This bill transfers responsibility for chemical substance assessments to relevant EPA program offices, ensuring assessments use specified scientific standards and establishes a steering committee to coordinate these assessments, preventing duplication of effort. It also mandates the inclusion of toxicity values in a chemical assessment database and requires regular certifications to ensure scientific standards are met.
Andy Biggs
Representative
AZ-5
The "Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act" coordinates environmental research funding within the EPA, transfers responsibility for chemical substance assessments to relevant EPA program offices, and mandates the use of specific scientific standards and a weight-of-evidence approach for these assessments. It establishes a steering committee to coordinate these assessments and requires the EPA to maintain a chemical assessment database and regularly certify the scientific integrity of the assessments. This act aims to improve the quality and consistency of chemical assessments used for regulatory purposes.
EPA Chemical Assessments Overhauled: New Law Shifts Power, Mandates 'Best Available Science'
The "Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act" changes how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluates the risks of chemicals. Instead of the central IRIS program handling all assessments, the responsibility now shifts to individual EPA program offices, like Water or Air and Radiation, if they decide an assessment is needed (SEC. 2). This bill also creates a steering committee to prevent different offices from doing the same assessment twice (SEC. 2).
Shaking Up the System
This law mandates that assessments use "specified scientific standards" and a "weight-of-evidence" approach (SEC. 2). What does that mean in practice? Each chemical gets a toxicity value (or multiple values, with uncertainty ranges) based on available data. These values will be stored in a new EPA database, replacing the old IRIS system, although previous assessments will be retained (SEC. 2). Every two years, the Office of Research and Development has to certify that all assessments followed the rules, and report to Congress (SEC. 2).
Real-World Impacts: From Factories to Your Faucet
Imagine a factory releasing a new chemical. Under this law, the EPA office responsible for that type of pollution (say, the Office of Water) would be in charge of assessing its risk. They're required to consider all scientific evidence, including factors like how the chemical behaves, how much exposure causes harm, and how sure they are about the results (SEC. 2). This could mean quicker assessments if the relevant office is on the ball, but it also opens the door to potential inconsistencies, as different offices may have different priorities or interpretations. A farmer relying on EPA-approved pesticides, for example, might see changes in what's considered safe, depending on which office does the assessment. The bill does emphasize that assessments should use the "best available science", including considering third party assesments, but that's a phrase that can be interpreted in different ways (SEC. 2).
Potential Potholes
While the stated goal is to improve science, there are a few things to keep an eye on. Handing assessment power to individual program offices could lead to those offices prioritizing certain chemicals based on their own agendas, rather than overall public health. The requirement to consider third-party assessments could be a good thing for getting a wider range of scientific input – or it could allow industry-funded studies to sway the results. The steering committee is supposed to prevent duplication, but its effectiveness will depend on how well those 15 members can work together (SEC. 2). Ultimately, this bill could lead to more efficient and targeted chemical assessments, or it could create a fragmented system where the science gets lost in the shuffle.