{"id":11312,"date":"2022-11-10T16:23:38","date_gmt":"2022-11-10T21:23:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=11312"},"modified":"2022-11-11T14:42:01","modified_gmt":"2022-11-11T19:42:01","slug":"the-case-of-the-missing-pfas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2022\/11\/10\/the-case-of-the-missing-pfas\/","title":{"rendered":"The Case of the Missing PFAS"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>By <a href=\"https:\/\/www.edf.org\/people\/lauren-ellis\"><em>Lauren Ellis<\/em><\/a><em>, MPH, Research Analyst, Environmental Health and<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.edf.org\/people\/samantha-liskow\"><em> Samantha Liskow<\/em><\/a><em>, Lead Counsel, Health<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/11\/Detective.jpeg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-11314 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/11\/Detective-300x200.jpeg\" alt=\"\" width=\"479\" height=\"319\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/11\/Detective-300x200.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/11\/Detective-768x511.jpeg 768w, https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/11\/Detective.jpeg 1000w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 479px) 100vw, 479px\" \/><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>NOTE:<\/strong> <em>In a recent blog post,<\/em> <em>EDF <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2022\/06\/13\/companies-are-not-withdrawing-pfas-exemptions-on-their-own-epa-should\/\"><em>called for EPA to revoke PFAS<\/em><\/a><em> approved through the agency\u2019s \u201c<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca\/low-volume-exemption-new-chemical\"><em>low volume exemption<\/em><\/a><em>\u201d (an LVE is an exemption from a full safety review for new chemicals produced in quantities less than ~10 tons) and to instead require <strong>all<\/strong> PFAS to undergo a full safety review under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Last month, EDF and other groups, represented by <\/em><em>Earthjustice, <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/earthjustice.org\/news\/press\/2022\/half-of-forever-chemicals-in-commerce-approved-through-epa-loopholes\"><em>formally petitioned<\/em><\/a><em> EPA to do just that.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>What Happened:<\/strong> We recently discovered that EPA is withholding the names of over 100 PFAS chemicals approved as LVEs\u2014claiming that releasing that information would reveal &#8220;confidential business information\u201d (CBI).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why It Matters:<\/strong> PFAS causes harm to both the environment and to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/pfas\/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas\">human health<\/a>\u2014including reproductive, developmental, and cancer-related effects. Given growing concerns about the risks of PFAS, the public has the right to know if they are being exposed to PFAS, especially those approved through exemptions to EPA\u2019s new chemical safety review process.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Our Take:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>EPA should reveal the identities of the missing PFAS LVEs. If doing so would reveal CBI, EPA should work with PFAS manufacturers to craft a name that clearly communicates PFAS class membership.<\/li>\n<li>EPA should require full safety review for all PFAS, including those previously approved through exemptions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>GO DEEPER\u2026<\/strong><!--more--><\/p>\n<p><strong><u>A Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma\u2026<\/u><\/strong><br \/>\nIn our research on PFAS LVEs, we found a troubling discrepancy\u2014<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca\/pfas-low-volume-exemption\">EPA\u2019s website<\/a> says there are \u201cover 600 granted PFAS LVEs\u201d\u2014but its <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/system\/files\/documents\/2021-07\/list-of-eligible-pfas-lvesxlsx.xlsx\">public list<\/a> includes only 488.<\/p>\n<p>When we asked for a list of the missing chemicals, EPA declined to provide it, claiming that doing so would reveal \u201cconfidential business information\u201d (CBI).<\/p>\n<p>The agency explained that the missing chemicals do not contain the term \u201cfluor\u201d in their \u201cgeneric\u201d names (names companies design to withhold specific features of their chemical\u2019s structure), and therefore EPA would be divulging CBI if it identified these chemicals on a list of PFAS LVEs.<\/p>\n<p>But public disclosure that a chemical belongs to the very large <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/officialdocuments\/publicdisplaydocumentpdf\/?cote=ENV\/CBC\/MONO(2021)25&amp;docLanguage=En#:~:text=The%20rationale%20behind%20the%20revision,noted%20exceptions%2C%20any%20chemical%20with\">PFAS chemical class<\/a> is far from disclosure of the specific chemical structure.<\/p>\n<p>CBI is meant to protect companies\u2019 legitimate trade secrets, not enable them to conceal that their products belong to the PFAS chemical class. The hundreds of generic names on EPA\u2019s public list of PFAS LVEs is evidence that companies can (and do) create descriptive generic names for their PFAS.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>What\u2019s in a Name?<\/u><\/strong><br \/>\nPFAS are carbon-based chemicals that contain fluorine. As such, the term \u201cfluor\u201d is included in the <em>specific<\/em> names of all PFAS.<\/p>\n<p>However, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), companies seeking EPA approval of their new chemicals may withhold the <em>specific<\/em> names of those chemicals if they can demonstrate that\u2014among other considerations\u2014disclosure of the names would cause \u201csubstantial harm to the [company\u2019s] competitive position.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>If companies do claim that the specific name of their chemical is confidential, and withhold it, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/15\/2613\">TSCA<\/a> requires them to provide EPA with a &#8220;structurally descriptive generic name\u201d for public disclosure.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s important for companies to include the term \u201cfluor\u201d in the generic names of their PFAS because this is the only way others can identify it as a potential PFAS. This is necessary for both the public to be able to identify generically named PFAS and for chemical importers and users to understand their supply chains and comply with regulations.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>The Plot Thickens\u2026<\/u><\/strong><br \/>\nUnfortunately, companies do not always include \u201cfluor\u201d in the generic names they give their PFAS.<\/p>\n<p>Trump-era EPA general <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/2018-06\/documents\/san6814_guidance_for_creating_tsca_generic_names_2018-06-13_final.pdf\">guidance for creating generic names<\/a> specifies that companies can use the broader term &#8220;halo,\u201d rather than &#8220;fluor,&#8221; to mask the fact that the specific halogen (\u201chalo\u201d) in their chemical is, in fact, fluorine (\u201cfluor\u201d). When companies do use the term \u201chalo\u201d instead of \u201cfluor\u201d to generically name their PFAS, they prevent detection of the chemical as a PFAS\u2014leaving the public and other stakeholders in the dark.<\/p>\n<p>There is another problem too. The term \u201chalo\u201d is not a sufficient substitute for \u201cfluor\u201d when crafting \u201cstructurally descriptive\u201d generic names of PFAS, as required under TSCA. That is because PFAS have physical and chemical properties (particularly, those that lead to extreme persistence in the environment) that are distinct from most other organic compounds that contain halogens and contribute to PFAS risk.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Don\u2019t You Want to Know a Secret?<\/u><\/strong><br \/>\nFrom EPA\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/pfas\/pfas-strategic-roadmap-epas-commitments-action-2021-2024\">PFAS Strategic Roadmap<\/a> to the National Academy of Sciences\u2019 recent <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nationalacademies.org\/our-work\/guidance-on-pfas-testing-and-health-outcomes\">report on PFAS clinical guidance<\/a>, federal guidance clearly lays out the risks from PFAS exposure and encourages PFAS exposure reduction.<\/p>\n<p>And the public has heard that message. The growing evidence that PFAS causes harm to both the environment and to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/pfas\/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas\">human health<\/a>\u2014including reproductive, developmental, and cancer-related effects\u2014has made consumers understandably eager to avoid exposure.<\/p>\n<p>But when EPA hides behind subtly misleading generic names, citizens are denied the right to protect themselves. One example: How are doctors and patients supposed to successfully prevent and\/or treat PFAS-related health conditions if they can\u2019t be sure a chemical is a PFAS?<\/p>\n<p>Public interest\u2014and TSCA\u2014demand that companies provide meaningful generic names for all chemicals, including PFAS, and <em>particularly<\/em> those exempted from a thorough safety review.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>EPA Has All the Clues: It\u2019s Time to Solve the Mystery<\/u><\/strong><br \/>\nIn line with its <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/newsreleases\/epa-administrator-regan-announces-comprehensive-national-strategy-confront-pfas\">commitment <\/a>to deal with the urgent public health challenge posed by PFAS, EPA should reverse its decision to withhold the identities of the more than 100 PFAS LVEs missing from its public list. If such disclosure would reveal CBI, EPA should work with PFAS manufacturers to craft a meaningful generic name that communicates PFAS class membership.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to making the missing PFAS LVEs public, EPA should require that a \u201cstructurally descriptive generic name\u201d for this class of chemicals include \u201cfluor,\u201d and preferably also the more accurate \u201cpoly\u201d or \u201cper\u201d fluor. This level of specification is both necessary and important, given PFAS&#8217; distinct properties.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, EPA should revoke its exemptions from full safety review for existing PFAS, and also\u2014as we <a href=\"https:\/\/earthjustice.org\/sites\/default\/files\/files\/pfas_pmn_exemptions_petition_04-27-2021.pdf\">petitioned <\/a>EPA last year\u2014stop approving exemptions for new PFAS moving forward.<\/p>\n<p><em>Updated November 11, 2022.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Lauren Ellis, MPH, Research Analyst, Environmental Health and Samantha Liskow, Lead Counsel, Health NOTE: In a recent blog post, EDF called for EPA to revoke PFAS approved through the agency\u2019s \u201clow volume exemption\u201d (an LVE is an exemption from a full safety review for new chemicals produced in quantities less than ~10 tons) and &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":148072,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[56093,39263,56096,114108],"tags":[68,106773],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-11312","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-industry-influence","category-public-health","category-omboira","category-tsca","tag-epa","tag-pfas"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11312","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/148072"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11312"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11312\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11312"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=11312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}