Chemical Assessments: Challenges Remain with EPA's Integrated Risk Information System Program
Published: 2011-12-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program supports EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment by providing the agency's scientific position on the potential human health effects from exposure to various chemicals in the environment. The IRIS database contains quantitative toxicity assessments of more than 550 chemicals and provides fundamental scientific components of human health risk assessments. In response to a March 2008 GAO report on the IRIS program, EPA revised its IRIS assessment process in May 2009. GAO was asked to evaluate (1) EPA's progress in completing IRIS assessments under the May 2009 process and (2) the challenges, if any, that EPA faces in implementing the IRIS program. To do this work, GAO reviewed and analyzed EPA productivity data, among other things, and interviewed EPA officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: EPA's May 2009 revisions to the IRIS process have restored EPA's control of the process, increased its transparency, and established a new 23-month time frame for its less challenging assessments. Notably, EPA has addressed concerns GAO raised in its March 2008 report and now makes the determination of when to move an assessment to external peer review and issuance--decisions that were made by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the prior IRIS process. In addition, EPA has increased the transparency of the IRIS process by making comments provided by other federal agencies during the interagency science consultation and discussion steps of the IRIS process available to the public. Progress in other areas, however, has been limited. EPA's initial gains in productivity under the revised process have not been sustained. After completing 16 assessments within the first year and a half of implementing the revised process, EPA completed 4 assessments in fiscal year 2011. Further, the increase in productivity does not appear to be entirely attributable to the revised IRIS assessment process and instead came largely from (1) clearing the backlog of IRIS assessments that had undergone work under the previous IRIS process and (2) issuing assessments that were less challenging to complete. EPA has taken longer than the established time frames for completing steps in the revised process for most of its less challenging assessments. However, EPA has not analyzed its established time frames to assess the feasibility of the time frame for each step or the overall 23-month process. The agency's progress has also been limited in completing assessments that it classifies as exceptionally complex and reducing its ongoing assessments workload. Beyond the 55 ongoing IRIS assessments, the backlog of demand for additional IRIS assessments is unclear. With existing resources devoted to addressing its current workload of ongoing assessments, EPA has not been in a position to routinely start new assessments.
EPA faces both long-standing and new challenges in implementing the IRIS program. First, EPA has not fully addressed recurring issues concerning the clarity and transparency of its development and presentation of draft IRIS assessments. For example, as part of its independent scientific review of EPA's draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde, the National Academies provided suggestions for improving EPA's development and presentation of draft IRIS assessments in general, including that EPA use a standardized approach to evaluate and describe study strengths and weaknesses and the weight of evidence. EPA announced that it planned to respond to the National Academies' suggestions by implementing changes to the way it develops draft IRIS assessments. Given that many of the issues raised by the National Academies have been long-standing, it is unclear whether any entity with scientific and technical credibility, such as an EPA advisory committee, will have a role in conducting an independent review of EPA's planned response to the suggestions. In addition, EPA has not addressed other long-standing issues regarding the availability and accuracy of current information to users of IRIS information, such as EPA program offices, on the status of IRIS assessments, including when an assessment will be started, which assessments are ongoing, and when an assessment is projected to be completed. GAO recommends, among other things, that EPA assess the feasibility of the established time frames for each step in the IRIS assessment process and make changes if necessary, submit for independent review to an entity with scientific and technical credibility a plan for how EPA will implement the National Academies' suggestions, and ensure that current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through IRIS is available to IRIS users. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendations and noted specific actions it will take to implement them.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends, among other things, that EPA assess the feasibility of the established time frames for each step in the IRIS assessment process and make changes if necessary, submit for independent review to an entity with scientific and technical credibility a plan for how EPA will implement the National Academies suggestions, and ensure that current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through IRIS is available to IRIS users. EPA agreed with GAOs recommendations and noted specific actions it will take to implement them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk  Information System (IRIS) Program supports EPA’s mission to protect  human health and the environment by providing the agency’s scientific  position on the potential human health effects that may result from  exposure to various chemicals in the environment. IRIS was created in  1985 to help EPA develop consensus opinions within the agency about  the health effects from chronic exposure to chemicals, and its importance  has increased over time. The IRIS database contains quantitative toxicity  assessments of the health effects of more than 550 chemicals and  provides fundamental scientific components—qualitative hazard  identification and quantitative dose-response assessment—of human  health risk assessments. EPA’s IRIS Program develops new IRIS  assessments and, as needed, updates existing IRIS values contained in  the IRIS database. These IRIS assessments, in turn, provide scientific  input for risk management decisions, such as whether EPA should  establish air or water quality standards to protect the public from  exposure to toxic chemicals or set cleanup standards for hazardous  waste sites. Consequently, IRIS assessments are a critical component of  EPA’s capacity to support scientifically sound decisions, policies, and  regulations. State and local environmental programs and some  international regulatory bodies also rely on IRIS for managing their  environmental protection programs.
In 2008, we reported that the IRIS database was at serious risk of  becoming obsolete because the agency had not been able to keep its  existing assessments current, decrease its ongoing assessments  workload to a manageable level, or complete assessments of the most  important chemicals of concern. In addition, we reported that as of  December 2007, most of the ongoing assessments being conducted at  that time had been in process for more than 5 years and that some  assessments of key chemicals—chemicals that are likely to cause cancer  or other significant health effects—had been in process even longer. For  example, the formaldehyde and dioxin assessments had been ongoing  for 11 and 17 years, respectively. We also reported that new Office of  Management and Budget (OMB)-required reviews of IRIS assessments  by OMB and other federal agencies—called interagency reviews—were  conducted in a manner that limited the transparency and credibility of the  assessments and hindered EPA’s ability to manage the IRIS assessment  process. Because of these issues, we recommended that EPA revise its  IRIS assessment process to develop the timely chemical risk information  the agency needs to effectively conduct its mission and to better ensure  the development of transparent, credible chemical assessments.
EPA issued a revised process in April 2008 that we concluded, in  testimony before Congress, would further exacerbate the timeliness and  credibility concerns we had identified. Because the agency had not  developed sufficient chemical assessment information to limit public  exposure to many chemicals that may pose substantial health risks—and,  in particular, because of EPA’s lack of responsiveness to our March 2008  recommendations—in January 2009, we added EPA’s processes for  assessing and controlling toxic chemicals to our list of areas at high risk  for waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement or in need of broad-based  transformation.
In response to our 2008 report and subsequent high-risk designation,  EPA revised its IRIS assessment process in May 2009 to, among other  things, restore EPA’s control of the process and increase its  transparency. Our biennial review of high-risk areas in 2011 concluded  that the EPA Administrator needs to continue to demonstrate a strong  commitment to and support of the IRIS Program to ensure that EPA’s  2009 reforms are implemented effectively and that the program can  routinely provide timely, transparent, and credible assessments. In this  context, you asked us to review EPA’s IRIS assessment process. Our  objectives were to evaluate (1) EPA’s progress in completing IRIS  assessments under the May 2009 process and (2) the challenges, if any,  that EPA faces in implementing the IRIS program.
In conducting our work, we analyzed EPA’s May 2009 assessment  process; data from fiscal year 1999 through September 30, 2011, on IRIS  productivity, such as the number of IRIS assessments initiated and  completed; the status of IRIS assessments that are currently in progress;  and EPA’s goals for completing assessments. To assess the reliability of  the data, we conducted interviews and e-mail exchanges with EPA  officials about the data system, the method of data input, and internal  data controls and documentation, among other things. We found the data  to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. We also  interviewed officials from EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s  (ORD) National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), which  manages the IRIS Program. In addition, we interviewed officials from  other federal agencies involved in the IRIS process—including OMB and  the Department of Defense (DOD)—and groups that have knowledge of  the IRIS Program. We did not evaluate the scientific content or quality of  IRIS assessments, but we reviewed the suggestions to EPA in peer  review reports on overall improvements to the development of IRIS  assessments and information on other issues affecting the IRIS Program.
A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in  appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 to December 2011  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: This section discusses EPA’s risk assessment and risk management  practices and the May 2009 IRIS process.
subsections: section_title: Risk Assessment and Risk Management
paragraphs: EPA’s IRIS Program is an important source of information on health  effects that may result from exposure to chemicals in the environment. As  figure 1 shows, the toxicity assessments in the IRIS database fulfill the  first two critical steps of the risk assessment process—providing  qualitative hazard identification and dose-response assessment (see  definitions below). IRIS information can then be used with the results of  exposure assessments (typically conducted by EPA’s program or regional  offices) to provide an overall characterization of the public health risks for  a given chemical in a given situation. EPA defines a risk assessment, in  the context of human health, as the evaluation of scientific information on  the hazardous properties of environmental agents (hazard  characterization), the dose-response relationship (dose-response  assessment), and the extent of human exposure to those agents  (exposure assessment). In final form, a risk assessment is a statement  regarding the probability that populations or individuals so exposed will be  harmed and to what degree (risk characterization). The development of  risk assessments is directly dependent on the development of toxicity  assessments such as those developed by the IRIS Program.
A typical IRIS toxicity assessment is based on two sequential analyses:  qualitative hazard identification and quantitative dose-response  assessment. Among other things, a hazard identification identifies health  hazards that may be caused by a given chemical at environmentally  relevant concentrations; this identification describes the potential  noncancer and cancer health effects of exposure to a chemical that  research studies have suggested or determined. For cancer effects, EPA  describes the carcinogenic potential of a chemical in a narrative which  includes one of five weight-of-the-scientific-evidence descriptors, ranging  from “carcinogenic to humans” to “not likely to be carcinogenic to  humans.” The second analysis is the dose-response assessment, which  characterizes the quantitative relationship between the exposure to a  chemical and the resultant health effects; this assessment describes the  magnitude of hazard for potential noncancer effects and increased cancer  risk resulting from specific exposure levels to a chemical or substance.   The quantitative dose-response analysis relies upon credible research  data, primarily from either animal (toxicity) or human (epidemiology)  studies. The noncancer dose-response assessments may include    an oral reference dose (RfD)—an estimate of the daily oral exposure  to a chemical that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of  deleterious effects during a person’s lifetime—expressed in terms of  milligrams per kilogram per day and    an inhalation reference concentration (RfC)—an estimate of the daily  inhalation exposure to a chemical that is likely to be without an  appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a person’s lifetime— expressed in terms of milligrams per cubic meter.
The focus of IRIS toxicity assessments has been on the potential health  effects of long-term (chronic) exposure to chemicals. According to OMB,  EPA is the only federal agency that develops qualitative and quantitative  assessments of both cancer and noncancer risks of exposure to  chemicals, and EPA does so largely under the IRIS Program.
The risk characterization information, which is derived from toxicity and  exposure assessments—exposure assessments identify the extent to  which exposure actually occurs—can be used to make risk management  decisions designed to protect public health. For example, IRIS  assessments support scientifically sound decisions, policies, and  regulations under such key statutes as the Clean Air Act, the Safe  Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act, as well as for setting  Superfund cleanup standards of hazardous waste sites. Risk  management, as opposed to risk assessment, involves integrating the  risk characterization information with other information—such as  economic information on the costs and benefits of mitigating the risk,  technological information on the feasibility of managing the risk, and the  concerns of various stakeholders—to decide when actions to protect  public health are warranted. More specifically, an initial risk management  decision would be to determine whether the health risks identified in a  chemical risk assessment warrant regulatory or other actions. As a result,  the development of IRIS assessments is of key interest to stakeholders,  such as other federal agencies and their contractors, chemical  companies, and others who could be affected if regulatory actions were  taken. That is, stakeholders could face increased cleanup costs and other  legal liabilities if EPA issued an IRIS assessment for a chemical that  resulted in a risk management decision to regulate the chemical to protect  the public.
section_title: The May 2009 IRIS Process
paragraphs: EPA’s process for developing IRIS assessments—established in May  2009—consists of seven steps. In announcing its revised process in May  2009, EPA noted that the new process would ensure that the majority of  assessments would be completed within 2 years (23 months)—a  significantly shorter time than the estimated completion time frame of  about 6 to 8 years under the previous process. We note that the seven  steps are preceded by a literature search and data call-in, which is not  included as part of the process or its time frames. Results of the literature  search are posted on the IRIS website and announced in the Federal  Register, along with a request for information—the data call-in—about  any pertinent studies not listed. According to EPA officials, the literature  search and data call-in are not part of the process because the agency  does not dedicate full-time staff to them. EPA officials told us that after  the literature search, they place IRIS assessments in one of three  categories—standard, moderately complex, or exceptionally complex— on the basis of such factors as the number of available scientific studies  on the chemical, the number of potential health effects identified in these  studies, the staff resources required to complete the assessment, and the  level of stakeholder interest. However, this process, as written, does not  distinguish among different types of assessments with varying complexity.  Table 1 outlines the steps in the IRIS assessment process, along with the  planned time frames established by EPA.
All IRIS assessments undergo external peer review, but exceptionally  complex assessments are generally peer reviewed by EPA’s Science  Advisory Board panels and in some cases by National Academies  panels. These peer reviews typically require more planning and take  longer than the reviews for less complicated assessments. Peer reviews  for all other assessments are typically conducted by expert panels that  are independently assembled by an EPA contractor. All panel members,  including Science Advisory Board and National Academies panels, are  composed of individuals with expertise in various scientific and technical  disciplines who retain their primary involvement in academia, industry,  state government, and environmental organizations.
As we reported in 2008, an overarching factor that can affect EPA’s ability  to complete IRIS assessments in a timely manner is the compounding  effects of delays. Once a delay in the assessment process occurs—for  example, suspending work on an assessment to wait for additional  studies—work that has been completed can become outdated,  necessitating rework of some or all of the steps in the assessment  process. Even a single delay can have far-reaching, time-consuming  consequences, in some cases requiring that the assessment process  essentially start over.
section_title: EPA’s Progress in Completing Assessments under Its Revised Process Has Been Limited
paragraphs: EPA’s May 2009 IRIS assessment process addresses some of the  problems we identified in our March 2008 report. However, progress in  other areas has been limited. EPA’s initial gains in productivity under the  revised process have not been sustained. EPA has not significantly  reduced its workload of ongoing assessments, which would enable the  agency to routinely start new assessments and keep existing  assessments current. EPA has not met established time frames for IRIS  assessment process steps.
subsections: section_title: Improvements to the IRIS Process
paragraphs: EPA has addressed concerns we raised in our March 2008 report  regarding the transparency of the IRIS process. Since May 2009, all  federal agency and White House office comments from both the  interagency science consultation and discussion (steps 3 and 6b of the  IRIS process) are available to the public on EPA’s IRIS website. In  addition, EPA has made publicly available documents that show EPA’s  responses to selected “major” interagency comments for all draft IRIS  assessments that have completed an interagency review step since June  2011. As we have previously reported, we believe that interagency  coordination can enhance the quality of EPA’s IRIS assessments.  Previously, OMB considered its comments and changes, and those of  other federal agencies, to be “deliberative”—that is, they were not part of  the public record. We believe the input from other federal agencies is now  obtained in a manner that better ensures that EPA’s scientific analysis is  given appropriate weight. As a result, stakeholders, including EPA  regional and program offices, the public, and industry, can now see which  other federal agencies comment and the nature of their comments,  making IRIS assessments more transparent. Transparency is especially  important because agencies providing input, such as DOD and NASA,  may have a vested interest in the outcome of the assessment should it  lead to regulatory or other actions. For example, these agencies may be  affected by the potential for increased environmental cleanup costs and  other legal liability if EPA issued an IRIS assessment that resulted in a  decision to regulate a chemical to protect the public. Officials we spoke  with from other federal agencies—including DOD, NASA, and the  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—all agreed that  making their comments publicly available was a good practice.
In addition, EPA now manages the interagency science consultation and  discussion (steps 3 and 6b of the IRIS process, formerly OMB-managed  interagency reviews). As we recommended in 2008, the process now  includes time limits for all parties, including OMB and other federal  agencies, to provide comments to EPA on draft assessments. Prior to  May 2009, OMB managed these steps, and EPA was not allowed to  proceed with assessments until OMB notified EPA that it had sufficiently  responded to comments from OMB and other federal agencies. EPA has  also streamlined its IRIS process, as we recommended in our 2008  report, by consolidating some process steps and eliminating others that  had provided opportunities for other federal agencies to suspend IRIS  assessments to conduct additional research.
section_title: Initial Gains in Productivity under the Revised Process Have Not Been Sustained
paragraphs: Shortly after it implemented its revised IRIS assessment process in May  2009, EPA experienced a surge of productivity in terms of the number of  IRIS assessments it issued. Specifically, from May 2009 through  September 30, 2011, EPA completed 20 IRIS assessments—more than  doubling the total productivity it achieved during fiscal years 2007 and  2008. However, 16 of these were completed in the first year and a half  of implementing the revised process, and productivity fell sharply during  fiscal year 2011, with EPA issuing 4 IRIS assessments (see fig. 2).
In completing 4 IRIS assessments in fiscal year 2011, EPA fell significantly  short of its original plan to complete 20 assessments—a goal that it had  revised to 9 as of August 2011. In addition, EPA is unlikely to meet its fiscal  year 2012 goal of completing 40 assessments. As of September 30,  2011, 12 of the 40 assessments that EPA plans to complete in fiscal year  2012 are still being drafted (step 1 of the IRIS process). See appendix II for  the status of chemicals in the IRIS assessment process as of September  30, 2011. On the basis of the planned time frames EPA established under  its revised process, once these 12 IRIS assessments are drafted, EPA will  require at least 345 days, or 11½ months, to complete the remaining IRIS  process steps and issue the assessments—making it unlikely these will be  completed in 2012.
The increased productivity occurring after May 2009 does not appear to  be entirely attributable to the revised IRIS assessment process.  According to our analysis of EPA data, the agency’s ability to complete  more assessments was not due to a fundamental gain in how quickly  assessments are completed, but rather to EPA’s ability to clear up the  backlog of assessments that had undergone work under the previous  IRIS process and had been delayed for multiple reasons. Most of the  assessments completed from May 2009 through September 2011 had  been in process 5 years or longer and thus had already passed through  some key process steps prior to the implementation of the revised  process. In addition, most of these completed IRIS assessments were for  standard and moderately complex assessments—that is, they were less  challenging to complete than those for more complex chemicals.  Specifically, 17 of 20 assessments issued from May 2009 through  September 30, 2011, were in process for 5 years or longer, and 2 of the  20 were for exceptionally complex assessments (see table 2). For  example, 1 exceptionally complex assessment that EPA did complete  was for trichloroethylene (TCE). For information on TCE, as well as on  some other key chemicals for which EPA has not completed IRIS  assessments, see appendix III.
As of September 30, 2011, EPA had 55 IRIS assessments ongoing and  14 on hold—down from the 88 assessments that were in various stages  of development when it implemented its revised IRIS assessment process  in May 2009. Since May 2009, EPA has undertaken 6 new assessments,  dropped 5 assessments that it determined were no longer required,  completed 20 assessments, and continued to have 14 assessments on  hold (see table 3). According to EPA officials, assessments that have  been put on hold will be resumed when the agency has resources  available to staff them.
However, this tally of IRIS assessments does not reflect the true extent of  EPA’s workload or the backlog of demand for IRIS assessments. Beyond  the 55 ongoing IRIS assessments and 14 on hold, the demand for  additional IRIS assessments is unclear. With existing resources devoted  to addressing its current workload of ongoing assessments, EPA has not  been in a position to routinely start new assessments. In late 2010, for the  first time since 2007, EPA solicited nominations for new IRIS  assessments from EPA program and regional offices, as well as from the  public and federal agencies that participate in IRIS interagency reviews.  However, as of September 30, 2011, EPA officials had not decided which  chemicals to include on the IRIS agenda and thus include in their  workload. Moreover, instead of nominating new chemicals for  assessment in 2010, one regional office requested that the IRIS Program  focus its efforts on completing assessments currently under way. In  addition, in 2007, the Office of Air and Radiation—which develops  national programs, policies, and regulations for controlling air pollution  and radiation exposure—requested that ongoing assessments be  expedited for 28 chemicals that it identified as high-priority and required  to fulfill its regulatory mandates. As of September 30, 2011, 17 of the 28  assessments the office identified are ongoing, and 3 are on hold. See  appendix IV for EPA’s expected completion dates for IRIS assessments  currently in the assessment process.
In addition, other assessments in the IRIS database may need to be  updated. As we reported in March 2008, EPA data from 2001 through  2003 indicated that 287 of the assessments in the IRIS database at that  time may need to be updated. In October 2009, EPA announced in the  Federal Register the establishment of the IRIS Update Project. The stated  purpose of the project was to update IRIS toxicity values, such as oral  reference doses or inhalation reference concentrations, that are more  than 10 years old. However, according to EPA officials, since the project  was announced, little progress has been made toward updating these  assessments. We note that even if EPA were to overcome the significant  productivity difficulties it has experienced in recent years and meet its  goal of completing 40 assessments in fiscal year 2012, it is not clear that  this level of productivity would meet the needs of EPA program offices  and other users.
section_title: EPA Has Not Met Established Time Frames for IRIS Assessment Process Steps
paragraphs: IRIS assessments have taken longer than the time frames established  under the revised IRIS process. Since implementing the revised process,  most IRIS assessments have exceeded the established time frames for  each step of the process. EPA officials, however, told us that the time  frames established for the steps in the revised IRIS assessment process  apply only to standard assessments—and not to moderately or  exceptionally complex assessments. While EPA officials have said that  they are trying to hold moderately complex assessments to the established  time frames, EPA does not have a written policy that describes the  applicability of these time frames or written criteria for designating IRIS  assessments as standard, moderately complex, or exceptionally complex.  Consequently, it is unclear how IRIS users will know which assessments  are standard, moderately complex, or exceptionally complex and what time  frames will be required to complete them.
According to EPA officials, NCEA management, including IRIS Program  management, is tracking the time it takes for each IRIS assessment to  complete the various steps in the IRIS process. However, EPA has not  yet analyzed these data to determine whether the time frames  established for each step or the overall 23-month process are realistic.  According to EPA officials, they do not yet have the data needed to draw  conclusions regarding completion time frames.
On the basis of our analysis of EPA data, however, we determined how  long each IRIS process step was taking on average compared with the  time frames established for each step under the May 2009 revised  process. We performed this analysis for the 55 assessments that were  ongoing, as of September 30, 2011, and the 20 assessments that were  completed after May 2009. Because none of the 20 IRIS assessments  completed from May 2009 through September 2011 were initiated after  the revised process was implemented, it was not possible to fully evaluate  the extent to which EPA is adhering to the new 23-month time frame.  Further, we combined our analysis of steps 4 and 5 because EPA data do  not indicate when step 4 ends and when step 5 begins, and we combined  steps 6 and 7 for the same reason. According to our analysis, on  average, assessments of all types have taken longer than the established  time frames for every step in the IRIS process (see table 4).
Some other federal agencies that participate in interagency reviews  expressed concern that in some cases time and resource constraints  present challenges as they try to meet EPA’s time frames for the two  interagency review steps. In addition to the time limits established under the  revised process, in an effort to increase productivity and complete more IRIS  assessments, EPA officials said that, beginning in April 2011, the agency  began to accelerate the number of draft assessments sent through the  interagency review steps. However, officials from other federal agencies— including HHS and DOD—told us that they have advised EPA that the  accelerated pace of interagency reviews in the second half of fiscal year  2011 strained their resources. In addition, the official from NASA told us that  not only are the increased pace of reviews straining the agency’s resources,  but that it has also affected the ability to provide in-depth independent  technical reviews and interagency comments. EPA officials also told us that  the interagency reviewer at NASA is so concerned with the pace of the  interagency reviews under the revised process that NASA officials have  asked OMB to form an interagency work group to discuss the reviews.
section_title: EPA Faces Long- standing and New Challenges in Implementing the IRIS Program
paragraphs: EPA faces both long-standing and new challenges in implementing the  IRIS Program. First, the National Academies has identified recurring  issues with how the IRIS Program develops and presents its  assessments and has suggested improvements. Second, EPA has not  consistently provided reliable information on ongoing and planned IRIS  assessments to IRIS users. Third, unresolved discussions with OMB  regarding EPA’s responses to Data Quality Act challenges may impede  EPA’s ability to issue completed IRIS assessments.
subsections: section_title: The National Academies Has Identified Recurring Issues with How the IRIS Program Develops and Presents Its Assessments
paragraphs: The National Academies and EPA’s Science Advisory Board have  identified several recurring issues with how EPA develops and presents  IRIS assessments. For example, in April 2011, the National Academies in  its independent scientific review of EPA’s draft IRIS assessment of  formaldehyde provided a critique of EPA’s development and presentation  of draft IRIS assessments. Overall, the National Academies noted some  recurring methodological problems in the draft IRIS assessment of  formaldehyde. In addition, in the report the National Academies also  identified recurring issues concerning clarity and transparency with EPA’s  development and presentation of its draft IRIS assessments.
The National Academies and Science Advisory Board have identified  similar clarity and transparency issues in peer review reports over the  past 5 years. Some of these reports stated that EPA should more clearly  explain its reasons for including or excluding the scientific studies  supporting draft IRIS assessments. In addition, some reports stated that  EPA should more transparently present its justifications for its  methodological approaches. Independent of its review of the  formaldehyde assessment, the National Academies also provided a  “roadmap for revision” that made suggestions for improvements to the  IRIS draft development process, during which EPA selects and evaluates  evidence (the literature search) and drafts an assessment (step 1). The  National Academies’ “roadmap for revision” suggested that EPA take the  following steps, among others:    use clear, standardized methods to identify and select study evidence;    use a standardized approach to evaluate and describe study  strengths and weaknesses and the weight of evidence, describe and  justify the assumptions and models used, and adopt a standardized  approach to characterizing uncertainty factors; and    present methodology and findings more clearly and more concisely  through better use of graphics and tables and use a template to  facilitate a consistent description of the approach to study selection.
The National Academies’ report on the draft IRIS assessment of  formaldehyde specifically noted that EPA should not delay the finalization  of the assessment in order to implement any of the suggestions it made  regarding the overall IRIS process. As of September 30, 2011, according  to EPA officials, the agency is revising the assessment in response to the  National Academies’ suggestions, but the status page on EPA’s website  for formaldehyde lists “TBD”—to be determined—as the posting date for  the final assessment.
In July 2011, EPA announced that it planned to respond to the National  Academies’ suggestions by implementing changes to the way it develops  draft IRIS assessments. In announcing the planned changes, EPA stated  that it would take the following actions:    enhance its approach to identifying and selecting scientific study    provide more complete documentation of its approach to evaluating  scientific study evidence and indicate which criteria were most  influential in its evaluation of the weight of evidence; and  concisely state the criteria used to include or exclude studies,  continue to use existing IRIS guidelines to enhance the clarity and  transparency of its data evaluation and presentation of findings and  conclusions, eliminate the need for some report text using  standardized tables, and portray toxicity values graphically.
According to EPA officials, in implementing these changes, EPA will  subject those assessments that are in earlier stages of development to  more extensive changes than those in later stages of development. It will  change the latter “as feasible” without repeating steps in the overall IRIS  process. However, EPA has not provided a more detailed description of  how the National Academies’ suggestions will apply to each of the  assessments in its current inventory of IRIS assessments. Without a more  precise description of which drafts would be considered “in the earlier  stages of development” or what “more extensive changes” would entail, it  is too soon to provide a comprehensive assessment of EPA’s approach.  In addition, it is not transparent to stakeholders and other interested  parties which assessments will be subject to these changes and which  will not. EPA established the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), an  advisory committee composed of non-EPA technical experts from  academia, industry, and environmental communities, to provide  independent advice, information, and suggestions to the Office of  Research and Development (ORD) research program—which houses the  IRIS Program. Part of BOSC’s mission is to evaluate and provide advice  concerning the utilization of peer review within ORD to sustain and  enhance the quality of science in EPA. It is unclear if BOSC will have a  role in reviewing EPA’s response to the National Academies’ suggestions.
We reviewed two IRIS assessments—one completed and one still in draft  form—that reflect changes EPA has made in response to the National  Academies’ suggestions. First, for its assessment of urea, finalized in  July 2011, EPA streamlined the report by moving sections of text from the  body to an appendix, which shortened the body of the assessment from  89 to 57 pages, making it more concise. In addition, we reviewed the draft  IRIS assessment of diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), which EPA provided to  us, that was undergoing agency review (step 2) and reflects some of the  National Academies’ suggestions regarding presentation. For example, it  includes (1) descriptive and pictorial explanations of the study selection  methods used; (2) tables that, among other things, give side-by-side  comparisons of studies considered in determining the oral reference dose  for the chemical; and (3) brief descriptions of the strengths and  weaknesses of various studies considered. For these two assessments, it  appears that EPA has begun to enhance the readability of its  assessments by making changes that appear to be in line with the  suggestions made by the National Academies.
section_title: EPA Has Not Consistently Provided Reliable Information on Planned and Ongoing IRIS Assessments to IRIS Users
paragraphs: EPA uses two primary mechanisms—the IRIS agenda and a website  feature known as IRISTrack—to make information on the status of IRIS  assessments available to EPA program and regional offices, other federal  agencies, and the public. EPA has not effectively used these two  mechanisms, or a third that we recommended in March 2008—that the  agency provide a 2-year notice of its intent to assess specific chemicals— to consistently provide reliable information on IRIS assessments to  stakeholders and other interested parties.
First, EPA has not published an IRIS agenda in the Federal Register— identifying the chemicals that EPA plans to assess (both new and  ongoing assessments)—since it announced its 2008 IRIS agenda in  December of 2007. EPA started developing an annual IRIS agenda and  providing it to the public in a notice in the Federal Register in 1997. In  late 2010, EPA began to solicit nominations for its fiscal year 2011 IRIS  agenda from its program and regional offices, as well as from the public  and federal agencies that participate in IRIS interagency reviews.  However, as of September 30, 2011, EPA had not published its fiscal  year 2011 agenda. In addition, some of the information provided in the  Federal Register notices about the IRIS agenda has been incomplete. For  example, an October 2010 Federal Register notice contained a list of  chemicals currently on the IRIS agenda but did not distinguish between  chemicals the agency was actively assessing and those it had designated  for future assessment. We reported on similar issues in March 2008— noting that EPA had identified some assessments that had been  suspended as ongoing.
Second, EPA has not kept information on the status of the individual  ongoing assessments up to date in IRISTrack—an issue we also reported  on in 2008. EPA’s IRISTrack, a feature of its website, is intended to  provide stakeholders and other interested parties with information on draft  IRIS assessments—specifically, estimated start and end dates for steps  in the IRIS process. For example, officials from the Office of Water  indicated that that their office relies heavily on IRISTrack for information  about the status of IRIS assessments. In addition to not updating  IRISTrack, EPA recently removed some key information presented in  IRISTrack. Now, in some cases, the IRISTrack date for the beginning of  draft development (step 1) understates the actual duration of an  assessment—sometimes by many years. For example, IRISTrack  indicates that draft development for the dioxin assessment began in the  first quarter of fiscal year 2009; in fact, as we have reported, EPA has  been assessing dioxin since 1991. IRISTrack also understates the  duration of assessments of other chemicals of key concern—for  formaldehyde, naphthalene, and TCE. Therefore, current and accurate  information regarding when an assessment will be started, which  assessments are currently ongoing, and when an assessment is  projected to be completed is presently not publicly available.
Third, EPA does not provide at least 2 years’ notice of its intent to assess  specific chemicals, as we recommended the agency should do in our  March 2008 report to give agencies and other interested parties the  opportunity to conduct research needed to fill any data gaps. In  commenting on our report, EPA agreed to consider our recommendation,  and EPA officials recently stated that they continue to agree with it, but as  of September 30, 2011, the agency still had not taken steps to implement  our recommendation.
section_title: Unresolved Discussions between EPA and OMB Could Contribute to Delays
paragraphs: Discussions between EPA and OMB officials regarding Data Quality Act  challenges related to specific draft IRIS assessments have been ongoing  for over a year without resolution. If these unresolved discussions  continue, they could contribute to delays of IRIS assessments. According  to EPA officials, OMB would like to return to its role in the prior  assessment process, in which it managed interagency reviews and made  the final determination as to whether EPA has satisfactorily responded to  comments from OMB and officials in other federal agencies.
The Information Quality Act, commonly called the Data Quality Act,  requires OMB to issue governmentwide guidelines to “ensure and  maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information,  including statistical information,” disseminated to the public. In addition, it  required agencies to issue their own guidelines, set up administrative  mechanisms to allow affected parties to seek the correction of information  they considered erroneous, and report periodically to OMB information  about Data Quality Act challenges (“requests for correction” of agency  information) and how the agencies addressed them. Under its data  quality guidelines, when EPA provides opportunities for public participation  by seeking comments on information, such as during a rulemaking, the  agency uses the public comment process rather than EPA guidelines to  address concerns about EPA’s information. This is consistent with OMB’s  data quality guidelines, which encourage agencies to incorporate data  quality procedures into their existing administrative practices rather than  create new and potentially duplicative or contradictory processes.  According to EPA’s data quality guidelines, the public comment period  serves the purposes of the guidelines, provides an opportunity for  correction of information, and does not duplicate or interfere with the  orderly progression of draft documents through an established process—in  this case, the IRIS assessment process. That is, the external peer review  and associated public comment period provide the public with the  opportunity to raise questions regarding the quality of the information being  used to support an IRIS assessment. According to EPA officials, federal  agency responses to data quality challenges must be cleared by OMB  before EPA sends responses to the parties filing challenges—although no  law or guidance specifically provides for such reviews.
In June and July 2010, EPA received Data Quality Act challenges  regarding two draft IRIS assessments. According to EPA officials, in its  draft responses to these data quality challenges, EPA declined to review  the challenged data because, according to agency policy, draft IRIS  documents are not subject to data quality challenges. EPA used the same  approach in 2006 when responding to and declining a similar challenge  regarding a draft IRIS assessment; at that time, OMB approved the EPA  response. EPA sent its draft responses for the two more recent  challenges to OMB for approval in September 2010 and January 2011.  EPA’s data quality guidelines set a goal of responding to Data Quality Act  challenges within 90 days, but EPA officials said that they still await a  decision by OMB. According to EPA officials, OMB is delaying a decision  because OMB would like to return to its role in the prior assessment  process, in which it managed interagency reviews and made the final  determination as to whether EPA has satisfactorily responded to  comments from OMB and officials in other federal agencies.
EPA officials told us that as of September 30, 2011, the issues regarding  data quality challenges had not delayed the progress of draft IRIS  assessments. Meanwhile, OMB staff told us that they had sent  comments to EPA on the draft responses and await EPA’s reply to their  comments. It appears to GAO that the discussions of these issues  between EPA and OMB officials, which have been ongoing for over a  year without resolution, have highlighted the agencies’ differences  regarding the revised IRIS process. If these differences persist, they  could contribute to the compounding effects of delays in the IRIS process,  discussed here and in our earlier work. For example, in August 2011,  EPA received a third data quality challenge on an assessment that EPA  had expected to be finalized at the end of fiscal year 2011. For reasons  that remain unclear, EPA now projects that this assessment will not be  finalized until fiscal year 2012. We note that the assessment had entered  the interagency science discussion (step 6b) in July 2011. EPA asked  interagency reviewers to submit written comments by August 26, 2011,  but as of September 2011, OMB reviewers have not yet submitted  comments.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The IRIS process reforms EPA began implementing in May 2009 have  restored EPA’s control of the process and increased its transparency.  Notably, EPA has addressed concerns we raised in our March 2008  report regarding the transparency of comments from both the interagency  science consultation and discussion steps in the IRIS process. Making  these comments publicly available is especially important because  agencies providing input may have a vested interest in the outcome of the  assessment should it lead to regulatory or other actions. As a result,  stakeholders, including EPA regional and program offices, the public, and  industry, can now see which other federal agencies comment and the  nature of their comments, making IRIS assessments more transparent. In  addition, EPA now manages the interagency science consultation and  discussion steps and has streamlined the IRIS process.
Progress in other areas, however, has been more limited. For example,  even for its less challenging assessments, EPA took longer than its  established time frames for accomplishing steps in the revised process— calling into question the feasibility and appropriateness of the established  time frames in the IRIS assessment process for standard assessments.  Thus, the established time frames may not be feasible. It is also unclear  whether the established time frames apply to moderately complex  assessments because EPA does not have a written policy that describes  the applicability of the time frames, although EPA officials said they are  trying to hold moderately complex assessments to the 23-month time  frame. Similarly, EPA does not have written criteria for designating IRIS  assessments as standard, moderately complex, or exceptionally complex.  We note that EPA has not analyzed the time frames to determine whether  the actual time taken for each step of the overall 23-month process is  realistic. Such an analysis would provide more accurate information for  EPA to use in establishing time frames for these assessments. Not  having established time frames for these assessments also creates  uncertainty for many stakeholders with significant interest in IRIS  assessments.
EPA also faces both long-standing and new challenges in implementing  the IRIS Program. Notably, the National Academies and Science Advisory  Board have identified recurring issues of clarity and transparency of draft  IRIS assessments. Consequently, as part of its independent scientific  review of EPA’s draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde, the National  Academies also provided suggestions in a “roadmap for revision” that  included suggestions for improving EPA’s development and presentation  of draft IRIS assessments in general. The report identified recurring  methodological issues with how the IRIS Program develops and presents  its assessments and suggested improvements. EPA announced that it  intends to address the issues raised in the National Academies’ report but  has not publicly indicated how these proposed changes would be applied  to its current inventory of IRIS assessments. Many of the issues raised in  the National Academies’ report have been brought to the agency’s  attention previously. It is unclear whether any independent entity with  scientific and technical credibility, such as EPA’s Board of Scientific  Counselors, will have a role in reviewing EPA’s planned response to the  National Academies’ suggestions to ensure that EPA addresses these  long-standing issues.
In addition, EPA has not addressed other long-standing issues regarding  the accuracy and availability of information on the status of IRIS  assessments to IRIS users—including stakeholders such as EPA program  and regional offices, other federal agencies, and the public. For example,  since 2007, EPA has not published in the Federal Register an IRIS agenda  that includes information on chemicals the agency is actively assessing or  when it plans to start assessments of other listed chemicals. The agency  also has not updated IRISTrack to display all current information on the  status of assessments on the IRIS agenda, including estimated start dates  and end dates of steps in the IRIS process. In addition, EPA has recently  removed some key information presented in IRISTrack that showed the  duration of IRIS assessments. Now, in some cases, the IRISTrack date for  the beginning of draft development underestimates the actual duration of  an assessment—sometimes by many years. Therefore, current and  accurate information regarding when an assessment will be started, which  assessments are currently ongoing, and when an assessment is projected  to be completed is presently not publicly available. Finally, as we  recommended the agency should do in our March 2008 report, EPA does  not provide at least 2 years’ notice of its intent to assess specific chemicals,  which would give agencies and other interested parties the opportunity to  conduct research needed to fill any data gaps.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve EPA’s IRIS assessment process, we are making the following  six recommendations:  To better ensure the credibility of IRIS assessments by enhancing their  timeliness and certainty, we recommend that the EPA Administrator  require the Office of Research and Development to    assess the feasibility and appropriateness of the established time  frames for each step in the IRIS assessment process and determine  whether different time frames should be established, based on  complexity or other criteria, for different types of IRIS assessments, and  should different time frames be necessary, establish a written policy  that clearly describes the applicability of the time frames for each type  of IRIS assessment and ensures that the time frames are realistic and  provide greater predictability to stakeholders.
To better ensure the credibility of IRIS assessments by enhancing their  clarity and transparency, we recommend that the EPA Administrator  require the Office of Research and Development to submit for  independent review to an independent entity with scientific and technical  credibility, such as EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors, a plan for how  EPA will implement the National Academies’ suggestions for improving  IRIS assessments in the “roadmap for revision” presented in the National  Academies’ peer review report on the draft formaldehyde assessment.
To ensure that current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA  plans to assess through IRIS is available to IRIS users—including  stakeholders such as EPA program and regional offices, other federal  agencies, and the public—we recommend that the EPA Administrator  direct the Office of Research and Development to    annually publish the IRIS agenda in the Federal Register each fiscal  indicate in published IRIS agendas which chemicals EPA is actively  assessing and when EPA plans to start assessments of the other  listed chemicals; and    update IRISTrack to display all current information on the status of  assessments of chemicals on the IRIS agenda, including projected  and actual start dates, and projected and actual dates for completion  of steps in the IRIS process, and keep this information current.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Administrator of EPA for review  and comment. In written comments, which are included in appendix V, EPA  agreed with the report’s recommendations. EPA also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.  Specifically, EPA agreed that it should (1) assess the feasibility and  appropriateness of the established time frames for each step in the IRIS  assessment process by using available program performance measures  collected since the current IRIS process was established to evaluate  determine whether different time frames should be established, based on  complexity or other criteria, for different types of IRIS assessments, (2)  determine if different time frames are necessary, establish a written policy  that clearly describes the applicability of the time frames for each type of  IRIS assessment and ensures that the time frames are realistic and provide  greater predictability to stakeholders, (3) continue to implement the 2011  suggestions for improving IRIS assessments in the “roadmap for revision”  presented in the National Academies’ peer review report on the draft  formaldehyde assessment and seek independent review through the  Science Advisory Board to ensure that the agency is addressing the  recommendations, (4) annually publish the IRIS agenda in the Federal  Register each fiscal year, (5) indicate in published IRIS agendas which  chemicals EPA is actively assessing and when EPA plans to start  assessments of the other listed chemicals, and (6) update IRISTrack to  display all current information on the status of assessments of chemicals  on the IRIS agenda, including projected and actual start dates, and  projected and actual dates for completion of steps in the IRIS process, and  keep this information current.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Administrator of EPA,  the appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report will be 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 trimbled@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 major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix details the methods we used to assess the Environmental  Protection Agency’s (EPA) management of its Integrated Risk Information  System (IRIS). For this review, our objectives were to evaluate (1) EPA’s  progress in completing IRIS assessments under the May 2009 process and  (2) the challenges, if any, that EPA faces in implementing the IRIS Program.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant EPA documents,  including documents outlining the April 2008 and the May 2009 versions of  the IRIS assessment process; documents related to IRIS performance  metrics; chemical nomination forms submitted by EPA regional and  program offices, federal agencies, and others; and documents and other  information on the public EPA website, including the IRIS database and  IRISTrack, the assessment tracking system available at the IRIS website.  In addition, we reviewed other relevant documents, including Federal  Register notices announcing, among other things, IRIS agendas, as well as  documents related to EPA’s meetings with other federal agencies involved  in interagency reviews of draft IRIS assessments. We did not evaluate the  scientific content or quality of IRIS assessments; however, we did review  the National Academies’ peer review report on the draft IRIS assessment  of formaldehyde to evaluate their suggestions for overall improvements to  the development of IRIS assessments and other peer review reports by the  National Academies and EPA’s Science Advisory Board to evaluate their  suggestions for improvements to draft IRIS assessments. In addition, we  interviewed officials from EPA’s National Center for Environmental  Assessment (NCEA) who manage the IRIS Program, including the Acting  Center Director, the Associate Director for Health, and the IRIS Program  Acting Director, to obtain their perspectives on, among other things, the  May 2009 IRIS process and the effects of changes from the April 2008 IRIS  process, the extent to which EPA has made progress in completing timely,  credible chemical assessments, challenges EPA faces in completing  assessments, and EPA’s process for responding to Data Quality Act  challenges. We interviewed officials from EPA’s Office of Environmental  Information to obtain their perspectives on EPA’s process for responding to  data quality challenges. We also attended two Board of Scientific  Counselors (BOSC) meetings to understand the board’s role in providing  advice, information, and recommendations about the Office of Research  and Development (ORD) research programs, including IRIS.
For the first objective, we obtained and analyzed data from fiscal year  1999 through September 30, 2011, including data, spreadsheets, project  plans, and other documents used in IRIS assessment planning,  development, and completion. From the data we gathered, we analyzed  information on IRIS productivity, including information on the number of  IRIS assessments completed and initiated, the status of IRIS  assessments that are currently in progress or on the IRIS agenda, and  the completion dates and durations of IRIS assessment process steps  completed or currently in progress for given chemical assessments. In  addition, we assessed the reliability of the data we received from EPA for  our first objective. Our assessment consisted of interviews and e-mail  exchanges with EPA officials about the data system, the method of data  input, and internal data controls and documentation, among other areas.  We also corroborated the data with other sources, where possible. For  example, we verified the information provided in tables of IRIS  assessment start dates and completion dates of IRIS assessment  process steps through interviews and e-mail exchanges with the NCEA  officials responsible for maintaining these data. Through our assessment,  we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
For the second objective, we interviewed the chair of the National  Academies Committee to Review EPA’s Draft IRIS Assessment of  Formaldehyde to obtain his perspective on the National Academies’  suggestions for improvements to the IRIS assessment process. We  interviewed officials from the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB)  Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to obtain their  perspectives on interagency review of draft IRIS assessments, OMB’s  process for responding to EPA with regard to Data Quality Act challenges,  and OMB’s process for reviewing and approving EPA guidance documents.  In addition, we interviewed officials from the Department of Defense (DOD),  the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—including  representatives from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s  National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH)/ Agency for Toxic  Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), National Institute for  Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  We also interviewed HHS officials  from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the National Institute of  Environmental Health Sciences/National Toxicology Program and the Office  of the Secretary. We also interviewed representatives from a chemical  industry group and a nonprofit research and educational organization.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 to December 2011  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Status of Chemicals in the IRIS Assessment Development Process, as of September 30, 2011
subsections: section_title: Step 1–Draft development (24 assessments in step)
paragraphs: Step 2–EPA  internal review  (8 assessments   in step)
Step 3– Interagency  science  consultation  (2 assessments  in step)
Step 4–External  peer review and  public comment (9 assessments in  step)
Step 5–EPA  draft revision  (7 assessments  in step)
Step 6a and  b–Final EPA  review /  Interagency  science  discussion  (1 assessment  in step)
Step 7– Completion and  posting   (4 assessments  in step)
Benzopyrene Polychlorinated  biphenyls (PCBs)  (noncancer)
Arsenic,  inorganic  (cancer)  Dichloro- benzene, 1,2-  Dichloro- benzene, 1,3-  Dichloro- benzene, 1,4-  Formaldehyde  Polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbon  (PAH) mixtures  Tetrachloro- dibenzo-p-dioxin,  2,3,7,8- (dioxin)
Dichloro- methane  Ethylene oxide  (cancer)  Tetrachloro- ethylene  (perchloro- ethylene or perc)  Tetrahydrofuran  (THF)
section_title: Appendix III: Information on Chemicals of Key Concern
paragraphs:   Trichloroethylene (TCE). In September 2011, EPA finalized and  posted an IRIS assessment of TCE, 13 years after initiating it. A  degreasing agent used in industrial and manufacturing settings, TCE  is a common environmental contaminant in air, soil, groundwater, and  surface water. TCE has been found in the drinking water at Camp  Lejeune, a large Marine Corps base in North Carolina. It has also  been found at Superfund sites and many industrial and government  facilities, including aircraft and spacecraft manufacturing operations.  TCE has been linked to cancer, including childhood cancer, and other  significant health hazards, such as birth defects. In 1995, the  International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World  Health Organization, classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic  to humans,” and in 2000, the Department of Health and Human  Services’ National Toxicology Program concluded that TCE is  “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” However,  between 1989 and September 2011, the IRIS database contained no  quantitative or qualitative data on TCE. Because of questions raised  by peer reviewers about the IRIS cancer assessment for TCE, EPA  withdrew it from the IRIS database in 1989 and did not initiate a new  TCE cancer assessment until 1998. In 2001, EPA issued a draft IRIS  assessment of TCE that characterized TCE as “highly likely to  produce cancer in humans.” The draft assessment was peer reviewed  by a Science Advisory Board panel and released for public comment.  In the course of these reviews, issues arose concerning, among other  things, EPA’s use of emerging risk assessment methods and the  uncertainty associated with these new methods. To help address  these issues, EPA and other agencies sponsored a National  Academies peer review panel to provide guidance. The National  Academies panel recommended in its 2006 report that EPA finalize  the draft assessment using available data, noting that the weight of  evidence of cancer and other health risks from TCE exposure had  strengthened since 2001. Nonetheless, the TCE assessment was  returned to draft development. It then underwent a third peer review,  again through Science Advisory Board, which issued its report in  January 2011. EPA revised the draft in response to the Science  Advisory Board’s comments and, in September 2011, finalized and  posted the TCE assessment.    Dioxin. The term “dioxin” applies to a family of chemicals that are  often the byproducts of combustion and other industrial processes.  Complex mixtures of dioxins enter the food chain and human diet  through emissions into the air that settle on soil, plants, and water.  When animals ingest plants, commercial feed, and water  contaminated with dioxins, the dioxins accumulate in the animals’ fatty  tissue. EPA’s initial assessment of dioxin, which was published in  1985, focused on the dioxin TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p- dioxin), which animal studies dating to the 1970s had shown to be the  most potent cancer-causing chemical studied to date. EPA began  work on updating this assessment in 1991. From 1995 through 2000,  the revised draft assessment underwent a full peer review, as well as  three peer reviews of key segments of the draft. As we have reported  previously, EPA officials said in 2002 that the version of the revised  assessment then in progress would conclude that dioxin may  adversely affect human health at lower exposure levels than had  previously been thought, and that most exposure to dioxins occurs  from eating such American dietary staples as meat, fish, and dairy  products. EPA was moving closer to finalizing the assessment when,  in 2003, a congressional appropriations committee directed the  agency not to issue the assessment until it had been peer reviewed  by the National Academies. The National Academies issued its peer  review report in July 2006. EPA then revised the draft assessment in  response to the National Academies’ recommendations, releasing it  for public comment in May 2010 and sending it to the Science  Advisory Board for another peer review. In August 2011, the Science  Advisory Board panel issued its peer review report. Having been  tasked with evaluating EPA’s responses to the National Academies  review and its incorporation of studies that have become available  since 2006, the panel concluded that the draft IRIS assessment of  dioxin was “generally clear, logical, and responsive to many but not all  of the suggestions of the NAS.” Among other things, the Science  Advisory Board panel recommended that EPA discuss both linear and  nonlinear models for cancer risks associated with dioxin exposure in  its revised report. Three days after the Science Advisory Board issued  its report, EPA announced that it would split the dioxin assessment  into two parts, completing the noncancer portion of the assessment  first and then addressing the Science Advisory Board’s comments and  completing the cancer portion of the assessment. EPA expects to  complete the noncancer portion of the dioxin assessment by January  2012, and states that it will complete the cancer portion as  expeditiously as possible thereafter. The effort to update the  assessment of dioxin, which could have significant health implications  for all Americans, has been ongoing for 20 years.    Formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a gas widely used in such products  as pressed wood, paper, pharmaceuticals, leather goods, and textiles.  The IRIS database currently lists formaldehyde as a “probable human  carcinogen”; however, the International Agency for Research on  Cancer classifies it as “carcinogenic to humans.” In June 2011, the  Department of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology  Program classified formaldehyde as “known to be a human  carcinogen” in its Report on Carcinogens. The report stated that  epidemiological studies “have demonstrated a causal relationship  between exposure to formaldehyde and cancer in humans”— specifically, nasopharyngeal cancer, sinonasal cancer, and myeloid  leukemia. The current IRIS assessment of formaldehyde dates to  1989, when the cancer portion of the assessment was issued, and  1990, when the noncancer portion was added. The last significant  revision of the formaldehyde assessment dates to 1991. As we have  reported previously, EPA began efforts to update the IRIS  assessment of formaldehyde in 1997. In 2004, EPA received a  congressional directive to await the results of a National Cancer  Institute study that was expected to take, at most, 18 months before  finalizing the draft assessment. That study was completed in May  2009, and in June 2010, EPA released the draft assessment, which  assessed both cancer and noncancer health effects, to the National  Academies for peer review. In May 2011, the National Academies  published its peer review report. As of September 30, 2011—14 years  after EPA began work to update the IRIS formaldehyde assessment— the agency had indicated no timetable for finalizing the assessment.  Continued delays in the revision of the IRIS assessment of  formaldehyde have the potential to affect the quality of EPA’s  regulatory actions. For example, in August 2011, EPA announced a  proposed rule under the Clean Air Act related to certain emissions  from natural gas processing plants. Because a newer IRIS  assessment of formaldehyde has not been completed, the proposed  rule relies on the existing IRIS value for formaldehyde, last updated in  1991. EPA had expected to complete the formaldehyde assessment  by the end of fiscal year 2011, but withdrew the projected completion  date from the IRIS website after the publication of the National  Academies’ peer review report on the draft assessment. As of April  2011, EPA expected to complete the formaldehyde assessment in the  fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011. However, as of September 30,  2011, the IRIS website provided no projected completion date for the  assessment.    Tetrachloroethylene (Perc). Tetrachloroethylene—also called  perchloroethylene or perc—is a manufactured chemical used in, for  example, dry cleaning, metal degreasing, and textile production. Perc  is a widespread groundwater contaminant and the National  Toxicology Program has determined that it is “reasonably anticipated  to be a human carcinogen.” Currently, the IRIS database contains  only a noncancer assessment based on oral exposure to perc, posted  in 1988; it gives no information on potential cancer effects or potential  noncancer effects associated with inhalation of perc. EPA began work  to update this assessment, and to include information on cancer and  noncancer inhalation risk, in 1998. As we have reported previously,  EPA completed its internal review of the draft perc assessment in  February 2005 and the interagency review in March 2006. However,  when the Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and  Development requested that additional analyses be conducted, EPA  was delayed in sending the draft assessment to the National  Academies for peer review. In June 2008, EPA sent the draft  assessment to the National Academies, which released its peer  review report in February 2010. EPA is in the process of responding  to the National Academies’ suggestions, 13 years after the agency  began work on the draft perc assessment. As a result, IRIS users,  including EPA regional and program offices, continue to lack both  cancer values and noncancer inhalation values to help them make  decisions about how to protect the public from this widespread  groundwater contaminant. EPA had expected to complete the perc  assessment by the end of fiscal year 2011, but as of September 30,  2011, it had not done so.    Naphthalene. Naphthalene is used in jet fuel and in the production of  such widely used commercial products as moth balls, dyes,  insecticides, and plasticizers. The current IRIS assessment of  naphthalene, issued in 1998, lists the chemical as a “possible human  carcinogen”; since 2004, the National Toxicology Program has listed it  as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” As we have  reported previously, EPA began updating the cancer portion of its  naphthalene assessment in 2002. By 2004, EPA had drafted a  chemical assessment that had completed internal peer reviews and  was about to be sent to an external peer review committee. Once it  returned from external review, the next step, at that time, would have  been a formal review by EPA’s IRIS Agency Review Committee. If  approved, the assessment would have been completed and released.  However, in part because of concerns raised by DOD, OMB asked to  review the assessment and conducted an interagency review of the  draft. In their 2004 reviews of the draft IRIS assessment, both OMB  and DOD raised a number of concerns about the assessment and  suggested to EPA that it be suspended until additional research could  be completed to address what they considered to be significant  uncertainties associated with the assessment. Although all of the  issues raised by OMB and DOD were not resolved, EPA continued  with its assessment by submitting the draft for external peer review,  which was completed in September 2004. However, according to  EPA, OMB continued to object to the draft IRIS assessment and  directed EPA to convene an additional expert review panel on  genotoxicity to obtain recommendations about short-term tests that  OMB thought could be done quickly. According to EPA, this added 6  months to the process, and the panel, which met in April 2005,  concluded that the research that OMB was proposing could not be  conducted in the short term. Nonetheless, EPA officials said that the  second expert panel review did not eliminate OMB’s concerns  regarding the assessment, which they described as reaching a  stalemate. In September 2006, EPA decided, however, to proceed  with developing the assessment. By 2006, the naphthalene  assessment had been in progress for 4 years, and EPA decided that  the noncancer portion of the existing IRIS assessment was outdated  and needed to be revisited. Having made this decision, the agency  returned both portions of the assessment, cancer and noncancer, to  the drafting stage. We reported in March 2008 that EPA estimated a  2009 completion date for the naphthalene assessment. As of  September 30, 2011, however, the assessment remained in the draft  development stage, even though EPA program offices had identified  the naphthalene assessment as a high-priority need for the air toxics  and Superfund programs. As of September 30, 2011, EPA expects to  complete the naphthalene assessment in the third quarter of fiscal  year 2013.    Royal Demolition Explosive. This chemical, also called RDX or  hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine, is a highly powerful explosive  used by the U.S. military in thousands of munitions. Currently  classified by EPA as a “possible human carcinogen,” this chemical is  known to leach from soil to groundwater. RDX can cause seizures in  humans and animals when large amounts are inhaled or ingested, but  the effects of long-term, low-level exposure on the nervous system  are unknown. As we reported in March 2008, as is the case with  naphthalene, the IRIS assessment of RDX could require DOD to  undertake a number of actions, including steps to protect its  employees from the effects of this chemical and to clean up many  contaminated sites. We reported at that time that EPA had started  an IRIS assessment of RDX in 2000, but it had made minimal  progress on the assessment because EPA had agreed to a request  by DOD to wait for the results of DOD-sponsored research on this  chemical. In 2007, EPA resumed work on the assessment, although  some of the DOD-sponsored research was still outstanding at the  time. EPA decided to suspend work on the assessment in 2009 in  order to focus on assessments that were further along in the IRIS  process. According to EPA’s project plan for RDX, in March 2010,  EPA received a letter from DOD requesting that EPA complete the  assessment. In addition, in 2010, EPA’s Superfund Program labeled  the RDX assessment as a high priority because of the presence of the  chemical at federal facilities. In June 2010, EPA renewed work on the  RDX assessment, but as of September 30, 2011, it remained in the  draft development stage (step 1). An EPA official told us in October  2011 that EPA plans to contact DOD officials to confirm that the draft  assessment of RDX adequately captures the findings of the DOD- sponsored research. In addition, the EPA official said that the agency  plans to contact officials at HHS’s Agency for Toxic Substances and  Disease Registry to ensure that the two agencies have coordinated  research efforts on this chemical. EPA projects that it will finalize the  assessment of RDX in the first quarter of fiscal year 2013.
section_title: Appendix IV: Projected Completion Dates for IRIS Assessments Currently in the Assessment Development Process, as of September 30, 2011
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Diane LoFaro, Assistant  Director; Christine Fishkin, Assistant Director; Summer Lingard; Mark  Braza; Jennifer Cheung; Nancy Crothers; Lorraine Ettaro; Robert Grace;  Gary Guggolz; Richard P. Johnson; Michael Kniss; Nadia Rhazi; and Kiki  Theodoropoulos made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to  the report were Tim Bober, Michelle Cooper, Anthony Pordes, Benjamin  Shouse, Jena Sinkfield, and Nicolas Sloss.