The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently made changes to its program for studying the toxic effects of industrial chemicals — the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Under the revised process, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is given unprecedented control over the content and conduct of these studies.

Today, OMB Watch released a factsheet "OMB Interferes in IRIS Assessments of Toxic Chemicals," which details the problems with the revised process. The factsheet answers the following questions:

• What is IRIS?
• How does OMB interfere in IRIS assessments?
• How does the new IRIS assessment process make matters worse?
• Why is the IRIS assessment process important?

Also today, the House Science Committee's subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight held a hearing on the changes to the IRIS process. Committee members and witnesses focused their discussion on the transparency, or lack thereof, in OMB's review of IRIS assessments and on the slow pace of completion of IRIS assessments. (EPA has completed only four assessments in the past two years.)

The committee heard from John Stephenson, the Director of Natural Resources and Environment for the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Stephenson's testimony was based on a recent GAO report critical of OMB's involvement in the IRIS assessment process.

Stephenson's primary complaint about the IRIS process is that any comments from OMB or other federal agencies will not be disclosed to the public. Stephenson also warned additional steps included in the revised process could further slow EPA's efforts to complete assessments.

Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), chair of the panel, released a document that reveals the opinions of EPA staff scientists on OMB's role in the IRIS assessment process. In responding to GAO's report, staff involved in the IRIS program said OMB's comments are often "troubling to address" and the OMB review process "has added tremendously to the time it takes to release" draft and final assessments.

Yet another report showing the Crandall Canyon mine collapse could have been prevented was released today. The House Education and Labor Committee, led by Rep. George Miller (D-CA), released the report after months of investigation. The disaster at the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah killed six miners and three rescue workers in August 2007.

The report, like two other reports released in March, finds that both the mine's operator and the Mine Safety and Health Administration are to blame.

In March 2007, four months before the disaster, a different collapse, or bump, occurred at a nearby part of Crandall Canyon mine. According to the report, officials managing mine operations and officials at Murray Energy, the mine's owner, new of the March incident but failed to report it to federal regulators — a direct violation of federal rules. The report states, "It is quite possible that, had MSHA known the full severity of the March bump," MSHA would not have allowed the mine to continue operations.

But MSHA still bears responsibility. MSHA was informally made aware of the March bump, but claims the mine's operators "downplayed" its significance. Regardless, MSHA foolishly approved (under intense pressure from the mine's operators) a plan for the company to conduct retreat mining at Crandall Canyon. Retreat mining is a dangerous technique in which miners remove support pillars in order to intentionally collapse areas of the mine no longer in use.

Because the mine's officials ignored federal law, Miller has referred them to the Justice Department for further investigation:

Last month, I sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, recommending that it investigate whether the mine's general manager, Laine W. Adair, individually or in conspiracy with others, willfully concealed or covered a material fact or made materially false representations in a matter under the jurisdiction of the executive branch, specifically MSHA…

Visit the committee's website to download the report and learn more.

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on administrative law held a hearing to investigate how the Bush administration has used rulemaking practices to advance the Unitary Executive Theory .

President Bush and his minions use the Unitary Executive Theory to claim the president has complete control over the conduct of the executive branch, and that he is accountable to no one in exerting said control. Bush's penchant for issuing signing statements and his refusal to accept congressional input in his conduct of the war in Iraq are two examples of this theory.

Federal agency rulemakings also provide an opportunity for Bush to apply the Unitary Executive Theory. Time and time again, the Bush White House has foisted upon agencies decisions that ignore the plain language of federal statutes (for example, EPA's recent revision to the national air quality standard for ozone). After such decisions are made, the White House routinely invokes executive privilege in order to escape the oversight powers of Congress and extend itself beyond the grasp of public accountability.

What's really galling is that, instead of being frank about opposing public protections on their face, the Bush White House frequently attempts to alter the substantive considerations that inform regulatory decisions. In other words, officials inside White House offices, such as OMB, meddle with science in an attempt to legitimize their political opinions.

Rick Melberth, OMB Watch's director of regulatory policy, testified at the hearing, and summed up the problem:

The application of the unitary theory as it is practiced in this administration and framed in executive branch directives gives the president, and a cadre of employees that represent the president, control over the substantive decision making of agencies. As a result, politics is injected and elevated into decisions where science and rational judgment should prevail. Political appointees have greater control over the substance of regulations; politics supersedes scientific and technical information that is critical to protecting our environment and health and safety at home and in the workplace. ...

When the president has the ability to override this statutory delegation of authority, the balance of power between Congress and the Presidency is altered. There is the perception, if not the reality, that special interests are favored heavily over the needs of the public. This process does not lead to better rules and public protections. When the president makes a substantive regulatory decision based on political considerations, scientifically-based protective standards are vitiated.

As OMB Watch recently reported, a recent U.S. government study on the potentially dangerous effects of bisphenol-A and a proposal by the Canadian government to ban the substance in baby bottles have prompted major manufacturers and retailers to phase out the production and sale of products containing the chemical. Bisphenol-A is a substance commonly found in hard plastics, including water bottles and baby bottles, and resins, including those that line food cans.

But voluntary action by businesses, however responsible and well-intentioned, is no replacement for federal regulations intended to ensure the public is fully protected. So, to whom does the responsibility of regulating bisphenol-A fall?

Since the chemical is contained in the lining of food cans, the Food and Drug Administration could take action. Unfortunately, FDA has said bisphenol-A does not pose a "safety concern at the current exposure level." (A congressional investigation uncovered that FDA had relied on two industry-funded studies in making its determination not to regulate.)

Since the chemical can leach from plastics into the water supply, the Environmental Protection Agency may have a responsibility, but mum's the word at EPA since news broke of bisphenol-A's potentially harmful effects.

Since bisphenol-A is contained in a host of consumer products made of hard, polycarbonate plastic, the Consumer Product Safety Commission may also be obligated to regulate such products. Last week, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote to CPSC commissioner Nancy Nord on that very subject:

There has been less focus on the possible presence of [bisphenol-A] in infant and children products, which would come under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Were products such as teething rings, pacifiers, and children's flatware to contain [bisphenol-A], they could pose risks of cancer and neurological disorders to infants and young children.

The letter then asks Nord if the commission has done anything in regard to the chemical.

Even though at least three prominent federal agencies could take action, it doesn't seem like any of them intend to regulate, or even study, bisphenol-A. We deserve a government that will work to inform us of the hazards we face so we can maintain at least a modicum of control over the everyday things in our lives; and a government that will work to protect us when we cannot adequately protect ourselves.