Government Accountability Office: EPA's chemical safety database far behind schedule

Government Accountability Office.
Image via WikipediaGovernment reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: OMB Watch

EPA's Assessments of Chemical Dangers -- Too Slow

A government investigation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) process for assessing dangerous chemicals concludes the agency is so slow and lacking in credibility that the system is in "serious risk of becoming obsolete."

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) completed a new extensive review of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a publicly searchable database for studies and information on the human health effects of chemical substances. The GAO investigation concluded that recent EPA changes to the IRIS assessment process had made a bad situation worse.

This database is a significant tool to protect public health and the environment. Health risk assessments made using IRIS data directly influence the development of public health policies. The EPA's IRIS program is supposed to assess more than 540 chemicals now in the IRIS database, but from 2006 to 2007, it finalized evaluations of only four chemicals. At that rate, it will take almost three centuries to complete the assessments, assuming no new chemicals will require evaluation between now and then. The agency is also supposed to reevaluate old decisions to incorporate new scientific data.

EPA has a significant backlog of chemical assessments and a growing number of outdated assessments. The GAO reports that assessments of certain, especially dangerous chemicals, such as dioxin and trichloroethylene (TCE), the most frequently reported contaminant in groundwater, have been in progress for over 17 years and over 10 years, respectively. Unlike many other EPA programs that have statutory requirements, the IRIS program has no required deadlines.

In April, EPA released its new assessment process. The new process was not made available for public comment. This lack of transparency and public feedback occurred despite Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assurances that EPA would circulate a draft to the public before moving forward with the final process. Changes included one apparently demanded by OMB, which allows other agencies, including OMB, to comment on IRIS assessments. The comments from OMB and other federal agencies about the scientific assessments will not be made public nor be noted in any peer review process. Additionally, EPA changed the definition of the scientific assessment process to include policy considerations, where previously, science and policy were distinct.

GAO's Sept. 18 testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations indicated that EPA's new procedures have failed to improve the program. Several factors contributed to the failure, including the fact that OMB and several other federal agencies now have an even larger role in evaluating the EPA's work, slowing down the process.

Under EPA's current IRIS procedures, OMB, as well as several other federal agencies, may intercede in the scientific assessment process multiple times. The comments and changes to the IRIS assessments made by these interceding agencies are not revealed to the public. In the GAO's analysis, this lack of transparency violates the principles of sound scientific analysis. Moreover, these federal agencies are often affected by IRIS assessments, which poses an apparent conflict of interest.

Another IRIS problem identified by GAO is that EPA management decisions to postpone completion of assessments to wait for more scientific analyses compound existing delays. Several of EPA's assessments are essentially stuck in a loop where the evaluation process stretches out over several years, during which time the scientific research used in the initial assessment becomes outdated, and the agency starts a new evaluation to incorporate more recent information. This cycle, combined with the new, longer evaluation process, is largely responsible for the significant delays in finalizing risk assessments, according to GAO. Without risk assessments, policymakers at the federal and state levels — and even in other countries — are not able to make informed risk management decisions.

For instance, in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided trailers to those without housing, which caused health problems because of high levels of formaldehyde. FEMA officials cited the lack of a standard for formaldehyde exposure in mobile homes as one of the problems that delayed action. Apparently, EPA had initiated an assessment of formaldehyde in 1997 to update the data in IRIS, but the process had not been completed by 2005 when FEMA took action. Instead, EPA chose to rely on an industry-funded assessment of formaldehyde, which projected the risk from the chemical to be 2,400 times lower than that determined in studies by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, according to the GAO analysis.

At the hearing, EPA officials defended the program. Dr. George Gray, EPA's assistant administrator for research and development, cited increased staff levels and funding for the IRIS program. He also stated that there would be no way to conduct "scientific shenanigans" with the IRIS process because of existing independent peer reviews. Marcus Peacock, EPA's deputy administrator, also proclaimed that EPA "[does not] tolerate political interference with science."


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• GAO: Big disaster would overwhelm aid groups
• Official: CDC Late on FEMA Trailers
• Tell your congress members to support strong whistleblower rights for government employees

Comptroller David Walker is leaving his post at the GAO (Government Accountability Office)

An outstanding public servant is stepping down from an influential federal government agency of reform. David Walker has run a non-partisan department (GAO) that usually responds to a Congressional request for an investigation or research effort so that we all can learn more about an issue, a concern, a topic. The Government Accountability Office is an arm of the Congress.

He has been travelling the nation bringing the urgent need for fiscal reform during this time of deepening budget crisis. He will be sorely missed.

Elderly and disabled voters are guaranteed access to a polling place

The federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently gave testimony to the U.S. Senate's Special Committee on Aging on the current accessibility of polling stations for the aging and disabled. Page 5 of the pdf manuscript (free Adobe Reader required):

The proportion of older people in the United States who may face challenges exercising the right to vote is growing. As of 2003, there were almost 36 million individuals aged 65 or older (12 percent of the population), and the majority have at least one chronic health condition. By 2030, those aged 65 and over will grow to more than 20 percent of the population. Disability increases with age, and studies have shown that with every 10 years after reaching the age of 65, the risk of losing mobility doubles.7 In many ways, lack of mobility and other types of impairments can diminish seniors’ ability to vote without some assistance or accommodation. With increased age, seniors will become more limited in their ability to get to polling places by driving, walking, or using public transportation. Once seniors arrive at the polling places, they may face additional challenges, depending on the availability of accessible parking areas, accessibility of polling places, type and complexity of the voting equipment, availability of alternative voting methods (such as absentee voting), and the availability of voting assistance or aids.
Responsibility for holding elections and ensuring voter access primarily rests with state and local governments. Each state sets the requirements for conducting local, state, and federal elections within the state. For example, states regulate such aspects of elections as ballot access, absentee voting requirements, establishment of voting places, provision of election day workers, and counting and certifying the vote. The states, in turn have typically delegated responsibility for administering and funding state election systems to the thousands of local election jurisdictions—more than 10,000 nationwide—creating even more variability among our nation’s election systems.
Although state and local governments are responsible for running elections, Congress has authority to affect the administration of elections. Federal laws have been enacted in several major areas of the voting process, including several that are designed to help ensure that voting is accessible for the elderly and people with disabilities. Most importantly, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA), enacted in 1984, requires that political subdivisions responsible for conducting elections assure that all polling places for federal elections are accessible to elderly voters and voters with disabilities (with limited exceptions). Any elderly voter or voter with a disability assigned to an inaccessible polling place, upon his or her advance request, must be assigned to an accessible polling place or be provided with an alternative means for casting a ballot on the day of the election.

$55 billion in improper HHS payments in 2007

According to The Swine Line, the blog of Citizens Against Government Waste, work has begun in Washington to calculate the improper payments made by its various federal agencies:

The GAO just released its most recent report on estimated improper payments made by federal agencies. Overall 2007 estimates for improper payments (overpayments or underpayments, but guess which one is most prevalent?) were $55 billion. The most vulnerable federal program was the Medicaid fee-for-service program, which had an estimated $13 billion in improper payments and that was only for its fee-for-service program and only for six months worth of claims. Government Executive Magazine reports that:

HHS is not the only agency still working to develop improper payment estimates. GAO reported that the fiscal 2007 estimate did not include data from 14 risk-susceptible programs with outlays of $170 billion. Nine of these fall under the Homeland Security Department and were only recently identified as risk-susceptible. GAO considered the identification of programs as an important step toward proper reporting and prevention of improper payments. Twelve of the 14 programs that did not report estimates aim to do so for 2008. The other two did not report target implementation dates.