President Donald Trump withdrew plans for the Environmental Protection Agency to set new effluent limits on PFAS. The Biden administration plans aimed to set discharge limits on six types of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
PFAS are often called “forever chemicals” because they break down very slowly in the environment and in the body.
There are thousands of different types of PFAS and they have been widely used in industry and consumer products due to their water resistant and durability properties. Some uses of PFAS have been phased out, but they can still be found in products such as electronics, non-stick cookware, food packaging, cosmetics, and clothing.
The Trump administration pulled the proposal from White House review. The White House review is the last step before the agency releases the plan and receives public comment.
Trump also placed a freeze on Jan. 20 on establishing any new federal regulations until they have been approved by a department or agency head that was appointed or designated by the president. This includes PFAS-related communications. Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Dorothy Fink wrote in a memo that some exceptions can be made for anything affecting “critical health, safety, environmental, financial or nation security functions.”
Daniel Brown, an emerging contaminants specialist at the Huron River Watershed Council, told Michigan Public that PFAS are ubiquitous and harmful to the human body.
“There really isn’t a system within the human body that isn’t affected by PFAS,” Brown said. “So they’re toxic in many ways, but they’re also very long-lived. They’re designed not to break down in the environment or not to break down to heat and chemical stress.”
Studies have shown that PFAS exposure can lead to health issues such as reproductive and developmental problems in children, and increased risk of certain cancers.
Michigan regulations
Michigan already has PFAS regulations in place for drinking water supplies.
The Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act sets maximum contaminant levels and sampling requirements for seven different PFAS compounds in public water supplies.
Michigan also established the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team in 2017. The team is made up of seven state agencies and provides grants to municipalities to reduce PFAS in wastewater treatment plants.
The response team also provides recommendations to the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy every year. In fiscal year 2024, the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team identified 296 sites throughout the state in which PFAS contamination was found in groundwater above Michigan's criteria and the source of the contamination was known.
Cheryl Vosburg, the executive director of the Michigan Water Environment Association, said states often need guidance from federal authorities on such a pervasive issue.
“PFAS is a national problem,” Vosburg said. “It’s a problem for every American everywhere and it is a subject with which we need federal guidance and leadership.”
Vosburg also said the Trump administration’s decision to halt the plan might encourage manufacturers to proceed without consideration for human health impacts from PFAS.
“It's going to give a dangerous message to the polluters out there that they can continue to manufacture and discharge PFAS without a fear of consequence,” Vosburg said. “So I think it’s really in the public’s best interest for these federal standards to be enacted.”
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy declined an interview on how Trump’s decision to withdraw the regulations could impact Michigan. In a statement, the agency said, “EGLE is watching the activity at a federal level and will review any changes and their potential effects.”
Legal action against state regulation
The state regulations on drinking water limits have been challenged in court. The Minneapolis-based chemical manufacturer 3M sued the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy and alleged that Michigan’s process to develop drinking water standards was “rushed and invalid.”
In November 2022, a Michigan state court ruled that the PFAS regulations could not be enforced by the agency because the state did not adequately consider the cost implications of the drinking water standards for groundwater cleanup.
State agencies are required to prepare a regulatory impact statement when creating new regulations that estimates how much compliance with proposed rules will cost businesses. The department found it could not make an estimate of all of those compliance costs, and the judge found that was an unacceptable answer. The ruling was appealed.
In August 2023, a state appeals court ruling concluded in a split decision that Michigan failed to follow proper procedures to regulate the chemicals in 2020, upholding the previous ruling.
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy is currently appealing the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals allowed the new PFAS standards to remain in effect until the department exhausts its rights to appeal.
The Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments in November 2024 but has not yet reached a decision on whether the PFAS drinking water regulations in Michigan can remain in place.
Financial costs of regulation
Some Michigan water quality groups are concerned about the price tag attached to not adding stricter regulations to PFAS discharge.
Brown said there are costs associated with higher levels of PFAS in water, particularly for taxpayers in Michigan.
“Now, particularly municipalities and state governments and all the rest of us are going to be paying to clean up or address PFAS pollution on the other end,” Brown said. “It shifts the responsibility away from the people that are actually causing the problem. It shifts that responsibility onto the rest of us.”
Brown said costs associated with filtering drinking water supplies and remediation for new development in contaminated areas will fall onto everyday Michiganders.
When the EPA PFAS rules were first released by the Biden administration, utility groups said the rules would cost tens of billions of dollars. They also said the burden would be hardest for small communities that have fewer resources.
Brown said the withdrawal of the EPA rules is a setback for water quality groups in Michigan, but there is still more that can be done.
“The next four years are going to be pretty rough on environmental protections, but there's still a lot we can do in Michigan,” Brown told Michigan Public. “We can put bans on PFAS in consumer products or we can limit their use in industrial processes. We can also pass polluter pay legislation, which just simply puts some of the responsibility back on the entities that are using PFAS and creating these polluted sites.”
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story reported that President Donald Trump had stopped plans to set new limits on PFAS in drinking water sources. That was incorrect. The president has stopped plans to place discharge limits on PFAS into water sources.
