U.S. EPA is moving slowly but steadily on updates to its program for assessing the health effects of chemicals, according to a recently submitted progress report to Congress that drew significant criticisms from skeptical Republicans.

At issue is EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a program that provides the building blocks for regulations such as drinking water standards and cleanup goals.

After a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel sharply criticized the methodologies in IRIS's formaldehyde assessment last April, Congress mandated that EPA submit a progress report by March on the steps it has taken to implement the NAS panel's recommendations in its $1 trillion omnibus spending bill (Greenwire, Dec. 16, 2011).

The report, obtained by E&E Daily, says that the agency is using a phased approach to the recommendations. The agency has steadfastly said it agrees with the NAS recommendations and is committed to implementing all of them.

EPA has completed phase one, which "has focused on editing and streamlining documents and using more tables, figures and appendices," according to the document.

IRIS is now in phase two and "will soon publicly release" two draft assessments that feature the improvements. The documents now have a new structure, including an executive summary that presents major conclusions and "distinct sections" on hazard identification and dose-response analysis.

The second phase, according to the report, also addresses all of the short-term recommendations from the NAS panel, such as evaluating studies in a more uniform way and developing a clearer criteria for how the program selects studies included in assessments.

In a statement, EPA said the document will be available to the public 45 days after it was submitted to Congress on April 20, in the beginning of June.

But the report does not appear to have satisfied IRIS's critics on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), the chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, criticized EPA for failing to meet the March 1 deadline for the documents.

He also called the report an "initial draft" that only describes "mostly cosmetic" improvements to IRIS.

"While that is helpful, the report does not identify when EPA will implement the more substantive 'Phase 3' recommendations regarding weight-of-evidence guidelines for cancer and non-cancer effects," Broun, a physician, said in a statement to E&E Daily.

Broun also criticized EPA for not discussing what IRIS will do with substances already in the assessment process and didn't set a deadline for when the NAS recommendations would be fully implemented.

"The devil's in the details," Broun said, "and this report needs more detail."

Industry largely echoed Broun's criticisms, particularly that the agency didn't provide a weight-of-evidence framework. That is necessary, the American Chemistry Council said, to "ensure that all available data can be taken into account and that the greatest weight is given to the best and most relevant scientific evidence."

"Adopting a weight of evidence framework that addresses both cancer and non-cancer effects is critical to strengthening the scientific foundation of the program and must be placed at the forefront of the Agency's agenda to improve IRIS," the council added.

Democrats, however, stood up for EPA and the IRIS program.

Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), a member of Broun's subcommittee, blamed IRIS's problems on industry for delaying evaluations that are critical for assessing the causes of cancer clusters and birth defects throughout the country.

"The IRIS assessments became overly long and disorganized because EPA was trying to anticipate industry criticisms," Miller said. "If EPA simplifies the assessments, as [NAS] recommends, industry will complain that the assessments are incomplete. It's always going to be something. EPA needs to do their job, and we all need to understand that industry will attack IRIS no matter what."

And Jennifer Sass, a scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the report shows EPA is moving in a good direction.

"I think they laid out a process here and a way to do it that people should be happy with," she said. "I think it's consistent with the formaldehyde report."

Click here for EPA's report.