CRS Studies Science and Technology Policy Office

Congress should examine the role and responsibilities of the White House Office of Science and Techonology Policy and question whether the office is effective, says a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report.

Some in the science community have called for the office director to be elevated to a Cabinet-level post, but also warms that if the adviser is too close to the President then certain stakeholders may question the potential for politicization of science. On the other hand, CRS suggests that if the office becomes a completely independent agency it might be viewed as "inappropriately distancing" the President and the office.

The report points out the delicate balancing act between scientists and policy makers. Too distant could mean the appropriate questions could not be asked; too close could mean the policy makers have too much control over what scientists are allowed to say.

Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) through the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. The act states that “The primary function of the OSTP Director is to provide, within the Executive Office of the President [EOP], advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require attention at the highest level of Government.” Further, “The Office shall serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government.”

Seeking a new global deal on climate change

The European Commission (EC) has released a paper outlining its position on climate change ahead of international climate talks. According to the paper, they foresee a major role for carbon trading in efforts to tackle climate change. The commission says the costs of containing global warming are likely to increase rapidly in years to come – adding 175 billion Euro to the cost the world must assume by 2020. More than half that amount, they say, will be needed in developing countries like China and India. The paper presents various options for increasing international funding – including requiring countries to contribute according to their income and level of emissions. Another option would be to auction some emission allowances on a carbon market.

The paper also says that the European Union and other economic powers should help defray the costs of reducing greenhouse gases emitted by developing nations. All developing nations, except the very poorest, would be required to limit growth in emissions by adopting development strategies that produce fewer greenhouse gases. These strategies should include stopping (or at least slowing) tropical deforestation, as trees and plants absorb carbon dioxide.

The EU is also keen to build on the steps it has already taken to stimulate others at talks in Copenhagen scheduled for December of this year. The United Nations is organising the conference for the purpose of securing a new and more ambitious global commitment to tackling climate change. The current treaty – the Kyoto Protocol – expires at the end of 2012. And so the EU will urge developed countries to commit to an overall 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels). The contribution would vary by country, depending on income, population, level of emissions and past efforts to reduce emissions. Compliance should be monitored and enforced.

The commission also foresees a major role for emissions trading, and seeks to build a global carbon market. And they already have a head start, after introducing the EU carbon market (called the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme) back in 2005. A growing number of countries are looking to follow suit, including the US, New Zealand and Australia. The scheme caps overall CO2 emissions, but allows businesses to buy and sell credits amongst themselves.

The paper notes that as some climate change is inevitable, it hopes the Copenhagen agreement will also provide a framework to help countries adapt. For example, they state that it should ensure support for poor nations vulnerable to extreme weather such as drought, storms and floods.

Much will be happening in the months between now and December, but the hope is that there will be a plan that moves the debate a large step forward. What role the US plays in this discussion remains to be seen.

Economic Stimulus Includes Whistleblowing Protections for Scientists

All eyes in the United States have been on the $813 billion economic stimulus package passed last week by the US House of Representatives. One line item that many may have missed is an amendment that provides for strong protection from retaliation for scientists who "blow the whistle when they report distortions, changes or delays in their research."

The amendment essentially attaches a whistleblower protection bill that was passed by both the House and Senate in 2007, but stalled after the Bush administration issued a veto threat. The amendment would add to the definition of abuse of authority "any action that compromises the validity or accuracy of federally funded research or analysis; the dissemination of false or misleading scientific, medical or technical information; any section that restricts or prevents an employee or any person performing federally-funded research or analysis from publishing in peer-reviewed journals or other scientific publications or making oral presentations at professional society meetings or other meetings of their peers..."

Clearly this is an attempt to protect scientists from what had been perceived as a science-unfriendly environment in the past administration. While so far there is no comment, it seems likely that the current administration would support the measure, given that President Obama and EPA Administrator Jackson have both stressed the important role of science and scientists as we move forward.

However, this was only an amendment in the House version of the stimulus bill. The Senate has yet to vote on a stimulus bill and it may or may not include the whistleblowing provisions. Furthermore, once the Senate passes a bill the two versions will have to go to conference to negotiate a final bill that would then be sent on to the President for signature or veto.

European Ecolabel Could Reduce The Number of Chemicals We Use

The European Union's Ecolabel scheme should be beefed up to encourage less use of potentially dangerous chemicals in products, says a report by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and the European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC). The environmental label, which is recognisable by its flower logo, is intended to help consumers make greener choices in purchasing many day-to-day use products such as light bulbs, detergents or paper. The report calls for the Ecolabel to be more strict on the chemicals used in the products it endorses. The report comes out just as European leaders are debating the revision of the Ecolabel Regulation.

"It is the ideal time for discussion on a systematic and strategic approach to chemicals within the Ecolabel scheme," said Doreen Fedrigo, EEB's policy unit coordinator. Monique Goyens, director general of BEUC, said: "Consumers should be able to trust that products bearing the Ecolabel do not contain substances which are hazardous to health and the environment." The EEB and BEUC said they do not simply want to restrict the use of problematic chemicals in Ecolabelled products. They have proposed that the scheme should question whether a dangerous chemical in a product fulfils an absolutely necessary function, if the design of the product could be adapted to avoid using the chemical, and whether the substance could be substituted for another which is less dangerous. If these are not options, the organisations have called on environmental ministers to use the Ecolabel to encourage restricted use of the dangerous chemicals in the product to ensure it still works as it is designed to, but has fewer risks to health and the environment.

The report can be downloaded at: Ecolabel Report

Scientist Group Demands Formal Scientific Integrity Policy

Historically scientists have been looked on by the public as "those guys in white lab coats" or the elitist ones in their ivory towers. Many scientists like to keep their distance from public policy, preferring to do their science and assessments while letting politicians set policy. Others feel that scientists haven't played enough of a role in determining how their science is used. The climate change debate has found scientist and non-scientist using science to prove or disprove global warming.

Well, the activist group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in the United States is urging EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to adopt formal policies on her stated commitments to scientific integrity, openness and the rule of law, after expressing concerns over the former New Jersey environment secretary's record in that state. They also are reacting to accusations of a lack of scientific integrity of the previous administration. The group sent Jackson a letter on January 26th asking her to “immediately translate these sentiments into concrete, enforceable agency policies. As President Obama has done in issuing a series of directives on openness and ethics, PEER strongly advocates that you declare specific policies that outlaw gag orders, forbid political rewrites of scientific findings and hold managers accountable for actions found to be illegal.”

In a January 23rd memo to EPA staff, Jackson expressed support for the so-called “fishbowl” policy initiated in 1983 by then-EPA Administrator Bill Ruckelshaus. The transparency policy, reaffirmed by every president but the Bush administration, says that the agency should operate “in a fishbowl.” The Bush EPA drew fire for failing to formally adopt the fishbowl memo and PEER says Jackson's stated support is insufficient. “This needs to be more explicit and enforceable, rather than 'Trust me.'" Adopting a formal policy on scientific integrity and openness would mean EPA employees who violate it “are subject to discipline and people who get in trouble for following the policy could use it as a defense.” Specifically, PEER wants Jackson to adopt policies forbidding alteration of scientific documents for non-technical reasons without public disclosure; banning adverse personnel actions or other discrimination in retaliation for voicing a reasonable scientific disagreement; revoking all existing gag orders; and to stating that agency officials responsible for decisions found to violate federal law will face discipline or removal from their jobs.

Major Initiatives to Get EPA Grants

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a certain amount of money in its budget dedicated to providing grants and fellowships for research. With the new Administration taking over, the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER), within the Office of Research and Development at EPA, says that it intends to focus its research funding on issues relating to global climate change, as well as sustainability and the economics of ecosystems. The office is also seeking advice from an agency advisory group on emerging research so it can continue to set its priorities.

That advisory group - the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) - will meet February 2-3 in Washington, DC to discuss what it sees as priorities for funding. The BOSC is also expected to provide advice on how to restructure the office's academic fellowship programs to offer more opportunities to undergraduates.

Besides climate change and sustainability, the NCER expects computational toxicology to be an "exciting area" of research. EPA is about to end the application period for $6.4 million in grants for computational models that address risks to the growing fetus.

US Energy Policy Has World Impacts

Today President Obama signed two important energy-related Executive Orders (EOs) as he declared a national goal of ending dependence on foreign oil and promised new U.S. leadership in the fight against global warming. With new Secretary of Transportation LaHood and new EPA Administrator Jackson looking on, he ordered a series of steps aimed at making American cars more fuel efficient and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

These and forthcoming EOs and other Administration actions will no doubt have an impact on the way energy is used in the US. Obama has promised that "It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs."

But his actions will have impacts in many other parts of the world. For example, the oil industry in Alberta, Canada is wondering whether the shift in focus will mean less oil imports from Canada to the US. Currently, Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of energy to the U.S.--providing 17% of U.S. oil imports and 18% of U.S. natural gas demand. The change in US policy is making some companies think that they should emphasize that they are "energy" companies and not just oil/gas companies.

The US change in focus will also impact the balance of power in the world, an issue that hasn't been fully examined in the public media yet. The intention, of course, is to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, and other political hot spots around the world. All one has to do to see the impact of this is to look at the increased political power gained by Iran, Russia and others when oil prices soared, then the rapid decrease when prices dropped again. True, other factors including the Iraq war and the global economic crisis also affect this trend, but there is no question that reduced demand from the US will change the political dynamics of many regions. But countering that is the rise in energy demand from China and India, who will likely soak up any reduction in US demand. That is why the US energy policy must take into consideration international interconnections, and why the US must become a global leader in ushering in a new era of sustainable energy policy worldwide.

Incoming EPA Administrator Sets Priorities for Action

Lisa Jackson, the incoming US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, has identified her and President Obama's priorities for the EPA.

In an attempt to signal a change from the previous Administration Jackson states:

"EPA can meet the nation's environmental challenges only if our employees are fully engaged partners in our shared mission. Science must be the backbone for EPA programs. The public health and environmental laws that Congress has enacted depend on rigorous adherence to the best available science. The President believes that when EPA addresses scientific issues, it should rely on the expert judgment of the Agency's career scientists and independent advisors. When scientific judgments are suppressed, misrepresented or distorted bypolitical agendas, Americans can lose faith in their government to provide strong public health and environmental protection. The laws that Congress has written and directed EPA to implement leaveroom for policy judgments. However, policy decisions should not be disguised as scientific findings. I pledge that I will not compromisethe integrity of EPA's experts in order to advance a preference for aparticular regulatory outcome."

Jackson highlighted five priorities that would receive her personal attention:

1) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions: EPA will stand ready to help Congress craft strong, science-based climate legislation that fulfills the vision of the President.

2) Improving air quality: EPA will plug the gaps in our regulatory system as science and the law demand.

3) Managing chemical risks: It is now time to revise and strengthen EPA's chemicals management and risk assessment programs, and reform TSCA.

4) Cleaning up hazardous-waste sites: EPA will strive to accelerate the pace of cleanup at the hundreds of contaminated sites across the country.

5) Protecting America's water: EPA will intensify work to restore and protect the quality of the nation's streams, rivers, lakes, bays, oceans and aquifers.

Jackson is expected to be confirmed and begin work as Administrator shortly. She states that "EPA's strength has always been our ability to adapt to the constantly changing face of environmental protection as our economy and society evolve and science teaches us more about how humans interact with andaffect the natural world. Now, more than ever, EPA must be innovative and forward looking because the environmental challenges faced by Americans all across our country are unprecedented."

More Insight on Chemical Control Reform

A week ago I posted Obama Appointments May Affect Chemical Law Reform, which suggested President Obama's appointments might impact Congressional attempts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Insiders suggest that of those names I mentioned, the biggest impact on TSCA reform is likely to be from the switch in chairmanship of the House Environment and Commerce Committee to California Congressman Henry Waxman. As suggested by the name of the TSCA reform bill introduced in 2008 (The Kid Safe Chemical Act), the overall focus for reform legislation is on chemicals in products, with emphasis on questions of safety to children and other vulnerable groups. Members of Waxman's committee have indicated that they likely won't get to TSCA reform until later in the year because the committee also has jurisdiction over health care and climate change, two issues which the Obama Administration have given high priority. But committee staffers are starting to think about it and fully expect to act.

Clearly people on the committee feel that TSCA is a "broken statute" and needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Committee staffers have suggested that if TSCA worked properly then they wouldn't have had to address issues such as phthalates through other legislation like the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which passed in 2008. It is also likely that the committee would also want to cover uncertainies with newly emerging activities in nanotechnology. Since Waxman co-authored the Kid Safe Chemicals Act and now chairs the relevant House committee, it is almost a given that a bill will be passed through to the House for vote. The new version to be introduced will likely include additional enforcement responsibilities, similar to what was inserted in the Consumer Product Safety Improvment Act.

I'll keep posting updates on this blog as they become available.

Whoa - Not so Fast...Environmental Confirmations Held Up

The confirmation of President Obama's key environmental nominees - EPA Administrator-designate Lisa Jackson and White House Council of Environmental Quality Chair-designate Nancy Sutley - have been put on temporary hold by Republican Senators. The main concern is whether whether their authority would be superseded by Carol Browner, President Obama's Climate and Energy Policy Advisor in the White House.

Browner's position does not require Congressional confirmation, and many Republicans remember her strong pro-environment record when she herself served as EPA Administrator during the Bill Clinton Administration. During their confirmation hearings, Senators from both parties had queried Jackson and Sutley, as well as Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu, about their ability to effectively do their jobs given the presence of Browner in the newly created White House advisory role. Democrats appeared to be convinced, but a spokesman for Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) has indicated that the Senator asked for Jackson's name to be taken off the list of candidates slated for fast confirmation.

The hold, which is Senate prerogative, isn't likely to be anything more than a temporary glitch, however, as Jackson, Sutley and Chu are all expected to be confirmed easily.

Barack Obama Sworn in as 44th President of the United States

January 20, 2009. The bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth. It seems appropriate that another Illinois resident, in particular one with African-Ameican heritage, has become President in this historic year.

Much is in need of doing. In his speech, President Obama said "the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met." He called upon us all to pitch in to do our part to find solutions to those challenges. To put behind the politics of the small, to embrace a new way of thinking...thinking that seeks solutions for the good of all Americans, not just the like-minded few.

Regarding the role of science in policy, he said "We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."

The politics he professes, and we all must ensure, is "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."

Best wishes, President Obama. May we all reach the heights to which you believe we can soar.

Obama Appointments May Affect Chemical Law Reform

I have written before on attempts to reform the way we manage chemicals in the United States (Inorganic chemicals and Montebello, now called ChAMP), as well as in Europe (REACH). With a new Congress and a new President, and with many pressures from all sides, it is likely that there will be renewed efforts to pass a comprehensive reform of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) in 2009. But it is not guaranteed.

One factor that may affect the likelihood of TSCA reform this year is the move by several House and Senate members to the new Administration. The House version of the Kid Safe Chemical Act bill (KSCA) (H.R.6100) was introduced in 2008 by Hilda Solis and Henry Waxman. Congresswoman Solis has been tapped by President Obama to be his Secretary of Labor. Her successor will be selected by special election in California's 32nd Congressional District. Because the special election takes up to 4 months to complete, and Solis' successor will be a freshman Congressperson, it is unclear whether they would be in a position to reintroduce the bill in the 111th Congress. Similarly, Congressman Waxman has taken over the chairmanship of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, previously long led for the Democrats by Michigan Congressman John Dingell. In his new position, Waxman seems intent on working with the many other California Democrats in leadership positions, as well as the Obama Administration, to give greater emphasis to energy and climate change related issues. Of course, the bill could be reintroduced by anyone in the House.

In the Senate, New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg (along with Waxman in the House) was the leader behind the original KSCA introduced first in 2005 and reintroduced it as S.3040 in 2008. As of the fall of 2008 the Senate Committee on Environment and Public works, on which Lautenberg serves and California Senator Boxer Chairs, were indicating that they planned to begin hearings on KSCA/TSCA reform this spring. Certainly there will be several issues competing for resources, but with REACH and the Canadian prioritization programs applying pressure, and the EPA focusing on enhancing the current ChAMP program, there will be incentive from all sides to find a workable alternative to the current TSCA program here in the states.

The Future of Government - Killing Programs That Don't Work

On January 7, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama introduced a new position called the Chief Performance Officer, and named Nancy Killefer to fill the position. Why? According to Obama: "We committed to change the way our government in Washington does business so that we're no longer squandering billions of tax dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness or exist solely because of the power of a lobbyist or interest group."

That sounds good, but at the same time Obama is pushing for a stimulus package that will near a trillion dollars. He himself notes the financial hole that has been dug: "Just today, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the deficit we are inheriting for this budget year will be $1.2 trillion. And we know that our Recovery and Reinvestment plan will necessarily add more. My own economic and budget team projects that, unless we take decisive action, even after our economy pulls out of its slide, trillion dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come."

Wow. I have to give him credit for his honesty. He's pretty much saying - the economy is in the tank, and things are going to look a lot worse before we can turn it around. Kudos for being direct with the public for a change.

So while some initial steps will actually make the deficit worse, the long term goal is to take a closer look at where all the money goes. Some of the programs the government funds probably are wasteful and need heavy renovation, and some probably need to be tossed wholesale into the "recycle bin."

But which ones?

There are lots of pet programs getting funding that probably shouldn't be, while there are others that are underfunded. We're not talking about pork barrel projects or earmarks, we're talking about fundamental programs that have been going on for ages. Some of them surely don't work, others might work better if the goals and methods were tweaked, others might work better if their funding was increased.

So here's our chance. We whine and complain about this and that. How about we come up with a list of programs that should be shut down...or need renovation...or need more funding?

Let's see what kind of list we can build. Then we'll send it on to the incoming Administration. I hope Nancy Killefer has a big in-box.

New EPA Program to Assess Inorganic HPV Chemicals

On November 25, 2008 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its “Proposed Approach for the Inorganic High Production Volume (IHPV) Challenge Program.” This new IHPV program picks up on the theme of the voluntary HPV Challenge program, but may be an unexpected surprise for inorganic chemical manufacturers and importers who to date have not been required to provide extensive data sets for common chemicals already on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory. It is EPA's way to approach chemical management, rather than adopt the REACH approach now ongoing in Europe.

The IHPV program is just one of two enhancements EPA is proposing to the ongoing Chemical Assessment and Management (ChAMP) program. The other is a TSCA Inventory Reset. The EPA proposals are available at http://www.epa.gov/champ/.

EPA’s proposed program is based on the design of the HPV Challenge program, which began in 1998 and was focused on organic high volume chemicals. Inorganic chemicals were specifically exempted from the original US HPV program (though some were included in the ICCA HPV program in Europe). During the HPV Challenge, industry compiled and summarized the available physical, chemical, and health and safety data for around 2200 organic chemicals. EPA considers this program a success, and it served as the basis for the ChAMP program, where EPA is using the compiled HPV data to develop hazard and risk characterizations and priorities for more in-depth analysis. By proposing to include the IHPV program as part of ChAMP, EPA is signaling that it believes the time has come to assess inorganic HPV chemicals in the same way that it looked at organic chemicals.

The Proposed IHPV Approach

There are three phases to the proposed program:

Phase I: IHPV Challenge: Develop, launch and sign-up (now through December 2009)

In this phase, IHPV chemicals will be identified by EPA and affected manufacturers and importers will be asked to “volunteer” to sponsor chemicals. While technically voluntary, EPA has indicated that it plans to initiate Section 4 and 8 rulemaking under TSCA to obtain information on unsponsored chemicals. EPA has issued two Section 4 final rules for unsponsored organic HPV chemicals, as well as Section 8 rules to request information on additional unsponsored chemicals, with more rules in development. So companies will be in a position of coercive voluntarianism.

Phase II: Receive/Review Data: (~2010-2013)

Following closely on the organic HPV program, companies will compile and submit data on the physical/chemical properties, environmental fate, ecotoxicity and toxicity for each chemical. Modifications to the standard OECD screening level data requirements will be necessary in many cases since inorganic chemicals, especially elemental and alloy substances, may not be amendable to standard test methodologies. As with the original HPV program, companies will find that forming consortia for related inorganic chemical substances provides the most advantageous means of collecting, compiling, and evaluating the data.

Phase III: Assessing and Reducing Risks (~2103-2015)

This third phase falls mainly within the responsibility of EPA as they use the compiled data to develop Risk Based Prioritizations (RBPs). Since the OECD screening data set focuses on provision of hazard data, EPA plans to rely on the 2011 IUR exposure data for inorganic chemicals in order to develop its RBPs. Based on the RBPs, EPA would initiate any action they deemed necessary, which could include rulemaking, restrictions, or requests for additional data. Finally, this third phase is also expected to include the development of Hazard Based Prioritizations (HBPs) for Moderate Production Volume (MPV) inorganic chemicals (i.e., those greater than 25,000 lbs but less than 1 million lbs per year).

Who is affected?

EPA defines inorganic chemicals according to the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) as substances that do not contain carbon, or contain carbon only in the form of carbonato [=CO3], cyano [-CN], cyanato [-OCN], isocyano [-NC], or isocyanato [-NCO] groups, or the chalcogen analogues of such groups. Thus, chemical substances following under the program would include metals, ammonia, minerals, and inorganic salts. Manufacturers or importers of these substances in the US in volumes greater than 1 million pounds would be asked to participate in the program. In addition, downstream users of these chemicals may also want to participate to assure that their supplies of feedstock remain uninterrupted.

What will it accomplish?

Alas, that is the $64,000 question (or perhaps with inflation it is now the $64,000,000 question). EPA clearly considers that the voluntary organic HPV program has been a success, despite the fact that much of it remains uncompleted more than 3 years after it was scheduled to end (which already included a 2 year extension). The non-profit group, Environmental Defense Fund, whose report "Toxic Ignorance" was the impetus for beginning the original HPV program in 1998, has given the program mixed reviews. The goal is to compile health and safety data on all of the highest production chemicals in use, with the ultimate objective of eliminating those that are excessively risky.

Will this do it? Is the EPA and industry credible in convincing the public that they are ensuring safety of all chemicals on the market? What do you think?