EPA is facing big cuts to its research budget in 2018, including support for highthroughput screening methods for identifying potentially toxic chemicals.
POLICY
What a slimmer EPA might look like Trump Administration plans to nix research grants, chemical programs in fiscal 2018 BRITT ERICKSON, CHERYL HOGUE, AND JESSICA MORRISON, C&EN WASHINGTON
I
CREDIT: EPA
n a move toward fulfilling his campaign promise to “get rid of” the Environmental Protection Agency “in almost every form,” President Donald J. Trump in March proposed slashing EPA’s budget by 31% in fiscal 2018. Details of how the Trump Administration would do so have recently emerged in a leaked internal EPA memo. That document shows the Administration is planning to defund several EPA programs related to chemicals and pesticides, as well as climate change activities. At the same time, the Administration intends to increase fees from industry to help offset some of the agency’s costs of reviewing commercial chemicals and registering pesticides. The leaked document—a March 21 memo from the agency’s acting chief financial officer, David Bloom—has been widely distributed on the internet. EPA officials need to finalize the plan’s details, which must undergo White House review before the President sends his full 2018 funding request to Congress next month. Lawmakers can alter the request as they appropriate money for the new fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1. Nonetheless, the memo indicates which parts of the agency the Trump Administration wants to pare back or kill. Industry and
environmental groups are already clamoring to save their favorite EPA programs from getting the ax. Overall, the President is asking for $5.7 billion in fiscal 2018 funding for EPA. That would be $2.6 billion less than the estimated $8.3 billion the agency could get this year if Congress extends a stopgap funding law that expires on April 28. The memo anticipates elimination of more than 4,000 jobs at EPA in 2018, bringing its workforce down to 11,548 full-time employees. But the memo shows one apparent bright spot in EPA’s budget: an increase of $13.8 million to support work required under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The new chemical safety law, known as the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, was enacted last year. Funding for other programs related to chemical safety, however, would face major
cuts. For example, EPA research on computational toxicology and high-throughput in vitro toxicity testing would be scaled back. Also, the plan would eliminate EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program for assessing the risks of toxic chemicals. In an IRIS assessment, the agency provides expert scientific judgments on how much exposure to a particular chemical is safe. EPA regulators in the U.S. and abroad use these numbers to establish cleanup levels for pollution in air, water, and soil. In the U.S., IRIS values affect the affordability and degree of cleanups as well as a polluter’s financial liability. The program has historically taken years to finish each assessment and has drawn calls for improvements from industry, Congress, environmental activists, and the National Research Council. Environmental advocates are criticizing the Trump Administration’s plan for defunding IRIS, saying it would limit the agency’s ability to implement the new chemical safety law. “EPA’s ability to conduct risk evaluations under the new TSCA would be severely curtailed by the loss of both expertise and capacity that reside in the IRIS program,” Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist at the activist group Environmental Defense Fund, says in a blog post. The free-market-advocating Competitive Enterprise Institute and other conservative groups have pushed Congress to defund the IRIS program, claiming EPA’s assessments APRIL 24, 2017 | CEN.ACS.ORG | C&EN
21
EPA budget cuts by the numbers
are unscientific and poorly designed. Some IRIS critics also say the program is no longer needed with a beefed-up TSCA program. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents many chemical manufacturers, declined to comment on the Trump Administration’s plans to erad(or 84%) reduction to the Science icate the IRIS program. The group says it Advisory Board as EPA anticipates is “committed to working with the Adminfewer peer reviews istration and Congress to ensure EPA has funding to carry out essential responsibilities, including the implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.” cut in EPA’s defunding would ACC’s former senior director of regulaworkforce eliminate all climate tory affairs, Nancy Beck, has been tapped to change work and be principal deputy assistant administrator some public health of the EPA office that oversees TSCA impleand pollution Source: EPA mentation. Beck has spoken out in the past prevention programs memo about the IRIS program’s deficiencies. To help offset some of the costs of implementing the updated TSCA, the agency indicates that numerous research grants would rely on industry-paid user fees, the supported by EPA are slated for eliminamemo says. EPA is required to establish a tion, including those related to pollution user-fee system under the revised TSCA, prevention, lead poisoning prevention, wabut the agency is not subject to a statutory ter quality, air quality, energy, and sustaindeadline for making it operational. The ability. Extramural grants under the agenTrump Administration plans to expedite cy’s Science to Achieve Results program, completion of a rule instituting these fees which complements its intramural research to ensure this funding stream is running for program, would also be terminated. This fiscal 2018. isn’t the first time these grants have been EPA’s pesticide office would also retargeted for elimination. President George structure to rely more on industry fees, W. Bush proposed dropping them in 2003, the memo indicates. The agency currently but Congress ultimately funded them. collects fees from pesticide manufacturers, EPA’s Science Advisory Board, an external but the authority Congress granted EPA to group of scientists who advise the adminisdo so expires on Sept. 30. Negotiations to trator, would also see its budget slashed by reauthorize such fees through 2023 have $542,000, or 84%, compared with the 2016 already begun. funding level. The memo says the planned In fiscal year 2016, “the pesticide industry cut reflects “an anticipated lower number of paid $27.5 million in maintenance fees and peer reviews” of EPA scientific work, such as $19.1 million in registration service fees,” hazard assessments of chemicals. says Beau Greenwood, executive vice presiIn addition, many long-term, regional endent of CropLife America, vironmental cleanup proa trade group representing grams would have funding pesticide manufacturers. zeroed out, including the “Industry has agreed to pay Great Lakes Restoration an increase in maintenance Initiative and the Chesafees totaling $31 million peake Bay Program. Also, per year over the life of the the agency’s Endocrine reauthorization,” GreenDisruptor Screening Prowood says. Anything above gram, which aims to test that level that will be a hard chemicals for their ability sell, he predicts. to affect the hormone sysEPA plans to allow its tem, would be abolished, pesticides program to according to the memo. use the fees for a broader In a move reflective of range of activities, includTrump’s past remarks deing speeding up pesticide scribing climate change as safety reviews. EPA also a hoax, his Administration has about $30 million of intends to halt all EPA cliunspent fee money that it mate change activities by plans to carry over to sup—Richard Denison, lead defunding them. This acport core pesticides work. senior scientist, Environmental tion, the memo explains, In addition, the memo Defense Fund would focus the agency’s
$542,000
100% 28%
“EPA’s ability to conduct risk evaluations under the new TSCA would be severely curtailed by the loss of both expertise and capacity that reside in the IRIS program.”
22
C&EN | CEN.ACS.ORG | APRIL 24, 2017
resources on “core statutory requirements” under federal pollution control and chemical safety statutes. If Congress agrees to it, the Trump budget plan will get rid of EPA’s voluntary programs with industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These include efforts to curb methane leaks from natural gas pipelines, landfills, and coal mines, as well as work to lower releases of the highly potent greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride used to insulate electric power systems. Also on the chopping block is EPA’s Energy Star program, which identifies energy-efficient homes, buildings, and products such as light bulbs and appliances. The Administration wants to transfer this program to an organization outside the government, the memo says. The agency’s hazardous waste cleanup work is also targeted for funding reductions, according to the memo. The Trump Administration wants to cut support for EPA’s Superfund hazardous waste cleanup program by 30% compared with 2017 spending. The cuts would entail hefty reductions to hazardous waste remediation and enforcement activities, including a reduction of more than $152 million from the Office of Land & Emergency Management. Nearly $128 million of that reduction would come from federal funds that support cleanup in states and local communities. In addition, the cuts would reduce federal money for emergency response and contamination removal by $29 million and explicitly return responsibility for cleanups that aren’t time-critical to states and local communities, the agency says. The budget memo also shows that the Trump Administration plans to curtail EPA’s international activities. In part, this would involve halting the contribution the U.S. makes to an international fund to help developing countries switch from stratospheric-ozone-depleting chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons, to modern alternatives. For 2017, that contribution is expected to be about $8.9 million. The Administration also wants EPA to stop bilateral efforts to clean up pollution along the U.S.-Mexico border. And it intends to withdraw the U.S. from a twodecade-old environmental cooperation program with Canada and Mexico that was formed in conjunction with the North American Free Trade Agreement. Whether the President’s official 2018 budget proposal will include all of these details remains unclear. But given Trump’s promises to slim down EPA, most, if not all, are likely to be retained. Whether Congress will go along with the plan to prune back the agency, however, is even more uncertain. ◾
