This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Requires the EPA to reorganize how certain chemical hazard and dose-response assessments are done and managed: responsibility for ongoing chronic-exposure assessments (previously in IRIS) is shifted to the relevant EPA program offices when those offices determine a need, assessments must follow new scientific standards and weight-of-evidence principles, and the Office of Research and Development must keep and update a centralized chemical assessment database. The bill also creates an internal steering committee to coordinate assessments and avoid duplication, sets criteria for accepting third-party assessments, and requires ORD to certify every two years that completed assessments met the new standards (first certification due two years after enactment).
The bill aims to improve transparency, scientific input, and coordination for chemical risk assessments to speed and strengthen decision-making, but it raises risks of politicization, higher costs/workload, and procedural or confidentiality hurdles that could delay or weaken protections.
State and federal regulatory programs (EPA program offices and state/local governments) can complete chemical risk assessments with less duplication and faster coordination, speeding regulatory decision-making that affects public protections.
Patients, hospitals, and public health officials gain clearer, more transparent risk information because toxicity values must include ranges/uncertainty and ORD must maintain a public, certified chemical assessment database.
State and local governments (and EPA) can rely on high-quality third-party scientific assessments, bringing more evidence into reviews and reducing duplicate work.
Patients and state governments face greater risk of politicized or inconsistent scientific evaluations because moving IRIS-like assessments into program offices could let program priorities or politics influence results.
Federal employees and taxpayers will likely face higher workload and administrative costs because program offices must produce and defend multiple toxicity point estimates and ranges, which could delay other regulatory work.
State and local governments (and regulated parties) may see regulatory actions slowed or blocked because strict procedural standards and certification requirements create new avenues for legal challenges or delay.
Introduced January 3, 2025 by Andrew S. Biggs · Last progress January 3, 2025