1. Jeff Morris Associate Director for Science Office of Science Policy Symposium on Peer Review of Risk Assessments and Related Activities September 30, 2003 Jeff Morris Associate Director for Science Office of Science Policy Symposium on Peer Review of Risk Assessments and Related Activities September 30, 2003 Evolution of Peer Review at EPA

2. Scientific Peer Review 1995112 work products identified 2002859 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)

3. More Scientists and Engineers in EPA’s Decision Process

4. Peer Review Is a Cornerstone of 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

5. Products Subject to Peer Review: OMB Proposal and EPA’s Policy OMB’s Proposal Significant 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

6. 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