Industry all but declared victory yesterday after two measures addressing how regulators assess the health risks posed by chemicals were included in the $1 trillion spending package that Congress passed over the weekend.

Environmental groups and public health advocates pushed back slightly, arguing that some of the language could have been a lot worse. They conceded, however, that the measures represented definite setbacks for their efforts to reign in harmful substances.

At issue are two provisions buried in the 1,200-page bill, one that addresses U.S. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and another that targets the Department of Health and Human Service's annual "Report on Carcinogens," which included controversial substances formaldehyde and styrene this year.

Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said the reforms to the IRIS program are needed.

"EPA's current approach to assessing chemicals under the IRIS program is untenable and in need of a comprehensive overhaul," Dooley said in a statement.

The IRIS program is charged with assessing the toxicological risk posed by chemicals in the environment and Congress. Its assessments are the foundation of EPA and other agencies' regulations.

IRIS's methodologies have come under fire, most notably in a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review in April of the program's formaldehyde assessment. The NAS review agreed with some of EPA's conclusions about formaldehyde causing some cancers but said the report was not prepared "in a logically consistent fashion" (Greenwire, April 8).

The omnibus requires IRIS to implement the recommendations in the NAS formaldehyde review. It also requires EPA to issue a progress report on those recommendations by March, and it stipulates that EPA submit "up to three" IRIS assessments to NAS for review in the next year (Greenwire, Dec. 16).

"The changes called for by NAS and now required by Congress will not only improve the quality of science used by EPA but will also provide for much needed transparency and objectivity in the program," Dooley said.

But public health advocates and green groups said the requirements were not nearly as stringent as they had feared they would be. "It could have been a lot worse," said Jason Rano of the Environmental Working Group.

Further, Democrats last week touted the IRIS language as a compromise, implying that Republicans had proposed to go further to handcuff the program, which already has a lengthy backlog holding up EPA action on a number of regulations.

"It's disappointing that any attempt to slow down IRIS assessments was included," Rano said. "But when you look at it, some of the provisions were already under way."

Rano was referring to EPA beginning to implement the recommendations from the NAS formaldehyde review. He added that the Government Accountability Office is already scheduled to issue a progress report on that process before EPA's March deadline.

"We're confident that IRIS will grow stronger and it will continue to be successful," Rano said.

Styrene, formaldehyde to be re-examined

The omnibus also provided $1 million for Health and Human Services to pay NAS for a scientific peer review of its cancer determinations for styrene and formaldehyde in its "Report on Carcinogens" this year.

The long-delayed report found that exposure to high levels of formaldehyde, which is frequently used in adhesives and home construction materials, is "known to be a human carcinogen." It similarly found that styrene, a common component of rubbers and plastics such as food containers, is "reasonably anticipated" to cause cancer in humans (E&ENews PM, June 10).

Industry has strongly pushed back against the report. A styrene trade group is suing the Health and Human Service's National Toxicology Program (NTP), which publishes the "Report on Carcinogens," to remove the substance (Greenwire, Aug. 4). It has also lobbied Congress on the issue since NTP issued its analysis.

Jack Snyder of the Styrene Information and Research Center, a trade group, said the language in the omnibus is a step in the right direction.

"The industry has long desired an NAS review of styrene because NAS is known for its thorough, sound and impartial evaluations," Snyder said in a statement. "A review by NAS, considered the ultimate federal authority on science, will aid in clarifying any concerns related to the safety of styrene."

Public health advocates said they did not expect the omnibus to target the "Report on Carcinogens."

"There was absolutely no reason, based on science or process, for Congress to require the NAS to review the 'Report on Carcinogens' listing of formaldehyde and styrene," said Daniel Rosenberg of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Rosenberg added that, in and of itself, requiring a NAS review is not the worst possible scenario. He added, though, that it is part of a larger campaign by industry.

"It's certainly another step for the chemical industry in their ongoing campaign to undermine the credibility and integrity of independent government scientists whose job it is to determine the health effects of chemicals," Rosenberg said.

There were two bipartisan Senate letters sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in November asking for a review of the "Report on Carcinogens." Those letters may have provided the catalyst for the omnibus language, Rosenberg said.

"Seems like there is always someone in Congress that is willing to interfere with government science on behalf of the chemical industry," Rosenberg said.