GAO-17-526R EPA Science Advisory Board

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 8, 2017

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski

Chairman

The Honorable Tom Udall

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Ken Calvert

Chairman

The Honorable Betty McCollum

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

EPA Science Advisory Board: Policy Statement on Science Quality and Integrity

In formulating rules to protect the environment and public health, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) relies on advice from scientific and technical experts. EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) is one source of scientific and technical advice for EPA. The SAB consists of about 

45 independent experts in the fields of science, engineering, economics, and other social 

sciences and is overseen by the SAB Staff Office, which is staffed by EPA employees. As a 

federal advisory committee, the SAB must comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA).1 Among other things, FACA requires that EPA establish uniform administrative 

guidelines and management controls for its advisory committees.

An explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 directed 

EPA to develop an updated policy statement on science quality and integrity for the SAB.

2

According to the explanatory statement, the policy statement should include (1) goals on 

increasing membership from states and tribes; (2) an evaluation of potential bias, if EPA’s

Administrator decides that financial-related metrics are appropriate to identify conflicts of 

interest or bias; and (3) direction on treating public comments. The explanatory statement also 

directed EPA to submit a draft of the policy statement to GAO for review and included a 

provision for GAO to review the updated policy statement and determine whether the updated 

policy met the intent of the explanatory statement. The deadline for EPA’s submission to us was 

March 17, 2016.

 1

Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (Oct. 6, 1972), codified, as amended, at 5 U.S.C. app. 2.

2

The explanatory statement noted that EPA had “not yet resolved long-standing questions regarding conflicts of 

interest that have spanned multiple Administrations.” 161 Cong. Rec. H10220 (daily ed. Dec. 17, 2015) (explanatory 

statement submitted by Representative Hal Rogers regarding House Amendment #1 to the Senate Amendment on 

H.R. 2029, later enacted as Pub. L. No. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242 (2015)). 
Page 2 GAO-17-526R EPA Science Advisory Board

For this report, we assessed whether EPA drafted an updated policy statement that addressed

the directives in the explanatory statement. To do this, we reviewed EPA documents and 

interviewed EPA officials, including SAB Staff Office officials. We conducted this performance 

audit from January 2017 to June 2017, in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 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.

EPA’s Response Did Not Address All Congressional Directives

EPA did not update its policies or requirements for the SAB in response to the direction in the 

explanatory statement, nor did it specifically address all of the directives in the statement. 

Instead, EPA developed a draft document that describes how the SAB Staff Office implements 

existing policies and procedures, according to the letter accompanying this document and SAB 

Staff Office officials we interviewed.

3 Moreover, the letter accompanying the draft document was

dated September 30, 2016—more than 6 months after the deadline for EPA to submit the draft 

policy statement and updated policies to us for review.

Our review of the draft document noted the following:

• The draft document states that EPA has policies to ensure that advisory committees 

operate in accordance with (1) FACA and its implementing regulations, (2) statutes and 

regulations regarding ethics requirements for members of advisory committees and 

panels, and (3) other relevant EPA policies, including the Scientific Integrity Policy and 

the Peer Review Policy.4

• According to the draft document, EPA addresses SAB scientific quality and integrity 

issues—such as independence and objectivity, committee composition and balance, and 

freedom from financial conflicts of interest—through its Scientific Integrity Policy, Peer 

Review Policy, Peer Review Handbook, and the Office of Management and Budget Peer 

Review Bulletin.

5

SAB Staff Office officials we interviewed stated that to develop the draft document, EPA 

synthesized the policies and procedures that it has developed and continuously updated in 

 3

Environmental Protection Agency, Ensuring the Scientific Quality and Integrity of SAB and CASAC Advisory 

Processes, Draft Document (Sept. 8, 2016).

4

Environmental Protection Agency, Scientific Integrity Policy (February 2012), accessed March 16, 2017,

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-02/documents/scientific_integrity_policy_2012.pdf; and 

Environmental Protection Agency, Peer Review and Peer Involvement at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(Jan. 31, 2006), accessed April 20, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

01/documents/peer_review_policy_and_memo.pdf. In January 2017, EPA published corrections to the Scientific 

Integrity Policy; see Environmental Protection Agency, Supplemental Information for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Scientific Integrity Policy (January 2017), accessed April 14, 2017,

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-

01/documents/fy2017_scientific_integrity_policy_supplemental_information_0.pdf.

5

Environmental Protection Agency, Science and Technology Policy Council, Peer Review Handbook, 4th Ed., 

EPA/100/B-15/001 (Washington, D.C.: October 2015) and Office of Management and Budget, Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Dec. 15, 2004). 
Page 3 GAO-17-526R EPA Science Advisory Board

response to FACA, implementing regulations, SAB Staff Office guidance, and stakeholder 

feedback. According to these officials, EPA has made numerous updates to its policies and 

procedures to enhance the openness, transparency, and balance of SAB reviews. The officials 

stated that these updates include larger, more diverse review panels; increased opportunities 

for public input; and outreach to industry and other groups to ensure greater participation.6

With regard to the specific directives in the explanatory statement, we noted the following:

• With regard to the first directive in the explanatory statement, the draft document does 

not include specific or numeric goals on increasing membership from states and tribes.

However, it states that the SAB Staff Office is committed to expanding the diversity of 

scientific perspectives on the SAB, including the perspectives of scientists from state 

and local governments, tribes, industry, and nongovernmental organizations. According 

to SAB Staff Office officials, while they seek to increase the participation of state 

scientists, they often receive few applications from these scientists and, therefore, 

meeting a numeric goal could be challenging.

• With regard to the second directive in the explanatory statement, the draft document

does not discuss whether EPA’s Administrator made a decision about the 

appropriateness of updating financial-related metrics for identifying conflicts of interest or 

bias. SAB Staff Office officials told us that this is because they rely on the existing legal 

and policy framework—including FACA requirements and Office of Government Ethics 

regulations—as appropriate financial metrics for identifying conflicts of interest or bias.7

• With regard to the third directive in the explanatory statement, the draft document refers 

to but does not update the practices for considering and responding to public comments

that are included in the Peer Review Handbook and the SAB handbook.

8

In conclusion, while EPA developed a draft document that describes how the SAB Staff Office 

implements existing policies and procedures, as well as describes past actions to update and 

improve these policies and procedures, EPA did not update its policies or requirements for the 

SAB as directed by the explanatory statement. We are not making a recommendation at this

time, because EPA has not yet finalized its policy statement. However, as EPA moves forward,

we encourage it to specifically address the directives provided in the explanatory statement. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment. In its written comments, 

reproduced in enclosure I, EPA stated that its draft document synthesized its policies and 

procedures to evaluate conflict of interest committee composition and balance, qualitative goals 

to increase state and tribal membership, and eligibility requirements for service on the SAB to 

ensure fairness and objectivity. In addition, EPA stated that it has and will continue to update its 

policies and procedures to enhance the openness, transparency, and balance of its 

membership. While we recognize that EPA’s draft document synthesized its existing policies 

 6

We did not review the composition of SAB panels for changes in diversity or other levels of participation.

7

The Office of Government Ethics provides overall leadership and oversight of the executive branch ethics program 

designed to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest.

8

Environmental Protection Agency, Serving on the EPA Science Advisory Board: A Handbook for Members and 

Consultants, EPA-SABSO-12-001 (March 2012). 
Page 4 GAO-17-526R EPA Science Advisory Board

and procedures, as well as describing past actions to update and improve these policies and 

procedures, EPA did not update its policies or requirements for the SAB as directed by the 

explanatory statement. Therefore, as EPA moves forward, we continue to encourage the 

agency to specifically address the directives provided in the explanatory statement. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the EPA 

Administrator, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on 

the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 

Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 

contributions to this report are Janet Frisch (Assistant Director), Antoinette Capaccio, Chad M. 

Gorman, and Richard Johnson.

J. Alfredo Gómez

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Enclosure – 1
Page 5 GAO-17-526R EPA Science Advisory Board

Enclosure I: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

(101351)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

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 website, 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.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.