EPA moves to streamline chemical risk assessments

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is trying to reintroduce some of the transparency lost during the Bush era by changing the way the health effects of chemicals are reviewed.

A Congressional subcommittee is currently reviewing the new process, which was proposed by EPA administrator Lisa Jackson in a memo released last month, and aims to streamline the way potentially hazardous chemicals are reviewed for the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database.

Jackson said that previous changes to the process implemented in the final year of the Bush administration has "reduced the transparency, timeliness, and scientific integrity of the IRIS process".

The Bush administration gave the Office of Management and Budget the ability to review draft assessments from the IRIS process. It then put in place revisions to the rules in 2008, which gave other agencies the chance to review the assessments.

NGO OMB Watch said the changes led to further delays to the process, resulting in many chemicals not being included on the database.

"In part, because of the length of the process, EPA has made little progress in finishing new assessments," said OMB Watch. "From 2004 to 2008, the agency completed assessments for only 16 substances."

A Government Accountability Office report also found significant problems in the process as revised by the Bush administration.

The new process gives the EPA complete control over the outcome of the review and should ensure that risk assessments are completed quicker, providing information on how potentially hazardous chemicals should be managed and regulated.

However, the latest changes have still drawn criticism from some chemicals experts. Although it mandates that all comments are now made public, the process nevertheless gives the White House a chance to comment on draft assessments, which has led to concerns over political influence on the scientific assessment process.

This is not the first time the OMB has been accused of applying political muscle to influence scientific decisions. Just over a year ago, it was also linked to rewrites of proposed adjustments to EPA ozone standards.