The No IRIS Act of 2025 would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from relying on assessments produced by its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program as a basis for federal rulemaking, regulations, enforcement actions, or permitting decisions. It would also prohibit EPA from using IRIS assessments to inform air toxics assessments and other mapping or screening tools.
In practical terms, the bill would remove IRIS-generated hazard and risk assessments from a category of EPA science that can be used as a “tier 1” data source in agency decision-making. That would affect how EPA develops and finalizes rules, evaluates pollutants, and supports environmental screening and mapping products, potentially limiting the scientific inputs available to the agency in public health and environmental regulation.
Impact
The bill would amend the EPA’s use of internal scientific assessments by prohibiting reliance on IRIS outputs in rulemakings, enforcement, permitting, and related analytical tools. If enacted, it would constrain EPA’s regulatory and administrative authority by narrowing the evidence base the agency may use, while leaving the IRIS program itself in place. The main affected parties would be EPA, regulated industries, state and local permitting programs that rely on federal guidance, and communities that use EPA screening tools to assess air toxics exposure.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and its early committee referral status, the measure appears to be framed as a deregulatory and oversight-focused proposal rather than a broadly bipartisan compromise. The available context shows no recorded votes or committee debate, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the sponsor’s intent to limit EPA reliance on IRIS assessments. The bill’s title and structure suggest support from those skeptical of EPA’s use of internal risk assessments, while likely drawing opposition from those who view IRIS as an important scientific foundation for public health protections.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether EPA should be allowed to use IRIS assessments as a foundational scientific source in regulatory and enforcement actions. Supporters are likely to argue that IRIS can be overly influential, insufficiently transparent, or too detached from statutory rulemaking standards, while opponents are likely to argue that excluding IRIS would weaken science-based environmental protections and impair EPA’s ability to address toxic exposures. Another likely dispute is the bill’s effect on air toxics screening and mapping tools, which could reduce the agency’s ability to identify and communicate environmental risks to affected communities.