Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
As more details emerge about the Trump Administration’s proposed budget cuts, it’s becoming clearer that the public’s health could well take one of the worst hits. Trump has proposed a 31% cut to the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), paired with similarly deep reductions in staff. The details are laid out in a March 21, 2017, internal memo from EPA’s Acting Chief Financial Officer.
Among the biggest cuts are to the Agency’s research, both research it conducts and that undertaken by labs and universities it helps fund. EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) would see its funding cut nearly in half, from $483 million to $250 million in 2018. The axe would fall across the full spectrum of EPA’s research: air, climate, and energy; human health risk assessment; safe and sustainable water; sustainable communities; homeland security; and chemical safety. EPA’s extramural STAR grant program would be entirely eliminated.
Scroll through Attachment A of the memo and you’ll see program after program proposed to be eliminated or slashed. But there is a notable exception, on p. 9 of the Attachment: an apparent increase for an item labeled “OCSPP / EPM / Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction,” accompanied by this explanation: “This program change increases $13,834K in non-pay resources in support of the new work required under the updated TSCA law.”
On one level, this seems like a bright spot in an otherwise dismal document, though it appears that the increase is in anticipation of the fees that the new TSCA authorizes EPA to collect from industry to help offset up to 25% of program costs. Still, unlike most of the rest of the Agency, the program’s base budget is proposed to remain essentially intact.
No doubt this reflects the strong bipartisan support that led to last year’s passage of the Lautenberg Act and the continuing need for the chemical industry to be able to point to a viable federal chemical safety program in order to restore public and market confidence and seek to temper state and market action to restrict dangerous chemicals. (I’ve recently blogged, however, about the mixed signals being sent by the industry; see here and here.)
While this may seem like good news, the notion that EPA could somehow neatly carve out one program area and keep it functioning well when the carving knives are rampantly slashing everything around it is, well, preposterous. Read More