Walz Oversaw PFAS Crackdown. What Does This Mean for Harris Administration?

Last year, Minnesota passed a complete ban on the use of toxic “forever chemicals,” considered among the most aggressive in the world.

Now, the man who signed the PFAS ban and is overseeing its implementation could end up in the White House. That fuels hopes among some public health advocates that Tim Walz’s presence on the Democratic ticket could influence PFAS policy nationwide.

“Minnesota’s law is really the most protective in the country, maybe the world, right now,” said Gretchen Salter, a strategic adviser at the environmental group Safer States. “Knowing that someone in the White House who has been so close to the people fighting these issues really gives us hope.”

Walz — whom Vice President Kamala Harris chose this week as her running mate — is well aware of the health risks and environmental impacts of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, according to people who have worked with him on the matter.

The man-made chemicals have been used in products like firefighting foam, dental floss and cookware and have been linked to a variety of human health problems, including cancer. Minnesota-based 3M is often credited with being the first to produce PFAS for commercial use.

But Walz, who is serving his second term as governor, is governor of a state where chemical manufacturers like 3M are large employers and have political clout.

Before signing the sweeping PFAS law, the governor’s office was “pretty confident” in responding to concerns from chemical makers, said Kevin Fay, who heads the Sustainable PFAS Action Network, a lobbying group that advocates for big industry players like Honeywell and Intel.

Fay said this “reasonable measure approach” will continue as the Walz administration works out key details that shape how broad the new law’s scope will be.

“We are optimistic that if he is successful in this race, there will be a voice of reason in the administration on this issue,” Fay said of Walz’s addition to the presidential ticket.

If Harris and Walz win in November, how much of an impact PFAS policy could have is an open question. Some legal experts are unsure whether a Minnesota-style national PFAS ban would even be feasible without congressional legislation, which seems unlikely in the current political environment.

But given that the federal government has not yet banned any use of PFAS or any specific compound in that family of chemicals, Walz’s experience in Minnesota could lead to new approaches and drive efforts to restrict and regulate, advocates say.

“I’m glad there’s a candidate who understands what PFAS compounds are, realizes how dangerous they are and is concerned about PFAS contamination, because I’m not sure any of the other candidates understand that or care,” said Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Minnesotans’ ‘Personal Responsibility’

In the 1940s, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company — now known as 3M — began producing the first types of PFAS in the Twin Cities region and selling the novel substances to other companies.

PFAS are prized for their resistance to water, heat, and oil, and for not being readily broken down, hence the nickname “forever chemicals.” They now come in thousands of varieties.

3M pioneered the production of PFOA and PFOS, two compounds linked to cancer that are now widespread in the environment and in some communities’ water supplies. This year, the EPA set strict national drinking water limits for PFOA, PFOS and four related substances.

3M spokeswoman Carolyn LaViolette said in a statement that the company announced plans to discontinue production of PFAS substances “and take steps to eliminate the use of PFAS substances across its entire product portfolio” by the end of 2025.

Given Minnesota’s role in the history of PFAS, state lawmakers and advocates wanted to take the lead in curbing their use, said Avonna Starck, director of Clean Water Action Minnesota.

“We all feel a personal responsibility for PFAS starting in Minnesota, so we will see the end of this,” Starck said.

When lawmakers began drafting the PFAS in consumer products bill last year, the state was already grappling with a contamination crisis. In 2018, the state reached an $850 million settlement with 3M over claims that the company contaminated drinking water in Twin Cities communities.

Amara Strande, who developed a rare form of cancer after drinking water contaminated with PFAS, raised concerns among lawmakers in early 2023 by becoming a patron saint of the legislation. She died in April 2023 at age 20, a month before Walz signed Amara’s Law.

Under the law, PFAS use in 11 product categories — including cosmetics, cookware and cleaning products — will be banned by early 2025. Manufacturers will have to report all products with intentionally added PFAS by 2026. Finally, PFAS must be completely phased out of most products by 2032, unless they are considered “essential” uses, such as in medical devices.

While several other states have also taken steps to ban PFAS in certain cases, Minnesota has “set the bar” for regulating the substance in consumer goods, said Tom Lee, a partner at the law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner in San Francisco. Lee works with companies that make products containing PFAS.

“Rational approach”

Walz’s office has always supported the bill to restrict PFAS use, said Jennifer DeJournett, a Republican strategist at Ballot Box Strategies in Minnesota. That support was notable given that chemical industry lobbyists, including some in Washington, have tried to “scuttle” the process, she added.

“I don’t agree with the governor on all of his issues, but when you go up against a very well-known company to pass a very important piece of legislation, and you have an industry that clearly wasn’t happy with it … the odds were against us,” DeJournett said.

But several industry-backed provisions made it into the final text anyway, raising concerns among some advocates who sent the agency comments about “loopholes” that could weaken the law.

The agency responsible for implementing the regulations, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, is currently working on regulations that will set guidelines for how to enforce the bans, which are set to go into effect on January 1, 2025.

The draft regulation, expected to be adopted this year, will answer key questions about the interpretation of “currently unavoidable uses” and which products, if any, are exempt from the law for this reason.

Dozens of manufacturers and trade associations indicated in public comments filed earlier this year that they intended to file for exemptions.

The draft regulations are also expected to clarify which substances the MPCA will “prioritize” and which ones “are most likely to pollute or harm the state’s environment and natural resources.”

The definition of PFAS in Minnesota law could apply to more than 23,000 substances, according to a recent EPA estimate, most of which have never been evaluated for health and environmental toxicity. The EPA-Tox database, for context, includes toxicological information on just 29 substances.

The change to the bill that would allow regulators to “prioritize” certain substances based on risk was made in part at the urging of the governor’s office, said Fay of the industry group Sustainable PFAS Action Network.

“It was also clear that he (Walz) was delegating the discussion through his staff to the (MPCA) commissioner,” Fay said. “The governor’s office was quite effective in finding what I call a rational approach.”

Carly Griffith, water program director at the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said the bill makes clear that the 11 product categories covered by next year’s ban “cannot be reduced.”

“There is a risk that pressure from industry to broadly define ‘currently unavoidable uses’ will make the ban on all non-essential uses of PFAS in consumer products, which comes into effect in 2032, not as stringent as it should be,” Griffith said in an email.

Walz’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rollback or more regulation?

Walz’s addition to the Democratic ticket comes as the Biden-Harris administration faces pressure over PFAS policy in the final hours of Joe Biden’s presidency.

Environmental groups want the EPA to quickly complete unfinished regulations. Pending actions include a proposal to limit the amount of waste from PFAS plastics plants and other facilities that may discharge into rivers and streams.

Meanwhile, some members of Congress have criticized the EPA for allegedly going too far, including with a new drinking water standard for PFAS. The rule is the subject of litigation from drinking water trade groups that say it would be prohibitively expensive to implement. Chemical manufacturers have also sued to stop it.

EPA spokesman Remmington Belford said the agency is committed to advancing its PFAS action plan, especially as “the agency continues to learn more about the PFAS family of chemicals.”

“The EPA will continue to use all available tools under the (Toxic Substances Control Act) to protect people and the environment from PFAS,” Belford said.

Bennett of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said that once the Democratic and Republican candidates are slated, the contrast in PFAS policies is stark.

“I think Walz is very aware of the dangers of PFAS coming out of Minnesota. That gives me hope that if Harris and Walz win, there will be someone who is willing to listen and consider more aggressive action,” said Bennett, a former EPA official. “If it’s a Trump-Vance victory, judging by what Project 2025 looks like, it’s going to be worse than the first time with Trump.”

The Trump-Vance campaign did not respond to a request for comment and has not released plans for how to deal with PFAS if former President Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) win. The Harris-Walz campaign also did not respond to an inquiry.

Trump and Vance have tried to distance themselves from Project 2025. The conservative policy playbook published by the Heritage Foundation calls for thousands of EPA job cuts and the elimination of the enforcement office, among other deregulatory plans. The EPA section was written by Mandy Gunasekara, Trump’s nominee for EPA chief of staff in his first term.

Lee, the San Francisco lawyer, said the presidential election result would have a “profound impact” on the country’s PFAS policy. But that would be true regardless of who Harris chose as her vice presidential candidate, he said.

“I and some industry groups are wondering which ticket will win and what that means at a macro level for federal regulation of PFAS going forward,” Lee said. “Will what EPA has done so far be reversed or will EPA continue to push forward?”