WASHINGTON – Just 44 facilities reported discharges of the toxic “forever chemicals’ known as PFAS, despite the existence of almost 30,000 potential dischargers, according to new reporting from the Environmental Protection Agency. These reported discharges appear in updated results released on Wednesday by the EPA from its industrial toxics release reporting program.
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020 required industrial dischargers for the first time to report annual releases of 172 PFAS to EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI, which tracks annual industrial releases of certain toxic chemicals.
A reporting loophole for very minor concentrations of PFAS written into the final rule by the Trump EPA is probably responsible for the discrepancy between reported discharges and likely dischargers. A very minor, or de minimis, concentration is defined as less than 1 percent of a total chemical mixture.
The Environmental Working Group recently found Dow and 3M among the companies likely hiding their PFAS releases from the public.
Yesterday the EPA announced plans to close the loophole.
“EPA will soon propose a rulemaking that would, among other changes, remove the eligibility of the TRI de minimis exemption for PFAS. If finalized, this proposal would also make unavailable the de minimis exemption with regard to providing supplier notifications to downstream facilities for PFAS and certain other TRI-listed chemicals,” the EPA said in statement.
But until then, companies can exploit the de minimis reporting loophole because of the way the Trump EPA codified the new PFAS reporting requirements. This leaves communities in the dark that may be affected by industrial discharges.
“The TRI is the nation’s preeminent right-to-know law,” said John Reeder, EWG vice president for federal affairs. “Full disclosure of PFAS releases is critically important to communities facing this toxic pollution.”
Most TRI chemicals are required to report discharges between 10,000 and 25,000. That means a facility must report if it releases more than that into the environment in a year.
Separately the EPA lists TRI chemicals of special concern, which all have much lower reporting thresholds, ranging from 0.1 grams to 100 pounds.
Even though Congress gave PFAS a low reporting threshold, only 100 pounds, the Trump EPA listed them with the chemicals that have the higher default reporting thresholds of 10,000 pounds or more. The exemption for very minor concentrations is available only for releases of chemicals with the higher reporting thresholds, not the chemicals of special concern. Facilities using chemicals of special concern with lower thresholds must report all releases above the reporting threshold, regardless of concentration.
The exemption allows manufacturers to avoid TRI reporting by diluting or formulating their mixtures or trade name products so the concentration of any single PFAS remains below 1 percent. Facilities can therefore avoid reporting, even if they manufacture, use or release one or a combination of PFAS in quantities significantly above the 100 pound threshold, so long as each reportable forever chemical makes up less than 1 percent of the total mixture.
After the EPA reviewed PFAS data submitted by manufacturers, it contacted facilities that had reported using PFAS but had not submitted TRI reporting forms for those same chemicals. The agency found that all the facilities claimed their concentrations were below the exemption level.
“Because PFAS are used at low concentrations in many products, the elimination of the de minimis exemption would result in a more complete picture of the releases and other waste management quantities for these chemicals,” the EPA said.
This would certainly help paint a more accurate picture of where PFAS contamination is – a necessary starting point to the cleanup process.
“Communities near these dischargers should have known all along what was in their air, land and water. They’ve waited long enough. It’s crucial to understand what chemicals are being released into the environment so the long process of cleaning up the pollution – and holding these polluting dischargers accountable – can begin,” said Reeder.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
