By Will Atwater
Two years ago, Emily Donovan stood on a stage in Fayetteville and introduced then-EPA Administrator Michael Regan.
Regan, who was secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality before being tapped by the Biden administration to lead the EPA, had returned to the region — where in 2017 the public first learned that the Cape Fear River was contaminated with per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — to announce the first‑ever national drinking water standards for six of them.
That 2024 rule set legally enforceable limits for several of these substances, known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment. The chemicals regulated were PFOA and PFOS — legacy PFAS — plus PFHxS, PFNA and HFPO‑DA (GenX), and for mixtures of those three with PFBS.
Last month, current EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to roll back key parts of that rule. The agency moved to rescind the drinking water standards for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX and the PFAS mixture standard that includes PFBS. Zeldin also said the agency also intends to give water systems more time to comply with the maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS.
Nine years after GenX and other PFAS in the Cape Fear River made headlines, and two years after she helped introduce Regan in Fayetteville, NC Health News spoke with Donovan about EPA’s latest decision.
Q: What’s your reaction to the EPA’s proposal?
A: We’re incredibly disappointed. For communities like Wilmington and across North Carolina, this feels like a slap in the face.
This administration is largely focused on two legacy PFAS and not on the broader, current PFAS problem. Meanwhile, places like Fayetteville are already exceeding proposed drinking water limits for multiple PFAS. Their water quality report acknowledged those exceedances but still framed the water as “okay” because the standards aren’t fully in effect yet.
That kind of messaging creates a dangerous disconnect. People are drinking contaminated water, but utilities are able to hide behind the idea that they’re “technically in compliance.” We went through the same thing in Wilmington nine years ago — being told our tap water met all guidelines when, in reality, there were no meaningful standards in place.
Q: EPA has highlighted $2 billion dollars in funding to help address PFAS. Doesn’t that meaningfully support communities?
A: That money is important, but it’s not new — and the way it’s being framed is misleading.
The funding being touted now comes from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. It was passed earlier in the Biden administration and designed to last five years. This is the final year of that funding window. EPA is essentially passing through money Congress already allocated, then taking a victory lap for it.
At the same time, this EPA has gone to Congress proposing deep cuts to its own budget and substantial reductions to those very funds. Publicly they say, “Look at all the money we’re providing,” while privately they’re not fighting to extend or expand it.
Communities deserve that funding — and more of it. We shouldn’t confuse simply disbursing old money with real leadership on PFAS.
Q: Utilities often argue that meeting strict PFAS standards is too expensive. What should their role be?
A: Right now, many utilities are operating from a cost‑and‑liability mindset instead of a public health mindset. That’s a problem. Rather than asking for weaker standards, utilities and their lobbyists should be in Washington, D.C., demanding the funding they need to protect public health.
When the banking or airline industries are in trouble, we see huge bailouts. Safe drinking water is far more fundamental than a stock price, yet water utilities aren’t pushing nearly as hard for substantial, ongoing investment. Their job is to act as stewards of public health and the environment. That means fighting for the money to meet strong standards — not lobbying to avoid them.
Q: EPA has identified roughly 15,000 PFAS chemistries, yet most of the health and regulatory focus is still on a handful like PFOA, PFOS and GenX. Given that gap, how should we be planning?
A: Wilmington is a case study in why we can’t just chase each contaminant at the tap.
Our utility spent close to $92 million on treatment to remove PFAS. Those upgrades still don’t address 1,4‑dioxane. Now they’re looking at another major investment to deal with that one chemical. And we’re not even seriously addressing microplastics yet.
We don’t have enough money to treat our way out of this one pollutant at a time. The only sustainable solution is to control pollution at the source. PFAS and similar chemicals should never be allowed into drinking water supplies to begin with.
Right now, polluters offload their cleanup costs onto communities. The hardest‑hit are the ones with the fewest resources. That’s the real injustice.
Q: You’ve raised concerns about the Chemours Consent Order. What’s going on there for private well owners?
A: There’s a serious loophole.
Some homeowners have PFAS levels above 10 parts per trillion linked to Chemours, but the specific PFAS in their wells aren’t on the short list of chemicals covered by the consent order. Those residents are told they don’t qualify for treatment, even though their contamination is clearly related.
That list of chemicals should have been set up as evergreen — regularly updated as science reveals more about what Chemours released. Instead, nine years after this crisis broke, we’re still finding people who fall through the cracks because the list hasn’t kept pace with the science.
We’ve connected at least one homeowner in this situation with the Southern Environmental Law Center. But the fact that residents have to fight case by case to be recognized under a narrow chemical list is a structural failure.
Q: Are there other communities that illustrate how these policy gaps play out on the ground?
A: One example is a group in Brunswick County working with the local NAACP and EarthRights International.
Brunswick County approved heavy development, and many longtime residents saw their wells degraded — issues like turbidity and wells going dry. On top of that, some of those residents are receiving letters from Chemours and test results showing PFAS contamination in their wells.
So they’re dealing with both development‑related harm and chemical contamination, and the county has resisted hooking them up to public water. It’s an untenable situation that shows how planning decisions, environmental regulation and equity are all intertwined.
Q: What are you asking of the state’s Environmental Management Commission?
A: We’re opposing the commission’s current 1,4‑dioxane and PFAS minimization plan — and calling for much bigger reforms.
At the Wilmington hearing, hundreds of people showed up, and dozens gave comments. Almost all opposed the minimization plan. Our petition, which now has around 10,000 signatures, goes further: We’re calling for the commission to be abolished.
Other states don’t have this extra commission layer. Their environmental agencies can more directly write and enforce rules. We believe the commission has been a structural barrier to strong environmental protections in North Carolina. It’s one reason our state has lagged behind places like New Jersey, which has already secured major PFAS settlements from the same companies we’re still fighting.
The Southern Environmental Law Center, representing 13 environmental groups, filed formal comments on June 15 opposing the Environmental Management Commission’s proposed PFAS and 1,4-dioxane rules.
The rules require industrial facilities and wastewater plants to sample their discharges and develop pollution reduction plans, but they do not mandate actual reductions or impose penalties for facilities that fail to cut their discharges.
SELC attorneys called the proposed rules “polluter-written” and ineffective. The attorneys urge the EMC to abandon its monitoring-only approach and adopt enforceable, “health-protective” water quality standards, according to a news release.
The next Environmental Management Commission meeting is scheduled for July 8-9.
The EPA will accept written comments on the proposed PFAS drinking water rule until July 20, 2026, at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
