{"id":11610,"date":"2023-04-20T10:50:20","date_gmt":"2023-04-20T15:50:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=11610"},"modified":"2025-12-03T13:59:44","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T18:59:44","slug":"pfas-epas-proposed-notification-requirements-are-a-positive-step-but-exemptions-will-cause-harm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2023\/04\/20\/pfas-epas-proposed-notification-requirements-are-a-positive-step-but-exemptions-will-cause-harm\/","title":{"rendered":"PFAS: EPA\u2019s proposed notification requirements are a positive step, but exemptions will cause harm"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.edf.org\/people\/maria-doa\">Maria Doa<\/a>, PhD, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy<\/em><\/p>\n<h3><strong>The Good News<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Using its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.federalregister.gov\/documents\/2023\/01\/26\/2023-01156\/per--and-poly-fluoroalkyl-chemical-substances-designated-as-inactive-on-the-tsca-inventory\">EPA proposed a rule<\/a> that would require companies to notify the agency before they produce or import a PFAS \u201cforever chemical\u201d that has not been used commercially since 2006.<\/p>\n<p>These notifications are crucial because resuming production or import of these toxic chemicals would expose people to harm. The notification gives EPA an opportunity to evaluate these PFAS to determine if exposure during their lifecycle\u2014production or import, distribution in commerce, industrial, commercial and\/or consumer use, and disposal\u2014is likely to pose an \u201cunreasonable risk\u201d to people or the environment.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>The Not-So-Good News<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>EPA is proposing to exempt some parts of the PFAS lifecycle from the notification requirement if the PFAS are:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Part of certain types of products EPA designates as \u201carticles\u201d\u2014such as carpets.<\/li>\n<li>Impurities.<\/li>\n<li>Byproducts used as fuels or disposed of as waste, including in a landfill or for enriching soil.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>EPA also asked if it should go a step further by broadening the exemption and completely exempting the PFAS if they are byproducts with no commercial purpose on their own.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Why It Matters<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Exempting <em>any <\/em>part of the PFAS lifecycle from EPA\u2019s evaluation will result in PFAS exposure\u2014no ifs, ands or buts. This is a big problem because small amounts of these chemicals can cause harm, and many PFAS remain in our bodies for months\u2014or even years.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Our Take<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>In our <a href=\"https:\/\/www.regulations.gov\/comment\/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0867-0016\">comments on the proposed rule,<\/a> Environmental Defense Fund said that because of the well-documented harms caused by PFAS, EPA should not allow exemptions.<\/p>\n<p>The impurities and articles exemptions could have a significant impact. PFAS impurities can end up in both commercial and consumer goods (like cleaning products), leading to exposure when people use them, or unintentionally release them into the environment. PFAS can also leach out of articles through handling or weathering\u2014exposing us and our environment.<\/p>\n<p>The byproduct exemptions could have an even more significant impact. The broader exemption for PFAS produced \u201cas a byproduct with no commercial purpose\u201d is basically the same exemption that allowed the notorious <a href=\"https:\/\/www.starnewsonline.com\/story\/news\/2021\/08\/16\/genx-water-crisis-recap-key-moments-recent-stories\/8130977002\/\">Gen-X<\/a> to be produced and released for years without any controls\u2014contaminating the Cape Fear River and impacting the health and welfare of its residents. EPA should not allow this to happen with other PFAS.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, EPA should not allow a narrower byproduct exemption either, as it would still exempt PFAS applied to soil for \u201cenrichment\u201d or burned as fuel. \u201cEnriching\u201d soil with PFAS-contaminated waste can pollute the land (including farmland), affecting the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/nation\/2022\/04\/11\/pfas-forever-chemicals-maine-farm\/\">livelihood of farmers<\/a>, the animals that graze on the land, and the food we eat. Burning it as a fuel is also likely to release PFAS into the air because the chemicals are so difficult to destroy.<\/p>\n<p>These exemptions also are at odds with other EPA actions to address PFAS contamination, such as its recent strong and scientifically robust <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/sdwa\/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas\">proposed drinking water standards<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>What\u2019s Next?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>EPA should not allow any exemptions for these PFAS. EPA should ensure that it has the opportunity to review these PFAS and identify any unreasonable risks before they reenter the marketplace. Only by addressing PFAS early in the lifecycle can we limit the contamination and health harms they cause.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Maria Doa, PhD, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy The Good News Using its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA proposed a rule that would require companies to notify the agency before they produce or import a PFAS \u201cforever chemical\u201d that has not been used commercially since 2006. These notifications are crucial because resuming production &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":151199,"featured_media":11611,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[114050,114049,39263,114033],"tags":[],"coauthors":[114042],"class_list":["post-11610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-frontline-communities","category-health-hazards","category-public-health","category-tsca-2"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11610","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\/151199"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11610"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11610\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13377,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11610\/revisions\/13377"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11611"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11610"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=11610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}