PFAS
EPA chief seeks own PFAS strategy / Zeldin announces ‘major actions' / Details still cloudy
— By Dede Williams —
New administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Washington, DC; www.epa.gov) Lee Zeldin is searching for a strategy of his own to rein in the spread of contamination caused by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the so-called forever chemicals.
New administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Washington, DC; www.epa.gov) Lee Zeldin is searching for a strategy of his own to rein in the spread of contamination caused by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the so-called forever chemicals.
 EPA chief promises action on PFAS pollution, but details remain scarce as critics question the agency’s direction (Photo: PantherMedia/tupungato) |
Zeldin got off to an inauspicious start in his new role in the cabinet of re-elected president Donald Trump, when he charged outgoing president Joe Biden’s EPA staff of “throwing gold bars off the Titanic” and sought to “claw back” millions of dollars in funding for environmental justice projects.
With litigation on this controversial matter still pending at the end of April, the new administrator – offering no specific details – said the agency planned to tackle PFAS from “all of its programme offices”.
New lead for PFAS to be designated
As a first measure, in line with his publicity-heavy “Great American Comeback” campaign, Zeldin promised to appoint a “new lead” within the EPA who would establish “clear effluent limitation guidelines” for certain substances to stop them from entering drinking water supplies and assure that “the polluter pays”. Going forward, he said, “strengthening the science” would be his watchword.
Related: ‘Trump 2.0’ will see major changes in climate legislation
The American Chemistry Council (ACC, Washington, DC; www.americanchemistry.com) welcomed the move, with some environmentalist critics remarking that the person might come from the ACC’s own “recruiting centre”, as several employees of the organisation have been employed by the environment agency.
The EPA plans to establish testing guidelines under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to identify hazard characteristics and exposure pathways, according to the former New York congressman. The agency will focus on manufacturers of PFAS-based products and companies whose processes produce PFAS as a byproduct, accelerating the development of new testing methods to improve detection, he added.
In another pledge, Zeldin said the EPA would add PFAS to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) under the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. This may need further clarification as some of the chemicals’ properties may already be included.
Commentators were uncertain about how much of the new EPA head’s promised strategy was truly innovative versus a continuation of the agency’s existing approach. While some of the guiding principles have long been in place, they have not always been actively enforced under previous administrations.
The Biden administration was particularly eager to highlight its efforts to combat PFAS pollution, frequently publishing updates – unlike the more reserved communication style of the EU – amid ongoing intense debate in both North America and Europe.
Related: Lawsuit wants Chemours fined for discharges overshoot
During the first Trump presidency, the EPA in 2019 announced a PFAS Action Plan, encompassing what it called both short- and long-term solutions for addressing forever chemicals, but even Zeldin – who was not involved – has not provided insight into how successful that programme was, or if it even got off the ground.
Under the TSCA, the Biden EPA regularly ordered manufacturers of fluorochemicals and plastics to provide comprehensive details on their production as well as effluent discharges. Major polluters including DuPont, Chemours, Corteva, and 3M received hefty fines.
Most NGOs which have traditionally been critical of the Trump administration’s environmental policies have held back with comment on the new EPA plans, saying details have not yet been comprehensive enough.
Related: 3M settles landmark PFAS lawsuits
In a statement dripping with scepticism, the US Environmental Working Group (Washington, DC; www.ewg.org) said Zeldin’s plans suggest that that the Trump EPA “will delay efforts to reduce PFAS in our tap water, exempt polluters from reducing and reporting their PFAS releases, fail to turn off the tap of PFAS pollution fouling our air and water, and block states from protecting us from PFAS in our everyday products”.
Others were less critical. John Rumpler, clean water director and senior attorney at the Environment America Research and Policy Center (Denver, Colorado; www.environmentamerica.org/center) expressed a less pessimistic view. He noted that the EPA’s plans might involve setting “at least some limits” on how much PFAS certain industries can release into our waterways and use the TSCA to restrict the use of these chemicals – steps that some US states have already taken.
Rumpler neglected to mention that the restrictions came in the wake of Trump’s re-election, fearing that particularly stringent rules might be overturned.
In 2024, the Biden administration announced limits on six PFAS in drinking water, some of which are still stuck in litigation. The new EPA will have to wait for the outcome before taking any action – on appealing the judgment – or contemplating new regulatory measures.
Related: ‘Trump 2.0’ will see major changes in climate legislation
The American Chemistry Council (ACC, Washington, DC; www.americanchemistry.com) welcomed the move, with some environmentalist critics remarking that the person might come from the ACC’s own “recruiting centre”, as several employees of the organisation have been employed by the environment agency.
The EPA plans to establish testing guidelines under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to identify hazard characteristics and exposure pathways, according to the former New York congressman. The agency will focus on manufacturers of PFAS-based products and companies whose processes produce PFAS as a byproduct, accelerating the development of new testing methods to improve detection, he added.
In another pledge, Zeldin said the EPA would add PFAS to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) under the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. This may need further clarification as some of the chemicals’ properties may already be included.
Commentators were uncertain about how much of the new EPA head’s promised strategy was truly innovative versus a continuation of the agency’s existing approach. While some of the guiding principles have long been in place, they have not always been actively enforced under previous administrations.
The Biden administration was particularly eager to highlight its efforts to combat PFAS pollution, frequently publishing updates – unlike the more reserved communication style of the EU – amid ongoing intense debate in both North America and Europe.
Related: Lawsuit wants Chemours fined for discharges overshoot
During the first Trump presidency, the EPA in 2019 announced a PFAS Action Plan, encompassing what it called both short- and long-term solutions for addressing forever chemicals, but even Zeldin – who was not involved – has not provided insight into how successful that programme was, or if it even got off the ground.
Under the TSCA, the Biden EPA regularly ordered manufacturers of fluorochemicals and plastics to provide comprehensive details on their production as well as effluent discharges. Major polluters including DuPont, Chemours, Corteva, and 3M received hefty fines.
Most NGOs which have traditionally been critical of the Trump administration’s environmental policies have held back with comment on the new EPA plans, saying details have not yet been comprehensive enough.
Related: 3M settles landmark PFAS lawsuits
In a statement dripping with scepticism, the US Environmental Working Group (Washington, DC; www.ewg.org) said Zeldin’s plans suggest that that the Trump EPA “will delay efforts to reduce PFAS in our tap water, exempt polluters from reducing and reporting their PFAS releases, fail to turn off the tap of PFAS pollution fouling our air and water, and block states from protecting us from PFAS in our everyday products”.
Others were less critical. John Rumpler, clean water director and senior attorney at the Environment America Research and Policy Center (Denver, Colorado; www.environmentamerica.org/center) expressed a less pessimistic view. He noted that the EPA’s plans might involve setting “at least some limits” on how much PFAS certain industries can release into our waterways and use the TSCA to restrict the use of these chemicals – steps that some US states have already taken.
Rumpler neglected to mention that the restrictions came in the wake of Trump’s re-election, fearing that particularly stringent rules might be overturned.
In 2024, the Biden administration announced limits on six PFAS in drinking water, some of which are still stuck in litigation. The new EPA will have to wait for the outcome before taking any action – on appealing the judgment – or contemplating new regulatory measures.
13.05.2025 Plasteurope.com [257903-0]
Published on 13.05.2025