The state’s top environmental official is urging action by the commission responsible for setting rules to protect the state’s air and water quality that would put in place stricter groundwater standards for PFAS contamination.
North Carolina’s leading business advocacy organization agrees with the Environmental Management Commission’s expected move this week to slow the rulemaking process.
Sponsor Spotlight
In a letter from North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Elizabeth Biser dated May 1, Biser says she “was deeply disappointed to learn” that the Environmental Management Commission‘s groundwater and waste management committee chair and vice-chair, Joe Reardon and Tim Baumgartner, respectively, “are refusing to hear the proposed groundwater standards for PFAS as an action item” during the committee meeting this week. She noted that the committee was “asking for yet another informational presentation on this topic.”
The meeting is scheduled for 10:15 a.m. Wednesday, part of a full day of committee meetings. The entire commission is scheduled to meet Thursday. All meetings are to be held in the Archdale building in Raleigh. More information about how to join the meetings online, the full agenda and accompanying documents can be found on the commission website.
“As you know, on April 10, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for six PFAS compounds. In our state, more than 300 public water systems serving more than 3 million North Carolinians have PFAS levels above the Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs,” Biser wrote.
An NCDEQ representative told Coastal Review Thursday that the committee chair requested during a recent phone call to the staff to have the rulemaking standards be an informational presentation instead of an action item at the meeting.
Biser’s letter to the commission was announced Thursday along with her response to a letter from the North Carolina Chamber president dated April 22 and asking for more research on how the EPA’s rules intersect with proposed state rules, as well as an estimate of the costs to comply.
Sponsor Spotlight
“Surface and groundwater standards ensure that industries that put PFAS into the environment do their fair share to reduce ongoing pollution so that residents don’t bear the entire costs of removing PFAS from their drinking water,” Biser told Coastal Review Monday.
The letters from Biser are to “dispel misinformation and urge action as DEQ works to address PFAS contamination and protect the public health and financial well-being of North Carolinians,” DEQ officials said.
NC Chamber Vice President of Communications Kate Payne said Friday in response to the letter that the organization “has a transparent and open process to engage government when advocating for certainty and predictability for North Carolina’s business community, particularly on the regulatory front.”
The business community is made up of the people who live in communities across the state. “These people, and these businesses, pay the bills and enjoy the clean air and water with their families,” Payne said.
“We all want a healthy environment that balances economic growth. Petitioning our government for that certainty and predictability and attempting to better understand the costs we will pay should never be categorized as misinformation,” Payne said.
Biser, in her letter to the commission, asks that the groundwater and waste management committee “reconsider and hear the action item in May and let us begin this rulemaking process that will protect the health and financial well-being of North Carolinians.”
Biser contends in her letter that the EPA regulates drinking water systems under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, but it’s the state’s responsibility to address the discharges to the surface water and groundwater that is used for drinking water, which is why NCDEQ is proposing the state groundwater and surface water standards.
“Source reduction is the most cost-effective way to help water systems meet the drinking water standards. The amount of PFAS in the drinking water supply directly impacts the operation and maintenance costs of water treatment. Absent groundwater and surface water standards for PFAS, ratepayers will foot the entire cost of removing PFAS from their drinking water,” she writes.
Biser continues that NCDEQ staff presented the proposed standards at the last three meetings of both the full commission and its committees.
“In November, Assistant Secretary Sushma Masemore walked through the data we have collected across the state and the need for these actions. In January, our staff again previewed the standards as well as the method of cost-benefit analysis we are using for the fiscal note. And in March, staff again updated you on the progress and the stakeholder meetings we’ve held on these proposed standards,” writes Biser.
Scheduling an action item at the committee level during the May meeting would include presentation of enough information for the members to understand the fiscal impact of the proposed groundwater rule as reviewed by the Office of State Budget and Management, Biser continues.
If the committee decided to vote on the standards at its May 8 meeting, it would go before the full commission as an action item during the July meeting. Another presentation would follow as part of the action item.
“When combined with the multiple presentations you have already heard, that is ample time to consider moving the proposed groundwater standards to the public comment and hearing process,” Biser wrote.
NC Chamber President and CEO Gary Salamido writes in his April 22 letter to NCDEQ that the organization is asking for more time to better understand how the proposed impacts will affect local governments and businesses.
“It is important that we do not hastily pass regulations without fully accounting for both the positive benefits and potential negative impacts proposed rules would have on the state and its business community,” Salamido writes. “On behalf of the business community, we urge NC DEQ and the NC Environmental Management Commission to delay any action until we receive appropriate studies and have greater clarity on the benefits and cost of regulation.”
Biser explains in her response that NCDEQ’s proposed rulemaking is necessary to reduce PFAS contamination in the state’s drinking water sources. Additionally, state surface and groundwater standards work in conjunction with the federal drinking water standards issued April 10 by the EPA.
Biser writes that the EPA does not establish surface water and groundwater standards. Rather, but expects the states to address surface water and groundwater standards, especially once a federal drinking water standard is finalized. She provides a diagram to show how the EPA requirements and proposed state regulations intersect.
“Discharges into surface water and groundwater directly impact drinking water intakes and public water supply wells, driving up the costs for public water systems to come into compliance with the new federal drinking water standards, which has a direct impact on out-of-pocket costs for North Carolinians,” she writes.
Biser reiterates to the chamber that without having these rules in place, the cost to comply with the EPA’s drinking standards fall on the customer. More than 8,500 homes in eight counties have been provided alternate drinking water supplies as a direct result of the Chemours consent order.
“Additionally, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) has spent $46 million, and Brunswick County has spent over $100 million to address Chemours-related PFAS in their systems,” Biser writes. “These costs, compounded by annual operating and maintenance costs, have had a direct impact on ratepayers — which include members of the business community — who are now having to pay more to treat contamination that they did not cause.”
While the damage to public health, the environment and the economy was caused by a single manufacturing facility, NCDEQ is aware of PFAS pollution throughout the state, according to the letter.
Without taking action on the proposed rulemaking, “the entire burden of complying with the new drinking water standards will fall to public water system customers,” Biser writes, adding that the cost to remove PFAS is much lower at the source than it is at the drinking water system level.
“The key question at hand is whether everyday North Carolinians should bear the entire burden of cleaning up PFAS contamination (while also dealing with the health impacts), or whether businesses releasing PFAS into the environment should also bear responsibility,” Biser writes.
