ProPublica is a nonprofit news company that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
This spring, Environmental Protection Agency scientists completed a report on the toxicity of a “forever chemical” called PFNA, which is found in the drinking water systems that serve about 26 million people. The evaluation found that PFNA impairs human development by causing reduced birth weight, and animal studies suggest that it is likely to cause damage to the liver and male reproductive system, including reduced testosterone levels, sperm production, and reproductive organ size.
The report also calculated the amount of PFNA that people could be exposed to without harm. This is an important measurement that can be used to clean up PFNA contamination on Superfund sites and to set limits for removing the chemical from drinking water.
But the report has been in limbo for months, raising concerns among some scientists and environmentalists that the Trump administration might change it or not release it at all.
The EPA told ProPublica that the report will be released once it is finalized, but the news agency did not answer questions about what still needs to be done or when it might be released.
But the final version of the report was “completed and ready for publication” in mid-April, according to internal documents reviewed by ProPublica. And two scientists familiar with the assessment confirmed that the report is complete and ready for publication starting in April.
“Scientifically, it’s been done,” said one of the two scientists. Both men work in the EPA’s Office of Research and Development and spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the unpublished report.
“The only thing left to do was explain the report to the upper management and submit it,” the scientist said, adding that such a delay was unusual. “In recent years, evaluations have tended to be completed within a few weeks.”
A draft assessment was published last year and faced opposition from industry groups. The final version, which maintained the calculations published in the draft report, was completed just before the EPA announced in May its intention to rescind and reconsider limits on the amounts of PFNA and several other permanent chemicals allowed in drinking water. The limit was set by President Joe Biden’s administration last year.
Daria Minovi, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the pending changes could be a motive for not publishing the PFNA assessment. “If you’re trying to roll back drinking water standards, you don’t want to release information that makes the case for why those standards are needed,” Minovi says.
“Without this assessment, federal and state agencies will be unable to use the best available science to protect public health,” the nonprofit science advocacy group called attention to the unpublished report in a social media post last month.
PFNA is so dangerous that the EPA entered into agreements with eight companies nearly 20 years ago to phase it out. The chemical was a component of firefighting foam and a processing aid for making a type of plastic used in circuit boards, valves, and pipes. PFNA has been detected in water near where the foam was used and in drinking water in 28 states, according to an analysis of EPA and state data by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.
Local governments across the country are trying to get companies that use and produce permanent chemicals like PFNA to pay for the high cost of cleanup. In 2019, New Jersey ordered the West Deptford factory owner to address chemical contamination at the site, where high levels of PFNA were detected in nearby soil and water. The state sued Solvay Specialty Polymers for failing to fully comply. As part of the legal settlement, Solvay agreed to pay more than $393 million and clean up the contamination. The company, which has since become Syensqo Specialty Polymers, told ProPublica that it pointed to other sources of PFNA contamination around the plant and settled the lawsuit without admitting liability.
Lobbying records show that Solvay attempted to influence the EPA regarding drinking water limits it set for PFNA and other similar chemicals. The company also lobbied Congress for legislation that would prevent chemical assessments conducted by the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System program from being used for regulation. IRIS, as the program is known, analyzes potentially hazardous chemicals and compiles PFNA reports. Ciansco and Solvay did not respond to questions about their lobbying efforts or whether they asked the EPA to change or suppress the IRIS report on PFNA.
Scientists in EPA’s IRIS program began work to evaluate PFNA, which stands for perfluorononanoic acid, because it appeared to be particularly dangerous. Like other compounds in its class, PFNA does not degrade in nature. Scientists had already discovered it in soil and water across the country. It has also been measured in breast milk, fetal tissue, and human blood, as well as in food, air, indoor dust, and fish. Perhaps most worryingly, research has already suggested that the chemical causes serious harm to humans and laboratory animals.
The draft report, which reflects five years of research collection and review, found that PFNA “may cause” developmental, liver and reproductive harm, as well as immune disorders, effects on the thyroid, harm to the developing brain and a range of other diseases, including type 2 diabetes. The American Chemistry Council disputed the findings of the report on low birth weight babies and liver problems, arguing that the evidence was not as strong as the report claimed. The industry group did not mention the reproductive threat posed by PFNA, which has been documented by other regulatory agencies and is part of a larger body of evidence linking “permanent chemicals” to reproductive harm in men, including testicular shrinkage and reduced sperm count and motility. Forever chemicals, also known as PFAS, have also been linked to reproductive problems in women, including endometriosis, ovarian dysfunction, tumors, and a dramatic reduction in fertility.
Questions about the fate of the PFNA report extend to the fate of the IRIS program that implemented it and the broader EPA’s handling of toxic chemicals.
IRIS was established during the President Ronald Reagan era to provide an independent and authoritative source of information about pollutants that could harm the public. Dozens of EPA scientists contribute to a typical evaluation, which takes several years to complete and undergoes extensive peer review. The level of scientific scrutiny and expertise means these documents are trusted by environmental experts around the world.
Many expected IRIS to be insulated from political pressure because it is independent from the agency’s regulatory arm. But industry has targeted the program almost from its inception, and its evaluation could lead to toxic waste cleanup and costly regulatory changes.
Project 2025, the conservative blueprint that set the tone for President Donald Trump’s second administration, called for IRIS to be eliminated. Earlier this year, Republicans in Congress introduced a bill called the “No IRIS Act.” Their proposal would prohibit EPA from using the program’s assessments for environmental rules, regulations, enforcement actions, and permits that limit the amount of pollution allowed in the air or water, and from using them to map health risks from toxic chemicals. The bill has been referred to committees in both the House and Senate, but has not yet been passed by either branch.
Since President Trump took office, the IRIS program has been scaled back. The program was housed in the Office of Research and Development, but its size was significantly reduced under the Trump administration as part of a major reorganization of the Office of Research and Development. Of the 55 scientists ProPublica identified as working on the recent IRIS evaluation, only eight remain in the office, according to people familiar with the program. The remainder were assigned to other jobs within the EPA or left the agency.
“Through the movement of objects, they dismantled IRIS,” said one scientist who worked on the program for decades and recently left the EPA. “It feels like the efforts of generations of scientists who have worked incredibly hard to produce the most rigorously scrutinized assessment in the world have been ignored with no way forward.”
Meanwhile, the IRIS program has stopped publishing progress reports that it has published regularly over the years. The latest report, published in February, noted that the PFNA’s valuation is expected to be released in the second quarter of the financial year ending in June.
“It is inaccurate to say that IRIS no longer exists,” an EPA spokesperson told ProPublica when asked about the status of the program. The news agency did not respond to subsequent questions about whether it is accurate that IRIS exists, how many people still work there, whether IRIS plans to allow continued access to its database of chemical assessments, or how it intends to use those assessments in the future. The EPA has not said how it plans to continue measuring the toxicity of chemicals.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX receives funding directly from Chinese investors, insiders testify
The EPA said in a May press release that it is committed to permanently “addressing” chemicals in drinking water. At the same time, it was lifting restrictions on some compounds in drinking water. The agency is also reconsidering a ban on solvents called TCE and PCE, which have been linked to Parkinson’s disease. The agency is offering exemptions from pollution regulations for up to two years to companies that email the agency, and is in the process of rescinding rules meant to protect the public from harmful air pollution. The agency recently announced plans to ease regulations on climate pollutants known as hydrofluorocarbons.
Under the Trump administration, the EPA, which was created to protect public health, has praised efforts to roll back regulations and defend the industry. But those concerned about the health effects of chemicals see the agency’s retreat from environmental protections as a betrayal. Lauren Allen, an environmental activist who lives in Merrimack, New Hampshire, has been waiting for a report on PFNA, one of the permanent chemicals discovered in drinking water in 2016, and is frustrated and furious over the delay.
“This is a suppression of information,” said Allen, co-founder of the National PFAS Contamination Coalition. “We have the science and we shouldn’t interfere with it.”
Mariam Elba contributed to the research.
