EPA PFAS Rollback Opposed By NC Attorney General

CLIFF NOTES

• Jeff Jackson led 17 other states and Washington, D.C., in opposing the EPA PFAS rollback.
• The proposal would remove federal standards for GenX and three related PFAS categories.
• The states argue that the rollback violates the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• At least 500,000 eastern North Carolina residents receive water from the PFAS-affected Cape Fear River.
• Certified reverse osmosis, carbon and ion-exchange systems may reduce certain PFAS in household drinking water.

 

North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson is leading a multistate challenge to the proposed EPA PFAS rollback. The plan would remove federal drinking water requirements for GenX and several related chemicals. Jackson and other attorneys general argue that the proposal would weaken public health protections and violate the Safe Drinking Water Act.

What happened with the EPA PFAS rollback?

Jackson joined the attorneys general of 17 other states and the District of Columbia in submitting a 22-page comment letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin.

The coalition asked the EPA to withdraw its proposal to eliminate parts of the federal drinking water rule adopted in 2024. The proposal targets standards covering PFHxS, PFNA, GenX chemicals and mixtures containing those substances and PFBS.

The states said the proposed EPA PFAS rollback would “significantly and unlawfully degrade national standards that protect public health from PFAS.”

The letter was submitted by North Carolina, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia.

Which PFAS regulations would the EPA remove?

The EPA announced the proposed rollback on May 18, 2026. It would rescind federal regulatory determinations and drinking water standards for:

• Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, or PFHxS
• Perfluorononanoic acid, or PFNA
• HFPO-DA and its ammonium salt, commonly called GenX chemicals
• Hazard Index mixtures containing those chemicals and PFBS

The public comment period ended July 20, 2026.

The 2024 federal rule established enforceable limits for six PFAS categories. It covered PFOA and PFOS individually, along with PFHxS, PFNA, GenX and certain PFAS mixtures. Public water systems were scheduled to meet those standards by April 2029.

The EPA is keeping the individual standards for PFOA and PFOS but has proposed a separate rule that could extend their compliance deadline.

The agency says the four targeted regulations were adopted through an unlawful procedure. According to the EPA, the proposal is based on correcting that process rather than rejecting the earlier scientific findings about PFAS risks.

Why is Jeff Jackson opposing the proposal?

Jackson said North Carolina has already seen the damage caused by PFAS contamination.

“In North Carolina, we know firsthand how damaging PFAS chemicals are to our drinking water and to people’s health,” Jackson said. “If the EPA rolls back these limits, it would be a harmful step in the wrong direction.”

The attorneys general argue that the EPA cannot erase drinking water protections merely by identifying an alleged procedural problem.

Their letter says the agency has not shown that the scientific or public health findings supporting the 2024 standards were wrong. The EPA’s own proposal states that the planned rescission is not based on the rule’s substantive findings.

The coalition also points to the Safe Drinking Water Act’s anti-backsliding provision. That section limits the EPA’s ability to weaken an existing national drinking water standard.

“Congress designed this provision to prevent EPA from doing exactly what it proposes to do here—weaken existing health protections for public drinking water,” the attorneys general wrote.

The states argue that stable federal standards are necessary because public water systems make long-term plans and large infrastructure investments based on those requirements. Reversing the rule could create uncertainty for utilities, regulators and communities.

Why do PFAS chemicals matter?

PFAS are a large group of synthetic chemicals valued for their resistance to heat, grease, oil and water. Their durability also allows them to remain in the environment and the human body for long periods, which is why they are often called “forever chemicals.”

The multistate letter identifies possible effects involving the thyroid, liver, kidneys, immune system, blood, reproduction and development. It also notes that PFAS can accumulate in people, animals, groundwater and surface water.

PFAS can enter the environment through manufacturing operations, industrial discharges and firefighting foam. Once the chemicals reach a river, reservoir or underground water source, conventional treatment methods may not remove them effectively.

This gives drinking water standards unusual power. A standard does more than state a number. It determines whether water systems must monitor for a chemical, report results and install treatment when contamination exceeds the legal limit.

Without a federal requirement, some communities may have fewer guarantees that the targeted PFAS will be regularly tested or reduced.

Why is GenX especially important in North Carolina?

Jackson has described North Carolina as “ground zero for GenX contamination.”

Chemours and its predecessor, DuPont, have operated a chemical manufacturing facility near Fayetteville since the 1970s. State officials say the companies released GenX and other PFAS into the air and the Cape Fear River over several decades.

The river supplies drinking water to at least 500,000 people living downstream in eastern North Carolina.

The history of contamination has shaped North Carolina’s response to federal PFAS policy. For communities along the Cape Fear River, the debate is not abstract. It concerns chemicals previously found in a major source of drinking water.

The proposed rollback would remove the national GenX standard while the EPA begins another process to consider whether and how the chemical should be regulated in the future. The EPA has said that future standards could be different or even more stringent, but it has not predetermined the result.

How does the Chemours settlement relate to the dispute?

The PFAS rule dispute follows a separate federal settlement involving Chemours.

On June 24, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice, EPA and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection announced an agreement valued at more than $450 million. It covers alleged PFAS releases from four Chemours facilities in North Carolina, West Virginia and New Jersey.

The proposed settlement includes:

• A $22.5 million civil penalty
• A $90 million program addressing PFAS discharges
• An estimated $60 million in pollution controls at a West Virginia facility
• An estimated $280 million for clean drinking water programs in West Virginia and New Jersey
• Evaluation and implementation of additional controls at the North Carolina facility

The agreement requires federal court approval before it can take effect.

Jackson and North Carolina Governor Josh Stein criticized the negotiations because North Carolina agencies were not consulted. State officials also said the settlement gives North Carolina no guaranteed share of the $90 million water program.

“This deal is an insult to the people of eastern North Carolina,” Jackson said when the settlement was announced. “Our state is ground zero for GenX contamination, but this deal does practically nothing to clean up our water.”

Jackson later described the agreement in another statement:

“This deal was negotiated behind closed doors without anyone from North Carolina at the table, and it guarantees our state nothing.”

The settlement and the proposed EPA PFAS rollback involve different legal actions. Yet both raise the same practical question: who will be required to monitor, control and pay for PFAS contamination?

How could the rollback affect public water systems?

The 2024 rule gave water utilities a federal deadline and a defined set of contaminants to address. Removing four of those standards could change monitoring plans, treatment projects and funding decisions.

The attorneys general warned that changing the rule after utilities began preparing for compliance could destabilize PFAS regulation nationwide. Water systems often require years to study contamination, design treatment facilities, obtain financing and complete construction.

The proposal would not prevent individual states from adopting their own PFAS requirements. However, state standards can differ. Federal rules establish a national minimum that applies across state lines.

For residents, the effect could depend heavily on where they live, which chemicals are present and whether state or local authorities impose protections beyond federal requirements.

What happens next?

The EPA’s public comment period has closed. The agency must now review the comments and decide whether to finalize, revise or abandon the proposal.

A final rollback could face legal challenges. The attorneys general contend that rescinding the standards would violate both the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The EPA maintains that the original rule was adopted through a legally defective process.

The conflict therefore rests on two forms of power: the EPA’s authority to correct its own regulations and the law’s limits on weakening established drinking water protections.

The outcome will determine whether GenX and three related PFAS categories remain subject to national drinking water standards while the federal government considers new rules.

he proposed EPA PFAS rollback would remove national drinking water standards for GenX, PFHxS, PFNA and certain PFAS mixtures. Jackson and a coalition of attorneys general argue that the action would weaken health protections, disrupt water-system planning and violate federal law.

For North Carolina, the decision carries added weight. Decades of GenX releases into the Cape Fear River have already shown what happens when persistent chemicals move faster than regulation. Once contamination spreads, control becomes harder, treatment becomes more expensive and the consequences pass from one generation to the next.

How can reverse osmosis and whole-home water treatment address PFAS?

Federal regulations govern public water systems, but household treatment can provide another barrier when PFAS are found in a home’s water.

The EPA identifies reverse osmosis, granular activated carbon and ion exchange as technologies that may reduce certain PFAS. A reverse osmosis system forces water through a thin membrane and is commonly installed at a kitchen sink to treat water used for drinking and cooking.

Not every filter removes PFAS. The EPA advises consumers to look for systems independently certified for the specific contaminant reduction being claimed, including relevant NSF/ANSI 53 or NSF/ANSI 58 certifications. Current certifications may not guarantee reduction to every federal limit or cover every PFAS compound.

A standard whole-home water conditioner is generally designed to address hardness, scale, taste, odor or other water-quality concerns. It should not be assumed to remove PFAS unless the complete system includes treatment media specifically designed and independently certified for that purpose.

The sound approach begins with water testing. Treatment should be selected according to the contaminants found, their concentrations and the amount of water the household needs to treat.

Source: NC Newsline