	Selected Federal Agencies Undertake Distinct Chemical Toxicity Assessment Activities, and Selected States Largely Rely on Federal Assessments

The federal agencies we reviewed undertake distinct chemical toxicity  assessment activities that differ in type and purpose and are driven  largely by agency needs derived from statutory requirements, while  officials in the 10 states we reviewed told us that they largely rely on  federal agencies’ chemical toxicity assessment activities. Office of Water. Selected Federal Agencies’ Chemical Toxicity Assessment Activities Are Fragmented and Overlapping but Are Not Duplicative

The chemical toxicity assessment activities at the five federal agencies  we reviewed are fragmented because they address the same broad area  of national need; they overlap because they have similar goals, and some  target similar beneficiaries. Overlap

Selected federal agencies’ chemical toxicity assessment activities overlap  because some of these activities have similar goals—such as identifying  the extent to which a chemical may cause cancer—and because some  target similar beneficiaries—such as local health authorities for use in  dealing with hazardous waste sites or the general public. However, beneficiaries for these agencies also  differ. Duplication

We did not find evidence of duplication among selected federal agencies’  chemical toxicity assessment activities because the agencies did not  engage in the same activities or provide the same services to the same  beneficiaries. For example, we did not find duplication between NIOSH  and EPA’s chemical toxicity assessment activities because NIOSH  assesses the potential risks that chemicals pose to working-aged adults  in occupational settings (e.g., exposure by dermal contact or inhalation)  over the course of working time periods (e.g., an 8- or 10-hour workday or  a 40-hour workweek). In contrast, EPA assesses risks that chemicals  pose to a broader population as opposed to workers, which includes  children and vulnerable populations in the larger nonoccupational  environment (e.g., in the air, soil, or groundwater) typically over the  course of an entire lifetime. Selected Federal Agencies and States Coordinate Their Chemical Toxicity Assessment Activities

Officials at all five of the federal agencies and 3 of the 10 states we  reviewed told us that, in the last 5 years, they have coordinated their  chemical toxicity assessment activities using a variety of coordination  mechanisms. Further, all executive departments and agencies,  whether or not they are represented on the NSTC, are to coordinate  science and technology policy through the NSTC and share information  on research and development budget requests. An official from OSTP similarly stated that NSTC could  serve an interagency coordinating function to address certain cross- cutting challenges, and it has already done so by coordinating chemical  toxicity assessment activities and providing opportunities for agency  officials to meet in person. By having an interagency body to address the  challenges the five selected agencies identified (i.e., constraints on  sharing CBI, limited opportunities for agency officials to meet, and  informal communication processes) and any future cross-cutting  challenges, the five agencies would be positioned to better coordinate  their assessment activities in the most effective and efficient manner. Conclusions

With thousands of chemicals in commercial use in the United States,  decision makers rely on information derived from toxicity assessment to  examine the risks these substances may pose. Recommendation for Executive Action

To improve coordination of federal and state chemical toxicity  assessment activities, we recommend that the Director of OSTP  encourage the NSTC to support relevant federal agency officials’ efforts  to address, as appropriate, the agencies’ cross-cutting coordination  challenges, such as constraints on sharing confidential business  information, limited opportunities for agency officials to meet, and informal  communication processes. They did not provide official written comments to  include in our report. Instead, they provided technical comments, which  we incorporated as appropriate. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To describe the chemical toxicity assessment activities selected federal  and state agencies undertake, we examined the chemical toxicity  assessment activities of five federal agencies: (1) the Agency for Toxic  Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), (2) the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), (3) the National Institute for Occupational  Safety and Health (NIOSH), (4) the National Toxicology Program (NTP),  and (5) the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which  follow the National Academies’ four-step risk assessment process. We selected a nonprobability sample of 12 state  agencies in 10 states that provide a range of chemical toxicity  assessment activities. To assess the extent to which, if at all, selected federal agencies’  chemical toxicity assessment activities are fragmented, overlapping, or  duplicative, we reviewed the summaries of federal agency assessment  activities and federal agency documentation that sets forth the scope and  purpose of their assessment activities, and we compared them with one  another and with our definitions of fragmentation, overlap, and  duplication. EPA. NIOSH. OSHA.
Why GAO Did This Study

With thousands of chemicals in commercial use in the United States, decision makers rely on toxicity assessment information to examine the risks these substances may pose. Several key federal agencies—including ATSDR, EPA, NIOSH, NTP, and OSHA—as well as state agencies, assess the toxicity of chemicals.
GAO was asked to review chemical toxicity assessment activities. This report (1) describes the chemical toxicity assessment activities selected federal and state agencies undertake; (2) assesses the extent to which these federal agencies' chemical toxicity assessment activities are fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative; and (3) assesses the extent to which these federal and state agencies coordinate their chemical toxicity assessment activities and challenges in doing so. GAO selected five key federal agencies that assess chemicals, and a nonprobability sample of agencies in 10 states that provide a range of assessment activities. GAO reviewed federal agency documentation and compiled summaries of chemical toxicity assessment activities and compared them with one another. GAO interviewed officials from these agencies, representatives from industry, and other stakeholders.

What GAO Found

The federal agencies GAO reviewed—the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)—undertake distinct chemical toxicity assessment activities that differ in type and purpose and are driven in part by statutory requirements; the 10 states GAO reviewed largely rely on federal agencies' assessment activities. For example, ATSDR's toxicity assessment activities include evaluating hazards at contaminated sites and NIOSH's activities include identifying potential health risks to workers. Agency officials from all 10 of the selected states told GAO that they have used assessment information produced by these federal agencies in the last 5 years. Officials from 6 of the 10 states told GAO they rely on federal assessments, and the remaining 4 said that they may produce their own assessments in some cases—for example, when a chemical is of interest to the state but is not a national priority.
The chemical toxicity assessment activities at these five federal agencies are fragmented and overlapping, but GAO did not find evidence that these activities are duplicative. Their activities are fragmented because they address the same broad area of national need—providing information on the toxicity of chemicals. The five agencies' activities overlap because some of them have similar goals—such as identifying the extent to which a chemical may cause cancer—or some target similar beneficiaries—such as the general public. GAO did not find evidence of duplication, however, because the agencies did not engage in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. For example, although both NIOSH and EPA develop chemical toxicity assessment information, NIOSH assesses the potential risks that chemicals pose to working-aged adults in occupational settings, such as over the course of a 40-hour workweek, and EPA assesses risks that chemicals pose to a broader population, including children, typically over the course of an entire lifetime.
Officials from all five federal agencies and 3 of the 10 states told GAO that they have coordinated their chemical toxicity assessment activities and also identified challenges. For example, some agency officials identified constraints on sharing confidential business information because of legal restrictions on dissemination of such information across agencies. The Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) coordinates science and technology policies across the federal government. All executive department and agencies, whether or not they are represented on the NTSC, are to coordinate science and technology policy through it. Given that NSTC has previously facilitated federal coordination on cross-cutting topics, such as nanotechnology and pharmaceuticals in the environment, and given its purpose, an official from OSTP stated that NSTC could serve an interagency coordinating function to address certain cross-cutting challenges. By having an interagency body to address these, and any future cross-cutting challenges, the five selected federal agencies would be positioned to better coordinate their assessment activities in the most effective and efficient manner.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Director of OSTP encourage the NSTC to support relevant federal agency officials' efforts to address, as appropriate, the agencies' cross-cutting coordination challenges. OSTP did not provide official written comments, but instead provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.