The proposed budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks to make a 54% cut from the 2025 budget, while providing regulatory relief. Myron Ebell, who led EPA’s transition team during the first Trump administration, recently was quoted as saying, in the president’s second term, EPA “is clearly going to be a much smaller agency and with many fewer employees.” Mr. Ebell went on to say that the way to get less regulation is to have fewer regulators (Inside EPA).
The first five months of President Trump’s administration have been as expected, with some exceptions, including upholding the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).
Critical of PFAS MCLs
As we discussed in a previous blog, on May 14, 2025, the EPA announced that it will keep the current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for PFOA and PFOS. The MCLs for both PFOA and PFOS are 4 parts per trillion (ppt). The EPA extended the compliance date by two years from 2029 to 2031, but did not propose to change the 4 ppt MCL.
There are some critics of this decision, including Susan Goldhaber, a toxicologist at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). She commented, “EPA missed the mark by not removing the regulations for PFOA and PFOS. EPA did not explain their reasons for retaining the regulations; perhaps it was because the PFAS Action Plan began under the first Trump Administration, or EPA was wary of public pushback, but scientifically, this was a clear miss.”
Fifteen PFAS Misconceptions
Ms. Goldhaber cites a recent article as part of her criticism. “An outstanding new article in Critical Reviews in Toxicology presents a comprehensive discussion of the EPA’s misconceptions about the health hazards of PFOA and PFOS in their drinking water regulation. This article examined the scientific literature and stakeholder comments, identifying fifteen misconceptions that had a weak scientific foundation and formed the basis for drinking water regulations.”
Among the misconceptions cited from the study are
- Current human or animal studies provide adequate evidence that PFOA/PFOS harms the immune system, the developing fetus, the cardiovascular system, and the liver.
- PFOA/PFOS causes cancer.
- The regulation will prevent thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of illnesses.
- The regulation will significantly reduce PFAS blood concentrations in the US population in the coming years.
See the ACSH article, “EPA Missed Big, Beautiful Opportunity to Fix ‘Forever’ Chemicals.”
For more information about PFAS, see our PFAS Resource Page.
Among the recent environmental regulatory developments was a report that the EPA plans to reconsider the Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance – Facility Response Plans (photo purchased from Shutterstock).
Clean Water Act – Facility Response Plan
One of the more expansive and expensive regulations passed under the Biden Administration was the Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance – Facility Response Plans. It was estimated that the new rule would affect more than 5,000 facilities. With the environmental justice discretion component in the new regulation, it could affect even more.
According to a June 3, 2025, article by the American Public Power Association, it looks like, at a minimum, the rule will be revised. “The Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to reconsider its 2024 final rule requiring a facility response plan for worst case discharges of Clean Water Act hazardous substances for onshore non-transportation-related facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging a CWA hazardous substance into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or exclusive economic zone.”
As we shared in our blog last year, the final rule resulted from a 2019 lawsuit by Natural Resources Defense Council et. al. that was settled on March 13, 2020. This settlement required “non-transportation-related substantial-harm facilities to plan, prevent, mitigate, and respond to worst-case spills of hazardous substances.” The settlement required the EPA to issue a proposed rule within two years.
Look for an announcement regarding the fate of this regulation soon.
Methylene Chloride
During the first Trump Administration, a rule, to the surprise of many, to ban the use of methylene chloride in consumer products and commercial paints, was not challenged. However, another rule affecting methylene chloride, a Biden-era risk management rule, is facing modification.
On May 27, 2025, a Federal Register Proposed Rule was issued: “Methylene Chloride; Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Compliance Date Extensions.”
In the EPA notice, it states that the EPA is proposing to extend the compliance date applicable to certain entities subject to the regulation of methylene chloride recently promulgated under the TSCA. “Specifically, EPA is proposing to extend by 18 months the Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP) and the associated recordkeeping compliance dates for laboratories that are not owned or operated by agencies or Federal contractors acting on behalf of the Federal government. Under this proposal, all laboratories, whether federal or not, would have the same compliance dates, which would be aligned with current compliance dates for Federal agencies and Federal contractors.”
In a blog by Bergeson & Campbell, they state, “If issued in final, the rule would extend the following compliance dates for non-federal laboratories: for initial monitoring from May 5, 2025, to November 9, 2026; for establishing regulated areas and ensuring compliance with the Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) from August 1, 2025, to February 8, 2027; and for ensuring the methods of compliance as well as developing and implementing an exposure control plan from October 30, 2025, to May 10, 2027.”
Additional environmental regulatory changes are expected in the coming months. We will continue to monitor these changes and report them here or on our environmental compliance tips page.
Environmental Advice
Dragun Corporation has assisted the regulated community with environmental compliance, assessment/remediation, and litigation support since 1988. If you need assistance with a PFAS-related issue, including litigation support, contact Jeffrey Bolin, M.S., CHMM, at 248-932-0228, Ext. 125.
Alan Hahn drafted this blog. Alan has an undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies and completed a graduate program in Environmental Management. He has worked in environmental management for more than 45 years. He has written hundreds of blogs and articles. His published work includes Michigan Lawyers Weekly, Detroiter, Michigan Forward, GreenStone Partners, Manure Manager Magazine, Progressive Dairy, and HazMat Magazine.
Jeffrey Bolin, M.S., reviewed this blog. Jeff is a partner and senior scientist at Dragun Corporation. He is a published author, a frequent speaker, and an expert witness. His expertise in environmental due diligence, PFAS, vapor intrusion, and site assessments has led to projects in the US, Canada, and overseas. See Jeff’s Bio.
Follow Dragun Corporation on LinkedIn, X, or Facebook.
Sign up for our monthly environmental newsletter.
Principled Foundation | Thoughtful Advice | Smart Solutions
Established in 1988