Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:37:12 -0400
From: Tara Thornton <Tara@...>
Subject: DOD REJECTS EPA PLAN FOR FEDERAL CONSENSUS ON RISK, CLEANUP
LEVELS

*As part of interagency dispute*

*DOD REJECTS EPA PLAN FOR FEDERAL CONSENSUS ON RISK, CLEANUP LEVELS*

*_______________________________________________*

*Date: July 22, 2005 - *



As part of a heated interagency dispute over the way EPA reviews the
toxicity of major industrial chemicals, the Defense Department (DOD) is
urging the agency to fundamentally rework a controversial plan for
building consensus among federal agencies on chemical risk and
regulatory determinations.



DOD's criticisms come even though the agency drafted the plan to
address
concerns raised by the department and other agencies that EPA's
assessments were overly conservative and did not reflect their input,
federal sources say. The sources also say the criticisms could
undermine
EPA's control of the program.



In closely held DOD comments obtained by /Inside EPA/, DOD blasts the
plan, saying the proposal's three opportunities for incorporating the
views of other agencies do not ensure adequate input. The comments also
call for stricter scientific standards for revising EPA risk estimates
and claim the plan allows review by members of the public, such as
environmental groups, too early in the process. /Relevant documents are
available on InsideEPA.com./



A DOD source says officials from the departments of Transportation and
Energy and the National Aeronautics & Space Administration filed
"similar comments" earlier this month on the plan, increasing the
pressure on EPA to revamp the approach. EPA officials who lead the
program declined to comment on the other agencies' responses to the
plan, saying they are still under review.



The DOD comments/ /come in the wake of concerns Senate Democrats raised
during EPA confirmation hearings and in a recent letter to EPA
Administrator Steve Johnson that other agencies and the White House
Office of Management & Budget (OMB) may be granted too broad a role in
EPA toxic reviews under the agency's proposal.



The comments attack EPA's plan to reform a key agency database of
chemical risk values known as the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) used by state and federal regulators in setting environmental
standards and cleanup levels at contaminated sites.



EPA's plan would broaden outside parties' ability to weigh in on agency
risk reviews of toxics and allow other federal agencies up to three
chances to get involved with EPA chemical reviews. It includes a
"technical correction" step early in the process during which industry,
environmental groups, other agencies and the public would be able to
submit initial feedback on the scientific approach taken by EPA before
firm risk estimates are generated. It also incorporates internal
reviews
by EPA program offices, external peer review, and the resolution of
disputes among agencies by White House science and regulatory
officials.



But in June 29 comments, DOD rejects the plan, saying it "outlines an
unnecessarily cumbersome process with little meaningful interagency
involvement" and offers a new six-step plan that would formalize
oversight of EPA toxics reviews by other agencies.



DOD's comments say the six-step plan would "ensure interagency and peer
review in accordance with EPA and OMB Guidance" by expanding the role
other agencies play in selecting which chemicals will be updated in
IRIS
each year, ensuring a comprehensive toxicological review, and
solidifying DOD and other agency input into reviews.



DOD claims EPA needs stricter scientific criteria to ensure IRIS
updates
meet a basic threshold for scientific data and cites recent agency
reviews of the widespread toxics perchlorate and trichloroethylene as
examples of reviews that may not meet strict scientific standards.



"The lack of defensible, data-driven scientific evidence to define
fundamental questions, such as the mode of action, forces the use of
less defensible and controversial uncertainty factors and other
policy-driven calculations in IRIS updates," according to the comments.
Such factors are frequently contested by responsible parties in debates
over agency approaches to chemical risk assessments and are part of a
broader, separate review of agency risk practices and principles
currently underway.



But an EPA scientist says this recommendation strains credulity. "Are
they really saying that unless we have a complete understanding of how
a
chemical functions in the body, we can't do anything to update our
knowledge about it? If DOD has their way on this, EPA will be waiting a
long time to complete a long backlog of regulations and the department
may move to put their own standards in place in the interim." The
source
adds that, "Because DOD and other agencies are responsible parties,
this
would be like industry selecting its own cleanup standards."



Another EPA source says that if the DOD comments are adopted, "IRIS
would be a process we no longer run."



DOD also rejects an agency plan to release IRIS drafts to the public
for
a first round of review. "'Trying the case in the public' . . .
increases the potential for a politicized debate before the scientific
issues are developed and appropriately vetted," according to the
comments. Instead, DOD recommends that the public be allowed to comment
during the final step of their proposed substitute plan, "following
approvals from external peer review and the Interagency Working Group."



According to the DOD source, this would prevent preliminary draft
numbers from "creating chaos" with standard-setting processes in states
like California and Massachusetts before the science is settled. "We
don't want to have to cleanup more than is necessary because it
ultimately costs the taxpayer more money," the source says.



Finally, DOD calls for more defined roles and responsibilities in the
IRIS process in which the Department of Health & Human Services would
review EPA assessments to "ensure that public health technical findings
accurately reflect the weight-of-evidence in the literature."
Similarly,
the Occupational Safety & Health Administration would review EPA
assessments to ensure their consistency in the area of occupational
health under DOD's recommendation.



The DOD source says this is to ensure that EPA stops ignoring studies
that show no health effects while linking risk and regulatory
determinations to studies that show slight effects at very low levels.



The issue of IRIS reforms also came up during the confirmation hearing
of EPA's nominee for deputy administrator, Marcus Peacock, on July 14.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said he was "very concerned" about EPA's
new IRIS plan and Peacock said the proposed changes were to identify
and
resolve issues early in the process and to increase transparency.



In addition, in a July 6 letter to Johnson, Sens. Jim Jeffords (I-VT),
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Lautenberg say the new plan may reduce the
credibility of and slow down EPA scientific decisions on "issues
ranging
from chemical safety to Superfund cleanup levels." The letter says that
according to recent reports, the proposed changes were in "response to
pressure from the departments of Defense and Energy. If correct, this
heightens our concern that these changes would create potential
conflicts of interest and could compromise the Agency's ability to
protect the environment and public health."



EPA officials say they have been taken aback by DODs response, with one
source noting, "We need an honest process that incorporates outside
comments and ensures we don't have a thumb on the scale. But we also
need one that does not throw out the existing policy framework for risk
assessment." -- /Steve Gibb/









*Source: Inside EPA via InsideEPA.com*

*Date: July 22, 2005 *

*Issue: Vol. 26, No. 29 *

*© Inside Washington Publishers*