Accomplishments in the EPA Regions and Offices 2017

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) empowered senior managers, scientists, and staff to teach and mentor new employees on the tenets of scientific integrity and ethics, and to also make management aware of any questionable practices or results. NRMRL staff met with their Deputy Ethics Official (DEO) and took annual ethical standards training that complemented the scientific integrity training.

Region 3 provided mandatory communications training on how to communicate scientific information internally and to the public.

All Region 9 laboratory staff were provided annual training on data integrity, ethical practices, and policies.

The Office of Science Information Management (OSIM) worked with other ORD Assessable Units (AUs) to implement its newly promulgated ORD Scientific Data Management policy and continued to improve the related ScienceHub portal, a system that helps manage ORD’s research data throughout the life of a research project.

The Environmental Sciences and Technology Division developed and provided web based training to all chemists that perform data analysis to ensure the integrity of the data is maintained. The Data Integrity Training is a yearly requirement for all chemists.

All ORD manuscripts and presentations were cleared in the Scientific & Technical Information Clearance System (STICS), the electronic clearance system used by ORD, and data were deposited in ScienceHub prior to journal submission.

The National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) utilized STICS to conduct management review and clearance of all NCEA products. NCEA’s robust clearance process includes up to seven approvers. NCEA management has included detailed descriptions of these processes in its employee handbook.

The National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) developed and revised guidance for implementing the clearance process (including guidance on the role of internal and external peer review) to ensure that scientific and/or technical work products follow current requirements and ensure high quality and sound science is being used and released by the Agency.

National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) had several internal and external assessments and audits of the integrated quality, safety and health, and environmental management systems. These audits identified a few non-conformities with ISO/IEC 17025 and other requirements. All non-conformities were addressed through NEIC’s robust corrective/remedial action process. Additionally, identified areas of potential concern (but not a non-conformity) or potential quality-related improvements were also tracked and addressed, when possible, including those identified through the annual management system reviews. Two actions were still “in-process” as of June 2017; all others were completed and the incorporated corrections were actively tracked for their effectiveness.

The Office of Enterprise Information Program (OEIP) hosted monthly conferences with the EPA Quality Assurance Community consisting of the National Program Offices and Regions. During these meetings, OEIP addressed topics about quality processes and scientific expectations for the data and information used to support Agency decisions.

Region 2 submitted its Quality Assurance Annual Report and Work Plan (QAARWP) Bridge Report. This report contributed to scientific integrity and included QA Training, QA Succession Planning, QA Assessments conducted on each organization, and EPA Laboratory Competency Activities.

Region 3’s Hazardous Site Cleanup Division (HSCD) previously identified that a full-time, dedicated data and quality manager was needed to best implement the division’s quality and data management programs. In FY2017, Region 3’s HSCD allocated the resources to hire a full-time data and quality manager. This person is responsible for the implementation of the division’s quality program including tracking, auditing, and implementing quality programs, along with training and program improvements. The data and quality manager will also be responsible for helping to develop and implement a Remedial Data Management Plan. He/she will also work to ensure that all remedial site data is readily available in an easy to access database.

Region 9’s Enforcement Division continued to implement and audit a new standard operating procedure for inspection reports. The reports follow a standard template, are subject to peer and supervisory quality reviews, and generally are required to be completed within 60 days of the field inspection. On a quarterly basis, the Enforcement Division reviewed and evaluated compliance with the 60-day inspection report completion goal, addressed any issues, and improved the quality and timeliness of the inspection reports. The Enforcement Division participated in an audit of the division’s Quality Assurance Field Assessment Procedures (QAFAP) to ensure national consistency and adherence to division standard operating procedures for field activities.

The Region 9 Air Division completed five technical system audits (TSAs) of state, local, and tribal ambient air monitoring agencies. TSAs consist of an in-depth program review of all aspects of data collection, quality control/quality assurance, data validation, documentation, network design, and general program structure. All other monitoring agencies are on target for TSAs as required by regulation.

ORD’s data, metadata, and publications were made publicly available in accordance with EPA’s Public Access Plan through ScienceHub.

On June 22, 2017, EPA codified the Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (Prioritization Rule). The Prioritization Rule requires EPA to solicit public comments on chemicals once the process is underway, prior to proposing a designation, and after the proposed designation as either a high- or low-priority substance. EPA must also consider the public comments prior to issuing the Final Designation. The designation of chemicals as high-priority for further risk evaluation or low-priority is based on reasonably available information screened with respect to certain criteria such as hazard, exposure, conditions of use, persistence, and bioaccumulation, etc. The Risk Evaluation Rule requires all risk evaluations (both the scoping documents and draft risk assessments) to undergo public comment. Additionally, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) released Guidance to assist interested persons in developing and submitting draft risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/guidance-assist-interested-persons-developing-and-0). TSCA also requires EPA to publish an annual report on the plan for risk evaluations at the beginning of each calendar year; the first of these was published in February 2017 (https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/annual-plan-tsca-risk-evaluations). EPA’s highly acclaimed ChemView website makes chemical health and ecological hazard safety documents and data accessible in integrated formats for use by decisionmakers.

Region 3’s Office of Communications and Government Relations (OCGR) played an integral role in communicating scientific information to the public. OCGR worked with the Region’s Divisions and Program Offices to inform the public that scientific reports and information were available, as well as significant public health-based decisions rooted in scientific research and findings. In 2017, OCGR worked closely with Region 3’s Hazardous Site Cleanup Division (HSCD), Water Protection Division (WPD), Land and Chemicals Division (LCD), as well as the offices and programs at EPA’s headquarters and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Through these partnerships, Region 3 can effectively communicate to numerous communities and the media about public health risks associated with the contaminants lead and perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in drinking water.

NCEA utilized federal advisory committees for all high profile, influential assessments. Products that were not considered influential were externally peer reviewed by independent experts outside of EPA by using the Agency contract that was established to obtain external peer review of Agency products.

The National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) conducted a thorough and transparent technical and peer review program for scientific products where reviewers from outside of the organization were sought and review comments and staff responses were documented.

The Office of Science Policy managed the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), which was organized under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and ensured that the BOSC’s processes strictly adhered to all FACA requirements. Nominations for the BOSC Executive Committee and subcommittees were sought in an open and transparent manner. Members were selected based on their expertise, knowledge, and contribution to the relevant area, while also ensuring a balanced and diverse committee. Reports produced by the BOSC were recognized as products of the Committee and were not revised by ORD.

Scientists in the Health and Ecological Division co-authored six papers in peer reviewed journals on topics related to nutrients and microbial pathogens.

The Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review), a FACA committee, was chartered and panelists seated to provide independent scientific advice and recommendations to EPA under the authority of TSCA.

The Region 2 Deputy Scientific Integrity Official announced in February that two Peer Review training modules were available on EPA’s e-Learning Portal: Peer Review at EPA: Essentials, a short course geared towards EPA managers, and Peer Review at EPA: Using the Agency handbook, geared towards peer review coordinators, project managers, and others involved in or supporting peer review processes at the Agency. Although the training is not mandatory, participation is highly encouraged and its availability is announced quarterly.

Region 3’s The Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) supported multiple independent scientific peer reviews and scientific focused workshops through the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership's (Partnership) Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. These reviews and workshops followed EPA's Peer Review Policy and National Academy of Science's (NAS) program review guidelines. These peer reviews and technical workshops were designed to support the work of the Partnership on the 2017 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Midpoint Assessment, the 2018 Jurisdictional development of their Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans, and other goals and outcomes of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

NEIC provided legal and testimony training for its staff who may potentially testify. The legal and testimony training was performed by OCEFT’s Legal Counsel Division. Required NEIC staff completed OGE 450 reports to ensure that potential conflicts of interest were identified.

Professional development of OAR personnel, including scientists, was strongly encouraged and accomplished through internal webinars and other EPA-sponsored training, funded off-site training, and by supporting staff participation in scientific conferences and workshops.

The Office of Science and Technology (OST) encouraged technical staff to actively participate in professional development efforts such as co-authoring professional papers with ORD scientists titled “A Framework to Quantify the Strength of Ecological Links between an Environmental Stressor and Final Ecosystem Services” and “Diatoms to Human Uses: Linking Nitrogen Deposition, Aquatic Eutrophication, and Ecosystem Services.” Both papers were published in Ecosphere.

The Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) staff in OST attended multiple technical conferences including Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC), the American Council of Independent Laboratories, PITTCON 2017 Conference and Symposium, the 2017 Water Quality Technology Conference, and the 2017 National Environmental Monitoring Conference.

OLEM hosted national training events that provided over 50 courses and opportunities for remedial project managers and technical staff to interact and share information on new technologies.

The Region 5 Science Council selected "science communication" as a high priority training need for FY2017. The Council used its annual training budget to sponsor science communication sessions in October 2016 and April 2017, each consisting of a plenary and a workshop, to allow the greatest possible number of regional managers and staff to participate. Participants learned techniques for presenting technical information clearly and in ways that meet the needs of various audiences including the public and the media.

Region 8’s Professional Society Participation (PSP) Committee supported regional staff efforts to track and maintain professional society memberships and participation for career development. FY2017 highlights included designing the PSP elements of the regional science survey, outreach to training coordinators, programs to compile an inventory of PSP for regional staff, and work with the technical training committee to identify PSP training requirements.