Senate Democrats and public health advocates yesterday applauded President Obama for proposing a significant funding boost for U.S. EPA's chemical screening and safety programs in his fiscal 2013 budget.

While Obama's budget would trim EPA's overall funding by $105 million from enacted 2012 levels, it would allot $68 million to reduce chemicals' risks and increase the pace of chemical hazard assessments -- an $11 million increase.

The money would also go to providing the public greater access to toxic chemical information, EPA said.

"[This] critically needed funding," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday, would "significantly accelerate progress in assessing and ensuring the safety of chemicals already in use."

While Obama's entire budget faces little chance of passing Congress, the proposal is significant because it shows where the administration's priorities lie. This particular increase suggests he may view chemical screening -- and public health -- as a political winner going into his re-election campaign.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who has worked on banning the controversial plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA) from children's food containers, underscored the need for Congress to take more action on chemicals.

"President Obama's decision to increase funding for expedited reviews of chemicals and pesticides is a victory for public health," Feinstein said in an email to E&E Daily. "I have long been concerned about the toxicity of chemicals in food, water, and consumer products, and I intend to fight to ensure that Congress approves this important request."

More broadly, EPA noted in its justification of appropriations estimates that Obama requested more money to fund the agency's "ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution" suite of programs. Obama proposed $699 million for the group, which the agency said would "allow EPA to sustain its success in managing the potential risks of new chemicals entering commerce and to significantly accelerate progress in assessing and ensuring the safety of existing chemicals."

That figure represents a $36.4 million increase from levels Congress enacted for 2012.

EPA said it plans to use the money to move from an approach "dominated" by voluntary chemical data submissions from industry to a "proactive" approach toward chemical safety.

Specifically, the strategy would focus on using "all available authorities" under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), preventing unsafe chemicals from going on the market, developing safer chemical alternatives and "using regulatory mechanisms" to fill gaps in chemical safety data.

Those tenets were welcomed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and author of the "Safe Chemicals Act" (S. 847). Lautenberg's bill would overhaul TSCA by requiring chemical manufacturers to prove their substances are safe before they go on the market.

Lautenberg said the president's budget is encouraging but suggested there are deeper structural problems with TSCA that his bill would address.

"The Obama administration's commitment to preventing dangerous new chemicals from reaching the marketplace is encouraging," Lautenberg told E&E Daily, "but if we're really going to tackle the problems that toxic chemicals present to our children and families, we must pass the Safe Chemicals Act."

Like Lautenberg, public health advocates said Obama's proposal recognizes the need for more work on chemicals.

"The arrow is certainly pointing in the right direction, to an increase in funding for this vital work at EPA," said Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund. "While the increase is very modest in relation both to EPA's overall funding and to the needs in this area, it would permit at least an incremental uptick in EPA's efforts to do more to protect Americans and their environment from toxic chemicals."

Daniel Rosenberg of the Natural Resources Defense Council, however, said that while the EPA proposal is nice window dressing, the White House has not entirely backed up the agency when it comes to regulating chemicals. He noted that several EPA proposals, such as adding BPA to a chemicals of concern list, have been stuck at the Office of Management and Budget.

"The problem of course is that the budget increase is not a solution to the larger political problem, which is chemical industry capture of the White House, which has led to virtually every effort made by EPA under this program to be blocked, weakened, or unreasonably delayed," Rosenberg said. "We're sure that EPA can do a lot of valuable things with extra funding to both protect and inform the public, the question is whether, after the budget itself is out of the headlines, the White House will actually allow EPA to do any of those things."

The American Chemistry Council, a major trade association, also welcomed the proposal but added that it should come with an increased push for stricter, more scientifically sound chemical assessments.

"We're encouraged that the EPA's budget request recognizes the continued success of the new chemicals program under TSCA," the group said. "As the agency looks for increased funding, we urge the EPA to adopt a clear and scientifically sound prioritization process to avoid wasting time, energy and resources when identifying chemicals for further evaluation."

Some cuts

Not all of EPA's chemical programs would see a boost under Obama's budget.

While there would be a $4 million increase for the research and design of safer chemicals, EPA would eliminate its $2 million chemical risk management fibers program, which largely deals with "legacy" substances like asbestos. EPA said the federal program could be shuttered because state programs have sufficiently filled that need.

The proposal would also cut about $1 million from EPA's endocrine disruptor program, which screen chemicals for possible health risks to the human hormonal system. The cut, EPA said, is justified by progress made in new, cheaper testing technologies.

Environmental nonprofits, however, maintained the overall proposal proved EPA is trying to move forward on chemical issues.

"Since day one the EPA under Administrator Jackson has been committed to using its limited authority to improve protections to human health from toxic chemicals, while also calling for wholesale reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act," said the Environmental Working Group's Jason Rano. "Hopefully, this request won't fall victim to the budget politics."

Click here to read EPA's justification of appropriations estimates.