To alleviate these problems and facilitate epidemiological research on the health effects of exposure to radiation and other hazards, the Secretarial Panel recommended that DOE continue developing CEDR as a comprehensive repository of data on its workers. The Secretarial Panel cautioned DOE that retrospective data would have limited value for future research. Few Researchers Are Using CEDR

Despite the system’s accessibility, few independent researchers have sought approval from DOE to become authorized CEDR users. Data as Originally Recorded at DOE’s Facilities Are Often Unavailable

It is difficult to conduct research beyond DOE’s initial studies or to fully validate the results, according to many of the researchers we spoke with, because CEDR may not contain data as they were originally recorded at DOE’s facilities. Moreover, DOE has not attempted the long-range planning needed to achieve this vision. Even with increased usage, however, it is not clear whether CEDR is the most cost-effective and practical means of accomplishing the more limited objective of providing access to DOE’s epidemiological data and data gathered under the memorandum of understanding with HHS. The current system has removed the “wall of secrecy” surrounding DOE’s epidemiological research by making some of the data available to outside researchers. Consequently, CEDR appears to be at a crossroad, and an overall assessment of the system would help DOE better ensure that it is spending its limited funds wisely. Regarding the need to include data on current workers and residents in CEDR, the Acting Director agreed that the information is vital and will be included as new studies are completed. Scope and Methodology

To determine how well CEDR meets its intended objective of being a comprehensive resource, we (1) reviewed recommendations from reports by the Secretarial Panel for the Evaluation of Epidemiologic Research Activities and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on designing and implementing CEDR; (2) interviewed officials at DOE headquarters—including the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health; the Acting Director of the Office of Epidemiology and Health Surveillance; and the CEDR Program Coordinator—and contractor staff at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory concerning the current status of CEDR; (3) reviewed relevant DOE directives, program plans, progress reports, and documentation on CEDR; (4) interviewed eight of the nine members (attempts to contact the ninth member were unsuccessful) of the NAS committee responsible for monitoring and reporting on DOE’s progress on CEDR; and (5) interviewed the officials from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Center for Environmental Health who were responsible for the studies conducted under the memorandum of understanding between DOE and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Energy's (DOE) epidemiological database, focusing on: (1) whether the database functions as a comprehensive repository of epidemiological data about DOE workers and the communities surrounding DOE facilities; (2) whether the system is accessible to outside researchers; and (3) DOE future plans for the system.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) the current DOE epidemiological database is not as comprehensive as originally envisioned because it lacks uniform data on laboratory workers' exposure to radiation and other hazardous substances and the health of these workers and residents near DOE facilities; (2) although DOE is trying to standardize its data and develop a more comprehensive employee health surveillance program, it will be at least three years before these goals are reached; (3) although the database is easily accessible, few independent researchers have used it because the data are of limited value for new research; (4) data problems include the lack of raw or updated data, missing and inconsistent data elements, and inadequate research documentation; (5) researchers often have to examine original records, which may be difficult to obtain, to get complete information; (6) DOE is uncertain whether the database will ever be as comprehensive as originally envisioned and it has not undertaken specific long-range plans to make it a comprehensive system; and (7) DOE has not assessed whether the current database or an alternative system would be the most cost-effective and practical means of providing researchers with needed data.