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/environmental-response-
laboratory-network). The ERLN itself is part of the Interagency Consortium of

-------
Laboratory Networks (ICLN), which acts to provide analytical support, and
support data uniformity, sharing and integrity and cooperation amongst
several federal laboratory networks (https://www.icln.org/).

Publication in Open Sources

OEM actively supports scientific discourse through the publication of our
research in public sources. Almost all of these research projects and
publications are a result of inter-Office, if not inter-Agency/Department
efforts. Integral to these collaborations is the support of differing scientific
opinions and results-driven, scientific objectivity. These publications undergo
review and open discussion through both OEM/EPA review processes as well
as by the open-source journal. One example is provided below.

• Evaluating the Environmental Persistence and inactivation of MS2
Bacteriophage and the Presumed Ebola Virus Surrogate Phi6 Using Low
Concentration Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor, Wood et all, American Chemical
Society, February 19, 2020.

Office of the «' 1111111 rtirator/Offiice of IPubII i < 11 < 11

•	As the Agency's communications arm, the Office of the Administrator/Office of Public
Affairs (OA/OPA) supports ORD and the Scientific Integrity Office in communicating
the importance of their efforts. OA/OPA worked with the Office of Inspector General
to publicize their survey on scientific integrity.

•	Outreach to staff and managers was provided across EPA on new Agency standard
operating procedures for staff participating in private sector standards development
activities. This standard operating procedure includes a section on scientific integrity
considerations for standards participation and was developed in consultation with
EPA's Scientific Integrity Official.

•	OA/OPA supported program offices in the creation of multimedia content for
outreach purposes.

Office of Mission Support

•	EPA Core Products: in fiscal year 2020, the Office of Enterprise Information
Programs reduced the backlog of overdue Quality Management Plans (QMPs)
approvals and Quality System Assessment (QSA) reports by 100%. This improved
customer satisfaction, regained customer trust in the Agency's Quality Program, and
increased business productivity.

i 1

•	The Region's Public Affairs Director ensures that press officers and
intergovernmental staff work closely with scientists to ensure that science is plainly
and clearly communicated, and that scientific findings and results are never altered
or changed. In keeping with the Agency's Scientific Integrity Policy, Region 1's Office
of Public Affairs (OPA) ensures that knowledgeable and articulate spokespeople

-------
communicate research clearly, accurately, and accessibly. Region 1's press officers
attend interviews with members of the media and work with scientific staff to ensure
that the Region is responsive to media inquiries. Likewise, the Region's
intergovernmental staff ensure that scientific information is shared in a timely and
accurate manner with congressional, state, and municipal contacts.

•	Examples include:

•	Organized press conference regarding release of EPA's PFAS Action Plan
and was hosted by the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's
Assistant Administrator, Alex Dunn, February 2019:

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-annQunce-first-ever-CQmprehensive-
nation~wide-pfas~action~plan

•	Provided critical support in the development of EPA's Handbook for Citizen
Science Quality Assurance and Documentation, which was released in March
2019: https://www.epa.gov/citizen-science/quality-assurance-handbook-and-
guidance-documents-citizen-science-projects

•	Region 1 worked with the MSD Scientific Integrity Coordinator, the Deputy
Scientific Integrity Official, the Regional Science Council communications
committee, the Regional Science Liaison, regional programs, and the
Agency's Scientific Integrity Official to develop regional clearance procedures
for scientific products.

•	Region 2 staff reviewed and provided comments on a draft orientation guide to
EPA's Quality Assurance handbook for citizen science for the Science and
Technology Policy Council Citizen Science Workgroup.

•	Region 2 staff participated in the fiscal year (FY) 2019 EPA Peer Review report to
the Office of Management and Budget

•	Region 2 hosted a visit by Francesca Grifo who held the following: Scientific Integrity
Management Dialogues that were attended by 54 EPA Program and Regional
Managers involved with science; Open Houses for managers and supervisors to
continue discussions or ask questions; Scientific Integrity Overviews with open
sessions attended by 47 staff; a meeting with the Regional Science Council; and
open office hours.

•	Region 2 participated in an OIG Project on the implementation of the EPA's
Scientific Integrity Policy kick-off meeting and reviewed the OIG's draft report on the
implementation of the EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy.

• Region 2 personnel participated in the FY 2020 Agency-wide Annual Meeting.

-------
•	Region 2 staff followed up with Region 2 employees who had not completed their
mandatory Scientific Integrity onboarding training within six months of their start date
(this training only applies to new hires).

i 3

•	In fiscal year 2020, the Office of Public Affairs (OPA) worked closely with the Air and
Radiation Division (ARD) in developing a communications plan and public
messaging intended to help inform communities living near high priority Ethylene
Oxide (EtO)-emitting facilities. In Region 3, those facilities are in Pennsylvania,
Delaware, and West Virginia. This work is based on the results of a National Air
Toxics Assessment identifying EtO as a potential health concern that may contribute
to potential elevated cancer risks in certain census tracts.

•	Participating in monthly EPA national EtO planning calls

•	Educating local-elected officials and community leaders about EtO and EPA's
actions to better understand and regulate EtO

•	Educating the media (reporters) on EtO and EPA's actions to address the air
toxic.

•	The Superfund and Emergency Management Division (SEMD) continues to hold
regional cross-program meetings on the emerging PFAS contaminants, now held at
a monthly interval. Participants include SEMD personnel along with the Water
Division, the Office of Regional Council, Office of Public Affairs, a representative
from the Office of Research and Development and the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry. This meeting allows for specific site information to be shared
along with updates on policy and technical information. In the Division, a process
has been implemented to evaluate which sites should be targeted for PFAS
sampling. In addition, SEMD participates in weekly briefings with the Deputy
Regional Administrator to ensure awareness of site activities and policy updates
regarding PFAS.

•	Within the Water Division, the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program created
a webpage to share UIC permits and operator reports. This website has reduced
the number of FOIAs, and citizen inquires that historically took staff time to answer.
The program can direct requesters to the website for more information.

https://www.epa.gov/yic/ynderground-iniection-control-epa-region-3-de-dc-md-pa-
va-and-wv

•	ARD has updated its 105 Grant Commitment database to enhance the tracking and
monitoring of State and Local Agency section 105 grant commitments. Auto-
generated email reminders are now being sent by GRANTTRAX to remind EPA
contacts (ARD staff) of approaching deliverable due dates for their Section 105 grant
commitments, allowing the tracking of all state quality assurance plans and project
plans to ensure the plans are current.

•	The work of the Science, Analysis, and Implementation Brach (SAIB) of the U.S.
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office uses fact- and evidence-based environmental

-------
monitoring and assessments of the Chesapeake Watershed and Tidal Bay. The
monitoring and assessments are thoroughly vetted and reviewed in technical
workgroups and committees of the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership by
Federal, State, university, and other professional members. Major projects are peer
reviewed under the EPA SAIB guidelines.

•	The Laboratory and Technical Services Branch (LTSB) conducts Annual Laboratory
Ethics Training for all laboratory employees. Additionally, an "Achieving and
Maintaining Data with Integrity" Webinar is provided for all laboratory employees by
LTSB.

i 4

•	In fiscal year 2020, the ARD continued its efforts to promote scientific integrity by
adherence to professional values and practices when conducting and applying the
results of science and scholarship. Continuing areas of emphasis are ARD's work
with headquarters (HQ) and their state/local air agencies to assess pollutant
emissions and the quality of monitoring/modeling data for evaluating and making
decisions about air permitting and planning in the Southeast. The division provided
guidance and technical support to state, local, and tribal partners to ensure
environmental data used for decision-making was of known and documented quality.
To continually improve the division's work products and assist state and local
agencies, the division works both internally and externally to promote informed,
scientifically sound decision-making. The Division continues to evaluate and review
the quality management processes to ensure information and data quality, as well as
integrity are maintained. ARD, in collaboration with OAQPS, the Region 4 Laboratory
Services and Applied Science Division, and several states, was able to quickly stand
up a program to evaluate Ethylene Oxide (EtO) emissions at the local level. There
have been numerous concerns and challenges from the public balancing the need
for sterilization services with exposures resulting from residual emissions from
sterilizer facilities. The collaboration has resulted in improved understanding of
atmospheric concentrations of this chemical, emission sources, mitigation
approaches, and analytical techniques. The Division will continue to work with
stakeholders to ensure that quality assurance and procedures conducted in the
region follow EPA's guidance and standard operating procedures.

•	In order to continue to cultivate an environment where science is the backbone of all
decision making and provide the necessary technical support to our states, Region 4
staff from the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division and the Office of
Regional Counsel formed a multidisciplinary workgroup to provide technical and
legal support to one of our states in developing an interim enforcement order for
PFAS-related violations. Staff with expertise in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, and the Toxic Substances
Control Act participated and provided technical expertise/peer review for PFAS
enforcement, which is an emerging area for each of these programs. Concurrently,

-------
the multidisciplinary PFAS team is working closely with HQ to develop global
company-wide settlements for two large PFAS manufacturers. These global
settlements will have lasting impact of identification of PFAS contaminants, legacy
contaminants, and future cleanup of PFAS compounds in contaminated media.
Regional staff, in close communication with HQ and the Office of Research and
Development, regularly provide up-to-date information on PFAS enforcement policy
and scientific reviews to all state partners.

•	The Region 4 SEMD Scientific Support Section has developed and issued a
comprehensively updated Supplemental Guidance to Ecological Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund (ERAGS). The Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment
document provides detailed regional guidance for the implementation of the ERAGS
by practitioners and the regulated community. The Region 4 Supplemental Guidance
offers more detailed and site-specific considerations for Ecological Risk Assessment
performance or review than the overarching national guidance. Among other
significant contributions, the Guidance includes a substantial set of up-to-date
scientific screening values for use in screening water, soil, and sediment data for
potential ecological risk that are not available elsewhere.

Region 6

•	The Underground Storage Tank program continues to implement Peer Review
procedures which have been in place in the region and utilized by the inspector
throughout the decision-making process.

•	The Houston Environmental Laboratory continues to hold annual laboratory ethics
training, which covers a wide variety of scientific ethics situations and principles,
mostly laboratory focused. It also includes a discussion of the EPA Principles of
Scientific Integrity and the Scientific Integrity Policy.

•	The Land, Chemical and Redevelopment Division (LCRD) has two branches which
have demonstrated the use of scientific integrity. The LCRD staff completed
technical/scientific training within their core disciplines to maintain their respective
certification. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Brownfields, and
Solid Waste Branch. Technical teams in the RCRA Corrective Action program are
utilized to evaluate scientific data and conclusions to ensure scientific integrity in the
Corrective Action process.

•	The Pesticides Program has worked directly with Tribal Communities to support their
development of Community Oriented Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plans.
These IPM Plans formalize the various aspects of integrated pest management to
incorporate good-housekeeping, effective timeframes, and appropriate tools for the
specific targeted pests are all given proper consideration. Additionally, the Pesticide
Program contributes on a variety of workgroups that address 1) pest management

-------
and its relationship to improved health, 2) emerging issues in agriculture, and 3)
preventing illegal pesticides from entering the marketplace.

i 7

•	In fiscal year 2020, to promote the understanding of the Scientific Integrity Policy,
Region 7 worked to ensure that all new employees took the Scientific Integrity
training. To remind Region 7 employees, several Local Area Network (LAN) Bulletin
board postings were conducted as a reminder. Region 7 advertised/posted and
emailed all technical Divisions to attend the Annual Conversation with the Scientific
Integrity Official.

Region 8

•	The Region continued to support staff with PubMed Central and Science Hub to
ensure that the public has access to peer reviewed publications that include EPA
authors.

•	Six new members were selected for the Region 8 Science Council in fiscal year
2020, expanding the Council's reach in building a culture of science and scientific
integrity. New members were briefed on the importance of scientific integrity. Two
Council members were selected for management positions in fiscal year 2020,
further expanding the reach of the Council and advancing the importance of
scientific integrity. Positions filled by Council members included the Water Quality
Section Chief and the Deputy Division Director for the Laboratory Services and
Applied Sciences Divisions.

•	The Council held an all-day retreat in March 2020. At this annual event, Council
leadership reemphasized the importance of scientific integrity to the culture in
Region 8; especially embracing diversity of thought and opinion.

•	The Region 8 Science Council organized and led a cross-regional science council
meeting. Leadership from each regional council shared information about their
structure and function. Possibilities for future collaboration were also identified. Prior
to this meeting, there was very little interaction among regional science councils.

This meeting opened the door for future collaboration, including future discussions
on scientific integrity.

•	The Region 8 Science Council continued seminar series/trainings to advance
professional development. The Council formed a new Industry Education Committee
to advance professional development. The intent was to provide more in-depth
learning opportunities.

•	The Region 8 Science Council met in-person with Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta and Chris
Robbins to discuss science and scientific integrity.

-------
•	Region 8 completed the annual process to identify the highest priority regional
science needs. This included input from both staff and leadership and relied heavily
upon the combined knowledge of scientists on the R8 Science Council to ensure
that the region identified the highest priority needs.

Region 9

•	Francesca Grifo provided Scientific Integrity training to managers in November 2019
and held office hours for staff and managers.

-------