North Carolina families could face longer exposure to contaminated drinking water and power plant pollution as President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) weakens or delays federal safeguards, according to a new report.
The report, “North Carolina Left Exposed,” was released Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Network, an organization of former EPA officials. It warns that federal changes could shift more responsibility for preventing pollution and paying for its consequences to state agencies and families.
The report brings together existing research and policy changes involving PFAS – or forever chemicals, coal ash, animal agriculture and pesticides. It does not provide a new statewide measurement of pollution increases or a total estimate of additional household costs.
Who pays for PFAS cleanup?
Betsy Southerland, a former director of EPA’s Office of Science and Technology who retired in 2017, said the central issue is whether contamination is controlled before it reaches drinking water systems.
“The idea would be the polluters would pay to treat and clean up this pollution, not the downstream drinking water customers,” Southerland said.
PFAS are a large group of manufactured chemicals often called “forever chemicals.” North Carolina’s contamination concerns include GenX and other chemicals associated with the Chemours Fayetteville Works facility.
EPA has proposed allowing eligible drinking water systems to request two additional years, until 2031, to meet limits for PFAS. The proposal would keep both limits at 4 parts per trillion. The extension would not be automatic, and monitoring and reporting deadlines would remain in place.
The agency also appointed two Chemours employees, Shawn Gannon and Sean Uhl, to its Science Advisory Board in April, saying the board would provide “independent scientific advice.”
A separate proposal would remove federal drinking water requirements for GenX, PFNA, PFHxS and a combined-exposure measure involving those chemicals and PFBS.
EPA says some utilities need additional time to arrange financing, construct treatment systems and hire workers. The agency also says technological improvements could lower treatment costs. Critics warn that additional time could prolong exposure in communities where treatment is needed.
The agency says the proposed rescission addresses a flawed legal process used to adopt the requirements, rather than a finding that those chemicals are harmless. They say it would evaluate them for future regulation and has not predetermined the outcome.
Zeldin: Congress should do something
In a March interview with WRAL, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said it was unfair for water customers to pay for contamination they did not create.
“You’re essentially paying to clean up PFAS contamination from your own water supply. That’s not right,” Zeldin said.
He called for Congress to address “passive receivers,” such as utilities that receive PFAS rather than manufacture it, to protect them from cleanup liability.
That liability question is distinct from the authority to prevent industrial pollution. EPA says congressional action is needed because enforcement discretion cannot protect passive receivers from third-party cleanup lawsuits.
The Clean Water Act already provides a framework for regulating industrial wastewater discharges through permits and national standards.
Southerland said EPA and states should use those existing authorities more aggressively to keep PFAS out of drinking water sources. She said national PFAS discharge limits for chemical manufacturers, landfills and metal finishers have been delayed.
EPA has previously said source control is central to its PFAS strategy. In May, the agency said it was developing industrial discharge and pretreatment requirements and announced nearly $1 billion in drinking water grants for PFAS and other emerging contaminants.
For families, the expenses can include bottled water, home filtration and replacement filters. A later utility compliance deadline does not necessarily mean higher water bills: It could postpone treatment spending, while residents who purchase their own protection continue paying those costs or pay the health costs of longer exposure.
Air pollution protections also changing
Stan Meiburg, who spent 39 years at EPA and served as its acting deputy administrator, said federal support includes scientific expertise, grants, national standards and enforcement that strengthens state regulators’ ability to act.
“If EPA walks away as it’s doing now, it weakens the hand of the state of North Carolina in holding polluters to account,” said Meiburg, who works with the Environmental Protection Network.
He also raised concerns about efforts to keep coal plants operating longer.
“These have been going away for years, and this administration has tried to keep them online longer than they otherwise would have been, and every day they stay online adds additional pollution burden,” Meiburg said.
In February, EPA finalized the repeal of 2024 amendments to its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The action removed tighter requirements for particulate emissions from coal plants, mercury emissions from lignite-fired plants and continuous particulate emissions monitoring.
The repeal does not eliminate all federal air toxics limits. EPA says the original 2012 standards remain and adequately protect public health. The agency says removing the newer requirements reduces compliance costs and supports reliable electricity.
Meiburg said potential health consequences also carry costs, particularly for children and older adults. He did not provide a specific estimate of additional medical expenses for North Carolina residents.
North Carolina faces limits on acting alone
North Carolina cannot automatically replace every federal safeguard with a stronger state rule.
State law generally bars environmental regulators from adopting rules more restrictive than federal requirements when a federal law or rule covers the same subject. Exceptions include court orders, express legislative requirements and serious, unforeseen threats to public health, safety or welfare.
Meiburg said those restrictions limit North Carolina’s ability to respond independently as federal protections change.
PFAS source-control proposals have also faced repeated delays at the Environmental Management Commission, which sets state environmental rules. After delaying DEQ’s proposed numeric surface water limits, the commission advanced a monitoring and minimization approach that does not set numeric discharge limits.
A 2023 law shifted two commission appointments from the governor to the agriculture commissioner, giving Republican appointing officials control of eight of the 15 seats. WRAL previously reported on the commission’s delays and changed makeup.
Those state constraints do not eliminate all authority to control pollution, and existing court orders remain important. Meiburg pointed to North Carolina’s coal ash cleanup settlement: A court-approved consent order requires Duke Energy to excavate more than 80 million tons of coal ash at seven facilities.
The report warns that state programs also depend on federal science, funding and enforcement, even where North Carolina has its own requirements.
WRAL asked EPA specific questions about the report, including the status of proposed PFAS changes, which drinking water and air pollution protections remain, potential effects on utilities and customers, and whether the agency identifies factual errors. EPA did not respond by deadline but the article will be updated if a response is received.