Jeff Morris

Associate Director for Science

Office of Science Policy

Symposium on Peer Review

of Risk Assessments and Related ActivitiesSeptember 30, 2003

Jeff Morris

Associate Director for Science

Office of Science Policy

Symposium on Peer Review

of Risk Assessments and Related ActivitiesSeptember 30, 2003

Evolution of Peer Reviewat EPA

Evolution of Peer Reviewat EPA

Scientific Peer Review

• 1995 112 work products identified• 2002 859 work products identified

750 identified as needing peer review• 91% identified for external peer review

• Dr. Matanowski of JHU, “I think EPA has taken massive steps to improve their peer review, and the Science Advisory Board is not the only place…from what we have looked at in the EPA, they have done an extremely good job getting almost everything that they look at now peer reviewed.” (House Science Committee – April 2002)

More Scientists and Engineers in EPA’s Decision Process

Total Change in # of FTEs Engaged in Regulatory Process

8.5

168

15.5

319

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Headquarters Lab/Centers

# o

f F

TE

s

2001 2003

Peer Review Is a Cornerstoneof EPA’s Information Quality Guidelines

“Influential Information” Disseminated in support of top Agency actions

(including precedent-setting or controversial scientific or economic issues)

Disseminated in support of economically significant actions

Major work products undergoing peer review as called for under the Agency’s Peer Review Policy

Other information on a case-by-case basis

Products Subject to Peer Review: OMB Proposal and EPA’s PolicyOMB’s ProposalSignificant Regulatory Information “Influential” under OMB IQG and is

“relevant to regulatory policies.” Internal or external peer review

Especially Significant Regulatory Information

Support of a major regulatory action “Clear and substantial impact on

important public policies or important private sector decisions with a possible impact of more than $100 million in any year,”

OMB determines to be of “significant interagency interest” or “relevant to an Administration policy priority.”

Formal, independent external peer review.

• EPA’s Guidance Scientific and technical work

products used to support a regulatory program or policy position, and one or more of the following:

Establishes a significant precedent, model, or methodology

Addresses significant controversial issues

Focuses on significant emerging issues Has significant cross-Agency/inter-

agency implications Involves a significant investment of

Agency resources Considers an innovative approach for a

previously defined problem/process/methodology

Satisfies a statutory or other legal mandate for peer review

To Summarize –

In the past three years: The number of EPA peer reviews has

increased significantly Agency decisions receive greater scrutiny

for peer review needs Peer review linked to information quality OMB proposal consistent with EPA’s

current peer review policy