EPA’s Move to Withdraw PFAS Drinking Water Standards Threatens North Carolina’s Public Health Progress

Introduction

On May 20, 2026 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a regulatory strategy that would rescind the nation’s first enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water. As reported by NC Newsline Environment and originally published by CoastalReview.org, this move comes just shy of the one‑year anniversary of Administrator Lee Zeldin’s commitment to finalize PFAS protections. In this editorial I examine the scientific and regulatory implications of withdrawing these standards, with a particular focus on North Carolina’s unique PFAS challenges, the state’s policy landscape, and the potential consequences for municipal water systems.

The EPA’s 2023 PFAS NPDWR: A Brief Scientific Overview

In March 2023 the EPA finalized the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS compounds: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHS), perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO‑DA, commonly known as GenX). The rule established:

• Individual MCLs of 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS.
• A Hazard Index (HI) approach for PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX, requiring that the sum of each compound’s concentration divided by its health‑based reference level not exceed 1.0.

These values were derived from peer‑reviewed toxicological studies linking long‑term exposure to developmental effects, immune suppression, and increased cancer risk. The EPA’s Science Advisory Board and external experts affirmed that the MCLs are technologically achievable using granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange, and high‑pressure membrane systems, all of which have been demonstrated at full‑scale in multiple U.S. utilities.

Why the Proposed Rollback Is Scientifically Unfounded

The EPA’s stated rationale for striking the standards centers on claims of “regulatory burden” and “scientific uncertainty.” However, the agency’s own 2023 risk assessments, which underwent extensive public comment and independent peer review, concluded that the available epidemiologic and toxicologic data are sufficient to justify health‑based limits. Notably:

• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) updated its toxicological profiles for PFOA and PFOS in 2022, reinforcing the causal links to adverse health outcomes at low‑dose exposures.
• A 2024 meta‑analysis published in Environmental Health Perspectives pooled data from over 30 cohort studies and found a consistent association between PFOA/PFOS exposure and elevated cholesterol levels, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.18 (95 % CI: 1.05‑1.33) per 10 ppt increase.

To argue that the science remains unsettled ignores this consensus and misrepresents the weight of evidence. Moreover, the EPA’s own Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) data, collected from 2023‑2025, show that approximately 18 % of large public water systems nationwide detected at least one of the six regulated PFAS above the proposed MCLs, underscoring the prevalence of contamination.

North Carolina’s PFAS Landscape: Context and Vulnerability

North Carolina ranks among the states most affected by PFAS pollution, primarily due to historic discharges from the Chemours Fayetteville Works facility along the Cape Fear River. Monitoring by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has documented GenX concentrations in the river exceeding 140 ppt downstream of the facility, with drinking water intakes serving communities such as Wilmington, Fayetteville, and surrounding counties regularly detecting GenX and legacy PFAS at levels above the EPA’s 4 ppt threshold.

In response, NC DEQ issued a health advisory level of 140 ppt for GenX in 2017, later refined to 10 ppt in 2021 based on emerging toxicology. The state has also invested in granular activated carbon upgrades at several municipal plants, including the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), which reported a 95 % reduction in GenX after GAC installation in 2020. These actions demonstrate that treatment is feasible and that state‑level initiatives have already begun to mitigate risk.

If the EPA withdraws the federal MCLs, North Carolina would lose a critical backstop that ensures a uniform health‑based floor across all utilities, particularly smaller systems that lack the financial and technical resources to adopt advanced treatment independently. The state’s current reliance on advisory levels—non‑enforceable guidance—would leave many communities without a legally enforceable trigger for remediation, potentially prolonging exposure.

Regulatory and Municipal Water System Implications

From a regulatory standpoint, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) empowers the EPA to set NPDWRs that are nationally applicable and enforceable by primacy agencies. North Carolina, as a primacy state, delegates enforcement to DEQ, which must adopt standards at least as stringent as the federal MCLs. A federal rollback would not automatically invalidate state‑level rules, but it would create regulatory uncertainty:

• Funding streams: Federal grant programs such as the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) often prioritize projects that address contaminants with federal MCLs. Removing the MCLs could diminish eligibility for PFAS‑specific financing, slowing the deployment of treatment technologies.
• Monitoring requirements: UCMR 5 monitoring schedules are tied to the regulated contaminant list. A withdrawal could reduce mandated sampling frequency, obscuring trends and hindering early detection.
• Legal precedent: States with stricter standards (e.g., Vermont, Michigan) have historically relied on federal MCLs as a baseline; a federal retreat may embolden challenges to state‑level rules, leading to costly litigation.

For municipal water systems, the operational impact is twofold. Larger utilities that have already invested in PFAS‑specific treatment may see little immediate change, but smaller, rural systems—many of which rely on groundwater wells with detectable PFAS—could face delayed action, increased public concern, and potential erosion of consumer trust.

Connecting to Broader National PFAS Policy

The EPA’s proposal appears at odds with the Biden administration’s broader PFAS action plan, which emphasized “protecting communities from PFAS contamination” through regulatory science, research, and infrastructure investment. The 2022 PFAS Action Plan committed to developing national drinking water standards by 2023, a pledge fulfilled with the 2023 NPDWR. Reversing course now undermines that commitment and sends a conflicting signal to states, industry, and the public about the federal government’s role in safeguarding drinking water.

Moreover, the move coincides with ongoing congressional deliberations on PFAS legislation, including the PFAS Action Act of 2025, which seeks to codify EPA’s authority to regulate PFAS under the SDWA and to expand funding for remediation. A rollback could weaken the legislative momentum needed to pass such bills, leaving a regulatory gap that states alone may struggle to fill.

Conclusion

As an environmental scientist who has studied PFAS fate, transport, and treatment for over a decade, I view the EPA’s proposal to strike enforceable PFAS standards as a scientifically unsound and policy‑regressive step. North Carolina’s experience—marked by persistent GenX contamination, proactive state advisories, and significant municipal investments in treatment—demonstrates both the necessity and the feasibility of health‑based limits. Retreating from federal MCLs jeopardizes the progress made thus far, threatens the equity of protection across diverse communities, and undermines the collaborative federal‑state framework that has begun to address one of the most pressing drinking‑water challenges of our time.

I urge the EPA to reconsider this course, to uphold the evidence‑based standards established in 2023, and to work collaboratively with states like North Carolina to ensure that all Americans have access to safe, PFAS‑free drinking water. The health of millions depends on it.