U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Congressionally Requested 

Information on EPA 

Utilization of Integrated 

Risk Information System 

Report No. 13-P-0127 January 31, 2013 

Scan this mobile code 

to learn more about 

the EPA OIG. 
 

Contributors: Leon Carter Elizabeth Grossman 

Dwayne Crawford Eric Lewis 

Christine El-Zoghbi Ryan Patterson 

Abbreviations 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

CAA Clean Air Act (Title V Clean Air Act permits) 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

OA Office of the Administrator 

OAR Office of Air and Radiation 

OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OEI Office of Environmental Information 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

OW Office of Water 

PPRTV Provisional-Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values 

RCRA-CE Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Criminal Enforcement 

RCRA-HWS Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous Waste Site Restoration 

SF Characterization Superfund site characterization 

SF-Remedial Superfund site remedial activities 

SF-Removal Superfund site removal activities 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods: 

e-mail: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline 

phone: 

fax: 

1-888-546-8740 

202-566-2599 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailcode 2431T 

online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460 
 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13-P-0127 

January 31, 2013 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance
 

Why We Did This Review 

We collected this information in 

response to a congressional 

request to “determine if EPA 

[U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency] program offices and 

regions incorporate in their 

regulatory decision-making the 

exposure dose concentrations 

or values that are listed in the 

IRIS [Integrated Risk 

Information System] database.” 

IRIS is an EPA Web-based 

program that evaluates risk 

information on human health 

effects that may result from 

exposure to environmental 

contaminants. IRIS consists of 

chemical assessments and 

quantitative toxicity values that 

have been developed by EPA 

and undergone peer review. 

IRIS contains information for 

more than 550 chemical 

substances, including cancer 

and non-cancer human health 

effects. 

This work product addresses 

the following EPA Goal or 

Cross-Cutting Strategy: 

 Advancing science, 

research, and technological 

innovation 

For further information, contact 

our Office of Congressional and 

Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391. 

The full report is at: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/ 

20130131-13-P-0127.pdf 

Congressionally Requested Information on EPA 

Utilization of Integrated Risk Information System 

What We Found 

Based on the results of our survey, 85 percent of the EPA survey respondents 

reported that they have used IRIS as their primary source for cancer values and 

81 percent have used IRIS as their primary source for non-cancer values. More 

than half (51 percent) of the survey respondents who reported using IRIS as the 

primary source for cancer values indicated a reason they did so was because it 

was required for the activity they were conducting. Similarly, more than half 

(52 percent) of the survey respondents who reported using IRIS as the primary 

source for non-cancer values indicated a reason they did so was because it was 

required for the activity they were conducting. About one-third (34 percent) of the 

survey respondents reported that they have used an alternate source for toxicity 

values when an IRIS value was available. The primary reason selected for using 

an alternate source was that the alternate source was more up-to-date with 

current scientific practice or information. 

We found no EPA policy mandating the use of any toxicity database including 

IRIS. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has issued a directive 

that recommends using EPA’s IRIS as the first tier source of human health 

toxicity values. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents to this survey reported 

that they have used IRIS for Superfund program activities. Sixty-five percent of 

respondents also indicated that there are standard operating procedures 

regarding how to choose a source of toxicity values. Sixteen percent of 

respondents identified the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

directive as this standard operating procedure. 

All survey responses were self-reported by the EPA respondents and were not 

verified by the Office of Inspector General. 

We make no recommendations in this work product. 
 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

January 31, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 Congressionally Requested Information on EPA Utilization of 

Integrated Risk Information System 

Report No. 13-P-0127 

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr. 

TO:	 Lek Kadeli 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development 

This is our final work product on the results of a survey of U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) staff conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). We designed and 

conducted the survey and analyzed results from April 2012 through January 2013 in response to 

a congressional request. The purpose of the survey was to assess the EPA’s use of the Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS). 

Because this work product contains no recommendations, you are not required to respond to this 

document. Therefore, this work product is considered closed. 

We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. We will post this report to 

our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

Should you have any questions, please contact Carolyn Copper, Assistant Inspector General for 

Program Evaluation, at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Eric Lewis, Director, 

Special Reviews, at (202) 566-2664 or lewis.eric@epa.gov. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congressionally Requested Information on 13-P-0127 

EPA Utilization of Integrated Risk Information System 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

 Purpose ....................................................................................................... 1 

Background ................................................................................................. 1 

 Scope and Methodology .............................................................................. 2 

2 Results of Survey............................................................................................... 3
 

Why some respondents use IRIS ................................................................ 4 

Why some respondents use an alternate source ........................................ 6 

Why some respondents or their teams use alternate values 

 for substances available in IRIS ........................................................ 8 

Respondents developing their own toxicity values ...................................... 10 

Remaining responses to the OIG IRIS Utilization Survey ........................... 11 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits.............................. 19
 

Appendices 

A Survey ................................................................................................................. 20
 

B Distribution ......................................................................................................... 26 
 

 

Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

In February 2012, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), received a congressional request to “determine if EPA 

program offices and regions incorporate in their regulatory decision-making the 

exposure dose concentrations or values that are listed in the IRIS [Integrated Risk 

Information System] database.” In response, we sought to determine: 

1) Which EPA offices and regions utilize data derived from IRIS assessments 

or other similar systems. 

2) How EPA offices and regions utilize data derived from IRIS assessments. 

3) The circumstances under which EPA offices and regions use IRIS or an 

alternate system. 

Background 

IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates risk information on 

effects that may result from exposure to environmental contaminants. The IRIS 

program includes a Web-based database of chemical assessments and quantitative 

toxicity values that have been developed by EPA and undergone peer review. The 

IRIS database contains information for more than 550 chemical substances, 

including cancer and non-cancer human health effects that may result from 

exposure to various substances in the environment. 

The National Center for Environmental Assessment within the Office of Research 

and Development (ORD) prepares the IRIS assessments, manages the peer review 

process, and maintains the online database. According to the National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, the main purpose of IRIS is to meet EPA statutory, 

regulatory, or program implementation needs with special emphasis on chemicals 

of high interest to the public or other levels of government. 

IRIS is not the only source available to EPA employees for toxicity values. Other 

toxicity databases available to EPA staff include, but are not limited to: 

 Provisional-Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs), ORD Office of 

Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, EPA. 

 Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), ORD Office of 

Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, EPA. 

 California Environmental Protection Agency toxicity database. 

 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ASTDR’s) Minimal 

Risk Levels. 

13-P-0127 1 
 

 

We found no EPA policy mandating the use of any toxicity database, including IRIS. 

OSWER has issued a directive that identifies IRIS as the first tier of a hierarchy of 

databases and as the generally preferred source of human health toxicity values. The 

second tier is EPA’s PPRTVs; the third tier includes other sources of information. 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted this review from April 2012 to January 2013 and completed the 

survey from April to June 2012. We completed this review in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards, except that we did not verify 

the information reported by survey respondents and did not use statistical 

techniques for selecting the survey participants. These efforts would likely have 

delayed reporting significantly. Not complying with these two elements of the 

standards does not have an effect on the outcome of this review. The scope of 

work completed sufficiently addresses the purpose of this review. 

We designed a survey with 23 questions addressing the Agency’s use of IRIS. 

The survey responses were self-reported by EPA personnel and were not verified 

by the OIG. A copy of the survey questions are in appendix A. 

The survey included four opportunities for respondents to provide write-in 

answers. These write-in answers contain some information that is personally 

identifiable to specific respondents and did not provide quantifiable responses for 

analysis. The responses therefore are not included in this work product. 

Participant Selection 

All survey participants were current EPA employees at that time. We selected 

survey participants from two sources: 

1.	 We contacted Agency audit follow-up coordinators from all 10 regional 

and 12 program offices and asked them to identify “EPA 

managers/supervisors/team leaders who work with, or supervise teams 

who work with, toxicity values provided in IRIS or other similar systems.” 

We did not include OIG in our survey. This list identified 67 individuals. 

2.	 We also used names provided by ORD. This list contained managers and 

senior scientists who use human health toxicity values in their groups. 

This list identified 442 individuals. 

ORD also provided us with a second contact list. However, these individuals were 

not included in the survey due to the methodology used to select these individuals. 

After collating the lists and eliminating redundancies, we invited 415 individuals 

to participate in the survey. The response rate was 93 percent (387 respondents). 

However, after adjustments for partial responses (11), unconfirmed EPA 

employment status (2), and the non-use of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic 

toxicity values (74), we had 300 responses from EPA personnel who stated that 

they used toxicity values in their work. 

13-P-0127 2 
 

 

 

Chapter 2

Results of Survey 

Of the 300 survey respondents, 256 (85 percent) indicated that IRIS was their 

primary source for carcinogenic toxicity values, and 242 (81 percent) indicated 

that IRIS was their primary source for non-cancer toxicity values. This chapter 

summarizes why respondents primarily use IRIS or an alternate source, why 

respondents use alternate values when a substance is available in IRIS, and how 

many respondents developed their own toxicity values. We also noted the 

following: 

	 Although 85 percent of the respondents indicated that they use IRIS as 

their primary source to provide carcinogenic toxicity values, less than 

30 percent of the respondents identified a reason they use IRIS as either 

scientific accuracy, the ability to verify the data, or the currency of data. 

	 Thirty-four percent of all respondents (103) indicated that they have 

experienced a situation in which they researched a substance that was 

listed in IRIS but used toxicity values from another source instead. The 

majority of respondents (68 percent) who indicated that they used an 

alternate value from a source other than IRIS for substances available in 

IRIS cited currency with scientific practice or information as a reason they 

chose an alternate value. 

13-P-0127 3 
 

 

 

Why some respondents use IRIS 

Survey question 10 allowed the respondents to select up to three possible reasons 

why IRIS is used as the primary source for carcinogenic toxicity values. Because 

each respondent could select up to three responses, the sum of percentages for all 

answers is greater than 100 percent. As shown in figure 1, the percentage of 

respondents selecting each response is: 

 Data in IRIS is more scientifically accurate than other sources (selected by 

29% of respondents). 

 The IRIS approach is more up to date with current scientific practice or 

information than other sources (selected by 21% of respondents). 

 IRIS is more accessible than other sources (selected by 16% of 

respondents). 

 Data in IRIS is more applicable to my specific work environment than 

other sources (selected by 41% of respondents). 

 The validity of the IRIS data is easier to verify than other sources (selected 

by 27% of respondents). 

 Use of IRIS is required for the activity I and/or my team are completing 

(selected by 51% of respondents). 

 Figure 1: Reasons why IRIS is the primary source for carcinogenic toxicity values 

Note: N represents the number of respondents who answered this question. Percentages were rounded to the 

nearest whole number. 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 4 
 

 

 

 

Survey question 15 allowed the respondents to select up to three possible reasons 

why IRIS is used as the primary source for non-cancerous toxicity values. 

Because each respondent could select up to three responses, the sum of 

percentages for all answers is greater than 100 percent. As shown in Figure 2, the 

percentage of respondents selecting each response is: 

 Data in IRIS is more scientifically accurate than other sources (selected by 

31% of respondents). 

 The IRIS approach is more up to date with current scientific practice or 

information than other sources (selected by 22% of respondents). 

 IRIS is more accessible than other sources (selected by 19% of 

respondents) 

 Data in IRIS is more applicable to my specific work environment than 

other sources (selected by 41% of respondents). 

 The validity of the IRIS data is easier to verify than other sources (selected 

by 24% of respondents) 

 Use of IRIS is required for the activity I and/or my team are completing 

(selected by 52% of respondents). 

Figure 2: Reasons why IRIS is the primary source for non-cancerous toxicity values 

Note: N represents the number of respondents who answered this question. Percentages were rounded to the 

nearest whole number. 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 5 
 

 

 

 

Why some respondents use an alternate source 

Only 8 percent of respondents reported that in conducting their main activity they 

did not use IRIS for either carcinogenic or non-cancerous toxicity values. We 

sought to understand through a series of questions what alternate source they use 

and why they use an alternate source. 

Of the 300 respondents, 44 (15 percent) indicated that IRIS is not their primary 

source for carcinogenic toxicity values. 

Survey question 11 allowed the respondents to select up to three possible reasons 

why they use an alternate source for carcinogenic toxicity values. Because each 

respondent could select up to three responses, the sum of percentages for all 

answers is greater than 100 percent. As shown in figure 3, the percentage of 

respondents selecting each response is: 

 Data in alternate source is more scientifically accurate (selected by 11% of 

respondents). 

 Alternate source is more up-to-date with current scientific practice or 

information (selected by 20% of respondents). 

 Alternate source is more accessible (selected by 32% of respondents). 

 Data in alternate source is more applicable to my specific work 

environment (selected by 52% of respondents). 

 Validity of data in alternate source is easier to verify (selected by 5% of 

respondents). 

 The state (in which activity is undertaken) requires an alternative source 

(selected by 9% of respondents). 

 Substance researched is not available in IRIS (selected by 27% of 

respondents). 

Figure 3: Reasons why respondents use an alternate source for carcinogenic toxicity values 

Note: N represents the number of respondents who answered this question. Percentages were rounded to the 

nearest whole number. 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 6 
 

 

 

 

Of the 300 respondents, 58 (19 percent) indicated that IRIS is not their primary 

source for non-cancerous toxicity values. Survey question 16 allowed the 

respondents to select up to three possible reasons why they use an alternate source 

for non-cancerous toxicity values. Because each respondent could select up to 

three responses, the sum of percentages for all answers is greater than 

100 percent. 

 Data in alternate source is more scientifically accurate (selected by 12% of 

respondents). 

 Alternate source approach is more up-to-date with current scientific 

practice or information (selected by 28% of respondents). 

 Alternate source is more accessible (selected by 31% of respondents). 

 Data in alternate source is more applicable to my specific work 

environment (selected by 45% of respondents). 

 Validity of data in alternate source is easier to verify (selected by 5% of 

respondents). 

 The state (in which activity is undertaken) requires an alternative source 

(selected by 7% of respondents). 

 Substance researched is not available in IRIS (selected by 38% of 

respondents). 

Figure 4: Reasons why an alternate source is used for non-cancerous toxicity values 

Note: N represents the number of respondents who answered this question. Percentages were rounded to the 

nearest whole number. 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 7 
 

 

 

 

 

Why some respondents or their teams use alternate values for 

substances available in IRIS 

Of the 300 respondents, 103 (34 percent) indicated that they have experienced a 

situation in which they or their team researched a substance listed in IRIS but 

used a toxicity value from another source instead of those available in IRIS. 

Figure 5 shows the number of respondents in each office who reported that they 

had experienced such a situation. 

Figure 5: Respondents who use alternate values for substances available in IRIS (by office) 

Note: Abbreviations for program offices identified are listed in the below paragraph (OEI stands for Office of 

Environmental Information). A total of 300 respondents answered the question. This figure displays only the 

103 respondents that answered the question in the affirmative. 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

While 34 percent of all respondents indicated experiencing a situation in which 

they researched a substance listed in IRIS but used a toxicity value from another 

source instead, more than 30 percent of the respondents from the following 

offices indicated they had experienced this situation: 

 Office of the Administrator (OA) 

 Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) 

 Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) 

 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

 Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 

 Office of Water (OW)
 

 Regions 9 and 101
 

1 OA, OECA, ORD, and OW had fewer than 10 survey respondents; further details are in Figure 8. 

13-P-0127 8 
 

 

 

Survey question 19 allowed the respondents to select up to three possible reasons 

why they use alternate values for substances that are available in IRIS. Because 

each respondent could select up to three responses, the sum of percentages for all 

answers is greater than 100 percent. As shown in Figure 6, the percentage of 

respondents selecting each response is: 

 Data in alternate source is more scientifically accurate (selected by 20% of 

respondents). 

 Alternate system source is more up-to-date with current scientific practice 

or information (selected by 68% of respondents). 

 Alternate source is more accessible (selected by 5% of respondents). 

 Data in alternate source is more applicable to my specific work 

environment (selected by 43% of respondents). 

 Validity of data in alternate source is easier to verify (selected by 3% of 

respondents). 

 The state (in which activity is undertaken) requires an alternative source 

(selected by 22% of respondents).

 Figure 6: Reasons why respondents use alternative values for substances available in IRIS 

Note: N represents the number of respondents who answered this question. Percentages were rounded to the 

nearest whole number. 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 9 
 

 

 

Respondents developing their own toxicity values 

Of the 300 respondents, 85 (28 percent) indicated that they had experienced a 

situation in which they or their team developed their own toxicity values. Figure 7 

shows the number of respondents in each office who reported having experienced 

such a situation. 

Figure 7: Respondents developing their own toxicity values (by office) 

Note: N represents the number of respondents who answered this question. This figure displays only those who 

answered the question in the affirmative. 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

More than 30 percent of respondents in two program offices (OCSPP and OW) 

and three regions (4, 6, and 8), reported having experienced a situation in which 

they or their team developed their own toxicity values. 

13-P-0127 10 
 

 

 

 

 

Remaining responses to the OIG IRIS Utilization Survey 

The following graphs (figures 8–21) show the remaining IRIS utilization survey 

questions and responses (questions 1-8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, and 22) not previously 

illustrated in this work product.
 

Figure 8: Question 1
 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 11 
 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9: Question 2 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

Figure 10: Question 3
 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 12 
 

 

 

Figure 11: Question 4 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

Figure 12: Question 5
 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 13 
 

 

 

 

 Figure 13: Question 6 

Note: Abbreviated program activities identified: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); Title V Clean Air 

Act permits (CAA); National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR); National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Criminal Enforcement (RCRA-CE); Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act Hazardous Waste Site Restoration (RCRA-HWS); Superfund site characterization 

(SF-Characterization); Superfund site removal activities (SF-Removal); and Superfund site remedial activities 

(SF-Remedial). 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

 Figure 14: Question 7

 Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 14
 

 

 

   

Figure 15: Question 8 

In conducting your main activity, what is the primary information source you use to 

obtain a chemical's carcinogenic toxicity value?
 

N=300
 

Percent

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

85

10

3 1 1

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

EPA's IRIS ATSDR HEAST

Toxicity databases

PPRTVs Other

Figure 16: Question 12 

Yes

90%

No

10%

In conducting your main activity, do you or your team use EPA's IRIS non-cancerous 

toxicity values? 

N=300 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 15 
 

 

 

   

   

Figure 17: Question 13 

In conducting your main activity, what is the primary information source you use to obtain a 

chemical's non-cancerous toxicity value?
 

N=300
 

90

Percent

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

81

12

4

2 1

EPA's IRIS ATSDR HEAST PPRTVs Other

Toxicity Databases

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

Figure 18: Question 17 

How frequently do you or your team incorporate toxicity values different from those 

provided in IRIS into your office's final products
 

N=300
 

Percent

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

32

26

19

14

6

3

Always Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never I don't know

Answer options

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 16 
 

 

 

 

 Figure 19: Question 18

Yes

34%

No

66%

Have you experienced a situation in which you or your team researched a 

substance that was listed in IRIS but you used toxicity values from another 

source instead of those available in IRIS? 

N=300 

 Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

Figure 20: Question 20
 

Yes

28%

No

72%

Have you experienced a situation in which you or your team developed your own toxicity 

values? 

N=300 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 17
 

 

 

Figure 21: Question 22
 

Yes

65%

No

35%

Are there any Standard Operating Procedures or other guidance regarding how to choose 

a source of toxicity values for your office's work? 

N=300 

Source: OIG’s IRIS utilization survey results. 

13-P-0127 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Planned 

Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed-To 

No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount 

No recommendations 

O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress 

13-P-0127 19 

1 
 

 

Appendix A 

Survey 

For which Office/Region do you work? 

 Region 1 

 Region 2 

 Region 3 

 Region 4 

 Region 5 

 Region 6 

 Region 7 

 Region 8 

 Region 9 

 Region 10 

 Office of the Administrator (OA) 

 Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM) 

 Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) 

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

 Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) 

 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

 Office of Environmental Information (OEI) 

 Office of General Counsel (OGC) 

 Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

 Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA) 

 Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 

 Office of Water (OW) 

Where are you located? 

 Region 1 

 Region 2 

 Region 3 

 Region 4 

 Region 5 

 Region 6 

 Region 7 

 Region 8 

 Region 9 

 Region 10 

 Headquarters 

 Research Triangle Park 

 Cincinnati 

 Other, please specify below. 

13-P-0127 20 
 

 

What is your pay category/grade? 

 GS-1 

 GS-2 

 GS-3 

 GS-4 

 GS-5 

 GS-6 

 GS-7 

 GS-8 

 GS-9 

 GS-10 

 GS-11 

 GS-12 

 GS-13 

 GS-14 

 GS-15 

 Senior Executive Service 

 Senior Level or Scientific or Professional 

 Other 

What is your supervisory status? 

 Non-Supervisor 

 Supervisor 

What is the main activity for which you or your team use carcinogenic or non-cancerous toxicity values? 

 Setting cleanup levels/calculating screening levels/calculating preliminary remediation goals 

 Supporting regulatory development or rulemaking 

 Calculating a chemical's exposure level corresponding to a given chemical exposure level 

 Calculating the risk level corresponding to a given risk level 

 Calculating Regional Screening Levels 

 Evaluating toxicity values in the Five Year Review 

 I and my team do not use carcinogenic or non-cancerous toxicity values. 

In the past five years, identify the program activities that you in your current position or your team have 

used the toxicity values from the IRIS database to support. (Please check all that apply.) 

 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

 Title V Clean Air Act (CAA) permits 

 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) 

 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

13-P-0127 21 
 

 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Criminal Enforcement 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous waste site restoration 

 Superfund site characterization 

 Superfund site removal activities 

 Superfund site remedial activities 

 Other, please specify below 

In conducting your main activity, do you or your team use EPA's IRIS carcinogenic toxicity values? 

 Yes 

 No 

In conducting your main activity, what is the primary information source you use to obtain a chemical's 

carcinogenic toxicity value? 

 EPA's IRIS [Integrated Risk Information System] 

 PPRTVs [Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values] HEAST [Health Effects Assessment 

Summary Tables] 

 CalEPA [California Environmental Protection Agency] toxicity database 

 ATSDR [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry] Minimal Risk Levels 

 Other 

Please identify the primary information source you use to obtain a chemical's carcinogenic toxicity value. 

You indicated that IRIS is the primary source you use to obtain a chemical's carcinogenic toxicity value. 

Why is IRIS your primary source? You may choose up to three (3) responses. 

 Data in IRIS is more scientifically accurate than other sources. 

 IRIS approach is more up-to-date with current scientific practice or information than other 

sources. 

 IRIS is more accessible than other sources. 

 Data in IRIS is more applicable to my specific work environment than other sources. 

 Validity of data in IRIS is easier to verify than other sources. 

 Use of IRIS is required for the activity I and/or my team are completing. 

You indicated IRIS is not the primary source of carcinogenic toxicity values for your main activity. Why do 

you use an alternate source (which contains values different than IRIS) instead of IRIS? You may choose 

up to three (3) responses. 

 Data in alternate source is more scientifically accurate. 

 Alternate source approach is more up-to-date with current scientific practice or information. 

 Alternate source is more accessible. 

13-P-0127 22 
 

 

 

 Data in alternate source is more applicable to my specific work environment. 

 Validity of data in alternate source is easier to verify. 

 Alternate source is required by state in which activity is undertaken. 

 Substance researched is not available in IRIS. 

In conducting your main activity, do you or your team use EPA's IRIS non-cancerous toxicity values? 

 Yes 

 No 

In conducting your main activity, what is the primary information source you use to obtain a chemical's 

non-cancerous toxicity value? 

 EPA's IRIS [Integrated Risk Information System] PPRTVs [Provisional Peer-Reviewed 

Toxicity Values] 

 HEAST [Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables] 

 CalEPA [California Environmental Protection Agency] toxicity database 

 ATSDR [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry] Minimal Risk Levels 

Please identify the primary information source you use to obtain a chemical's non-cancerous toxicity 

value. 

You indicated that IRIS is the primary source you use to obtain a chemical's non-cancerous toxicity value. 

Why is IRIS your primary source? You may choose up to three (3) responses. 

 Data in IRIS is more scientifically accurate than other sources 

 IRIS approach is more up-to-date with current scientific practice or information than other 

sources. 

 IRIS is more accessible than other sources. 

 Data in IRIS is more applicable to my specific work environment than other sources. 

 Validity of data in IRIS is easier to verify than other sources. 

 Use of IRIS is required for the activity I and/or my team are completing. 

You indicated IRIS is not the primary source of non-cancerous toxicity values for your main activity. Why 

do you use an alternate source (which contains values different than IRIS) instead of IRIS? You may 

choose up to three (3) responses. 

 Data in alternate source is more scientifically accurate. 

 Alternate source approach is more up-to-date with current scientific practice or information. 

 Alternate source is more accessible. 

 Data in alternate source is more applicable to my specific work environment. 

 Validity of data in alternate source is easier to verify. 

13-P-0127 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 Alternate source is required by state in which activity is undertaken. 

 Substance researched is not available in IRIS. 

How frequently do you or your team incorporate toxicity values different from those provided in IRIS into 

your office's final products? 

 Always 

 Frequently 

 Sometimes 

 Rarely 

 Never 

 I don't know 

Have you experienced a situation in which you or your team researched a substance that was listed in 

IRIS but you used toxicity values from another source instead of those available in IRIS? 

 Yes 

 No 

You indicated that you have experienced a situation in which you or your team researched a substance 

that was listed in IRIS but you used toxicity values from another source. In that situation, why did you use 

the values from the other source? You may choose up to three (3) responses. 

 Data in alternate source is more scientifically accurate. 

 Alternate system source is more up-to-date with current scientific practice or information. 

 Alternate source is more accessible. 

 Data in alternate source is more applicable to my specific work environment. 

 Validity of data in alternate source is easier to verify. 

 Alternate source is required by state in which activity is undertaken. 

Have you experienced a situation in which you or your team developed your own toxicity values? 

 Yes 

 No 

Please describe the situation in which you or your team developed your own toxicity values. 

Are there any Standard Operating Procedures or other guidance regarding how to choose a source of 

toxicity values for your office's work? 

 Yes 

 No 

13-P-0127 24 
 

 

 

Please provide further information regarding your Standard Operating Procedures for choosing a source 

of toxicity values such as guidance title, URL, or other identifying information. If you have no further 

information, please enter "None." Please email a PDF of the guidance you use (if available) to ... [Email 

address of OIG employee included here in actual survey] 

13-P-0127 25 
 

 

Appendix B 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Research and Development 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, Office of Research and Development 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Management, Office of Research and Development 

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education 

Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development 

Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development 

Associate Director for Health, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of 

Research and Development 

Associate Director for Ecology, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of 

Research and Development 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Research and Development 

13-P-0127 26