GAO Issues Report on EPA's Effort to Enhance TSCA Chemical Regulation

At the request of some members of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted another study on how EPA "has increased efforts to assess and control chemicals." GAO concludes that progress has been made but EPA could "strengthen its approach."

From the highlights:

GAO was asked to evaluate EPA’s efforts to strengthen its management of chemicals. This report determines the extent to which (1) EPA has made progress implementing its new approach and (2) EPA’s new approach positions it to achieve its goal of ensuring the safety of chemicals. GAO examined agency documents and TSCA rulemaking and interviewed agency officials and stakeholders from industry and environmental organizations.

The starting point was the 2009 announcement by EPA of TSCA reform principles. Because TSCA reform bills, most notably those introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg, have not resulted in any update to the 1976 law, EPA has been working hard to maximize its current authority under TSCA. The GAO assessed its progress. The results are mixed, at best.

The results of EPA’s data collection activities, in most cases, have yet to be realized, and it may take several years before EPA obtains much of the data it is seeking.

In fact, the GAO summarizes:

Of the 83 chemicals EPA has prioritized for risk assessment, it initiated 7 assessments in 2012 and plans to start 18 additional assessments in 2013 and 2014. However, it may take several years to complete these initial risk assessments and, at the agency’s current pace, over a decade to complete all 83, especially as EPA does not have the toxicity and exposure data needed for 58 of the 83 chemicals prioritized for risk assessment.

While GAO recommends that EPA "develop strategies that address challenges impeding its ability to ensure chemical safety," the impeding challenges are well known - Congress simply won't take the steps necessary to modernize the nearly four-decade-old chemical law.

In a letter responding to the draft GAO report, Acting Assistant Administrator James Jones noted that GAO has several times before called for Congress to update the antiquated TSCA law:

It is EPA's position that, absent such statutory changes, the Agency will not be able to successfully meet the goal of ensuring chemical safety now and into the future.

With no realistic update to the law in sight, and constant attacks on EPA's budget, any blame for lack of chemical safety should be placed where it belongs - on Congress.

The full GAO report can be downloaded here.

GAO Finds that "Challenges" Remain with EPA's IRIS Chemical Assessment Program

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says that "EPA faces both long-standing and new challenges in implementing the IRIS program," a conclusion of which EPA agrees and backs further improvements to increase the transparency and efficiency of its chemical risk assessment program - the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS.  GAO issued its final report on January 9, 2012 after issuing a preliminary report last year.

IRIS has come under attack from both industry and NGOs as either not adhering to "sound science" or "being too slow to complete assessments," respectively. 

The GAO report, "Challenges Remain with EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program," recommends the EPA present a workable time frame for each step of the IRIS assessment process.  GAO also recommended that EPA work out how it will implement previous recommendations of the program offered by the National Academy of Sciences, and provide agendas for chemicals under review and when they will be completed. 

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) welcomed the GAO report, saying in their press release:

The report by the Government Accountability Office affirms widespread recognition, including recent comments from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), that despite a series of attempts to improve the process behind EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System, the program still falls short of meeting the benchmarks of objectivity, scientific accuracy and transparency. The report shows that these longstanding problems have yet to be addressed and EPA has not developed a clear plan for fixing IRIS.

And yet, a recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an NGO, suggested that the chemical industry was engaging in a "delay game" to "duck" regulations. The NRDC report, "The Delay Game: How the Chemical Industry Ducks Regulations of the Most Toxic Chemicals," charges that weaknesses in TSCA "have allowed chemical companies to exploit the act by thwarting the EPA's attempts to finalize health assessments and delaying regulation of chemicals -- sometimes for decades."

How EPA will implement the GAO and NAS recommendations is uncertain, as is who will lead the effort since last week Paul Anastas, the head of EPA's Office of Research & Development, is leaving his position to return to academic life at Yale.

The GAO report can be downloaded as a PDF here.

GAO Tells Congressional Panel It Will Review Changes to IRIS Chemical Assessment Process

At a House Science Committee hearing this week, GAO environmental department director David Trimble testified that the GAO was currently undertaking a review of EPA's revised 2009 IRIS assessment process and how EPA was proceeding in implementing changes recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.  Trimble indicated that the 2009 revisions "appeared to represent significant improvement, but the viability of the IRIS program will depend on effective and sustained management and oversight."  The process revisions were initiated by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson following extensive complaints about the quality of assessments performed during the Bush Administration.

IRIS refers to the Integrated Risk Information System, a human health assessment program that "evaluates quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may result from exposure to environmental contaminants...The information in IRIS is intended for those without extensive training in toxicology, but with some knowledge of health sciences."

In their continuing efforts to improve the oft-maligned program, EPA on July 12, 2011 announced plans "to further strengthen and streamline" IRIS and implement the April 2011 recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences.  According to EPA:

The most recent improvements include: reducing volume and redundancy of assessments; fuller discussion of methods and concise statements of criteria used in studies for hazard evaluation; clearer articulation of the rationale and criteria for screening studies; implementing uniform approaches for choosing studies and evaluating their findings; and describing the determinants of weight that were used in synthesizing the evidence. In addition, EPA is working to set up a dedicated advisory committee that will exclusively focus on the quality, transparency and scientific rigor of IRIS assessments. EPA will also create a peer consultation step early in the development of major IRIS assessments. Continually improving the IRIS program is an ongoing priority for the Agency, and these efforts work towards this goal.

The full testimony of David Trimble can be read here.

GAO Calls for Improved National Priorities for Climate Change

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report calling on the federal government to improve and clarify national priorities related to climate change.  Acknowledging that "climate change poses risks to many environmental and economic systems, including agriculture, infrastructure, and ecosystems," GAO noted that national priorities need to be set and "better align them with federal funding decisions."  While "funding for climate change activities reported by OMB increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010," GAO noted that it "is organized in a complex, crosscutting system."

Two key factors were identified that "complicate efforts to align funding with priorities."

First, notwithstanding existing coordinating mechanisms...federal officials do not have a shared understanding of strategic priorities. This is in part due to inconsistent messages articulated in strategic plans and other policy documents....Second, respondents indicated that since mechanisms for aligning funding with priorities are nonbinding, they are limited when in conflict with agencies' own priorities.

GAO came up with two recommendations:

1) To improve the coordination and effectiveness of federal climate change programs and activities, the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President, including the Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Office and Management and Budget, and Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with Congress, should work together with relevant federal agencies and interagency coordinating bodies to clearly establish federal strategic climate change priorities, including the roles and responsibilities of the key federal entities, taking into consideration the full range of activities within the federal climate change enterprise.

2) To improve the coordination and effectiveness of federal climate change programs and activities, we recommend that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President, including the Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Office and Management and Budget, and Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with Congress, should work together with relevant federal agencies and interagency coordinating bodies to assess the effectiveness of current practices for defining and reporting federal climate change funding and aligning funding with priorities, and make improvements to such practices as needed for Congress and the public to fully understand how climate change funds are spent.

For more information and to download a highlights page and the full report, go to the GAO page here.