Peer Review

EPA Needs Implementation Procedures and Additional Controls Gao ID: RCED-94-89 February 22, 1994

In May 1991, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened a panel of outside academicians to review the role of science at EPA and evaluate how the agency could meet its goal of using sound science as the basis for decision-making. The panel reported the next year that science was of uneven quality at EPA, causing the agencies' policies and regulations to be perceived as lacking strong scientific support. The panel recommended that EPA establish a uniform peer review process for all scientific and technical products used to support EPA guidance and regulations. A February 1993 GAO report (GAO/RCED-93-77R) commented on weaknesses in internal controls over EPA's peer review process that contributed to the premature release of a draft EPA report on environmental tobacco smoke. This report examines (1) EPA's efforts to implement a uniform policy on peer reviews and (2) its controls over documents sent to outside reviewers.

GAO found that: (1) although EPA has issued a peer review policy statement requiring that technically-based products undergo peer reviews, EPA has not defined technically-based products, specified peer review implementation procedures, or defined the scope, timing, and cost of peer reviews; (2) although EPA has established a work group to develop specific implementation procedures, it has not established milestones or deadlines for the group; (3) EPA does not have consistent procedures to ensure that products sent to external peer reviewers are clearly identified as draft products and are not perceived as agency policy; (4) EPA work groups have not addressed the problems associated with the premature release of draft documents; and (5) EPA needs to obtain written agreements with outside peer reviewers that prohibit the release of draft documents without agency approval and strengthen managers' accountability over peer review decisions.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.