Scientists have completed a damning toxicological report on this chemical for good. The EPA has not issued it.

The report also calculated the amount of PFNA people could be exposed to without being harmed — an important measurement that can be used to set limits for cleanup of PFNA contamination at Superfund sites and to remove the chemical from drinking water.

However, for months the report remained in limbo, raising concerns among some scientists and environmental activists that the Trump administration might change it or not publish it at all.

The EPA told ProPublica that the report will be made public when it is completed, though the press office did not respond to questions about what still needs to be done or when that might happen.

But the final version of the report was “completed and ready for publication” in mid-April, according to an internal document reviewed by ProPublica. Two scientists familiar with the evaluation confirmed that the report had been completed and ready for publication as early as April.

“It’s done scientifically,” said one of the two scientists, who worked in the EPA’s Office of Research and Development and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the unpublished report.

“All that remains for us to do is to inform senior officials of the report and publish it,” the scientist said, adding that such a delay was unusual. “In recent years, evaluations have been completed within a few weeks.”

A draft version of the assessment was published last year and drew objections from an industry trade group. The final version, which retained the calculations published in the draft report, was completed shortly before the EPA announced its intention in May to rescind and revise limits on the amount of PFNA and several other chemicals allowed in perpetuity in drinking water. President Joe Biden’s administration set the limits last year.

Daria Minovy, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, cited this upcoming change as a possible motive for not publishing the PFNA assessment. “If you’re trying to roll back drinking water standards, you probably don’t want to release information explaining why those standards are necessary,” Minofi said.

The nonprofit science advocacy group called attention to the unpublished report in A Recent social media post The month he said: “Without this assessment, federal and state agencies are deprived of the best available science they rely on to protect public health.”

PFNA is so dangerous that the EPA entered into an agreement with eight companies to phase it out nearly two decades ago. The chemical was one of the ingredients Fire fighting foam A processing aid for making a type of plastic used in circuit boards, valves, and tubes. PFNA has been found in water near sites where the foam was used and in drinking water in 28 states, according to an EPA and state data analysis conducted by the nonprofit. Environmental Working Group.

Local governments across the country are trying to convince companies that have forever used and manufactured chemicals like PFNA to foot the bill for the expensive task of cleaning up the contamination. In 2019, the state of New Jersey ordered the owner of an industrial plant in West Deptford to remediate chemical contamination at the site, where high levels of PFNA were found in nearby soil and water. The state has sued Solvay Specialty Polymers, accusing it of not fully complying. As part of the legal settlement, Solvay It agreed to pay more than $393 million And clean up pollution. The company, which has since become Syensqo Specialty Polymers, pointed to ProPublica other sources of PFNA contamination in the plant area and noted that it settled the lawsuit without accepting liability.

Solvay tried to influence the EPA about the agency’s limit for drinking water for PFNA and other chemicals in the class, he said. Pressure records. The company has also lobbied Congress on legislation that would prevent the use of chemical assessments conducted by the agency’s Integrated Hazard Information System program in regulation. IRIS, as the program is known, analyzes the harm that chemicals can cause and compiles a PFNA report. Cinesco and Solvay did not respond to questions about lobbying and whether they had asked EPA to change or not publish the IRIS report on PFNA.

Scientists in the EPA’s IRIS program began working on the evaluation because PFNA, short for perfluoronononanoic acid, seemed particularly dangerous. Like others Vehicles in its classPFNA does not degrade in nature. Scientists have already found it in soil and water across the country. It has also been measured in food, air, indoor dust and fish, as well as in breast milk, fetal tissue and human blood. Perhaps most troubling is that studies have already indicated that the chemical has caused serious harm to people and laboratory animals.

The draft report, which reflects five years of collecting and reviewing studies, found that in addition to developmental, liver and reproductive damage, PFNA “may cause” immune problems, effects on the thyroid, damage to the developing brain, and a host of other disorders, including type 2 diabetes. The American Chemistry Council disputed the report’s findings on low birth weight and liver problems, arguing that the evidence was not as strong as the report claimed. The industry trade group has not addressed the reproductive threats posed by PFNA, which were Authenticated by last Regulatory agencies It is part of a larger body of evidence linking “forever chemicals” to male reproductive harm, such as smaller testicles and smaller reproductive systems. Decrease in sperm count and motility. Forever’s chemicals, also known as PFAS, have also been linked to reproductive problems in females, such as Endometriosis, ovarian dysfunction and tumors and Significant decreases in fertility

Questions about the fate of the PFNA report extend to the fate of the IRIS program that conducted it and to the EPA’s handling of toxic chemicals more broadly.

IRIS was created during the presidency of Ronald Reagan to provide an independent and reliable source of information about pollutants that could harm the public. Dozens of EPA scientists contribute to a model assessment, which takes years to complete and is subject to extensive peer review. The level of scientific scrutiny and expertise means that these documents are trusted by environmental experts around the world.

Many hoped that IRIS would be insulated from political pressures, because it was separate from the regulatory arms of the agency. But almost from its inception, industry has targeted the program, whose evaluations could lead to toxic waste cleanups and expensive regulatory changes.

The 2025 Project, the conservative blueprint that set the direction for President Donald Trump’s second administration, called for the removal of IRIS. Earlier this year, Republicans in Congress He introduced legislation called the “No IRIS Act.” Their proposal would prevent the EPA from using the program’s assessments in environmental rules, regulations, enforcement actions and permits that limit the amount of pollution allowed into the air and water, and from using them to map health risks from toxic chemicals. This legislation has been referred to committee in both the House and Senate but has not yet passed in either chamber.

Since Trump took office, the IRIS program has been decimated. The program was housed in the Office of Research and Development, which was significantly cut back under Trump as part of A major reorganization Agency. Of the 55 scientists identified by ProPublica as having worked on recent IRIS evaluations, only eight remain at the office, according to a source familiar with the program. The remainder were appointed to jobs elsewhere at the agency or left the EPA.

“By the movement of the bodies, they dismantled IRIS,” said one scientist who worked with the program for decades and recently left the EPA. “It is as if the efforts of a few generations of scholars who have worked extremely hard to produce the most examined assessments in the world have been set aside with no way forward.”

At the same time, IRIS stopped being released Reports you publish regularly For years about my progress. Latest, Published in FebruaryHe noted that the PFNA assessment is scheduled to be released in the second quarter of the fiscal year, which ended in June.

When asked about the status of the program, an EPA spokesperson told ProPublica that “it is inaccurate to say that IRIS no longer exists.” The press office did not respond to follow-up questions about whether it was accurate to say that IRIS He does Exists, how many people still work there, and whether the agency plans to allow continued access Chemical evaluations database How do you plan to use those assessments in the future? The EPA has not explained how it plans to continue measuring the toxicity of chemicals.

In it May press releaseThe EPA said it is “committed to addressing” the chemicals in drinking water for good. At the same time, the company was rolling back potable water limits on some vehicles. And the agency as well Reconsider the ban on solvents called TCE and PCEAnd she is Associated with Parkinson’s disease. It offers exemptions from pollution restrictions for up to two years to companies that do so Email the agency It is in the process of reversing rules designed to protect the public from toxic air pollution. The agency recently announced a plan to ease regulations on climate pollutants known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

Under Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency, created to protect public health, did just that It celebrated its efforts to reverse the regulations And the making of a hero. But people concerned about the health effects of chemicals view the agency’s rollback of environmental protections as a betrayal. Lauren Allen, an environmental advocate who lives in Merrimack, New Hampshire, where PFNA was one of several forever chemicals detected in drinking water in 2016, had been waiting for the report and was frustrated and angry about its delay.

“This is information suppression,” said Allen, who co-founded the National PFAS Pollution Coalition. “We have the science, and it should not be obstructed.”