North Carolina families could face longer exposure to contaminated drinking water and power plant pollution as President Donald Trump\u2019s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) weakens or delays federal safeguards, according to a new report.<\/p>\n
The report, \u201cNorth Carolina Left Exposed,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWho pays for PFAS cleanup?<\/p>\n
Betsy Southerland, a former director of EPA\u2019s Office of Science and Technology who retired in 2017, said the central issue is whether contamination is controlled before it reaches drinking water systems.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe idea would be the polluters would pay to treat and clean up this pollution, not the downstream drinking water customers,\u201d Southerland said.<\/p>\n
PFAS are a large group of manufactured chemicals often called \u201cforever chemicals.\u201d North Carolina\u2019s contamination concerns include GenX and other chemicals associated with the Chemours Fayetteville Works facility.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.”<\/p>\n
A separate proposal would remove federal drinking water requirements for GenX, PFNA, PFHxS and a combined-exposure measure involving those chemicals and PFBS.\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tZeldin: Congress should do something<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou’re essentially paying to clean up PFAS contamination from your own water supply. That’s not right,\u201d Zeldin said.<\/p>\n
He called for Congress to address \u201cpassive receivers,\u201d such as utilities that receive PFAS rather than manufacture it, to protect them from cleanup liability.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The Clean Water Act already provides a framework for regulating industrial wastewater discharges through permits and national standards.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAir pollution protections also changing<\/p>\n
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\u2019 ability to act.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf EPA walks away as it’s doing now, it weakens the hand of the state of North Carolina in holding polluters to account,\u201d said Meiburg, who works with the Environmental Protection Network.<\/p>\n
He also raised concerns about efforts to keep coal plants operating longer.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese 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,\u201d Meiburg said.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNorth Carolina faces limits on acting alone<\/p>\n
North Carolina cannot automatically replace every federal safeguard with a stronger state rule.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Meiburg said those restrictions limit North Carolina\u2019s ability to respond independently as federal protections change.<\/p>\n
PFAS source-control proposals have also faced repeated delays at the Environmental Management Commission, which sets state environmental rules. After delaying DEQ\u2019s proposed numeric surface water limits, the commission advanced a monitoring and minimization approach that does not set numeric discharge limits.<\/p>\n