EPA Chemical Assessments
Process Reforms Offer the Potential to Address Key Problems Gao ID: GAO-09-774T June 11, 2009The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) contains EPA's scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals. Toxicity assessments in the IRIS database constitute the first two critical steps of the risk assessment process, which in turn provides the foundation for risk management decisions. Thus, IRIS is a critical component of EPA's capacity to support scientifically sound environmental decisions, policies, and regulations. GAO's 2008 report on the IRIS program identified significant concerns that, coupled with the importance of the program, caused GAO to add EPA's processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals as a high-risk area in its January 2009 biennial status report on governmentwide high-risk areas requiring increased attention by executive agencies and Congress. This testimony discusses (1) the findings from GAO's March 2008 report Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System and related testimonies and (2) GAO's preliminary evaluation of the revised IRIS assessment process EPA issued on May 21, 2009. For this testimony, GAO supplemented its prior audit work with a preliminary review of the new assessment process and some IRIS productivity data.
In March 2008, GAOreported that the viability of the IRIS program is at risk because EPA has been unable to complete timely, credible chemical assessments or decrease its backlog of ongoing assessments. In addition, assessment process changes EPA had recently made, and other changes itwas considering at the time of GAO's review, would have further reduced the timeliness, credibility, and transparency of IRIS assessments. Among other things, GAO found that EPA's efforts to finalize IRIS assessments have been impeded by a combination of factors, including the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) requiring two additional reviews of IRIS assessments by OMB and other federal agencies with an interest in the assessments, such as the Department of Defense. Moreover, the two OMB/interagency reviews involved other federal agencies in EPA's IRIS assessment process in a manner that hindered EPA's ability to manage its assessments and limited their credibility and transparency. For example, the input these agencies provided to EPA was treated as "deliberative" and was not released to the public. In April 2008, EPA issued a revised IRIS assessment process. As GAO testified before this subcommittee in May 2008, the new process did not respond to GAO's March 2008 recommendations, and some key changes were likely to further exacerbate the credibility and productivity concerns GAO had identified. Overall, EPA's May 2009 IRIS assessment process reforms represent significant improvements and, if implemented effectively, would be largely responsive to GAO's March 2008 recommendations. For example, under the new process EPA is to manage the entire assessment process, including the interagency reviews. Under EPA's prior process, these reviews were required and managed by OMB--and at various stages, EPA was not allowed to proceed with assessments until OMB notified EPA that it had sufficiently responded to comments from OMB and other agencies. The independence restored to EPA under the new process will be critical to ensuring that EPA has the ability to develop transparent, credible IRIS chemical assessments. While the broad reforms provide a sound general framework for conducting IRIS assessments, the manner in which EPA implements the new process will determine whether the agency will be able to overcome its long-standing productivity problems and complete credible and transparent assessments. Specifically, certain aspects of the new process are incomplete or lack clarity and thus warrant management attention. For example, EPA has likely understated the time required to complete an assessment because its estimated time frames do not include the time required to complete two key steps. Overall, the viability of the IRIS program will depend on effective and sustained management and oversight, especially given the number of factors that can impede the progress of IRIS assessments. For example, even one delay in an assessment can have a domino effect, requiring the process to essentially be repeated to incorporate changing science. In addition, unlike some other EPA programs with statutory deadlines for completing various activities, the IRIS program is discretionary. GAO believes the absence of legal consequences for delays in completing assessments may contribute to EPA's failure to complete timely IRIS assessments.
GAO-09-774T, EPA Chemical Assessments: Process Reforms Offer the Potential to Address Key Problems
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-774T
entitled 'EPA Chemical Assessments: Process Reforms Offer the Potential
to Address Key Problems' which was released on June 11, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science and Technology, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 1:00 p.m. EDT:
Thursday, June 11, 2009:
EPA Chemical Assessments:
Process Reforms Offer the Potential to Address Key Problems:
Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-09-774T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-774T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology,
House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) contains EPA‘s scientific position on the potential human
health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals. Toxicity
assessments in the IRIS database constitute the first two critical
steps of the risk assessment process, which in turn provides the
foundation for risk management decisions. Thus, IRIS is a critical
component of EPA‘s capacity to support scientifically sound
environmental decisions, policies, and regulations. GAO‘s 2008 report
on the IRIS program identified significant concerns that, coupled with
the importance of the program, caused GAO to add EPA‘s processes for
assessing and controlling toxic chemicals as a high-risk area in its
January 2009 biennial status report on governmentwide high-risk areas
requiring increased attention by executive agencies and Congress.
This testimony discusses (1) the findings from GAO‘s March 2008 report
Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review
Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA‘s Integrated Risk
Information System and related testimonies and (2) GAO‘s preliminary
evaluation of the revised IRIS assessment process EPA issued on May 21,
2009. For this testimony, GAO supplemented its prior audit work with a
preliminary review of the new assessment process and some IRIS
productivity data.
What GAO Found:
In March 2008, GAO reported that the viability of the IRIS program is
at risk because EPA has been unable to complete timely, credible
chemical assessments or decrease its backlog of ongoing assessments. In
addition, assessment process changes EPA had recently made, and other
changes it was considering at the time of GAO‘s review, would have
further reduced the timeliness, credibility, and transparency of IRIS
assessments. Among other things, GAO found that EPA‘s efforts to
finalize IRIS assessments have been impeded by a combination of
factors, including the Office of Management and Budget‘s (OMB)
requiring two additional reviews of IRIS assessments by OMB and other
federal agencies with an interest in the assessments, such as the
Department of Defense. Moreover, the two OMB/interagency reviews
involved other federal agencies in EPA‘s IRIS assessment process in a
manner that hindered EPA‘s ability to manage its assessments and
limited their credibility and transparency. For example, the input
these agencies provided to EPA was treated as ’deliberative“ and was
not released to the public. In April 2008, EPA issued a revised IRIS
assessment process. As GAO testified before this subcommittee in May
2008, the new process did not respond to GAO‘s March 2008
recommendations, and some key changes were likely to further exacerbate
the credibility and productivity concerns GAO had identified.
Overall, EPA‘s May 2009 IRIS assessment process reforms represent
significant improvements and, if implemented effectively, would be
largely responsive to GAO‘s March 2008 recommendations. For example,
under the new process EPA is to manage the entire assessment process,
including the interagency reviews. Under EPA‘s prior process, these
reviews were required and managed by OMB”and at various stages, EPA was
not allowed to proceed with assessments until OMB notified EPA that it
had sufficiently responded to comments from OMB and other agencies. The
independence restored to EPA under the new process will be critical to
ensuring that EPA has the ability to develop transparent, credible IRIS
chemical assessments. While the broad reforms provide a sound general
framework for conducting IRIS assessments, the manner in which EPA
implements the new process will determine whether the agency will be
able to overcome its long-standing productivity problems and complete
credible and transparent assessments. Specifically, certain aspects of
the new process are incomplete or lack clarity and thus warrant
management attention. For example, EPA has likely understated the time
required to complete an assessment because its estimated time frames do
not include the time required to complete two key steps. Overall, the
viability of the IRIS program will depend on effective and sustained
management and oversight, especially given the number of factors that
can impede the progress of IRIS assessments. For example, even one
delay in an assessment can have a domino effect, requiring the process
to essentially be repeated to incorporate changing science. In
addition, unlike some other EPA programs with statutory deadlines for
completing various activities, the IRIS program is discretionary. GAO
believes the absence of legal consequences for delays in completing
assessments may contribute to EPA‘s failure to complete timely IRIS
assessments.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-774T] or key
components. For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-
3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our prior findings and
recommendations on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program as well as the
results of our preliminary review of EPA's most recent IRIS reforms,
announced on May 21, 2009. As you know, IRIS is one of the most
significant tools that EPA has developed to effectively support its
mission to protect people and the environment from harmful chemical
exposures. The IRIS database contains EPA's scientific position on the
potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals
in the environment and is, therefore, a critical component of EPA's
capacity to support scientifically sound risk management decisions,
policies, and regulations.
In a March 2008 report, we identified significant deficiencies in EPA's
IRIS assessment process that threatened the viability of the program,
and we made a number of recommendations to correct them.[Footnote 1] In
response, EPA issued a revised assessment process in April 2008 that
did not respond to our recommendations but rather made changes likely
to further exacerbate the problems we had identified. Largely as a
result of the agency's lack of responsiveness, we added transforming
EPA's processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals as a high-
risk area in our January 2009 biennial status report on governmentwide
high-risk areas requiring increased attention by executive agencies and
Congress.[Footnote 2] In announcing new reforms to the IRIS assessment
process on May 21, 2009, EPA echoed our findings--that the April 2008
assessment changes reduced the transparency, timeliness, and scientific
integrity of the IRIS process--and highlighted both our high-risk
designation of this important EPA program and the President's recent
emphasis on the importance of transparency and scientific integrity in
government decision making.
In this context, my testimony today discusses (1) the findings from our
2008 report and testimonies on the prior IRIS assessment processes
[Footnote 3] and (2) our preliminary evaluation of EPA's May 2009
process reforms. For this statement, we have supplemented our prior
work with a preliminary review of the EPA process reforms and some IRIS
productivity data. We conducted our work from May 28 to June 11, 2009,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform our work to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
The Viability of the IRIS Program Is at Risk:
In March 2008, we reported that the IRIS program is at serious risk of
becoming obsolete because the agency has not been able to complete
timely, credible chemical assessments or decrease its backlog of 70
ongoing assessments. In addition, assessment process changes EPA had
recently made, as well as other changes EPA was considering at the time
of our review, would have further reduced the timeliness, credibility,
and transparency of IRIS assessments. Among other things, we concluded
the following:
* EPA was unable to routinely complete IRIS assessments in a timely
manner. From 2000 to 2007, EPA completed on average about five IRIS
assessments a year. The more recent trend has been a decline in
productivity: In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, EPA completed two
assessments each year; in 2008, EPA completed five assessments--four of
which were related chemicals assessed and peer reviewed together but
finalized individually; and thus far in fiscal year 2009, EPA has
finalized one assessment.
* Further, as we reported in 2008, because EPA staff time was dedicated
to completing assessments in the backlog, EPA's ability to both keep
the more than 540 existing assessments up to date and initiate new
assessments was limited. We found that 48 of the 70 assessments being
conducted as of December 2007 had been in process for more than 5
years--and 12 of those, for more than 9 years. These time frames have
lengthened. Currently, of those 70 assessments, 58 have now been
ongoing for more than 5 years--and 31 of those for more than 9 years.
* We also found that EPA's efforts to finalize IRIS assessments have
been thwarted by a combination of factors. These factors include (1)
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) requiring two additional
reviews of IRIS assessments by OMB and other federal agencies with an
interest in the assessments, such as the Department of Defense, and (2)
EPA management decisions, such as delaying some assessments to await
the results of new research.
* The two new OMB/interagency reviews of draft assessments involve
other federal agencies in EPA's IRIS assessment process in a manner
that limits the credibility and transparency of, and hinders EPA's
ability to manage, IRIS assessments. For example, some of these
agencies' review comments could be influenced by the potential for
increased environmental cleanup costs and other legal liabilities if
EPA issued an IRIS assessment for a chemical that resulted in a
decision to regulate the chemical to protect the public. Moreover, the
input these agencies provide to EPA is treated as "deliberative" and is
not released to the public. Regarding EPA's ability to manage its IRIS
assessments, in 2007 OMB required EPA to terminate five assessments
that for the first time addressed acute, rather than chronic, exposure-
-even though EPA had initiated this type of assessment to help it
implement the Clean Air Act.
* The changes to the IRIS assessment process that EPA was considering
but had not yet issued at the time of our 2008 review would have added
to the already unacceptable level of delays in completing IRIS
assessments and further limited the credibility of the assessments. For
example, the changes would have allowed potentially affected federal
agencies to have assessments suspended for up to 18 months to conduct
additional research. As we reported in 2008, even one delay can have a
domino effect, requiring the assessment process to essentially be
repeated to incorporate changing science.
In April 2008, EPA issued a revised IRIS assessment process. As we
testified before this subcommittee in May 2008, the new process was
largely the same as the draft we had evaluated during our review and
did not respond to the recommendations in our March 2008 report.
Moreover, some key changes were likely to further exacerbate the
credibility and productivity concerns we had identified. For example,
EPA's revised process formally defined comments on IRIS assessments
from OMB and other federal agencies as "deliberative" and excluded them
from the public record. As we have stated, it is critical that input
from all parties--particularly agencies that may be directly affected
by the outcome of IRIS assessments--be publicly available. In addition,
the estimated time frames under the revised process, especially for
chemicals of key concern, would have likely perpetuated the cycle of
delays to which the majority of ongoing assessments have been subject.
Instead of streamlining the process, as we had recommended, EPA
institutionalized a process that from the outset was estimated to take
6 to 8 years for some chemicals of key concern that are both widespread
and likely to cause cancer or other serious health effects. This was
particularly problematic because of the substantial rework often
required to take into account changing science and methodologies.
EPA's Latest IRIS Process Reforms Appear Largely Responsive to Our
Recommendations, but Their Success Will Depend on Effective Management:
Overall, EPA's May 2009 IRIS assessment process reforms represent
significant improvements and, if implemented effectively, would be
largely responsive to the recommendations made in our March 2008
report.
* First, the new process and the memorandum announcing it indicate that
the IRIS assessment process will be entirely managed by EPA, including
the interagency consultations (formerly called OMB/interagency
reviews). Under EPA's prior process, these two interagency reviews were
required and managed by OMB--and EPA was not allowed to proceed with
assessments at various stages until OMB notified EPA that it had
sufficiently responded to comments from OMB and other agencies. The
independence restored to EPA under the new process is critical in
ensuring that EPA has the ability to develop transparent, credible IRIS
chemical assessments that the agency and other IRIS users, such as
state and local environmental agencies, need to develop adequate
protections for human health and the environment.
* Second, the new process addresses a key transparency concern
highlighted in our 2008 report and testimonies. As we recommended, it
expressly requires that all written comments on draft IRIS assessments
provided during the interagency consultation process by other federal
agencies and White House offices be part of the public record.
* Third, the new process streamlines the previous one by consolidating
and eliminating some steps. Importantly, EPA eliminated the step under
which other federal agencies could have IRIS assessments suspended in
order to conduct additional research, thus returning to EPA's practice
in the 1990s of developing assessments on the basis of the best
available science. As we highlighted in our report, as a general rule,
requiring that IRIS assessments be based on the best science available
at the time of the assessment is a standard that best supports the goal
of completing assessments within reasonable time periods and minimizing
the need to conduct significant levels of rework.[Footnote 4]
* Fourth, as outlined in the EPA Administrator's memorandum announcing
the new IRIS process, the President's budget request for fiscal year
2010 includes an additional $5 million and 10 full-time-equivalent
staff positions for the IRIS program, which is responsive to our
recommendation to assess the level of resources that should be
dedicated to the IRIS program in order to meet user needs and maintain
a viable IRIS database.
We are encouraged by the efforts EPA has made to adopt most of our
recommendations, including those addressing EPA's ability to manage its
IRIS assessment process, transparency practices, and streamlining the
lengthy IRIS assessment process. The changes outlined above reflect a
significant redirection of the IRIS process that, if implemented
effectively, can help EPA restore the credibility and increase the
productivity of this important program. While these broad reforms
provide a sound general framework for conducting IRIS assessments, the
manner in which EPA implements the new process will determine whether
the agency will be able to overcome its long-standing productivity
problems and complete credible and transparent assessments.
Specifically, management attention is warranted on certain aspects of
the new process that are incomplete or lack clarity.
* EPA's estimated time frames of about 2 years for standard IRIS
assessments--those that are not particularly complex or controversial--
do not include the time required to complete two steps that are
nonetheless included in the assessment process. As a result, EPA has
likely understated the time required to complete an assessment. The
steps lacking time frames--the scientific literature review and the
request to the public and other agencies to submit relevant research
(the data call-in)--are integral to developing an assessment. In prior
IRIS assessment processes, EPA provided time frames for these steps.
Importantly, including the time frames for these steps would likely
bring the estimated overall time for completing standard assessments
closer to 3 years. We note that this more realistic time frame may be
problematic because when assessments take longer than 2 years, they can
become subject to substantial delays stemming from the need to redo key
analyses to take into account changing science and assessment
methodologies.
* While EPA states that some IRIS assessments may take longer because
of their complexity, large scientific literature base, or high profile,
the agency does not provide any guidance on likely or expected time
frames for assessments of these chemicals. This is noteworthy because
we found that EPA has not been able to complete assessments of the most
important chemicals of concern, such as those likely to cause cancer or
other significant health effects. For example, EPA's assessment of
dioxin has been ongoing for 18 years. It is critical that EPA establish
time frames to enable the agency to manage complex assessments.
* EPA's new process does not include a discussion of key planning
steps. Specifically, it omits important preassessment steps included in
prior processes--such as a call for nominations of chemicals to be
assessed and the establishment of the IRIS agenda, which is list of
chemicals that EPA plans to assess. Accordingly, it is not clear
whether or when EPA will implement our recommendation that it provide
at least 2 years' notice of planned assessments. Among other things,
doing so would give agencies and the public more advance notice of
planned assessments and enable external parties with an interest in a
given chemical to, for example, complete relevant research before the
start of an IRIS assessment.
* Particularly in light of the fact that EPA's estimates for completing
assessments are likely understated, we believe that the agency should
continue to look for additional opportunities to streamline its
process. For example, it is not clear why EPA could not solicit
comments from other federal agencies at the same time it sends the
initial draft assessment to independent peer reviewers and publishes it
in the Federal Register for public comment. In addition to reducing
overall assessment time frames, this change could enhance transparency.
Specifically, by obtaining the first draft of the assessment at the
same time as the other federal agencies, the public and peer reviewers
could have greater assurance that the draft had not been
inappropriately biased by policy considerations of these agencies,
including ones that may be affected by the assessment's outcome, such
as the Departments of Defense and Energy. Some of these agencies and
their contractors could, for example, face increased cleanup costs and
other legal liabilities if EPA issued an IRIS assessment for a chemical
that resulted in a decision to regulate the chemical to protect the
public.
* The new assessment process states that "White House offices" will be
involved in the interagency consultation process but does not indicate
which offices. Given that (1) EPA will be performing the coordinating
role that OMB exercised under the prior process and (2) the purpose of
these consultations is to obtain scientific feedback, it is unclear
whether OMB will continue to be involved in the interagency
consultation process.
* EPA has specified in its new assessment process that written comments
provided by other federal agencies will become part of the public
record. However, it is silent as to the purpose of the consultation
meetings and, if applicable, whether EPA plans to document for the
public record any significant oral agreements or decisions made at the
consultation meetings. In order to ensure transparency and alleviate
any concerns of potential bias in the assessments, it will be important
for EPA to be clear on these matters.
In addition to addressing these issues, the viability of the IRIS
program will depend on effective and sustained management and
oversight. Collectively, a number of factors that can impede the
progress of IRIS assessments present significant management challenges.
These include the following:
* Unlike a number of other EPA programs with statutory deadlines for
completing various activities, no enforceable deadlines apply to the
IRIS program. We have stated in previous testimonies on the IRIS
program that if EPA is not able to effectively maintain this critical
program, other approaches, including statutory requirements, may need
to be explored. We believe the absence of statutory deadlines may
contribute to EPA's failure to complete timely IRIS assessments. For
example, assessment schedules can easily be extended--and consistently
are. These chronic delays in completing IRIS assessments have
detrimental consequences for EPA's ability to develop timely and
scientifically sound decisions, policies, and regulations.
* Science and methodologies are constantly changing. Thus, there will
always be a tension between assessing the best available science and
waiting for more information. IRIS will remain viable only if it
returns to its model of using the best science available at the time of
its assessments and plans for periodic updates of assessments to
identify the need for revisions.
* An overarching factor that affects EPA's ability to complete IRIS
assessments in a timely manner is the compounding effect of delays--
even one delay can have a domino effect, requiring the process to
essentially be repeated to incorporate changing science. For example,
delays often require repeating reviews of the scientific literature on
a chemical to take into account the time that has passed since the
literature review was completed; this, in turn, may require detailed
analyses of any new studies found to be relevant.
* Long-standing difficulties in completing assessments of chemicals of
key concern--those that are both widespread and likely to cause
significant health issues--stem in part from challenges by external
parties, including those that may be impacted by EPA regulation of
chemicals should an assessment lead to such action. Such challenges are
to be expected and can be best addressed by EPA's focusing on the best
available science, credible expert review, and completing the
assessments.
* The IRIS assessment process has been frequently changed in recent
years; IRIS process reforms, such as those recently issued, are not
established in a regulation or statute and thus can easily be altered.
As we have reported, EPA's continual changes present a challenge to the
chemical managers who are undertaking the assessments, particularly in
the absence of current operating procedures to guide chemical managers
on basic procedures and program management responsibilities for the
development, review, and finalization of IRIS assessments.
In conclusion, EPA's most recent changes to the IRIS assessment process
appear to represent a significant improvement over the process put in
place in 2008. That is, if implemented effectively, the changes may
appropriately restore to EPA its control of the IRIS process, increase
the transparency of the process, and streamline aspects of the process,
among other things. We believe that the agency's ability to produce
timely, credible, and transparent assessments will also depend in large
measure on clear implementation procedures and rigorous management
oversight, given the numerous factors that can impede EPA's ability to
complete timely IRIS assessments and the lack of clarity on some
aspects of the new process. Perhaps most importantly, EPA needs to hold
itself more accountable to the public and Congress for carrying out
this important component of its mission, especially since the IRIS
program is discretionary.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact John B.
Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this statement. Contributors to this testimony
include Christine Fishkin (Assistant Director), Laura Gatz, Richard P.
Johnson, Summer Lingard, Nancy Crothers, Antoinette Capaccio, and Carol
Kolarik.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Scientific Integrity: EPA's Efforts to Enhance the Credibility and
Transparency of Its Scientific Processes. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-773T]. Washington, D.C.: June 9,
2009.
High-Risk Series, An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271]. Washington, D.C.: January
2009.
EPA Science: New Assessment Process Further Limits the Credibility and
Timeliness of EPA's Assessments of Toxic Chemicals. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1168T]. Washington, D.C.: September
18, 2008.
Chemical Assessments: EPA's New Assessment Process Will Further Limit
the Productivity and Credibility of Its Integrated Risk Information
System. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-810T].
Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2008.
Toxic Chemicals: EPA's New Assessment Process Will Increase Challenges
EPA Faces in Evaluating and Regulating Chemicals. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-743T]. Washington, D.C.: April 29,
2008.
Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review
Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-
440]. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2008.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency
Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA's Integrated
Risk Information System, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-440] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7,
2008).
[2] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: January
2009).
[3] See the Related GAO Products section later in this statement.
[4] As also stated in our report, we understand that under exceptional
circumstances, it may be appropriate to wait for the results of an
important ongoing study, such as a major epidemiological study that
will provide new, critical data for an assessment.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
