ADVERTISEMENT
2 /3 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Legislation

Chemical toxicity assessments by U.S. EPA to be reshaped, if bill passes

Congressional committee votes to give industry and other agencies greater input and to shift responsibility for IRIS program from research office

by Cheryl Hogue
July 25, 2018 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 96, ISSUE 31

 

Industry and other federal agencies would have more opportunities to sway the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s toxicity assessments of chemicals under a bill a congressional committee approved July 24.

09631-polcon1-particleboard.jpg
Credit: Shutterstock
EPA's chemical hazard assessment of formaldehyde, used in pressed wood products, drew controversy.

The legislation, H.R. 6468, would require EPA to consider hazard assessments from industry, other federal agencies, states, academic researchers, or international agencies if those analyses meet standards laid out in the legislation. Many Democrats oppose the bill, saying it would amplify industry’s influence of assessments. It could also give federal agencies facing pollution liability, such as the Defense Department, more clout over EPA assessments, which are used to set cleanup standards.

The measure would also recast the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a program that Republican lawmakers have attacked and President Donald J. Trump has proposed to defund. IRIS chemical assessments are now centralized in the EPA Office of Research & Development. The bill would disperse that work among EPA regulatory programs that oversee commercial chemicals or pollution released to air, water, or land.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), the sponsor of the bill, says this change would allow regulatory offices to tailor chemical assessments to their specific needs.

H.R. 6468 has the backing of the major lobbying arm of the U.S. chemical industry, the American Chemistry Council. The EPA regulatory programs “are in the best position to understand the current human health and environmental challenges that require the development of chemical assessments,” writes ACC CEO Cal Dooley in a letter of support to Biggs.

But Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who opposes the bill, says divvying up the job of chemical assessments among EPA’s regulatory programs introduces opportunities for agency political appointees to sway outcomes of assessments. Assessments should remain the job of scientific experts in a part of EPA that doesn’t regulate, he argues.

Plus, if programs focus only on their own regulatory needs, he says, assessments may not be complete. For instance, McNerney says, if EPA’s air pollution regulation office assesses a chemical’s toxicity for possible regulation under the Clean Air Act, it may not consider exposure to the compound via drinking water.

The Science, Space & Technology Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives voted along party lines to approve the measure. It now goes to the full House for a vote.

Given its Republican majority, the House may pass the bill. But it’s unlikely the Senate would take it up before the November general election.

X

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Comments
Herbert S. Skovronek (August 1, 2018 3:04 PM)
This is another fraud by the trump regime. We can't have the fox (chemical companies) involved in assessing the chemicals they make, sell AND PROFIT ON. Yes, any valid data industry has should be considered by EPA, but that's different from having industry stifling science.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment