North Carolina, long treated as a dumping ground for toxic “forever chemicals,” now finds itself at the center of a national debate over chemical regulation and public transparency.
Just months before chemical companies were expected to disclose what PFAS (short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) they manufacture or import and in what amounts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to scale back the rule that would have made that information public.
Other WRAL Top Stories
North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson is joining attorneys general from more than a dozen other states in opposing the proposal, arguing it would sharply limit transparency at a critical moment for communities already dealing with widespread contamination.
For North Carolina, the issue is not abstract. The state has spent nearly a decade grappling with PFAS pollution after chemicals discharged into the Cape Fear River Basin contaminated drinking water for hundreds of thousands of residents downstream of the Chemours Fayetteville Works plant. The contamination went undisclosed for years, forcing utilities to install costly filtration systems and reshaping environmental policy across the region.
“They’re proposing rolling back a rule that basically says, if you manufacture PFAS chemicals, you have to tell people,” Jackson said. “People deserve to know what’s in their drinking water and what’s in the products they’re buying.”
The reporting requirement stems from a 2019 amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act, which directed EPA to collect detailed information about PFAS manufacturing and use. Under the rule finalized in 2023, manufacturers and importers would have been required to report what they knew about PFAS chemicals produced or imported between 2011 and 2022, including volumes and any known health or environmental effects. Reporting was expected to begin in 2026.
In November, EPA proposed exemptions that would significantly narrow who must report, potentially exempting nearly 98% of businesses. The agency says the changes would reduce duplicative reporting and compliance costs, particularly for small businesses and importers of finished products.
“This Biden-era rule would have imposed crushing regulatory burdens and nearly $1 billion in implementation costs on American businesses,” said Lee Zeldin, who was appointed by President Donald Trump. Zeldin said the proposal would allow EPA to collect the most useful PFAS data without imposing what he called "unrealistic requirements."
In a statement, an EPA spokesperson said the proposal does not roll back public health protections, enforcement authority or accountability for chemical safety.
EPA officials say manufacturers, not downstream users or importers of finished products, are best positioned to provide meaningful data.
“A manufacturer providing information on chemical structure, production amounts, health effects and people exposed is infinitely more useful to us than an importer providing only a chemical name with no other context,” the spokesperson said. The agency said it does not expect the quality of data it receives to be diminished if the proposal is finalized.
State officials are pushing back, saying those assurances do not address the core concern: that communities have repeatedly been harmed by gaps in oversight and delayed disclosure.
“We were about to get a bunch of really valuable information,” Jackson said. “If this goes through, that data stays a secret.”
PFAS are a large class of man-made chemicals used since the 1940s in products such as nonstick cookware, water-resistant clothing, food packaging and firefighting foam. Often called “forever chemicals,” they do not break down easily in the environment or the human body and have been linked to cancers, immune system effects, liver disease, high cholesterol and developmental problems.
The federal debate comes as North Carolina regulators are also facing renewed scrutiny over how PFAS pollution is handled at the state level. This week, the Environmental Management Commission voted to move forward with proposed PFAS rules that rely on industry self-monitoring and voluntary reduction plans rather than enforceable discharge limits.
Environmental groups criticized the decision, arguing it abandons recommendations from the Department of Environmental Quality for enforceable limits and penalties. State regulators have described the approach as a first step in the absence of comprehensive federal standards. The proposed rules will go through a public comment period.
Drew Ball, southeast campaigns director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the state’s approach risks repeating the mistakes that allowed PFAS contamination to go undisclosed for decades.
“What looks like action is really allowing polluters to police themselves,” Ball said. “Instead of stopping pollution at the source, we’re forcing water treatment systems to deal with it—and ratepayers are stuck funding the cleanup.”
Community advocates say the convergence of federal and state actions raises alarm. Emily Donovan, who lives in Wilmington, helped found Clean Cape Fear after learning her community’s drinking water contained PFAS compounds linked to Chemours and its predecessor, DuPont.
“This region was a PFAS sacrifice zone for half a century,” Donovan said. “We were contaminated without our consent for decades.”
Donovan said reporting requirements are foundational to protecting public health and that knowing where PFAS are made and used helps communities understand exposure risks and hold polluters accountable. Without that information, she said, the burden shifts to residents and taxpayers.
“If regulations didn’t prevent this contamination in the first place, it’s hard to understand how removing more of them helps anyone but industry,” Donovan said.
In a statement, the American Chemistry Council said it supports the EPA proposal because it focuses reporting on entities most likely to have meaningful PFAS data and avoids collecting information that is not known or reasonably ascertainable.
Chemours declined to comment on the EPA proposal and the states’ opposition.
EPA has not said when it will decide whether to finalize the proposed changes.
For communities in southeastern North Carolina that spent years fighting to learn what was in their water, the uncertainty remains deeply personal.
“When communities lose access to information about chemicals in their water,” Donovan said, “we lose access to justice.”
