North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality staff are in the process of updating the state’s long-term strategy to protect coastal habitat, a necessity for a sustainable seafood industry.

According to the strategy called the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, or CHPP, the need for a coastwide habitat plan came about in the 1990s because of growing concerns about fish populations, declining coastal habitats, and deteriorating water quality.

The CHPP was mandated by the Fisheries Reform Act of 1997, and the first plan was adopted in 2004 by the Marine Fisheries, Environmental Management and Coastal Resources commissions. The document, which was designed to “achieve the long-term enhancement of coastal fisheries by identifying, protecting, restoring, and enhancing critical fish habitats,” and is updated every five years.

CHPP is to provide “information on the habitats’ distribution and abundance, ecological functions and importance to fish production, status and trends, threats to the habitats, and includes recommendations to address threats,” according to DEQ’s Division of Marine Fisheries.

The Division of Marine Fisheries staff that make up the CHPP team, with guidance from a steering committee, have been working on the 2026 update. Charlie Deaton, habitat protection supervisor with the division, presented an status update to the Environmental Management Commission during the July 9 meeting in Raleigh.

He said the staff are drafting issue papers for the 2026 update that are broadly organized under three different themes: ecosystem-based management for coastal habitats, seagrass protection and restoration, and planning for multi-decadal wetland change, all of which build on previous editions of the CHPP.

The outlines of these papers are to be presented to the steering committee by web conference 1-3 p.m. Wednesday, the division announced July 15. The full agenda and link to the meeting are on the NCDEQ website.

Deaton said that the last full rewrite of the plan was in 2016. New issue papers were added to the 2016 CHPP as the 2021 update, and “we are continuing efforts on these issue papers and introducing a few more with this edition of the CHPP.”

Deaton reminded members that the 2021 CHPP prioritized submerged aquatic vegetation, or SAV, protection and restoration through water quality improvements. The chapter on seagrasses “had 13 different recommended actions, but the big one that this commission has heard the most about is the recommended water clarity standard to ensure that adequate light penetration allows for seagrass growth.”

According to that document, seagrasses are “critical for healthy fisheries, such as shrimp, blue crab, red drum, and flounder and provides valuable ecosystem functions.” The state has one of the largest seagrass habitats on the East Coast, but water quality impairment coupled with climate change stressors can limit their growth, reproduction, and distribution.

The chapter for the 2026 update on seagrasses will use data from the Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary Partnership’s recent findings on seagrass decline. APNEP, a partnership of NCDEQ and the Environmental Protection Agency, has been fundamental in CHPP development in some capacity since its inception.

From 2006 to 2020, the state’s estuaries continue to lose more than 1% per year of its seagrass extent, which “might not sound like a lot, but that’s 15% in the time period. And if you look 30 years into the future, that’s another 35% that we would be losing if we continue at this rate. So, it’s a concerning rate of loss,” Deaton said. “We’ve lost 50% of our continuous seagrass meadows, and the losses have been most notable at the deep edge of the seagrass beds. So that implies a connection to water quality and decreased water clarity, light not penetrating deep enough.”

This new seagrass chapter is to build on the 2021 CHPP’s proposal to develop a water clarity standard, which was referred to the Environmental Management Commission’s water quality committee where it’s on hold. 

Turbidity “remains the biggest threat we see to seagrasses, and so it’s something we really want to get some action on,” Deaton said. Staff are also going to work on a permitting framework for active seagrass restoration projects, which could be planting seeds or transplanting seagrasses in areas that no longer have seagrass but should still have the conditions to support it.

The paper is also to explore habitat protections under the Marine Fisheries Commission authority. The commission considered restrictions for shrimp trawling in 2023 but decided against those. Instead, staff was asked to look into what that rulemaking might look like.

For the ecosystem-based management chapter, Deaton said that staff are reviewing how the Division of Marine Fisheries uses mapping and monitoring data to guide species management work. Staff will determine goals and targets on how to better integrate the research, as well as create indicators with data from the North Carolina Collaboratory’s study on 25 years of the Fisheries Reform Act.

“The other half of the ecosystem-based management chapter is advancing strategic habitat areas,” Deaton said, that were identified in the first edition of the CHPP as a priority. “These are areas that are defined as high quality, connected habitats that were identified to protect biodiversity and ecological function through a nonregulatory approach.”

The “Planning for wetland change” chapter concentrates on laying the groundwork for thin-layer placement. Other states are exploring this method to accent natural sediment accumulation by taking dredged material and placing it directly on the marsh in a layer of 6 to 18 inches.

North Carolina doesn’t have a permit for the process, meaning any applications for thin-layer placement must be approved through the Coastal Resources Commission’s variance process for rule exceptions.

“We have a couple projects in the hopper right now that may reach the variance process in the coming year or two and seeing those as potential pilot projects. If they show promise, this is something we could explore to make a little easier to for restoration practitioners to implement,” Deaton said.

“The other half of the sea level rise and coastal wetlands picture is marsh migration,” he said.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission will hear about the progress to update the state’s plan that outlines strategies to protect and restore critical ecosystems coastal fishery habitats.

The 15-member commission is to hear an update on the 2026 amendment to the N.C. Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, or CHPP, from N.C. Department of Environmental Quality staff. The commission is responsible for adopting rules that protect, preserve and enhance the state’s air and water resources implemented by several divisions within DEQ.

The plan, adopted in December 2004 by Environmental Management, North Carolina Marine Fisheries and Coastal Resources commissions, provides information on coastal habitat distribution and abundance, ecological functions and importance to fish production, status and trends, threats to the habitat, and recommendations to address those threats. The CHPP is updated every five years.

The full commission is scheduled to meet at 9 a.m. July 9 in the ground floor hearing room of the Archdale Building in Raleigh. The meeting will be livestreamed. The meeting number is 2439 266 6247 and password ncdeq. The meeting may also be accessed by telephone at 1-415-655-0003, password 62338.

Commission committee meetings are planned to begin the day prior at 9 a.m. July 8 in the Archdale Building and available to stream using Webex and by phone using the same telephone number, meeting number and passwords.

Agendas for the committees and the full commission are available on the EMC’s website.

The May meeting of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission is scheduled for next week in Raleigh.

According to the commission’s Thursday, May 14 draft agenda, members will consider a federal petition to incorporate National Ambient Air Quality Standards into state air quality rules.

When newly enacted Environmental Protection Agency air quality standards take effect, the new rules effectively apply to state standards, which must be revised to align.

The proposal before the EMC would omit the state from having to go through the process of updating its rules every time a federal air quality standard changes.

The commission will also receive an update on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Flood Resiliency Blueprint.

DEQ released on April 1 improved advisory flood maps for the Cape Fear, Lumber, Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and White Oak river basins. These maps are designed to help local governments, agencies and non-governmental partners develop, evaluate and prioritize resilience actions, and plan and secure funding to implement those actions.

The commission’s committees will meet beginning at 9 a.m. Wednesday in the Archdale Building’s ground floor hearing room, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh.

Those meetings will be livestreamed by Webex, meeting number/access code 2427 265 5562, password NCDEQ (62337).

The full commission will meet at 9 a.m. on Thursday in the Archdale Building. The meeting may also be viewed via livestream, meeting number/access code
2429 624 8234, password NCDEQ (62337).

To listen to the meetings either day by phone dial +1-415-655-0003.

Agendas for the committees and the full commission are available on the EMC’s website.

WILMINGTON – For more than two hours, residents in an area considered ground zero for PFAS contamination in North Carolina passionately, often angrily, chastised the Environmental Management Commission’s proposed PFAS monitoring and minimization rules.

Dozens of people who signed up to speak – 60 in all – at the public hearing Thursday in downtown Wilmington took turns at a podium unleashing what turned into a collective no-holds-barred rebuke of the proposed rules and, at times, the commissioners who pushed them forward for public comment.

Several of those who spoke in front of a crowd of about 230 people who filled a room in Wilmington’s Skyline Center shared stories about their own health issues, illnesses their loved ones have suffered, and family and friends they’ve lost to various forms of cancer.

Throughout the hearing, people snapped their fingers, signaling their agreement with those speaking at the podium. At the close of every short speech, the audience erupted in rousing applause and cheers.

The sheer number of people who signed up to speak prompted Environmental Management Commissioner Yvonne Bailey, the hearing officer that evening, to ask that residents limit their comments to two minutes.

“Those of us living here have advocated relentlessly at the local, state and federal level, and even at the U.N. for protection of our air and water,” said New Hanover County resident Priss Endo. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality “has proposed new surface water standards, but in response, the Environmental Management Commission is proposing regulations that will still allow 500 industries across the state to release PFAS chemicals.”

The hearing last week was the third and final the commission scheduled this year on its proposed monitoring and minimization rules for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA; perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS; and a branded compound called GenX developed by DuPont spinoff Chemours. The commission has also been hosting public hearings on similar proposed rules for the monitoring and minimization of 1,4-dioxane, an industrial solvent and likely human carcinogen that has also been found in downstream drinking water sources.

PFAS are a mixture of chemicals used in a host of consumer products from nonstick cookware and food packaging to stain-resistant carpets, water-repellant attire, and makeup.

These chemicals have been found in numerous drinking water sources in North Carolina and traced back to discharges from industrial manufacturers, landfills, firefighting facilities and publicly owned treatment works that accept industry effluent.

Ongoing research into human health effects of PFAS, of which there are more than 15,000 related compounds, have found that some of the substances, including PFOA and PFOS, have been linked to health issues such as weakened immune response, liver damage, low infant birth weights, and higher risk of certain cancers.

Nearly a decade has passed since residents in the Lower Cape Fear region first learned through a local newspaper article that Chemours’ Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County had for decades knowingly discharged PFAS directly into the Cape Fear River.

Since then, public drinking water utilities that pull raw water from the river have spent millions of dollars upgrading their facilities with filtration systems and methods to keep PFAS out of their final product.

Chemours, under a 2019 consent order, has had to test thousands of privately owned drinking water wells for contamination.

“The 2019 consent order was a start,” resident Jim Nesbit said. “It’s not enough. Your mission is to protect the health of the people of this state. Use the full authority you have to take on the pollution of corporations.”

The PFAS monitoring and minimization rules the commission agreed to put out for public comment have remained under a hail of verbal fire from residents, the public utilities that provide their drinking water, and environmental organizations throughout the Cape Fear region.

As written, the rules do not set specific discharge limits or penalties for PFAS dischargers found to be in violation of those rules.

“As a 33-year water professional and former EMC member, I am testifying that the voluntary minimization plans, as proposed, are ineffective,” Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Executive Director Ken Waldroup said Thursday. “They’re essentially empty facades that do not solve the problem. These minimization plans do not remove PFAS from the Cape Fear River because all reductions are voluntary. Voluntary plans are simply ineffective. Upstream dischargers have had decades to disclose and minimize their PFAS discharges. Unfortunately, history has shown that dischargers only do so in response to effective regulation with specific mandatory limits or mitigation.”

Dr. LeShonda Wallace, who serves on the advisory board for the GenX Exposure Study, one that is measuring GenX and other PFAS exposure in area residents, said the proposed rules ignore science.

Instead, the proposed rules prioritize corporate convenience over public health, she said.

“The impacts are also economic as well as generational,” Wallace said. “PFAS contamination reduces property values, and it shifts the cost away from the polluters and on to the rate payers. Environmental protection and justice requires that those who cause the pollution pay to prevent it and that they pay to clean it up, and I urge the commission to reject these ineffective minimization rules and adopt enforceable, evidence-based standards that reduce pollution at the source.”

Lifelong New Hanover County resident Chip Jackson carried a doll baby with him to the podium.

“I came here tonight to tell this panel how ignorant I have been. I’ve been ignorant because nine years ago I trusted you people. I trusted you to do something,” he said. “I’ll give y’all a pro tip. When you see a baby float by in a stream, you look upstream to see who threw it in the stream.”

Resident Rosemary Schmitt said she simply wants to trust that the water coming out of her tap is not harmful.

“Drinking water should be safe, not something that comes with a list of side effects,” she said.

Just two weeks away from graduating with an undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina Wilmington, Tyler Raines said he was in a conundrum.

“I don’t have much else to say that hasn’t already been said about the economic, environmental, and social impacts of PFAS on the health of all human beings,” he said. “As I think about where I’m planning to root myself post-graduation, I find myself at a loss. Do I stay here in Wilmington and get poisoned by PFAS or do I go back to my home in Fuquay-Varina and get poisoned by 1,4-dioxane?”

The Environmental Management Commission could decide as early as September to approve or reject the proposed rules. If adopted, those rules would go to the Rules Review Commission for final approval by early next year.

Written comments on the proposed PFAS monitoring and minimization rules are being accepted by email to publiccomments@deq.nc.gov with the subject title “PFAS minimization” or by mail to Karen Preston, DEQ-DWR NPDES Permitting Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC  27699-1617.

FAYETTEVILLE — Proposed monitoring and minimization rules for industrial dischargers of 1,4-dioxane and the public sewage plants that accept those facilities’ waste fail to protect North Carolinians’ drinking water, speakers at a public hearing said Tuesday.

All but one of the 13 people who spoke at the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s hearing at Fayetteville Technical Community College criticized the proposed rules, arguing those rules fall short in reducing the amounts of 1,4-dioxane discharged into people’s drinking water sources and lack enforcement.

Those comments mirror ones articulated at the commission’s April 9 hearing on the proposed rules in Hickory. A third hearing is scheduled for May 12 in Jamestown.

“The so-called monitoring and minimization rule establishes certain monitoring requirements, but the term minimization is misleading,” Fayetteville resident Madison Williams said. “The way the rule is promulgated is in a way that does not require polluters to reduce PFAS or 1,4-dioxane emissions into North Carolina drinking water supplies, and it imposes no consequences, even if those discharges increase. This in effect is a polluter written rule.”

Related: Public hearings set on proposed wastewater discharge rules

The commission is hosting separate public hearings, the first of which was held in Asheville last week, on a similar rule for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS; perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA; perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS; and GenX, a chemical specific to a manufacturing plant that sits near Cape Fear River in Bladen County.

Under the proposed rules, publicly owned treatment works that receive industrial wastewater, and their manufacturer customers, would be required to monitor for discharges of 1,4-dioxane, an industrial solvent, into rivers, creeks and streams.

Facilities would be required to conduct baseline monitoring every three months for one year. Based on those sampling results, dischargers may be required to conduct additional monitoring.

“If determined to need ongoing sampling the industrial direct discharger will be required to develop a minimization plan,” explained Bridget Shelton with the Division of Water Resources’ planning section. “A minimization plan is a strategy to reduce or eliminate pollutants at the source before they are discharged into the environment.”

Facilities that “meet certain criteria” may request exceptions from ongoing monitoring and minimization plan requirements, she said.

The proposed rules do not set specific discharge limits or penalties for violations.

That fact has drawn sharp criticism from residents, environmental groups and public drinking water providers who have been calling on the state to establish drinking water standards for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane and regulate direct dischargers of those chemicals.

“Over 1 million North Carolina residents consume water from the Cape Fear River, water that is contaminated with 1,4-dixoane, PFAS and other forever chemicals that will continue to proliferate without sufficient regulations at the federal and state levels,” said Jonelle Kimbrough, executive director of Fayetteville-based environmental nonprofit Sustainable Sandhills. “The proposed 1,4-dioxane minimization rules seem to be an attempt at regulation but, as written, they essentially do nothing to protect the natural resources or public health of our state and we need protection.”

Rob Clark, Cape Fear River Watch’s water quality programs manager, said the organization and its more than 1,000 members collectively opposed the proposed rules.

“These rules are completely inadequate when it comes to dealing with PFAS and 1,4-dioxane pollution in the Cape Fear River Basin,” he said. “The proposed minimization rules do not set enforceable limits on how much these toxic compounds can be discharged into our waterways. Instead, they rely on polluters to monitor their pollution and submit plans describing how they might reduce that over time. Do we really think that polluters are going to cut into their profits in order to do the right thing and stop discharging these chemicals into our waterways?”

Representatives of downstream public water suppliers said the proposed rules lack a clear objective to significantly decrease 1,4-dioxane levels in state surface waters.

Fayetteville Public Works Commission’s Environmental Programs Manager Rhonda Locklear pointed out that statewide monitoring has identified 1,4-dioxane primarily in the Cape Fear River Basin.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, “has sampled surface waters in 15 of North Carolina’s 17 river basins, confirming that most industrial 1,4-dioxane sources are in the Cape Fear River Basin, where 35% of these samples since 2017 were above non-detect thresholds, almost 10 times the rate in the Neuse River Basin, and nearly 200 times that of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin,” she said. “The problem areas are well-defined, documented, and PWC expects DEQ to set meaningful regulations and reductions in the Cape Fear River Basin.”

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Deputy Executive Director Kevin Morris said that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which classifies 1,4-dioxane as a likely human carcinogen, warns that at even at concentrations of 0.35 parts per billion, long-term exposure to the chemical increases cancer risks to humans and may cause significant kidney and liver impacts.

“Downstream water systems continue to experience periodic spikes in 1,4-dioxane despite having no role in producing or discharging this chemical, which demonstrates the limitations of our current regulatory framework,” Morris said.

He highlighted how effluent from Asheboro’s wastewater treatment plant has periodically tested for elevated levels of 1,4-dioxane, concentrations of which far exceeded levels associated with long-term health risks.

“These discharges flow into waterways like the Haw and Cape Fear rivers,” Morris said. “They’re relied upon by downstream drinking water systems, and they require additional monitoring, treatment, adjustments and customer communication. The downstream public ultimately bears the risk from and the cost of managing contamination that they had no part in creating. Voluntary reduction measures are insufficient to ensure consistent outcomes or to protect downstream communities. Utilities can manage only what arrives at their intake.”

As of Wednesday, DEQ had received more than 2,000 public comments and counting on the commission’s proposed rules for 1,4-dixoane and PFAS, according to Josh Kastrinksy, DEQ’s deputy communications director.

“The comments we’ve received in writing have by and large reflected the comments we’ve received in person,” he said.

Andrew Mlot, chair of the North Carolina Pretreatment Consortium Inc., a nonprofit that represents more than 180 pretreatment professionals in 64 state-approved pretreatment programs across North Carolina, was the only person Tuesday to speak in support of the proposed rules.

But that organization has “several specific concerns” with the rules as they are currently written, he said.

“The costs to treat 1,4-dioxane at the POTW (publicly owned treatment works) level is staggering. Capital costs alone range from $10 million to $1.3 billion, making source control the only practical path forward,” he said.

The proposed rules would require public treatment works in Greensboro, Burlington, Asheboro, High Point and Reidsville, which have been conducting monitoring and minimization activities going back to 2015, to start over, Mlot said.

“We ask for an explicit offramp for POTWs that have already completed successful programs. Replace any detection with a workable screening threshold. As currently written, any detection of 1,4-dioxane triggers ongoing monitoring requirements and a full minimization plan. NCPC members do not believe this is workable. We support an alternative screening threshold based on meaningful concentrations or loading levels,” he said.

DEQ is accepting written comments through June 15. Comments may be submitted by email to publiccomments@deq.nc.gov with the subject heading “1,4-dioxane minimization, or by mail to Bridget Shelton, DEQ-DWR Planning Section, 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1611.

Construction and other projects expected to affect waters or wetlands will now be vetted through a newly implemented state process.

Depending on a its impacts to streams and wetlands, some projects will get to bypass a 30-day notice as part of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources Clean Water Act 401 general certifications updates that took effect March 15.

The new certificate of coverage process is anticipated to apply to “many project” currently requiring individual Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certifications, according to a DEQ release.

Applicants must still apply to the division through the new process, but those that meet thresholds and conditions under the general certification will receive a letter of concurrence, which will allow the project to proceed without a 30-day notice.

Project located in sensitive areas, those with a significant quantity of impacts to waters or wetlands, or those that cannot meet the general certification conditions must still go through the process of a 30-day public notice and project-specific decision letter to obtain individual 401 water quality certification.

The state’s update reflects corresponding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Nationwide Permits, which have been modified following a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that changed the definition of “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS.

That same year, the North Carolina General Assembly passed session law directing the state Environmental Management Commission to adopt a rule that aligns the state’s definition of wetlands to those of the federal definition.

The latest definition excludes noncontiguous wetlands, or those that are not connected to navigable waters.

The Corps has extended a one-year grace period to projects it has approved for permitting to complete impacts to waters outlined under their existing federal permit. New certifications will not be required for those projects.

DEQ advises permittees to check with their Corps representative to confirm whether the grace period is applicable to their projects.

The division has included a list of frequently asked questions online for general information.

It’s been nearly a month since a video first aired of Wilmington’s mayor invoking residents to voice their opposition to one town’s plans to pull millions of gallons of water daily from the Cape Fear River.

“Today this vital resource is under threat from growing water-hungry communities upstream,” Mayor Bill Saffo says in the clip as he stands along the city’s downtown Riverwalk.

Fuquay-Varina, a town about 30 miles south of Raleigh, wants to move more than 6 million gallons of water each day from the Cape Fear River to the Neuse River, he explains in the video made in collaboration with the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority.

“That’s 6 million gallons gone, each day, forever. It is important that you make your voice heard now for your family and for future generations. Add your voice to those of your neighbors and friends who already are telling the state to say no to Fuquay-Varina’s permanent taking of our water,” Saffo concludes.

Only a couple of more weeks are left until the public comment period on Fuquay-Varina’s request for an interbasin transfer, or IBT, certificate closes.

Maya Holcomb, a Division of Water Resources representative, told members of the state Environmental Management Commission’s Water Allocation Committee last week that she anticipated receiving comments all the way through to the April 1 deadline.

In her presentation to the committee Thursday, Holcomb provided an update on the numbers of correspondence she’d received in the days since she initially crafted her report, when the email count was at 283.

Related: Opponents say river water transfer puts Cape Fear in peril

“But I just keep getting so many emails, which — we’re hearing from the public, that’s great — but I have received an additional 42 emails since this PowerPoint was created last week,” Holcomb said.

Holcomb said she had also received 41 resolutions from cities, towns, counties, homebuilders, substations and public utilities.

She did not say how many of those resolutions oppose the IBT, but instead highlighted what she described as the “newest” issues of concern: loss of water for agricultural purposes, nutrient concentration in the Neuse River Basin, such as those that cause algal blooms, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, hypoxia, drought vulnerability and chemical export of industrial pollutants from the Cape Fear River.

Those concerns mirror some of arguments made by dozens of people who spoke out against the transfer during a series of state-hosted public hearings in December.

Fuquay-Varina projects that the water supply, from which it currently buys from Raleigh and Harnett and Johnston counties, will fall short of demand by 2030.

Under the proposed preferred alternative identified in a draft environmental impact statement for the transfer, Fuquay-Varina would source its entire water supply from a water treatment plant in Sanford, which is in the Cape Fear River Basin.

Once water pulled from the Cape Fear River is used by residents and businesses in that town, the treated wastewater would then be discharged into the Neuse River Basin.

This would permanently subtract 6.17 million gallons each day from the river flow that currently serves about 900,000 residents of counties, cities, towns and communities from Fayetteville to Wilmington.

“Put in perspective, 6.17 (million gallons per day) of raw water from the river is enough to provide treated drinking water to more than 27,000 homes,” according to Cape Fear Public Utility Authority’s website.

In the weeks and months leading up to CFPUA’s campaign against Fuquay-Varina’s plan, several local governments and utilities adopted resolutions and sent letters of opposition to the state.

New Hanover County, Wilmington and Brunswick County and more than a dozen Brunswick County municipalities have officially gone on record opposing Fuquay-Varina’s request.

Holcomb explained last week that, after April 1, state environmental officials will respond to comments on the draft environmental impact statement and then formulate a hearing officers’ report, which will be finalized sometime between July and September.

After that, the Environmental Management Commission will determine whether the EIS is technically adequate. Following that determination, the Department of Environmental Quality will issue its record of decision.

Another round of public hearings will be held before the EMC makes its final determination.

If approved, the transfer would occur after 2031, according to the draft impact statement.

Comments may be submitted to Maya Holcomb, Division of Water Resources, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC, 27604, or by email to maya.holcomb@deq.nc.gov.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission is expected to consider adopting rule amendments pertaining to air quality and domestic wastewater discharges at its upcoming meeting.

The commission, which adopts rules to protect natural resources, will also consider voting on schedules for readopting existing rules at its March 12 meeting.

The commission’s committees are scheduled to meet beginning at 9 a.m. Wednesday, March 11. The full commission’s meeting the following day is to start at 9 a.m.

Meetings will be held on the ground floor hearing room of the Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh. The public may attend in-person, by computer or by telephone.

Meeting agendas and supporting documents, as well as steps to join the meeting virtually or by phone can be found on the commission’s website.

Proposed rules that would require hundreds of industrial manufacturers and public sewer plants across the state to test the wastewater they discharge into rivers, creeks and streams for three types of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane will go out for public comment next month.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission last Thursday voted to push proposed monitoring and minimization rules for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PFOA, PFOS and GenX, and for 1,4-dixoane, an industrial solvent, to the public in February.

Commission Chair JD Solomon indicated that more than one public hearing will be scheduled during the comment period, which is to be held through April. As of publication, neither specific dates for the comment period, nor dates and locations for hearings, had been announced.

Solomon told fellow commissioners he anticipates the state will receive thousands of comments on the proposed rules packages, which do not set specific discharge limits or penalties for violations.

Those omissions from the proposed rules were the basis of lengthy, at times contentious, discussion among members of the commission.

A majority of commissioners ultimately rejected Commissioner Robin Smith’s motion to inject federally enforceable limits on a half-dozen individual chemical compounds and a mixture of those compounds into the proposed rules package for PFAS.

Amending the rules to include the Environmental Protection Agency’s enforceable levels of PFAS, including PFOA, PFOS and GenX, Solomon said, would substantially change the proposed rule, triggering the need for a new regulatory impact analysis to examine projected costs associated with the rule.

PFAS are a mixture of chemicals used in a host of consumer products from nonstick cookware and food packaging to stain-resistant carpets, water-repellant attire, and makeup.

These chemicals have been found in a number of drinking water sources in North Carolina through discharges from industrial manufacturers, landfills, firefighting facilities and publicly owned treatment works, or POTWs, that accept industry effluent.

Ongoing research into human health effects of PFAS, of which there are upwards of 15,000 related compounds, continues. Some of the more well-studied substances, including PFOA and PFOS, have been linked to health issues including weakened immune response, liver damage, increased cholesterol, high blood pressure, lower infant birth weights, and higher risks of certain cancers.

The Trump administration’s EPA announced last year that it would retain current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for PFOA and PFOS and extend deadlines for public water treatment plants to come into compliance with the federally established limits for those PFAS.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin also announced plans to rescind regulations and reconsider regulatory determinations for the other PFAS, including GenX.

Solomon said the commission will start talking about legally enforceable limits, also known as numeric standards, for PFAS at its March meeting.

“That is the intention and that will continue to be the intention,” he said, later adding, “Everybody on this panel wants a numeric standard. The question is more, what level are those numeric standards and for what compounds. That’s what we’re going to talk about when we get to the numeric standard part.”

The Environmental Management Commission voted 10-3 to move the proposed PFAS monitoring and minimization rules package to public comment and hearing.

60-day deadline

Under the proposed rules, industrial manufacturers and publicly owned treatment works, which officials call POTWs, will be contacted by the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources and given 60 days to conduct baseline sampling for the three PFAS from the time the rules become effective.

Testing would be done quarterly for one year, with results reported to the division. Division officials would then determine whether ongoing sampling is needed based on practical quantitation limits, which are considered the base line in testing laboratories.

The division would decide whether a business or POTW has to develop a minimization plan, one that would take about 2.5 years to be implemented.

When asked how minimization would be measured, Division of Water Resources Deputy Director Julie Grzyb said, “There is nothing in the rule that defines a set level or set goal in the particular case. So, there is some left up to who is reviewing it.”

Minimization, she said, is determined by a number of things, including training and education equipment and seeing whether one product could be substituted for another.

“However, usually we have a water quality standard that we are shooting to meet and that defines the minimization much more clearly. I’ll leave it at that,” Grzyb said.

The proposed rule also does not specify what best management practices a facility must follow or how that facility must reach minimization.

Smith, who voted against moving the proposed rule to public comment, warned the rule may not pass the Rules Review Commission because, among other things, it lacks such standards.

“I think that one of the concerns is this could be an ongoing perpetual monitoring machine that doesn’t result in significant reductions,” she said, adding that a rule should not be sent out for public comment that “has basic drafting problems and gaps in essential decisions.”

“I cannot vote for this motion to be sent to public notice and comment the rule as it currently stands because I think there are too many issues that need to be resolved,” Smith said.

Commissioner Michael Ellison, who seconded the motion to move the rules to public comment, argued that the rules “help us as a state, statewide, reduce our uncertainty as to where the problems are and how bad they are while science continues to advance, while EPA continues whatever research they’re going to do and whatever standards they’re going to promulgate.”

After the vote to move the proposed rules on PFAS to public comment, the commission also agreed to ask for comments on whether industrial businesses and sewage plants should report to the division all 40 PFAS they are required to test for under federal requirements.

Smith made similar arguments against the proposed 1,4-dioxane monitoring and minimization rule that the commission voted 7-6 to move to public comment.

She said that while the proposed rule pertaining to 1,4-dioxane is a “pretty good monitoring rule,” it is “not a good minimization rule.”

“What I don’t want to do is create an impression out there that we have a serious minimization program if we don’t have any teeth in it. I think we need to be honest with the public about what this rule does. I’m not for something that calls itself a minimization rule that doesn’t have any enforceable attachment to it,” she said.

Early in what turned out to be a more than two-hour discussion leading up to their vote on the proposed PFAS monitoring and minimization rules, Solomon reminded commissioners that the votes they cast Thursday would not be their final, saying that getting the rules out for public comment is an incremental step in a process aimed at ultimately reducing PFAS discharges.

Proposed rules that would require industrial polluters to monitor and minimize their discharges of some chemical compounds into drinking water sources may soon go out for public comment.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission is scheduled to vote this week on whether to approve proceeding to public notice and hearing proposed monitoring and minimization rules for direct dischargers of three types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances into the state’s surface waters.

Under the proposed rule, all major and minor industrial direct dischargers, and significant industrial users that discharge to publicly owned treatment works, would be required to monitor and implement “minimization activities required to eliminate or significantly reduce” discharges of PFOS, PFOA, and GenX anywhere between three and five years, according to the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality.

Discharge limits for those specific PFAS have yet to be determined.

PFAS exposure has been linked to a number of adverse health impacts to people, including thyroid disease, increased cholesterol, liver damage, and different types of cancers.

The commission will also consider whether to proceed to public notice and hearing proposed 1,4-dioxane monitoring and minimization rules, which would target industries likely to discharge the organic synthetic chemical the Environmental Protection Agency classifies as a likely human carcinogen.

Critics of the proposed rules argue the rules lack any real enforcement because they do not include discharge limits or penalties for industries that increase their discharges.

Various committees of the commission are scheduled to meet beginning at 9 a.m. Wednesday in the ground floor hearing room of the Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh. Those meetings will also be livestreamed on WebEx.

The full commission is scheduled to meet at the same location 9 a.m. – 1 p.m. Thursday. The meeting will also be livestreamed.

A Piedmont town’s request to permanently pull millions of gallons of water a day from the Cape Fear River would raise the risk of water shortages during periods of drought, undercut utilities’ ability to keep up with growing demand, and result in higher levels of contamination in the raw drinking water source for downstream communities, opponents of the plan say.

Of the dozen people who spoke Tuesday night during a public hearing in Raleigh, none supported Fuquay-Varina’s call for transferring 6.17 million gallons per day from the Cape Fear River Basin to the Neuse River Basin to meet that town’s projected water demands.

Similar opposition was expressed during a hearing held in Fayetteville last week by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the state Division of Water Resources. A third hearing was scheduled to be held Thursday in Pittsboro.

Both elected officials and heads of public utilities in the lower Cape Fear region on Tuesday continued pressing the commission and division to host a public hearing in that area.

“None of the hearings for the Fuquay-Varina request are being held in the lower Cape Fear region, even though our communities will feel the downstream impacts,” said New Hanover County Commissioner Rob Zapple. “Residents in the city of Wilmington and the counties of New Hanover, Brunswick and Pender would have to spend four to five hours on the road just to attend the public hearing. Most residents simply cannot do that. Holding a hearing in the lower Cape Fear region in Wilmington would reduce frustration, encourage public trust, and allow our communities to be hearing in a constructive manner.”

As of Wednesday, more than 20 counties, municipalities, environmental organizations, businesses and drinking water providers have adopted resolutions opposing Fuquay-Varina’s request for an interbasin transfer certificate, or IBT.

Officials in Fuquay-Varina, which is about 30 miles south of Raleigh, project that the amount of water the town currently buys from the capital city, and Harnett and Johnston counties will fall short of demand by 2030.

Under the proposed preferred alternative identified in a draft environmental impact statement for the IBT, the town would source its entire water supply from a water treatment plant in Sanford, which is in the Cape Fear River Basin.

Once water pulled from the Cape Fear River is used by residents and businesses within the town, the treated wastewater would be discharged into the Neuse River Basin. This would permanently subtract more than 6 million gallons each day from the river flow that currently sources more than 500,000 residents with drinking water.

“We have absolutely no problem with Fuquay-Varina wanting to continue with their development,” Zapple said. “But if you take the water, just return it. That’s all. That’s the way the system works. And, if it costs more, well maybe that’s the price of doing business. We need our development down in the lower Cape Fear region as well and we can’t afford to lose 6.17 million gallons a day.”

The Cape Fear River is Brunswick County’s “primary and only reliable water source,” said Christopher Giesting, Brunswick County Public Utilities deputy director of water operations.

The utility supplies drinking water to 19 municipalities and serves more than 350,000 residents and seasonal visitors.

Giesting said that Brunswick County has invested more than $183 million to expand its Northwest Water Treatment Plant and upgrade to a reverse osmosis system designed to remove per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, discharged into the river by upstream polluters.

“These investments were made with the expectation that the full safe yield of the Cape Fear River at the intake would remain available,” he said. “Any IBT that removes water without returning it means that safe yield volume is reduced, ultimately making these major infrastructure investments unable to function as planned and designed. Our county alone has more than 50,000 planned housing units already built, under construction, or in the works. Without reliable access to the full safe yield of the Cape Fear, we cannot meet future water demands for these communities.”

The IBT proposal also threatens water quality, Giesting continued, because the requested daily transfer would lessen the amount of water available to dilute contaminants, including PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, discharged by upstream polluters.

The Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority, which provides wholesale regional raw water to treatment facilities that serve more than 550,000 customers in a five-county area, has sourced from the Cape Fear River more than half a century.

Authority Executive Director Tim Holloman said the river is already being substantially used as a water resource in the region.

“For a river that’s already maxed, we just ask that that be considered. If the IBT is granted, that (water) be returned to the Cape Fear River Basin because the need is not going to go away. It’s only going to increase over time,” he said.

Fayetteville Public Works Commission Chief Executive Officer and General Manager Timothy Bryant said that the commission would be forced to spend millions more each year to ensure safe drinking water to its more than 250,000 customers.

“I would argue very strenuously that no one with any legitimacy can claim that removing over 6 million gallons of water per day isn’t a foreseeable detrimental effect on the river basin and the 900,000 downstream residents of North Carolina who depend on this water every day,” he said. “To be clear, growth in Fuquay-Varina should not come at the expense of other communities. There are multiple reasonable alternative options presented that are not only consistent with the intent and letter of North Carolina law, but also squarely place the cost burden on Fuquay-Varina and not the customers downstream of it.”

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Executive Director Ken Waldroup asked that the Environmental Management Commission look into what he said are “critical technical shortcomings” associated with models presented by the town.

The commission will make the final determination on whether to grant Fuquay-Varina’s request.

If approved, the IBT would occur after 2031, according to the draft impact statement.

No announcement had been made at the time of this publication as to whether a public hearing will be held in the lower Cape Fear region.

Asheboro’s wastewater treatment plant has once again discharged elevated levels of 1,4-dioxane into a creek that drains into a river within the Cape Fear River Basin, according to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.

The plant detected a concentration of 651 parts per billion, or ppb, of the chemical compound, one the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has categorized as a likely human carcinogen, in a sample it collected Nov. 7 from Hasketts Creek, according to a DEQ release.

Hasketts Creek drains into the Deep River, which converges with the Haw River to form the Cape Fear River.

Using the EPA’s toxicity calculations for lifetime exposure, DEQ “has determined that the average monthly concentration of 1,4-dixoane in the Asheboro discharge safe for downstream water supplies is 22 ppb or less,” the release states.

The department’s Division of Water Resources took additional sampling and is waiting to confirm results. Division officials have notified downstream drinking water utilities, which provide drinking water to some 900,000 North Carolinians.

Earlier this year, downstream water utilities were notified that sampling results by the state and Asheboro revealed 1,4-dixoane levels were more than 10 times higher than the average established as safe for downstream water supplies.

DEQ’s announcement Friday comes a little more than three weeks after the EPA hosted a public hearing in Asheboro regarding the agency’s objection to the city’s proposed permit that excludes an effluent discharge limit for 1,4-dioxane.

All but one person who spoke at that hearing urged the EPA to uphold its objection to the proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit issued by the division.

DEQ issued an NPDES permit to the plant in August 2023 that included effluent discharge limits for 1,4-dioxane.

The city sued and, in September 2024, the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings struck the limits from the permit.

DEQ’s appeal of that ruling is pending in Wake County Superior Court.

“Monitoring is ongoing at wastewater treatment plants in the Cape Fear River Basin to track 1,4-dixoane,” according to the release. “Significant reductions have occurred at some wastewater treatment plants through a collaborative effort with the Environmental Management commission (EMC), DEQ and municipal operators. DEQ will continue to work with the EMC to seek additional ways to achieve reductions in 1,4-dioxane discharges.”

On Thursday, the EMC voted to push to a later date hearing proposed monitoring and minimization rules for 1,4-dixoane and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, from industrial users and dischargers.

The commission is not scheduled to meet again this year.

Sampling data is posted on the division’s website.

The commission responsible for adopting rules to protect the state’s air and water resources voted Thursday to wait on hearing proposed monitoring and minimization rules for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane from industrial users and dischargers.

The Environmental Management Commission committees met Wednesday and the full commission met Thursday in the Archdale Building in Raleigh.

Not enough members voted Thursday to waive the 30-day rule that would allow the full commission to take action on proposed rules for for 1,4-dioxane and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

For a waiver to be granted, at least two-thirds of the members must vote in favor of waiving the bylaw that requires 30 days between when a committee votes on a rule and when it goes before the commission.

Though PFAS and 1,4-dioxane are human-made and long-lasting chemicals, they’re not the same because the compounds have different structures and different uses.

PFAS are long-lasting chemicals used in industrial and commercial processes as well as consumer products, while 1,4-dioxane, a likely carcinogen, is an organic synthetic chemical used in specialized industrial processes that may enter the environment through discharges where it is used or produced.

With PFAS, because of their widespread use and their persistence in the environment, many “are found in the blood of people and animals all over the world, including NC, and are present at low levels in a variety of food products and in the environment,” documents state.

The commission’s water quality committee tasked staff within the Division of Water Resources, under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, on Nov. 12, 2024, to develop a PFAS minimization initiative for all industrial direct dischargers to surface water and all significant industrial users that discharge to publicly owned treatment works.

“The minimization initiative will require monitoring for PFAS, and implementation of minimization activities required to eliminate or significantly reduce discharges of PFOS, PFOA, and GenX, (levels TBD) over a 3-to-5-year period,” according to agenda documents.

In March of this year, the EMC water quality committee directed staff to develop a rule to support their “effort towards understanding the sources and levels of 1,4-dioxane.”

The proposed rules for both chemicals were drafted to monitor publicly owned treatment works with local pretreatment programs, and monitor and minimize significant industrial users, and industrial direct dischargers.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s Water Quality Committee may take action next week on proposed monitoring and minimization rules for three PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.

The proposed rules targeting the three per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, called PFOA, PFOS and GenX are on the committee’s Nov. 12 meeting agenda. The committee is also expected to take action on proposed rules for 1,4-dioxane.

The proposed rules are not on the agenda of the full commission, which is scheduled to meet on the following day. Commissioners will select a chair and vice-chair during the meeting.

The proposed rules would require industries that directly discharge compounds into surface water and all significant industrial users that discharge to publicly owned treatment works to monitor their releases of PFOA, PFOS, GenX, and 1,4-dioxane.

Meetings will be held in the ground floor hearing room of the Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh.

The public may attend in-person, by computer, or by telephone.

The Nov. 12 committee meetings will begin at 9 a.m. and may be joined online at https://ncgov.webex.com/ncgov/j.php?MTID=m226fb96f0777719d55b063d1c572423b using meeting number/access code 2439 988 8950.

To join the full commission meeting at 9 a.m. Nov. 13 visit https://ncgov.webex.com/ncgov/j.php?MTID=m3a68c6333a6a2633b6526360bfae676b. Use meeting number/access code 2435 258 8225.

The password for both days is NCDEQ (62337 when dialing from a phone or video system.

To join by phone, dial +1-415-655-0003 US Toll.

Agendas and supporting documents are available on the commission’s website.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission has extended the public comment period on a proposed rule change that would allow domestic wastewater discharges into zero-flow streams in the state.

A public hearing will be hosted by the EMC and N.C. Department of Environmental Quality on the proposed rule at 3:30 p.m. Nov. 5 in the ground-flood hearing room of the Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh. Speaker registration will begin at 3 p.m.

Comments on the draft rule will be accepted through Dec. 15 by mail to Karen Higgins, DEQ-DWR Planning Section, 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1611, or by email to publiccomments@deq.nc.gov.     

The EMC, which is the rulemaking body that oversees and adopts rules for several divisions within DEQ, is required to adopt rules allowing domestic wastewater discharges to low-flow streams under Session Law 2024-44 (s. 5.1).

Lawmakers in 2024 adopted a provision to the law that mandates DEQ develop draft rules that permit households and light-industrial businesses to release up to 2 million gallons per day of treated wastewater into zero-flow surface waters, such as perennial streams, unnamed tributaries and wetlands.

If you want a sense of just how complicated and drawn-out state rulemaking can get, look no further than the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s water quality committee.

More than a year has passed since the committee began kicking around a rule that would, as initially proposed, limit industrial discharge of forever chemicals across the state.

Any such rule has been passionately debated time after time, meeting after meeting, only to be tabled again and again, heightening the collective frustrations of thousands of North Carolinians and the water utilities that serve them.

Now, if adopted by the full commission, the rule will also have to get the General Assembly’s approval.

The proposed rule would trigger a threshold established under House Bill 402, known as the “Regulations from Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS)” Act, a new law that has drawn sharp criticism from environmental and health advocates who argue it will stifle an already daunting rulemaking process and create significant obstacles to addressing pollution.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, which recommends rules to commissions, including Environmental Management, echoed similar sentiments in an emailed statement responding to a request for comment late last month.

“The Department of Environmental Quality and its Commissions’ rules provide essential public health protections. They help ensure that our air, water and land are clean and safe throughout North Carolina while giving businesses and municipalities the certainty they need to make fiscal decisions. The new law will make it significantly more difficult, and it will take longer, to create new protections against environmental harms like PFAS and other forever chemicals. These rulemaking changes also add significant uncertainty for businesses, municipalities and our residents.”

The REINS Act establishes a tiered system for rules based on their projected financial impact. If a rule exceeds a certain threshold, that rule can no longer be approved simply by a majority vote of a rulemaking board or commission.

Rules projected to cost $1 million over five years must receive a two-thirds majority vote of the rulemaking body. Any rule with an impact of $10 million or more over five years must receive unanimous approval. If a proposed rule is expected to cost $20 million or more over five years the rule must be formally approved by the General Assembly before it can take effect.

Since 2020, the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management has reviewed fiscal and regulatory impact analysis of 31 proposed rules that exceed REINS Act thresholds.

In all, 15 of those proposed rules OSBM has reviewed in the last five years were projected to have impacts of $1 million or more over five years, according to information provided by that office.

Seven proposed rules had projected costs of $10 million or more and nine rules had projected financial impacts of $20 million or more.

The Environmental Management Commission, Commission for Public Health, Building Code Council, and Wildlife Resources Commission were among the rulemaking bodies who considered those proposed rules.

North Carolina has more than 300 boards and commissions that oversee a range of issues that will be affected by the law, one Republican leaders have argued would enhance government accountability and protect residents and businesses from overregulation.

The state is one of the latest to adopt measures modeled after the federal Regulations from Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, which establishes a congressional approval process for a “major rule,” including one likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

“I think what we’re looking at is a lot of gridlock around topics that have not made as much progress as they should have so far,” said Grady O’Brien, North Carolina Conservation Network’s water policy manager.

One of the starkest examples of that, he said, are rules relating to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

DEQ’s initial rule proposal to the Environmental Management Commission included health standards for eight PFAS in groundwater and surface water. The commission’s committees pared down that number down to three chemical compounds – PFOA, PFOS, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists as likely carcinogens, and GenX, a compound specific to Chemours’ Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County.

Under the proposed rule DEQ initially presented to the water quality committee, the state would have been given the ability to enforce limits on dischargers for PFAS. Critics of the current proposed rule argue it lacks the teeth the state needs to be able to ensure industries are actually reducing releases of the chemical compounds into surface water including the Cape Fear River, the drinking water source for tens of thousands of North Carolinians.

The proposed draft rule, which could go to a vote of the full commission in November, would require industries that discharge PFAS into surface water and industries that discharge those chemicals to publicly owned treatment works to monitor for PFOA, PFOS, and GenX.

As is, the proposed rule’s projected financial impact is $129.5 million over the next six years, which means the rule requires both a unanimous vote of the full commission and legislative review.

“So, things have gone from frustrating and slowed down to looking almost impossible when you’re going to need a unanimous vote, which kind of empowers one person on whatever board or commission in question, one person can shut something down that has this $10 million threshold over five years,” O’Brien said.

The law excludes economic benefits associated with a proposed rule and, critics point out, as current rules go up for periodic review, rules that have been on the books for decades that fall within the new thresholds could be stripped from the books.

Braxton Davis, executive director of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, said rulemaking “already involves an extensive process, including fiscal impact analysis and public input.”

“It often takes a year or more from the time a rule is drafted until it becomes effective – even when rules are being relaxed,” Davis said. “If the commissions’ rulemaking process becomes even more challenging, it may force the General Assembly to act on new issues and information to an extent that would be much better suited for the executive branch to address, at least initially.”

Davis, former director of DEQ’s Division of Coastal Management, said that, in his experience, regulatory commissions have members that bring different expertise, experience and perspectives to the table.

“And, as with any board, it will be very difficult to achieve a unanimous vote on any significant rule changes,” he said.

Mary Maclean Asbill, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Chapel Hill office, said the law will “pretty much shut down” environmental rulemaking.

“We’ve already seen over the past few years the erosion of separation of powers in North Carolina, where the conservative majority of the General Assembly has legislated changes to the composition of boards and commissions, taking away authority from the governor, or the executive branch, and giving it to themselves,” she said. “We have seen appointees to any number of environmental boards and commissions mimic the ideology of the legislature. By that I mean they are anti-regulation, anti-protection, anti-environmental protection and so it has already been difficult for the past few years for state agencies who are charged with protecting the health and environment of North Carolina to promulgate any rules or regulations that are protective of health and the environment. This is going to make it exponentially more difficult.”

Gov. Josh Stein vetoed the law, writing in his June 27 rejection of House Bill 402 that it would, “make it harder for the state to keep people’s drinking water clean from PFAS and other dangerous chemicals, their air free from toxic pollutants, and their health care facilities providing high quality care.”

The law, he wrote, would “impose red tape” and would make agencies, boards, and commissions, “less effective at protecting people’s health, safety and welfare.”

The General Assembly voted to override Stein’s veto.

The Environmental Management Commission voted unanimously Thursday to send a rule outlining health-based standards for three per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances to the state Rules Review Commission.

The 15-member commission also wrapped up the rulemaking process to “clarify” the definition of wetlands, as directed by a summer 2023 session law. The draft language now heads to the Office of Administrative Hearings. Per the session law, the rule is exempt from the Rules Review Commission.

During the environmental commission’s meeting held in Raleigh and streamed virtually, members voted on the draft rule that specifically targets PFOA, PFOS, and GenX in groundwater, which supports about half of drinking water in North Carolina.

Under the rule that is now expected to go before the rules commission at its Oct. 30 meeting, permitted releases of PFAS to groundwater will be limited. The rule also establishes goals for cleaning contamination in groundwater and ensures residents whose drinking water exceeds contamination limits receive alternative water supplies.

Comments the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality received on the rule through a public comment period late last year overwhelmingly supported the rule, but, as Commissioner Dr. Jackie MacDonald Gibson noted Thursday, the public also raised concerns that the rule did not set standards for additional PFAS.

“It’s a very emotional issue,” Gibson said. “I went to the (public) hearing in Wilmington and people there, their families have been directly affected by PFAS exposure to the point that some people were afraid to have their kids drink water at school. I think a lot of people are going to be glad that we’re moving forward with this. They’re going to wish we were doing more.”

The environmental commission’s groundwater and waste management committee last year voted to omit five of the eight compounds DEQ staff originally presented to be included in the rule.

The committee chose to focus on PFOS and PFOA, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies as likely carcinogens, and GenX, a compound specific to Chemours.

Commissioner Tim Baumgartner, who chairs the groundwater and waste management committee, explained that the compounds that were omitted – PFBS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBA and PFHxA – are being regulated at the practical quantitation limit, or PQL.

PQL is considered the base line in testing laboratories.

“It’s not that we’re not regulating PFAS. It is a matter of what the quantitative limit is for remediation, or what the target level is,” he said.

Commissioner Robin Smith said she regretted that the commission did not adopt health-based standards for all eight PFAS as initially presented by DEQ.

“It would have actually helped some land owners and some responsible parties who need to clean up groundwater by providing them with a health-based standard that is above the PQL,” Smith said. “I’m going to vote for these. I think this is a good rule, but to me, I can’t follow the reasoning of dropping the other five when, in fact those would have made the rules less stringent, but still would have maintained a health-based standard for those other five.”

Environmental Commission Chair JD Solomon responded, saying that instead of using a health-based equation, one that is subject to change, for the compounds that were omitted, the commission “defaulted to PQL.”

“Keep as much PFAS out of the water as possible,” he said. “So, while PFAS is being debated at the national level, and whatever level, we decided as a body to keep it as stringent as possible, even for cleanups.”

If approved by the rules commission next month, the rule would become effective Nov. 1.

A proposed draft rule requiring monitoring and development of PFAS minimization initiatives for dischargers into surface water will be on the commission’s water quality committee’s agenda in November.

Members of that committee voted 4-2 Wednesday to include the draft rule on their meeting scheduled Nov. 12. The proposed rule would require industries that directly discharge compounds into surface water and all significant industrial users that discharge to publicly owned treatment works to monitor their releases of PFOA, PFOS and GenX.

If the committee approves the rule, it will go to the full commission for consideration Nov. 13.

During staff comments, the commissioners were informed that DEQ is now requiring Chemours to expand the number of private wells eligible for PFAS contamination sampling to about 14,000 additional residences in New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus and Pender counties.

Related: DEQ requires Chemours to expand PFAS well water testing

The expanded area was identified through additional data analysis conducted by the state and Chemours. Chemours’ Fayetteville Works plant in Bladen County discharged PFAS, including GenX, for decades directly into the Cape Fear River, ground and air.

Wetlands definition rule

The General Assembly with a June 27, 2023, session law directed the commission to adopt a rule consistent with language in the statute that read “Wetlands classified as waters of the State are restricted to waters of the United States as defined by” federal regulations.

Sue Homewood with the Division of Water Resources explained Thursday to the commission that, “We had the session law in 2023, the EMC requested that we move forward with this rule amendment, even though we were implementing the rule and are implementing the session law already.”

Around the same time this session law was drafted and making its way through the state legislature, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Idaho couple, the Sacketts, who sued the Environmental Protection Agency for putting a stop on work to backfill what the federal agency argued was wetlands.

The Sackett v. EPA decision on May 25, 2023, changed the definition of “waters of the United States,” which are navigable waters protected under the Clean Water Act. The definition now excludes noncontiguous wetlands, or those not connected to navigable waters. The EPA aligned its definition with the court case effective Sept. 8, 2023.

When the North Carolina General Assembly put the 2023 session law through that summer, commissioners worked with staff on how best to proceed. The matter was on pause between April 2024 to January of this year, when the water quality committee approved the language to go to the full commission. Members approved in March the proposed text rule and moving ahead to public comment, which was open April 15 to June 30. A public hearing was held June 26.

Homewood said 134 written comments were submitted and 13 oral comments were presented at the hearing, which are in summarized in the hearing officer’s report.

Of all the comments, she continued, only one was in favor of the rule amendment.

“In general, the comments opposed to the rule amendment were concerned about loss of wetland protection in North Carolina,” Homewood said, such as what the rule means for flooding, resiliency and wildlife habitat.

The public also commented that the state is investing in mitigation and flood resiliency that these wetlands could help provide, and there were some comments stating that the General Assembly should not dictate a rule making body on how to implement rules.

The wetlands definition rule was approved with 10 voting for the rule and commissioners Smith, Gibson, Dr. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Dr. Ann Chelminski and Dr. Ilona Jaspers voting against. In a separate vote, the hearing officer’s report passed 13-1, with Orme-Zavaleta voting against no and Gibson abstaining.

Homewood said the next step is to submit the rule to the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings, then to General Assembly, which would be the 2026 session. After that, it needs to be approved by the EPA, because this definition is part of the state’s water quality standards.

Karen Higgins with the water planning section said that the EPA has 60 days to approve, 90 days to disapprove, or nothing happens if they take longer. If the EPA disapproves of the standards change, the agency sends it back to the state.

Solomon said he had been asked what could be done about the rule and the bottom line is “our rules have got to be consistent with state laws. And so while this is a little unusual to say, they did their action, we have to clean up our rules now to make sure the definitions fit.”

He continued by pointing out that the rulemaking process “is more or less procedural” and there are concerns but the commission has to comply with the state laws.

Baumgartner reiterated that it was a statutory directive from the General Assembly and the commission is following the Administrative Procedures Act by making this rule change, which Commissioner Kevin Tweedy acknowledged, but said he’s hoping that the state can disconnect from the federal definition.

“North Carolina has unique resources that I think a lot of people, obviously, from the comments, agree it should be protected. I think we can do that protection in a smart way that that takes into account everybody’s concerns and issues with wetlands. But I think connecting it to the (federal definition) and keeping it that way is just not a good long-term policy,” Tweedy said.

Smith, a longtime attorney, called this “bad policy” and part of the reason is that nothing at the federal level is about which or whether these wetlands are important for ecological or other purposes.

“The only issue at the federal level is federal jurisdiction, and that’s driven by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and it’s driven by the language of the Clean Water Act,” Smith said. “It’s a jurisdictional issue at the federal level. It has nothing to do with assessment of the value of these wetlands.”

Managing the wetlands is primarily a state responsibility, which is why “it’s a mistake to tie state decisions about the value and protection of wetlands to a federal jurisdictional issue,” Smith said.

Aside from bad policy, she said, it’s bad legislative practice, because there’s a section in the session law that causes the entire session law language to sunset as soon as this rule is adopted.

“What the legislature did not change,” Smith said, is the existing definition of waters of the state in a statute, which will continue to be in effect after the session law expires.

She reiterated a point Solomon made that the commission’s rules cannot be in conflict with state law. “But unfortunately, what the legislature has given us is a situation that will create a conflict with state law.”

Smith voted against approving the rule, saying that she understands “the realities of situation, but between the policy and the legislative process and the, in my view, misuse of the session law in this way, without clarifying a statute, makes this an easy vote against for me.”

The state Environmental Management Commission is expected to vote during its September meeting on a legally mandated wetlands definition rule change and on groundwater quality standards for three industrial chemical substances discharged into the environment.

The commission’s committees are to scheduled to meet the afternoon of Sept. 10 and the full commission is to meet at 9 a.m. Sept. 11, both in the Archdale Building in Raleigh. The public may attend in person. To watch online, use this webinar link for the Sept. 10 committee meetings and this webinar link for the Sept. 11 full commission meeting. The password for both is NCDEQ.

The full commission is to consider adopting the revised definition of “wetlands,” which NCDEQ began applying when a 2023 law became effective on June 27, 2023. The law added to the definition the text, “Wetlands classified as waters of the State are restricted to waters of the United States,” to align the state with the federal definition that recognizes wetlands only as those that are connected to navigable waters.

The law dictated that the revision be immediately implemented and directed the commission to adopt a rule consistent with the revised definition. Division of Water Resources staff presented the proposed rule change in March and then proceeded to public comment and hearing. The proposed rules were published in the North Carolina Register and on the NCDEQ website on May 1, 2025, and a public hearing was held on June 26. The public comment period closed on June 30, according to agenda documents.

The three PFAS that the commission are to vote on for groundwater quality standards are PFOA, PFOS and GenX.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are long-lasting chemicals known to break down very slowly over time, and are used in a variety of industrial and commercial processes as well as consumers products, according to DEQ. Because of the widespread use and persistence in the environment, many PFAS are found in the blood of people and animals, at low levels in a variety of food products, and in the environment.

Committee meetings

The water allocation committee is to meet at 1 p.m. Sept. 10 to hear an update on the North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint, which is part of a statewide flood mitigation planning process.

The groundwater and waste management committee will follow at 2:15 p.m. when they will hear a presentation on the PFAS treatment system reimbursement program.

The water quality committee at its 2:45 p.m. meeting Sept. 10 is to hear an update on PFOA, PFOS, and Gen X monitoring and minimization rules being drafted.

The committee approved a motion in November to “support the effort towards understanding the sources and levels of certain PFAS compounds in NC.”

Division of Water Resources staff were directed to develop a PFAS minimization initiative for industrial direct dischargers to surface water and all significant industrial users that discharge to publicly owned treatment works. Staff are to update the committee on their progress.

The state commission that adopts rules to protect natural resources is expected to hear this week updates on existing measures to improve air and water quality, but the bulk of the July 9-10 meeting will concentrate on the mandated periodic review process for several existing rules.

The Environmental Management Commission Committee meetings are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. Wednesday and the full commission is to meet at 9 a.m. Thursday, both in the Archdale Building in Raleigh.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality acts as staff and enforces rules for the commission. Meeting agendas and supporting documents, as well as steps to join the meeting virtually or by phone can be found on the commission’s website. 

When the full commission meets Thursday, members are to decide on moving through the multiple steps required to satisfy a general statute that requires existing state rules be reviewed every 10 years.

The rules under review include how the Environmental Management Commission is organized, water resources programs, and streams and wetlands mitigation. The full commission is also to hear an update on the Tar-Pamlico Wastewater Discharge Requirements Rule and progress on a nutrient criteria development plan.

Information on recent Environmental Protection Agency actions is to be delivered during committee meetings.

During the air quality committee meeting at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, Division of Air Quality Director Mike Abraczinskas is to give an overview of recent EPA actions relating to federal air quality regulations.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, committee is expected to review and discuss at its 12:30 p.m. Wednesday meeting the existing agreement between the state and the EPA on the permitting program.

On the state level, during the 10:45 a.m. groundwater and waste management committee meeting, DEQ staff will review the “2024-2034 NC Solid Waste and Materials Management Plan,” which assesses the status of solid waste and materials management in the state.

Aligning North Carolina’s wetlands definition with that of the federal government’s would put the state’s waterways at risk, erase nature’s pollution filtration systems from the land, and increase flooding, speakers at a public hearing said.

More than a dozen people commented during the Thursday night hearing in Raleigh on the revised wetlands definition the North Carolina General Assembly enacted into law two years ago.

In accordance with the 2023 Farm Act, the state’s definition of wetlands must correspond with the federal government’s, which narrows the description of a wetland to having a continuous surface connection to Waters of the United States, or those protected under the Clean Water Act. The federal definition was changed to be consistent with a May 2023 Supreme Court ruling.

In North Carolina, that alignment equates to the loss of protections for an estimated 2.5 million acres of wetlands, according to the state Department of Environmental Quality.

That agency has been implementing the definition since its approval in June 2023, but the state-appointed Environmental Management Commission, which is responsible for adopting rules that protect, preserve and enhance air and water resources, must go through the rulemaking process to amend the state’s existing wetlands definition.

The law legislators enacted two years ago explicitly directs that the Rules Review Commission cannot challenge the amendment.

Those who spoke at Thursday’s public hearing, a mandated step in the rulemaking process, urged the Environmental Management Commission to work with legislators to rescind the amendment. No one who spoke supported the definition revision.

“I think it’s a shame that the EMC does not have any discretion over what this rule looks like,” said Brooks Rainey, a lobbyist for the Southern Environmental Law Center. “Dictating the text of a rule to a rulemaking body takes away the whole point of having a rulemaking body. The North Carolina General Assembly are not experts on wetlands. The Home Builders Association is not an expert on wetlands. The Chamber of Commerce is not an expert on wetlands. But there are many experts on wetlands at DEQ. When rulemaking works as intended, the experts on the subject matter of the rule are involved in crafting the rule. Otherwise, we have ceded environmental rulemaking to political whims and lobby groups.”

Rainey went on to say that the majority party at the General Assembly make “the majority appointments” on the Environmental Management Commission and that the current commission “has greater sway” with this legislature than any in recent memory.

“I urge this EMC to use that influence and ask the General Assembly to stop sending over rules that have been pre-drafted. Take the politics out of rulemaking. Leave it to the experts. It is insulting to this commission, it is insulting to the agency, and it is insulting to the public who are effectively excluded from having any meaningful input at all,” she said.

That lack of input has frustrated residents, environmental advocates and scientists, who argue that ordering a one-size-fits-all definition will be detrimental to a state where wetlands, particularly on the coastal plain, are critical to reducing flooding, cleaning drinking water and supporting fisheries.

“Tying in wetlands protections to federal definitions that change with every administration leaves our communities vulnerable,” said Kerri Allen, a coastal advocate with the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review. “Why should we hand off our responsibility to protect North Carolina’s natural resources to Washington. Wetlands in North Carolina, like pocosins, Carolina Bays and cypress swamps, deserve to be protected under rules written for our state’s needs, not buried under shifting federal priorities.”

Wetlands provide a host of crucial benefits, said Dr. Adam Gold, coasts and watersheds science manager with the Environmental Defense Fund.

They act as natural flood buffers, provide habitat for recreationally and commercially important wildlife, and filter pollution from waterways.

“Just one acre of wetlands can store up to a million and a half gallons of floodwater,” Gold said.

He cautioned that the federal government may further narrow the definition of wetlands. Earlier this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Lee Zeldin announced plans to revise the definition of Waters of the United States, also known as WOTUS.

“As someone who has worked in the intersection of environmental policy and coastal resilience for over two decades, I’ve seen firsthand how wetland loss leads to increased flooding, degraded water quality and disappearing fisheries habitat,” said Coastal Carolina Riverwatch Executive Director Lisa Rider. “These issues are already being impacted and many rural communities and working waterfront communities are already seeing the impact from what’s going on. Stripping protections further will only accelerate harm to ecosystems and the people here in coastal North Carolina.”

Chris Herndon, director of the North Carolina chapter of the Sierra Club, said rolling back wetlands protections will waste millions of taxpayer dollars in flood recovery and contribute to the loss of the state’s natural resources.

“The revised definition freely gives the decision of which wetlands to protect to the federal government. As a result, our state wetlands protections will be determined by federal officials based on federal priorities without any special consideration of the particular importance of wetlands in our state. North Carolinians should decide which North Carolina wetlands should be protected to the benefit of our local communities and local economies,” he said.

Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorney Julie Youngman said that, though the commission has been mandated to pass the rule, there is no deadline in when the rule must be established.

And, since the state’s leading environmental agency is complying with the law, there is “no harm being done to the will of the legislature by slowing it down and working with the legislature to try to fix the mistake that’s been made,” she said.

“It just defies logic that we are putting our fate in the hands of a federal administration that doesn’t seem to care about the same values that we care about here in North Carolina,” Youngman said. “There is not deadline in the statute. Take your time, work with the legislature, see if you can’t come up with a commonsense way to keep the wetland protections that we have in place, in place.”

DEQ will accept public comments through today via email with the subject line “Wetland Definition Amendment” to Sue.Homewood@deq.nc.gov and by mail to Sue Homewood, Division of Water Resources, 1617 Main Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617.

The EMC is anticipated to hear recommendations on the revised rule during its Sept. 11 meeting. The 2023 Farm Act mandates that the rule cannot become effective until after legislative review, which is anticipated to take place during the General Assembly’s 2026 session.

The Environmental Protection Agency has final approval authority over the rule.

A coastwide clean water advocacy organization is urging the public to speak out next week during a hearing in Raleigh on a rule that would change the definition of what constitutes protected wetlands in the state.

The public may attend in-person or join the June 26 Division of Water Resources hearing by computer or phone.

The nonprofit North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, on Tuesday asked its supporters to comment on the rule change mandated by the legislature in 2023 that “limits wetlands protected under state water quality rules to those under federal jurisdiction.”

The North Carolina General Assembly, via the 2023 Farm Act, effective June 27, 2023, required “immediate implementation of the revision and directed the Environmental Management Commission to adopt a rule consistent with the revised definition.”

The commission has advanced the proposed rule and the Office of State Budget and Management approved the required regulatory impact analysis on the last day of December.

The Coastal Federation in its advocacy email urged people to “send a powerful message to state officials: the new definition puts millions of acres of wetlands – and flood protection, clean water, and wildlife they support – at risk.”

The organization said lawmakers need to understand “the real harm this rule will cause and the need to correct it.”

The Coastal Federation lists 10 issues it said will be made worse as a result of the rule change, including flooding, irresponsible development, rising insurance and other costs, water quality and the loss of natural resources and state controls.

“By forcing North Carolina’s Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to adopt a rule that ties state wetlands protections to federal limits, the General Assembly is leaving valuable state wetlands vulnerable to being developed without the developer having to apply for a permit that would contain protective conditions,” the organization said in its email.

The meeting will be 6-9 p.m. Thursday, June 26, in the ground floor hearing room of the Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh.

To attend virtually, log in via WebEx using Meeting No. 2425 792 4510, password: NCDEQ; or by phone at 415-655-0003 and access code 2425 792 4510.

Register to comment online by noon June 26. Register onsite starting at 5:30 p.m.

Anyone may comment, but speakers may be limited to three minutes.

Written comments may also be submitted by June 30. Email comments to: Sue.Homewood@deq.nc.gov using the subject line: “Wetland Definition Amendment.”

Reprinted from our longtime collaborator, North Carolina Health News, to complement our ongoing series on federal budget and staff cuts and the dismantling of programs and services affecting life and lives here on the North Carolina coast.

People who have been struggling to clean up decades of industrial pollution in the lower Cape Fear River basin are expressing their dismay and anger at a federal delay announced Wednesday on a crackdown on so-called forever chemicals that have fouled their drinking water.  

That day, the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to extend the timeline for water utilities to reduce the maximum safe levels for human consumption for a select group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances known as PFAS.

In 2024, under the Biden Administration, the EPA finalized the first-ever enforceable standards for six PFAS compounds: PFOA, PFOS, HFPO-DA (GenX), PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS. At that time, water utilities had until 2029 to comply with the new standards. 

A year later, the Trump Administration’s newly appointed EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency would uphold standards set for PFOA and PFOS — legacy PFAS that persist in the environment despite no longer being manufactured. But Zeldin also announced he would rescind and re-evaluate rules for the other four, including GenX. 

GenX is the common name for the substance produced at the Chemours Fayetteville Works plant; it was discharged into the river’s water for decades until researchers revealed their presence in 2017. 

Additionally, the new federal timeline gives utilities until 2031 to comply with the standards, extending the original 2029 deadline.

“We are on a path to uphold the agency’s nationwide standards to protect Americans from PFOA and PFOS in their water,” Zeldin said in a news release. “At the same time, we will work to provide common-sense flexibility in the form of additional time for compliance.”

While Zeldin’s statement appeared aimed at reassuring the public that the EPA is taking control of the situation, to critics, it sounded like a betrayal — signaling, in their view, a retreat from more robust protections from substances that have become known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment.

‘Not forward-thinking’

“Overall, PFOA and PFOS are chemicals of the past, though they are still present in drinking water sources. So removing them will get a lot of others,” said N.C. State University epidemiologist Jane Hoppin in an email. “But the other four are chemicals of the future, particularly GenX, so removing these rules would not be forward-looking.”

In 2017, Hoppin headed a team of researchers and launched the GenX Exposure Study, which revealed that most of the people from the Cape Fear River Basin who participated in the research have PFAS in their blood.

There are thousands of unique PFAS in the environment, according to experts. They’re present in multiple products to help make them slippery and resistant to oils, water and solvents, including some cosmetics and apparel, microwave popcorn wrappers, dental floss, firefighting gear and some firefighting foams.

PFAS exposure is associated with a range of adverse health effects, such as increased cholesterol levels, kidney and testicular cancer, pre-eclampsia in pregnant women and decreased vaccine response in children, among other conditions.

“The EPA is caving to chemical industry lobbyists and pressure by the water utilities, and in doing so, it’s sentencing millions of Americans to drink contaminated water for years to come,” said Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook in a statement.

Cook’s organization has worked throughout the country to document environmental problems.

“The cost of PFAS pollution will fall on ordinary people, who will pay in the form of polluted water and more sickness, more suffering and more deaths from PFAS-related diseases,” he said. 

Kelly Moser, senior attorney and leader of the Water Program at the Southern Environmental Law Center, echoed this sentiment. “When this administration talks about deregulation, this is what they mean — allowing toxic chemicals in drinking water at the request of polluters,” she said in a release.

Living with PFAS

It has been a tumultuous eight years for thousands of North Carolinians living in the Cape Fear River Basin since the presence of  the forever chemicals was first announced in 2017. Among those affected are residents whose drinking water wells are contaminated, likely because of PFAS that were incinerated at the Fayetteville Works plant and drifted far and wide in emissions from the factory. 

Despite a 2019 consent order — established among Chemours, Cape Fear River Watch and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — aimed at assisting residents with PFAS-contaminated wells, living with PFAS is a daunting challenge.

Jamie White, administrator of the Facebook group “Grays Creek Residents United Against PFAS in our Wells and Rivers,” which works to raise awareness about PFAS contamination, expressed the group’s frustration after the EPA’s latest announcement.

“Well, it shocked us all, first off — and when I say all I speak for the group,” White said during a call with NC Health News. “Number one, we have worked for eight years to get the limits lowered, to bring awareness to everybody, because our wells are contaminated.”

“(The EPA) extended the public water facilities another two years (before) having to have the chemicals cleaned out of their water systems — another two years of contaminating the public,” she said.

Jane Jacobs (EagleHeart), a tribal leader of the Tuscarora Nation, an Indigenous community with many members in the Cape Fear River Basin, criticized the lack of action to protect vulnerable communities.

“My children, my grandchildren, need to be protected from all of the poison, not some of the poison,” Jacobs said. “If somebody was pointing a gun at my kid right now, am I going to protect him from one bullet or all of the bullets?”

Jacobs also highlighted the disproportionate impact on her community. 

“Being a bipoc community, we face a lot more environmental hardships than most people do,” she stated. “We have to drink the tap water. We don’t have money for filters, so for the people in my community, this affects us 10 times worse because we don’t have the money to protect ourselves.”

Looking ahead

While many expressed disappointment over the EPA’s decision, the environmental community remains hopeful that more stringent rules could eventually prevail at the state level — though it may take time. 

One significant obstacle is the Environmental Management Commission, which is responsible for developing regulations to safeguard, preserve and improve the state’s air and water resources. Since 2022, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality has been working with the commission to establish regulations for PFAS and 1,4 dioxane — a cancer-causing pollutant that’s also been found to be widely discharged by industrial companies and ultimately flow into the Cape Fear River.

However, a series of delays have stalled progress, preventing the process from advancing to the public comment period — the next step toward establishing maximum contaminant levels for PFAS at the state level.

The most recent Environmental Management Commission meeting, on May 7, ended in another delay after the Office of State Budget and Management raised concerns about the proposal’s fiscal analysis.

Possible remedies

Despite the setbacks, several people at the meeting expressed relief, including Haw Riverkeeper Emily Sutton.

“There’s not actually any checks or enforcement to make sure that the plans that are drafted are effective, and so this (plan) doesn’t do anything for our downstream community members,” Sutton said. 

She also criticized the fiscal analysis requested by the Office of State Budget and Management.

“The fiscal analysis that they’ve asked for also is flawed. It doesn’t include information about the financial impacts for downstream communities who are bearing the burden of this pollution. (The fiscal analysis) is looking at how much this is going to cost polluting industries. That’s not our concern. Our concern is the health of our community members.”

Southern Environmental Law Center’s Moser agrees that the commission’s proposal falls short of the outcome environmental groups demand. 

“The EMC is siding with polluters and considering adopting rules that were written by polluters,” Moser said. “That could allow industrial facilities to release PFAs indefinitely into North Carolina’s drinking water sources and even increase the toxic water pollution that they are putting into our waterways.”

Sutton and Moser and their colleagues are closely monitoring Senate Bill S666 — the Water Safety Act — proposed by North Carolina Senate Majority Leader Michael Lee, R-New Hanover. If passed, the bill would deliver the state-level regulatory action environmentalists are pushing for.

“ (The proposed bill) directs the EMC to set regulatory limits on PFAs, and that is what our hope is,” Sutton said. “We don’t trust that this commission will hold polluters accountable, and unfortunately, the Department of Environmental Quality has to abide by what they are directed by the EMC.”

Moser pointed out that a potential remedy exists to address the water pollution problem: “It’s more important than ever that states like North Carolina, EPA and wastewater treatment plants use their current authority under the Clean Water Act to require that industry stops their pollution at the source before discharging it into our waterways.” 

The Environmental Management Commission is scheduled to meet again in July, while the EPA is expected to update federal PFAS standards by late 2025, with finalization anticipated by spring 2026. Amid these ongoing challenges, Jacobs offered a rallying cry to fellow environmentalists: “We just need to keep pushing. We need to keep fighting.”

Part of a series about the effects federal budget and staff cuts and the cancellations of programs and services are having in coastal North Carolina.

This story has been updated to include comments from EMC Chair JD Solomon

Federal and state efforts to limit the public’s exposure to “forever chemicals” through drinking water sources seemed to be gaining traction just a year ago.

In a historic move in April 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency set limits on six per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, including PFOA, PFOS and HFPO-DA, most commonly referred to as GenX.

About three months after the federal drinking water rules were adopted, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources introduced proposed groundwater and surface water standards on eight PFAS.

Related: Zeldin says PFAS limits may get tougher, downplays layoffs

But, as of this week, the Trump administration says it intends to rescind and reexamine rules on four PFAS, including GenX, and extend the deadline for public water utilities to comply with rules on PFOA and PFOS by two years.

PFAS are a group of more than 14,000 chemicals used in everyday consumer products including food containers, stain-resistant carpet and water-repellant gear. These man-made chemical compounds are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they are persistent in the environment and have been found to accumulate in people and animals. Exposure to these substances has been linked to weakened immune function, reproductive and developmental issues and increased risk of some cancers.

The EPA’s announcement Wednesday of its plans to scale back PFAS limits comes on the heels of a recent decision by members of the state-appointed commission responsible for adopting rules that protect, preserve and enhance air and water resources to again defer moving forward monitoring and minimization discharge plans for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane into the state’s surface waters.

Critics of those proposed plans argue the rules, as written, lack any real subsistence in reducing the releases of chemical compounds into the state’s waterways.

And in a new year with a new administration at the helm of the federal government, the impetus for regulation may turn up the pressure on state governments to limit discharges of “forever chemicals” into drinking water sources.

State Division of Water Resources officials were heading in that direction in July 2024 when they presented water quality standards for eight PFAS to committees of the N.C. Environmental Management Commission.

The standards would be used to limit permitted releases of PFAS into groundwater and surface waters, set health thresholds for providing alternative water supplies to residents on private wells whose drinking water exceeds contamination limits, and establish goals for cleaning contamination.

The commission’s groundwater and waste management committee agreed to recommend groundwater health standards for only three PFAS, including PFOA, PFOS and GenX. That proposal went to public comment later in the year.

The commission’s water quality committee deferred a motion to send the surface water rule package on all eight PFAS to the full commission and, since its July 2024 meeting, has also pared down its focus on PFAS to PFOA, PFOS and GenX.

Based on that committee’s vote earlier this month, the commission isn’t expected to see a proposed draft rule on PFAS or 1,4-dioxane earlier than its July meeting.

In an emailing responding to questions from Coastal Review on Thursday morning, EMC Chair JD Solomon said the commission anticipates receiving the hearing officer’s report on the proposed groundwater rules at that same meeting.

Draft rule ‘doesn’t have sufficient teeth’

The current proposed rules for surface water bear little semblance to those the Division of Water Resources presented last July.

The set of rule drafts presented to the water quality committee in March were largely written from input provided by the North Carolina Water Quality Association, a statewide organization that represents public water, sewer, and stormwater utilities.

The water quality standards included in the initial draft rules the division created last year have since been deleted. Without those standards, the state lacks ability to enforce limits on dischargers of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, critics say.

One of those critics of the current proposed draft rules is Environmental Management Commissioner Robin Smith.

“I think that consistently there has been a concern that, in the absence of a water quality standard, even a minimization plan isn’t enforceable,” Smith told Coastal Review in a telephone interview earlier this week.

Following last week’s commission meeting, Smith raised several concerns in an email that she sent to fellow commissioners.

“My concern is that (the current draft rule) doesn’t have sufficient teeth,” she said. “If you read through the full draft, there’s just nothing there other than the minimization contents, like a table of contents for what the minimization plan would have to be. There are no standards for determining whether what a system submits in their plan is adequate or not.”

In his email, Solomon explained that the regulatory impact analysis, or RIA, which is an evaluation of the potential costs and benefits associated with a proposed regulation, did not sufficiently identify cost-benefits associated with the proposed rules.

Last September, the water quality committee voted to move forward with a proposed monitoring and minimization plan and “continue discussions with federal agencies to make sure the benefits portion of the numeric standard were realistic,” Solomon said.

“The monitoring and minimization approach is seen as a proactive measure by EPA because it addresses potential contamination before it gets into our human and natural systems communities,” he wrote. “Allowing potential contamination into our public water bodies and public sewer systems is also much more costly to clean up.”

But the proposed monitoring and minimization plan would fail to enforce consequences for industries if they increase their pollution, said Southern Environmental Law Center Attorney Hannah Nelson.

“DEQ worked really hard to put together a comprehensive set of water quality standards that would have required polluters to reduce their pollution at the source and they spent a lot of time putting those rules together,” she said. “We don’t see that same thing happening with this set of rules. Instead, the analysis supporting this rule making completely ignored impact to downstream drinking water utilities. They don’t address that because, if they did, we would see that this rule is all about protecting industry and it’s not about protecting the people of North Carolina.”

In an April 17 letter to state environmental officials, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority’s executive director admonished the revised draft rule for 1,4-dioxane.

“After months of research, our consultants determined, as a matter of law, that there is no legal basis by which to create mandatory, legally enforceable 1,4-dioxane minimization requirements without supporting water quality standards for surface waters,” wrote the utility’s Kenneth Waldroup in the letter addressed to Solomon and Division of Water Resources Director Richard Rogers.

“Given that the EMC determined many years ago that 1,4-dixoane adversely impacts the protected use of groundwater, we respectfully point out that the EMC neglects its statutory duty to protect surface waters from the same pollutant. Pollution mitigation plans that have no required or enforceable reduction targets will not garner any tangible results but instead be no more than an action in name only providing empty promises to the people of North Carolina,” the letter states.

There are six known 1,4-dioxane polluters upstream of the drinking water supply for Sanford, Fayetteville, Brunswick, New Hanover and Pender counties, and municipalities that buy drinking water from Sanford.

Waldroup has said that the utility will have to invest millions of dollars to remove 1,4-dioxane, a likely carcinogen, from its raw drinking water source: the Cape Fear River.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority has already spent millions in upgrades and ongoing treatment of PFAS discharged into the Cape Fear River from, among other upstream polluters, Chemours’ Fayetteville Works plant.

GenX is specific to the Bladen County facility, which is roughly 74 miles upstream of Wilmington.

Since news broke nearly eight years ago that Chemours had knowingly discharged PFAS directly into the river, air and groundwater for decades, the company has spent millions to reduce its PFAS emissions to comply with a 2019 consent order between the company, DEQ and Cape Fear River Watch.

The Cape Fear utility and other public water utilities in the region are calling for regulations that would ultimately shift the cost of reducing PFAS and 1,4-dioxane discharges to the industries that produce those chemical compounds.

“We seek meaningful regulation that acknowledges and rewards the reductions made to date, prevents backsliding, and requires uncooperative industrial dischargers to mirror the work of dutiful municipal partners,” Waldroup wrote.

The Clean Water Act includes “anti-backsliding” provisions advocates say prohibits repealing or weakening the drinking water standard.

“Unfairly” blamed

Water quality committee members pointed the finger at Division of Water Resources staff as the reason for the latest delay in getting proposed rules out for public comment.

Smith, who is not a member of the water quality committee, took issue with that assertion, saying in her email that committee members were “unfairly blaming” division staff.

“DWR was not responsible for the fact that the Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM) did not approve the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIAs) for these two sets of rules before the May EMC meeting,” she wrote.

Instead, “significant changes” to the rule drafts and the draft regulatory analyses that were presented to the committee in March “led directly to OSBM questions that delayed approval of the RIAs and remain unresolved.”

Changes to the draft rules were made at the direction of a group of commissioners, including the chair and vice chair of the water quality committee, chair of the groundwater and waste management committee, and Solomon. Solomon did not respond to an email request for comment.

During the water quality committee’s May 7 meeting, Rogers said staff had “been engaged in taking direction from a subcommittee of this committee” over the last month.

“We have taken that direction and applied it directly to the draft rules that y’all have before you today,” Rogers said.

Exactly which commissioners had been meeting with staff had not been made clear until the May 7 meeting, Smith told Coastal Review.

“It’s not necessarily inappropriate to have a subcommittee or a working group, a small group of EMC members who work on something between committee meetings, but one of my concerns about this process has been there’s never been any transparency about the fact that was going on and who was involved,” she said. “I do think we need to reach some common understanding of how we’re working on these rules, but that also clearly affects the public, and I’m also not sure we’re on a path toward making great progress in July, depending on how willing some of these water quality committee members are to making changes to satisfy OSBM.”

Solomon said that DEQ staff “asked for a more collaborative approach” with the commission for the monitoring and minimization draft rule.

“Coordination and communication with DEQ divisions is charged to the chair and vice-chair of the relevant EMC committee, and in this case the WQC chair and vice chair interacted with DWR to move this draft item onto the committee agenda for debate and discussion,” he said. “No action has been taken on the draft monitoring and minimization rule, or the RIA, by the WQC or the EMC. Based on OSBM’s response to the draft RIA, the benefits aspect of the draft rule is the primary issue. My direction as EMC chair is to bring the updated draft documents before the committee in July.”

North Carolinians whose raw drinking water sources are contaminated with chemical compounds will have to wait at least another two months before proposed rules establishing monitoring requirements for dischargers go out for public comment.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s Water Quality Committee unanimously voted earlier this week to wait to present to the full commission draft rules for monitoring and minimizing discharges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and 1,4-dioxane into the state’s surface waters.

Committee members said Wednesday that while they had hoped to present the draft rules to the commission this month, the N.C. Office of State Budget and Management, or OSBM, needs more time to review and approve regulatory impact analyses of those proposed rules. A regulatory impact analysis, or RIA, is an evaluation of the potential costs and benefits associated with a proposed regulation.

“Only yesterday morning did the department receive comments from OSBM on PFAS and didn’t receive anything yet on 1,4,” Committee Chair Steve Keen said Wednesday afternoon. “Though this was launched to the public through the (Department of Environmental Quality) website two weeks ago, nothing from OSBM until yesterday.”

Committee Vice Chair Michael Ellison alluded to staffing issues at DEQ as one possible reason for the lag in the proposed rules being ready.

“We have heard that some of the economic analysis required for an RIA has been impeded because the department lack sufficient staff trained in economics and that there has been an economist on maternity leave, all of which is fine and wonderful, but this has been going on for over a year,” Ellison said.

Ellison suggested the department turn to universities in the state for help.

“We have had presentation after presentation about the near ubiquitous nature of PFAS in our surface waters statewide and we know they’re there, but we really don’t know all the places that they’re coming from other than Chemours, and we don’t know what tools are available,” he said. “And this draft rule was a step, a critical step, toward this committee, and ultimately the full commission, developing a rule to protect the health and safety and environment of North Carolina and I would hope that the department takes this continuation and makes good use of the time before our next meeting and can get the RIA approved.”

The draft rule for monitoring and minimalizing PFAS targets three chemical compounds: PFOS, PFOA, which are classified as likely carcinogens, and GenX, a compound specific to Chemours Fayetteville Works plant in Bladen County.

The chemical manufacturing facility knowingly emitted GenX and a host of other PFAS into the environment, including the Cape Fear River, the ground and air for decades.

But it is hardly the only industrial polluter discharging such chemical compounds into the environment in North Carolina.

Hundreds of industries in the state pay wastewater treatment plants to take their industrial waste. Those treatment plants do not remove PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, which the Environmental Protection Agency also classifies as a likely carcinogen, before discharging their effluent into the environment, including waterways that are the raw drinking water sources for hundreds of thousands of residents.

Downstream drinking water utilities were notified one week ago that elevated levels of 1,4-dixoane had been discharged from the Asheboro Wastewater Treatment Plant into Hasketts Creek, which drains into the Deep River in the Cape Fear River Basin.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, Brunswick County, Fayetteville Public Works Commission and the city of Sandford were notified May 3 that the samples the plant collected April 25 from discharge detected a concentration of 826 parts per billion or ppb, according to a DEQ release. The state Division of Water Resources collected a sample that same day with results detecting a concentration of 730 ppb.

“DEQ, using EPA toxicity calculations for lifetime exposure, has determined that the average monthly 1,4-dioxane concentration protective of downstream water supplies is about 22 ppb for the Asheboro discharge,” the release states.

There is growing public outcry among residents, local governments and water utilities downstream of industrial polluters calling for state regulations to stop discharges at the source.

Critics of the proposed rules argue they do not require industries to reduce their PFAS discharges.

During the Water Quality Committee meeting, Keen said the initial game plan was “to create a narrative” on how the state can identify dischargers, what those dischargers are doing, and how they’re doing it, “and minimize it, if not get rid of it.”

“But the foundation was to start by monitoring and minimizing it,” he said. “That was the motion by this committee and that’s where we began officially. We want to get the right numbers for all of the river basins. We want to know what those are. Now, how do we do it? We have to go through OSBM. We have to get the regulatory impact analysis that has the fiscal note and a lot of things tied to it that’s going to give us answers.”

DEQ’s Division of Water Resources Director Richard Rogers reiterated that staff was under a tight deadline get the rules drafted.

“We will continue to work and hope we can continue to work cooperatively with the committee in this process,” he said.

In comments made early in the full commission’s Thursday meeting, Chair JD Solomon explained to the board that the draft rules were not ready to be put to a vote to go out for public comment because of the RIA.

“Regardless of what did last year or what we’re doing this year, we have to get the cost benefit right,” he said. “I will say everybody did work on it. It is what it is and we just have to resolve to come back in July with the fiscal notes in place and have those debates and whatnot.”

The full commission’s next scheduled meeting is July 10. Committees meet one day prior to the commission.

In an update to the Groundwater and Waste Management Committee on Wednesday morning, DEQ Environmental Program Analyst Jared Wilson said that more than 9,000 homes are expected to be added to those eligible for private water well testing for PFAS.

Well testing has expanded into 10 counties in the vicinity and downstream of Chemours’ plant.

“To date we have not found the edge of contamination,” Wilson said.

State Division of Waste Management Director Michael Scott told committee members that decades of air emissions of PFAS from the Chemours plant infiltrated the ground and migrated to private drinking water wells more than 30 miles away.

“How many plumes do you have in North Carolina that are 35 miles wide?” Solomon asked.

“One,” Scott answered.

A public hearing on the state’s new classification of “wetlands” is set for late June.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources has scheduled a hearing June 26 to accept public comments on the revised wetlands definition’s codification into state rules.

Legislators in June 2023 voted into the law the revised definition, which aligns with the federal classification of wetlands as those that have a “continuous surface connection.” State law dictated immediate implementation of the revision and that the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission adopt a rule consistent with the revised definition.

The hearing in June will begin at 6 p.m. in the ground floor hearing room, Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh. Speaker registration and sign-in will begin at 5:30 p.m.

To join virtually, visit  https://ncgov.webex.com/ncgov/j.php?MTID=mc924957b9d3395883ef8e61c5eda6d54, meeting number 2425 792 4510, password NCDEQ. Those who wish to comment via Webex must register to speak by noon June 26.

Online speakers are asked to login to Webex using first and last name so that the meeting host can identify and call on each person wishing to comment. Additional information on ways to join the hearing are available at https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/boards-and-commissions/how-attend-webex-meeting-0.

Participants may also join by phone by dialing 1-415-655-0003, access code 2425 792 4510.

The hearing will end by 9 p.m. Depending on the number of speakers, the hearing officer may limit comment times to allow everyone an opportunity to be heard.

Written comments will be accepted through June 30 via email with the subject line “Wetland Definition Amendment” to Sue.Homewood@deq.nc.gov and by mail to Sue Homewood, Division of Water Resources, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617.

Cape Fear River Watch is inviting the region to use the power of the pen to express their passion for clean water to state rulemakers.

The organization’s “Postcards Against PFAS” is set from 5:30-8 p.m. Tuesday at Waterline Brewing, 721 Surry St., Wilmington.

Those who attend will have the opportunity to write postcards and emails to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, or EMC, and Sen. Michael Lee, R-New Hanover.

The EMC’s water quality committee is to consider at its meeting in Raleigh on Wednesday whether to send to the full commission a proposed rule to establish monitoring and minimization requirements for dischargers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. The full commission, whose role is to protect, preserve and enhance the state’s water and air resources, is scheduled to meet the following day.

Related: Committee to consider draft plans for 3 PFAS, 1,4-dioxane

Three PFAS – PFOA, PFOS and GenX – are anticipated to be included in the draft rule. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that more than 12,000 PFAS, which are chemical compounds used in the manufacturing of a host of consumer goods, exist.

A draft rule presented to the EMC’s Water Quality Committee last March was largely crafted from input provided by the North Carolina Water Quality Association, whose members are from public water, sewer and stormwater utilities.

There are hundreds of industries in North Carolina that pay wastewater treatment plants to take their industrial waste. Those treatments plants do not remove PFAS.

Cape Fear River Watch is asking participants at next week’s event to urge Lee to muster his fellow legislators to pass three PFAS-related bills that call for reductions in PFAS discharges, studies associated with PFAS contamination, and prohibiting firefighting foams containing PFAS for firefighter training or testing. Those include House bill’s 569 and 570, and Senate bill 666.

The Environmental Management Commission’s water quality committee is to consider sending to the full commission proposed rules to manage 1,4-dioxane, and three types of PFAS during its 1:30 p.m. May 7 meeting in Raleigh.

The full commission is to meet at 9 a.m. May 8 and is to consider proposed amendments to Tar-Pamlico wastewater discharge requirements, proceeding to public comment on air curtain incinerator draft rule changes, and a few rules going through the periodic review process.

The public can attend any of the meetings in person, all in the Archdale building, or listen in by computer or phone. Directions on how to join the meeting virtually, agendas and supporting documents are available on the commission website. 

The water quality committee is to consider draft rules on monitoring and minimizing programs for PFOS, PFOA and GenX, which are types of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and draft rules for 1,4-dioxane, all human-made chemicals that are likely carcinogens or associated with health issues.

The water allocation committee meeting at 9 a.m. May 7, and the following air quality committee meeting at 10:15 a.m. will both focus on informational items and rules in different stages of the periodic review process.

During the groundwater and waste management committee’s 11:30 a.m. May 7 meeting, commissioners are expected to hear updates on a landfill PFAS sampling initiative, and the expanded private drinking water well sampling for PFAS under the 2019 Chemours consent order.

The Environmental Management Commission oversees and adopts rules for several divisions of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, including the Divisions of Air Quality, Land Resources, Waste Management and Water Resources. 

Second in a series

WILMINGTON – Without a state-set limit for 1,4-dioxane, a public utility that serves an estimated 200,000 people here will have to invest millions of dollars to remove the federally deemed “likely carcinogen” from its raw drinking water source.

The projected cost for Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, or CFPUA, to make additional upgrades to its Sweeney Water Treatment Plant is in the area of $17- $24 million, authority Executive Director Kenneth Waldroup said.

Annual additional costs associated with treating the chemical being discharged into the Cape Fear River upstream of the city are between $1 million and $3 million.

Such costs could be avoided if upstream polluters would reduce the amount of 1,4-dioxane from their effluent by 60-65%, Waldroup said.

But prospects that industry will voluntarily reduce discharges of the chemical are slim.

And efforts to get the state’s rule makers – both the North Carolina General Assembly and the Environmental Management Commission – to set a water quality standard for 1,4-dioxane are not making much headway. The commission is charged with adopting rules to protect the state’s air and water resources.

CFPUA will continue advocating for solutions, Waldroup said to a crowd of about 100 people Saturday.

The World Water Day event, hosted by Clean Cape Fear in partnership with St. Andrews-Covenant Presbyterian Church’s women’s ministry team, highlighted ongoing problems downstream water users face from upstream polluters.

It’s an issue that spans the country, where an estimated 6-10% of 66,000 drinking water systems throughout the country must figure out how to treat certain chemical compounds from their raw water sources.

The Cape Fear River is the drinking water source for tens of thousands of residents in the Cape Fear Region, one rocked nearly eight years ago when the public was first informed Chemours’ Fayetteville Works Facility had been discharging PFAS into the river, air and ground for decades.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that there are more than 14,000 of these chemical compounds, which are used to make a host of everyday consumer goods from food packaging to water-resistant gear.

PFAS exposure has been linked to a number of adverse health impacts to people, including thyroid disease, increased cholesterol, liver damage, and different types of cancers.

More than two years have passed since CFPUA completed a multi-million-dollar upgrade to its Sweeney plant, which included the addition of a filtration system to remove PFAS, including GenX, from its raw water source.

Today, the average CFPUA customer bill includes a $7.50 charge Waldroup referred to Saturday as the “Chemours correction surcharge,” one associated with the utility’s annual operation costs associated with the filtration system upgrade.

That upgrade entailed the installation of eight granular activated carbon filters.

The system effectively removes PFAS for which the EPA in the spring of 2024 made the move to set enforceable limits on nearly a half-dozen individual compounds in public water systems.

The cost the utility incurs each year to remove PFAS is about $4.3 million, Waldroup said. The utility’s legal fees have surpassed $10 million in its ongoing lawsuit against Chemours and parent company Dupont to pay for costs and damages related to the companies’ actions.

A trial is not expected until next year.

CFPUA monitors up to 70 types of PFAS, including GenX and other chemical compounds specific to Chemours. The utility is now looking at ultra-short chain PFAS, Waldroup said. Those are compounds with carbon chain lengths of 3 or fewer carbon atoms in sequence

The utility is able to treat “some” 1,4-dioxane from its raw water source, he said, but the activated carbon system does not remove the chemical.

He explained that there is a debate in the scientific community as to the appropriate exposure rate of 1,4-dioxane, specifically whether that rate is 35 parts per billion, or 0.35 ppb. The federal drinking water health advisory level is 0.35 ppb.

“The difference is a one in 10,000 cancer risk a 70-year lifetime exposure and a one in a million,” Waldroup said. “As the downstream water provider, we think one in a million is the right standard.”

Known polluters

In January, CFPUA and other water utilities, including Pender County Utilities, were notified by the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality that a city-operated wastewater treatment plant in Randolph County discharged substantially high levels of 1,4-dixoane into a tributary of the Cape Fear River that month.

The notice came months after a state chief administrative law judge last September revoked 1,4-dioxane limits included in Asheboro’s discharge permit. DEQ appealed the judge’s decision and is awaiting a ruling.

The Southern Environmental Law Center, or SELC, on Wednesday notified Asheboro and its industrial customers, StarPet and Waste Management’s Great Oak Landfill, it plans to sue for failing to stop 1,4-dioxane from “flowing into the drinking water supplies for about 900,000 North Carolinians,” according to a release. The intended lawsuit is being filed on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch and Haw River Assembly.

“Asheboro and cities like it have the ability and responsibility to stop this illegal 1,4-dioxane pollution before it contaminates people’s drinking water,” SELC senior attorney Jean Zhuang stated in the release. “Emboldened by its fight to dismantle North Carolinian’s drinking water protections, Asheboro’s 1,4-dioxane pollution has skyrocketed in recent months. Asheboro’s industries don’t want to pay to treat their own chemical pollution, so the city is protecting their profits over the health and safety of North Carolinians downstream and making their untreated, toxic industrial waste a costly problem for communities who get their drinking water downstream.”

Asheboro discharges upstream of the drinking water supply for Sanford, Fayetteville, Brunswick, New Hanover and Pender counties, and municipalities that buy drinking water from Sanford, according to the release.

Asheboro’s wastewater treatment plant is one of six known 1,4-dioxane upstream polluters, Waldroup said. Of those, the Alpek Polyester USA plant just upstream of Chemours is the highest source of 1,4-dixoane release into the Cape Fear River, he said.

In May, the Environmental Management Commission is expected to be presented with a draft rule to establish monitoring and minimization requirements of PFAS dischargers in the state. The proposed rule was written largely from input provided by a utility association, which has drawn backlash from one of its own members – CFPUA – and environmental groups.

Hannah Nelson, a Southern Environmental Law Center staff attorney and speaker at Saturday’s event, called the proposed rule “offensive” to residents who live downstream of industry polluters.

“This rule was written by polluters and it shows,” she said. “There is no requirement under this draft rule for polluters to reduce PFAS pollution. Polluters will use this rule to hide behind it.”

The commission has instructed DEQ to put together a similar proposed rule for 1,4-dioxane, Nelson said.

That does not prevent DEQ from requiring industries include pretreatment programs in their discharge permits and placing the burden on the polluters, she said.

And the onus of establishing rules that hold the polluter, not water utilities and their customers, may fall even more on the state under the Trump administration, which recently announced plans to dismantle the EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

The EPA’s Research Triangle Park campus is home to labs that study PFAS contamination, air pollution and industrial emissions.

North Carolina also has a group of academic researchers within the North Carolina Policy Collaboratory’s PFAS Testing Network who specifically perform PFAS-related studies in the state. The General Assembly has appropriated tens of millions of dollars for the Collaboratory.

Dr. Jeffrey Enders, a senior research scholar and research assistant professor with North Carolina State University, shared last Saturday the results of a study he conducted on PFAS in sea foam collected along the state’s southern coastal shorelines.

A majority of the 10 foam samples he studied had been 10,000 – 10 million parts per trillion of total PFAS.

People are advised to avoid contact with sea foam on area beaches.

Next in the series: Polluter asks court to keep records under seal

A proposed rule to establish monitoring and minimization requirements for PFAS dischargers in the state was crafted largely from input provided by a utility association.

A draft of the rule was discussed last week in a meeting of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s Water Quality Committee. The role of the commission is to adopt rules to protect, preserve and enhance the state’s water and air resources.

The draft will likely be presented to the committee this spring, short of any further suggestions from community and environmental groups. The draft then will go to the full commission if the committee decides to move forward.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources Director Richard Rogers told the committee during its meeting Wednesday that while the draft rule includes “some” of the input from those groups, the “full scope of their written feedback has not been integrated in the rule that you have before you today.”

“At the direction of the committee chair, staff used the PFAS monitoring and minimization framework submitted by the North Carolina Water Quality Association to develop the draft rule before the committee today,” he said. He was referring to committee chairman Steve Keen. The statewide association members are from public water, sewer, and stormwater utilities.

Rogers went on to say that he would like to consider a rule on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances discharges into surface waters that incorporates feedback from the other groups, the full engagement of which would push the division past a May deadline.

The committee instructed division staff to complete and present a draft to the rule and a regulatory impact analysis, which assesses the impacts of a proposed regulation, at its May 7 meeting.

“We need to get this thing through,” Commission Chair JD Solomon said. “We need to get it to public comment. That’s the most important thing right now.”

Community and environmental groups will then get the opportunity to submit their responses to the draft rule, he said.

The language included in the draft presented to the committee last week has already drawn the ire of environmental advocates who argue it does not require industries to reduce their PFAS discharges.

“They moved forward a rule that is worse than doing nothing and that is because it will give cover to polluters to do nothing even if DEQ tries to put protections in permits,” Cape Fear River Watch Executive Director Dana Sargent said in an interview Thursday. “DEQ should be drafting the rule, the EMC should be there for review and obviously it should not be drafted by industry.”

The Cape Fear region became ground zero for PFAS contamination in the state after news broke in 2017 that Chemours Co.’s Fayetteville Works facility, some 70 miles upstream of Wilmington, had for decades been discharging PFAS into the Cape Fear River and groundwater, contaminating the drinking water sources for tens of thousands of residents.

But Chemours is not the sole discharger of these chemical compounds, which are used to produce everyday goods like food containers, waterproof clothing and stain-resistant carpets, into the region’s drinking water sources.

According to DEQ, there are hundreds of industries in North Carolina that pay wastewater treatment plants to take their industrial waste, the Southern Environmental Law Center said in a March 10 release.

Those treatment plants do not remove PFAS, but “have the authority and obligation to stop their industrial customers from sending toxic pollution like PFAS to their wastewater plants in the first place,” the release states.

Jean Zhuang, a SELC senior attorney, stated in the release that the draft rule presented last week “is offensive to families throughout North Carolina who deserve clean, safe drinking water.”

“Under this rule, PFAS-polluting industries could do absolutely nothing to reduce their toxic waste for the next century and face no consequences,” she said. “This rule protects over 600 industry polluters above communities and abandons the 2.5 million North Carolinians drinking water contaminated with harmful forever chemicals. The Environmental Management Commission cannot move this rule forward.”

During last week’s meeting, committee members discussed various language in the proposed rule, including the frequency with which dischargers would have to collect samples to test for PFAS contamination.

If an industry exceeds a certain PFAS discharge threshold, it would be required to implement a minimization plan and submit that plan to the state or publicly owned treatment works, or POTWs, within a timeframe established in the rule. A minimization plan would be reviewed every two years until the PFAS reduction goals set in the plan are met.

The committee also instructed the Division of Water Resources to complete a draft rule pertaining to 1,4-dioxane and present it in May.

The commission is expected to decide at its May 8 meeting whether to approve a rule outlining health standards for three compounds, PFOA, PFOS, and GenX, in groundwater.

If the rule is approved it will be presented to the state Rules Review Commission this summer. If that commission approves the draft rule, it would become final in July.

The Environmental Management Commission voted to send to public notice and hearing a proposed amendment to “clarify the definition of wetlands” Thursday during its meeting in Raleigh.

Commissioners Yvonne Bailey, Marion Deerhake, Dr. Jackie MacDonald Gibson and Robin Smith all voted against the motion to advance new language that codifies reduced state protections.

The commission, which directs and creates rules for several divisions under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, was ordered close to two years ago in a law called the 2023 Farm Act to insert into the definition of wetlands one sentence that aligns the state’s definition of wetlands to the federal definition, which narrowed Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

The commission’s vote took place the day after Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to revise the definition of “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, the acronym given to federally regulation waters.

Sue Homewood, senior branch coordinator with the Division of Water Resources, told the commission Thursday that the law required changing the definition in the state administrative code, “and it specified exactly the language to be changed, that ‘wetlands classified as Waters of the State are restricted to Waters of the United States as defined by’ federal regulations.”

NCDEQ has been implementing the definition since it was approved in June 2023, as directed by the North Carolina General Assembly, while the commission goes through the rulemaking process to add that sentence to the existing definition of “wetlands” in the general statute.

The order contains explicit directions that the amendment had to be included as written and couldn’t be challenged by the Rules Review Commission.

Smith said she was voting in protest against the motion because it was “extremely bad environmental policy to outsource decisions about protection of state waters to the decision of a federal agency about what federal jurisdiction is. So that’s just fundamentally not a good direction.”

Smith said that a process question also comes up, “that the General Assembly unfortunately has gotten into what I think is the very bad habit of doing what they did with this session law, which is to attempt to dictate the wording of an administrative rule and then cause the session law to expire when the rule is adopted, and without ever changing fundamental general statutes that actually do define what state waters are.”

The state already operates under an existing definition of waters in the statute, she said.

Smith said the existing state waters definition includes “any stream, river, brook, swamp, lake, sound, tidal estuary, bay, creek, reservoir, waterway, or other body or accumulation of water, whether surface or underground, public or private, or natural or artificial, that is contained in, flows through, or borders upon any portion of this State, including any portion of the Atlantic Ocean over which the State has jurisdiction.”

This definition in the statute has not been amended by the General Assembly, Smith said, adding that the law expires when the rule is adopted.

“I think it raises questions of whether, looking toward the future, whether the rule will be considered consistent with state law, given the failure of the General Assembly to actually amend the definition of waters in the general statute, and that’s just a bad practice,” Smith said.

She added that she thinks this rule amendment “creates a really unfortunate situation in terms of potential conflict” between Environmental Management Commission rules and the statutes under which the commission operates its water permitting programs. “For that reason, I’m going to vote against. It’s a protest vote. I think it’s just a terrible process legally and administratively.”

Commissioner Steve Keen asked Smith whether she planned “to vote to violate the statute” because the statute directs the rule change.

Smith said she was voting against adoption of the rule, “because I believe the rule will turn out to be inconsistent with a general statute that has not been amended, and the session law that directed the change in the rule will expire as soon as the rule is adopted. That’s in the session law itself.”

Commissioner Kevin Tweedy “completely” agreed with Smith, calling the logic behind the amendment poor in two respects: lost wetlands protections and diminished flood resiliency.

“We’re putting millions and millions of dollars into that,” Tweedy said. “It’s like one thing is fighting the other, and I just don’t think it’s good policy.”

Homewood, with the Division of Water Resources, said that the public comment period for the wetlands definition amendment will likely take place in April, and the public hearing would be between June 2 and June 16, when the comment period is expected to end. After that, a hearing officer’s report will be brought back to the commission in September and if approved, would go to the Office of Administrative Hearings, or OAH.

Related: Commission set to further curb state wetlands protections

Because the law exempts the rule change from Rules Review Commission review, its effective date would be pending a legislative review, she said, and that timing would be with the 2026 session.

“Because these rules are part of the water quality standards and the triennial review, the rule amendment post-legislative approval, would have to go to EPA for final approval,” she said, “so we cannot predict an implementation date. But as I said, we are implementing these right now.”

When the Environmental Management Commission was discussing the motion to amend the definition of wetlands on the state level, there was no mention of the EPA’s intention to overhaul the WOTUS definition.

The EPA and Department of the Army, which oversees the Corps of Engineers, announced Wednesday a joint memorandum issuing guidance to field staff on the implementation of “continuous surface connection” consistent with the Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023, decision in the case of Sackett v. EPA.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sacketts of Idaho who argued that the wetlands they were backfilling on their property did not qualify as jurisdictional wetlands under the federal definition. The EPA adjusted later in 2023 its definition to conform to the Supreme Court decision.

The definition states that wetlands must have a “continuous surface connection” to federally protected waters to qualify as waters of the United States and be protected under the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act was put in place in 1972 and prohibits discharging pollutants from a point source into “navigable waters” unless otherwise authorized. Navigable waters are defined in the Clean Water Act as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” WOTUS is not defined in the act itself but is in the code of federal regulations.

“We want clean water for all Americans supported by clear and consistent rules for all states, farmers, and small businesses,” Zeldin said in a statement. “The previous Administration’s definition of ‘waters of the United States’ placed unfair burdens on the American people and drove up the cost of doing business. Our goal is to protect America’s water resources consistent with the law of the land while empowering American farmers, landowners, entrepreneurs, and families to help Power the Great American Comeback.”

It has been nearly two years since the North Carolina General Assembly ordered the Environmental Management Commission to adopt a rule that aligns the state’s definition of wetlands with the federal definition, which was narrowed by a May 2023 Supreme Court decision.

Despite the vocal objections from conservation organizations and what the commission claims to be “differences” with the state agency it oversees, members are expected to consider during its meeting Thursday in Raleigh going to public notice and hearing for the proposed amendment to the state’s definition of wetlands, one of the many steps required in the rulemaking process.

The 15-member commission adopts rules for several divisions of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, including the divisions of Air Quality, Land Resources, Waste Management and Water Resources.

The General Assembly directed the commission in a 2023 law to implement the rule that reads, “Wetlands classified as waters of the State are restricted to waters of the United States as defined by (the Code of Federal Regulations).”

The current definition of Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, effective Sept. 8, 2023, includes navigable waters, its tributaries and adjacent wetlands, but excludes isolated wetlands, which are wetlands without a surface connection to the jurisdictional waters. The federal definition is part of a decades-long discussion, and, in some cases, disagreement, linked to the Clean Water Act enacted in 1972.

A DEQ spokesperson told Coastal Review in an email that the Division of Water Resources began implementing the new definition of wetlands following the General Assembly’s adoption of that law, also called the 2023 Farm Act, which included a revised definition of wetlands found in the state administrative code.

“The rules that are moving forward in the N.C. Environmental Management Commission are codifying the new definition in the rules. The process of codifying a rule requires approval by the EMC and a public hearing,” they added.

Grady O’Brien, water policy manager for the North Carolina Conservation Network, explained that the change to the wetlands definition rule the commission is considering is required by the law from the 2023 legislative session.

“Unfortunately, this means there’s no room to alter the language at this point; any further change would require legislative direction. It’s important to note that the state didn’t have to make this change — North Carolina had a state-level definition for wetlands that could have remained,” he added.

That definition covers wetlands not directly connected to other bodies of water.

“By passing the 2023 Farm Act that ordered the EMC to adopt this rule to gut North Carolina’s wetlands protections, North Carolina’s legislature failed to protect our water quality, communities, economy, and special natural resources. With this rulemaking, 2.5 million acres of flood-storing, water-filtering wetlands will be at risk of pollution and destruction,” Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Julie Youngman told Coastal Review.

During its Jan. 8 meeting, the commission’s water quality committee approved taking the request before the full commission. During the March 13 meeting, members are to be asked to consider initiating the rulemaking process by proceeding to public notice and hearing and to amend “Definitions” to comply with the 2023 session law, according to agenda documents.

“The revised definition of ‘wetlands’ in the rule proposed for amendment is applicable to all wetlands in North Carolina. Any effects of the changes are effects imposed by the Session Law and are not caused by the proposed rule amendments directly,” according to the division.

If the commission decides to move forward on Thursday and follows the staff’s suggested timeline, the public comment period could start April 15. A public hearing would be held no sooner than June 2 but before the comment period ends June 16.

But that public comment period might just be an exercise in futility.

Youngman explained that the way that section 15 of the 2023 Farm Act is written, “the General Assembly clearly intended to take away the public’s right to participate meaningfully in the rulemaking process and forbid anyone from challenging the elimination of wetlands protections in court.”

Section 15 states “The Commission shall adopt a rule to amend the Wetlands Definition Rule consistent with subsection (c) of this section” and “the rule adopted by the Commission pursuant to this section shall be substantively identical to the provisions of subsection (c)of this section,” which shows that the commission is being ordered to adopt the rule exactly as the General Assembly phrased it, she said.

The next sentence, the “Rules adopted pursuant to this section are not subject to Part 3 of Article 2A of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes,” is where the General Assembly is saying that no one can challenge the rule, she said. That state law refers to the rules review process.  

“DEQ will consider all public comments received during the public comment period for the EMC’s consideration prior to it adopting the final rule,” a DEQ representative explained.

Youngman said that “we hope that the time lag in the EMC adopting the rule has given the General Assembly an opportunity to realize how harmful the anti-wetlands provision of the 2023 Farm Act is and pass a new law to protect wetlands after all.”

According to the commission’s annual report about 2024 for the General Assembly, dated Jan. 1, 2025, members “began the rulemaking process per the statute; however, the rulemaking remained in committee due to differences between the EMC and DEQ over the regulatory impact analysis. It is noted that the statute made the changes in law and they are in effect until the new rule is approved.”

The Farm Act of 2023 was filed April 4 of that year and included a “Clarify Definition Of Wetlands” stating that “Wetlands classified as waters of the State are restricted to waters of the United States as defined by 33 C.F.R. § 328.3 and 40 C.F.R. § 230.3″ and was amended a few weeks later to add the exclusion of converted cropland from the wetlands definition.

The next month, the Supreme Court changed the federal definition to waters of the United States.

The court, in its decision in what was known as Sackett v. EPA, ruled in favor of the Idaho landowners. The Sacketts had argued that their property was not considered “waters of the United States” because the wetlands the EPA had fined them for backfilling were not adjacent to navigable waters. The court’s decision led to the federal definition of WOTUS being amended to exclude noncontiguous wetlands.  

Then-Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed the state measure on June 23, 2023, because of the wetlands provision, but the veto was overridden four days later, with the law taking effect that same day.

“The provision in this bill that severely weakens protection for wetlands means more severe flooding for homes, roads and businesses and dirtier water for our people, particularly in eastern North Carolina. This provision coupled with the drastic weakening of federal rules caused by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Sackett case, leaves approximately 2.5 million acres, or about one half of our state’s wetlands, unprotected,” Cooper said at the time. “The General Assembly has allocated tens of millions of dollars to protect the state from flooding and my administration is working to stop pollution like PFAS and other contaminants. This bill reverses our progress and leaves the state vulnerable without vital flood mitigation and water purification tools.”

O’Brien told Coastal Review that the effects of the change to the state wetlands definition were “further complicated” by the Sackett decision, which reduced the amount of wetlands protected under the federal definition.

“For instance, North Carolina’s isolated wetlands, previously protected by statute, will likely no longer qualify as wetlands under the new definition and thus not be protected,” he said.

North Carolina Coastal Federation Executive Director Braxton Davis told Coastal Review that, although the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Sackett case left millions of acres of freshwater wetlands unprotected across the nation, the court recognized the high value of these habitats in reducing flooding, improving water quality, and supporting important wildlife.

“Their decision left the states with the responsibility to protect these systems, but the EMC is now required to move forward with rules that leave vast acreages of freshwater wetlands unprotected in North Carolina. We are hopeful that the General Assembly will revisit this issue in this year’s legislative session,” Davis said.

The Coastal Federation publishes Coastal Review.

Coastal Carolina Riverwatch Executive Director Lisa Rider told Coastal Review that the Environmental Management Commission’s review of wetland definitions comes at a critical time.

“Federal rollbacks have left many of our wetlands vulnerable, and weakening protections at the state level will only make things worse,” Rider said.

“The EMC must not only maintain but strengthen protections for isolated and non-federally jurisdictional wetlands by adopting a state-specific definition that prioritizes coastal resilience,” she said. “The EMC should implement stricter stormwater management, prioritize wetland conservation over mitigation banking, and integrate wetland protections into broader plans. By implementing robust state-level protections, North Carolina can uphold its commitment to preserving vital wetland ecosystems for current and future generations.”

About the meeting

The commission’s committee meetings are scheduled for Wednesday and the full commission is to meet Thursday in the ground floor hearing room of the Archdale Building in Raleigh. The public can attend in person or join the meeting by computer or phone. Instructions to access the meeting are on the website.

Also during this week’s meeting, the full commission is expected to take up rules for air permitting and wastewater design flow rates.

During the water quality committee meeting scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, members are expected to hear a presentation of draft per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, monitoring and minimization rules for industrial direct dischargers and significant industrial users.

A full agenda and related documents are available on the website.   

This post has been updated.

Update 10:45 a.m. Feb. 25: The Environmental Management Commission’s water quality committee special meeting scheduled for Feb. 25 has been canceled, NCDEQ officials announced Tuesday morning.

Updated with agenda. Original report published Feb. 12.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission Water Quality Committee is holding a special meeting Feb. 25 to hear information on large-scale industrial dischargers.

The meeting will be held from 1-3 p.m. in the ground floor hearing room of the Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh.

The agenda is available online and includes an informational discussion regarding the oversight authority of industrial direct dischargers and significant industrial users. An overview of PFAS monitoring and minimization plans for these dischargers and industrial users is also on the agenda.

The public may attend the meeting in-person, virtually, or by telephone. Access the meeting agenda online.

The meeting link is https://ncgov.webex.com/ncgov/j.php?MTID=m115cb5dc5dc74fb4627262da6839a4c4. Use meeting number/access code 2420 933 9095 and password NCDEQ.

To join by phone call +1-415-655-0003 or 1-904-900-2303 (toll).

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Reid Wilson has announced his selections to serve in the agency’s leadership roles.

Wilson named four top officials during the Environmental Management Commission meeting Thursday in Raleigh. All are familiar faces in Raleigh.

The DEQ leadership webpage was still shy a photo or two when this report was published.

Sushma Masemore, who was named assistant secretary in 2021, remains in the position.

Among the new or returning officials are John Nicholson, currently chief of staff for Environmental Protection Agency Region 4. He returns to his previous role as DEQ chief deputy secretary, which he held from 2017 until 2022.

Peter Ledford is deputy secretary for policy. Ledford was previously the clean energy director in Gov. Roy Cooper’s office, and before that he was with the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association.

Dan Hirshman, who has been with the North Carolina Department of Justice since 2007, is DEQ’s new general counsel.

Former press secretary for Gov. Roy Cooper, Samantha Chan is now DEQ director of public affairs.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission is to decide during its next meeting in Raleigh whether to begin the process of setting new groundwater quality standards for three herbicides and a fungicide.

The commission is scheduled to meet at 9 a.m. Thursday, Jan. 9, in the Ground Floor Hearing Room of the Archdale Building. The public can attend in person or stream the meeting online.

The water allocation committee is scheduled to begin the day of meetings at 9 a.m. Wednesday, followed by the air quality committee, steering committee, and groundwater and waste management committee. These committees will discuss the rules review process.

The water quality committee will close out the day of committee meetings at 2:45 p.m. Wednesday, when members are expected to hear and discuss concepts on minimizing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

The meetings will be streamed online or the public can attend in person in the Archdale building.

The Division of Water Resources director is recommending to the full commission that new groundwater quality standards replace the interim maximum allowable concentrations, or IMACs, established in January 2024 for bentazon, fluometuron, and metolachlor, all herbicides, and boscalid, a fungicide.

Also during the full commission meeting, members are to consider next steps for existing rules going through the periodic review process that address groundwater standards, underground storage tanks, public hearings, and primary recreation standards for Class B waters. State law requires rules be reviewed every 10 years.

The Environmental Management Commission oversees and adopts rules for several divisions of the Department of Environmental Quality, including the Divisions of Air Quality, Land Resources, Waste Management and Water Resources.

Agendas and meeting materials for all meetings are available on the commission website.

WILMINGTON – Wayne Lewis stood before state environmental regulatory officials Monday night and told the story about his wife.

He described how, on an evening in 2009 just before she went to bed, she started vomiting blood. He detailed how the couple was shocked by her medical diagnosis: sclerosis of the liver. He explained how the doctors who made that diagnosis at the University of North Carolina Medical Center in Chapel Hill could not determine how or why she got the disease.

“She never drank,” Lewis said, referring to alcoholic beverages. “The only thing she would drink was water, unsweetened tea, maybe a little Sprite. When we went out to eat it was unsweetened tea. She didn’t smoke. They ruled out Tylenol because she didn’t take Tylenol.”

She was tested a handful of times for hepatitis. The results always came back the same, negative.

“They said it was no reason for her to have that disease and that’s why I brought you my report from my water,” Lewis said.

Preliminary and final results indicate that his drinking water contained a total per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, concentration of 381.5 parts per trillion, more than 50 times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contamination level for legacy compounds PFOA and PFOS, and nearly 40 times higher than limits established for a handful of other compounds, including GenX, which is manufactured upriver near Fayetteville.

Lewis was the first in a string of residents predominately from New Hanover and Brunswick counties who braved the evening chill Monday to speak during the state-held public hearing at Cape Fear Community College on proposed health standards for PFAS in groundwater. The hearing was the second of three held in recent days, the last of which was in Raleigh Tuesday night.

Most of those who spoke at the hearing in Wilmington shared sentiments of frustration with the state Environmental Management Commission for not adopting health standards sooner, for including only three substances — there are anywhere from 12,000 to upwards of 15,000 related compounds — of the eight for which the Department of Environmental Quality had proposed standards, and for what the commission’s critics call pandering to the very industries responsible for discharging the chemical compounds into the environment.

Looking back: Commission members balk on 5 proposed PFAS standards

Hearing officer Jacqueline Gibson, one of the 15 commission members, listened as residents from the lower Cape Fear region urged the commission to adopt health standards for PFAS as a class of chemicals, rather than as individual chemical compounds, for both groundwater and surface waters.

The Cape Fear region was rocked by news in 2017 that the Chemours Co.’s Fayetteville Works facility, some 70 miles upstream of Wilmington, had for decades been discharging PFAS into the Cape Fear River, groundwater and air, contaminating drinking water sources for tens of thousands of residents.

Chemours is not the sole discharger of these chemical compounds — varied PFAS are used to produce everyday goods like food containers, waterproof clothing and stain-resistant carpets — into the region’s drinking water sources. Communities, private well owners and utilities throughout the state are struggling with PFAS contamination.

Earlier this fall, the commission, whose role is to adopt rules to protect, preserve and enhance the state’s water and air resources, voted to move forward with a proposed draft rule outlining health standards for PFOA, PFOS and GenX in groundwater.

The EPA classifies those first two compounds as likely carcinogens. Researchers are still trying to grasp the potential health effects of GenX, a compound specific to Chemours’ plant on the banks of the Cape Fear River.

The proposed rule omits the five other compounds that DEQ had sought to include in proposed groundwater limits.

“We’re worried about our health and we don’t want unnecessary groundwater exposure,” Brunswick County resident Joanne Levitan said. “It’s time to stop putting business interests ahead of people to protect the citizens of North Carolina from PFAS by enacting proposed groundwater standards and further by regulating all PFAS as a class.”

In October, DEQ Division of Water Resources Director Richard Rogers set interim maximum allowable concentrations for eight PFAS, including PFBS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBA and PFHxA.

State groundwater rules grant any person the right to request the water resources director establish an interim maximum allowable concentration for a substance for which a groundwater standard has not been set. Rogers set the limits after an Alamance County couple made the request for him to do so.

Rogers will, within a year, recommend to the commission whether any of the interim maximum allowable concentration should be replaced or terminated.

Dr. Robert Parr, a retired emergency physician and Wilmington resident who spoke before the Environmental Management Commission Monday, listed the human health effects associated with PFAS, including various types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, weakened immune function and decreased liver and kidney function.

“It is well past the time that the EMC stopped fooling around and playing around with deadly chemicals, toxic pollutants that endanger public health and safety,” he said. “Now is the time for the EMC to fulfill its primary responsibility and defend present and future generations of North Carolinians from protecting, preserving and enhancing our state’s air and water quality resources.”

Brunswick County resident Jonathan Pattishall described the difficulties he’s had with getting answers on how he can get his private well tested for PFAS.

“I’m asking you to adopt rules governing PFAS as an entire class of chemicals,” he said. “This process is already difficult and confusing enough. Most people who are on private wells are not chemists or lawyers. They’re not government administrators. We don’t handle this kind of information. We need the EMC and the DEQ to help us out, to make it easier by drafting separate rules for all PFAS.”

The commission is expected to decide whether to approve the hearing officer’s report and final fiscal and regulatory impact analysis on the draft rule in May 2025. If approved, the rule would be presented to the state Rules Review Commission next summer.

If the rules commission approves the draft rule, it would become final in July, roughly five years after Lewis lost his wife in 2019.

She spent her final 10 days in an intensive care unit. She was 58.

After Gibson proclaimed the hearing adjourned, Lewis shouted from his seat, “Does it do any good? Or, are you just going to do what you want to do?”

Public comments on the proposed draft rule will be accepted through Dec. 31 by email to GWTriRevComments@deq.nc.gov or by mail to Bridget Shelton, NC DEQ Division of Water Resources, Planning Section 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1611.

The Environmental Management Commission has advanced proposed changes that would codify an existing, long-term agreement with a coalition of wastewater dischargers in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin.

The changes mainly include incorporating into the existing Tar-Pamlico wastewater discharge requirements rule the 1990 agreement between the state and the 15 municipal wastewater systems that make up the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association. The agreement is set to expire in 2025.

When the commission that adopts rules that protect the state’s air and water quality met Thursday in Raleigh, members voted unanimously to send the proposed amendments out for public comment early next year.

Since the 1980s, excessive amounts of nutrient-related pollution like nitrogen and phosphorus have been discharged into the Pamlico estuary, creating low oxygen levels, extensive fish kills and harmful algal blooms.

To address these water quality problems, the commission in 1989 designated the basin as nutrient-sensitive waters, and the state developed the Tar-Pamlico nutrient strategy, which went into effect in 2000-2001.

The strategy is a set of rules designed to “equitably regulate sources of nutrient pollution in the basin including wastewater, stormwater, and agricultural nutrient sources,” according to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s nutrient strategy website. The rules also protect riparian buffers, mandate training for professionals that apply fertilizer, and seek to reduce nitrogen levels in the estuary by 30% and cap phosphorus levels at the 1991 baseline.

John Huisman of the Nonpoint Source Planning Branch of the Division of Water Resources explained Thursday that the agreement signed in 1990 by the commission, the association, Division of Soil and Water Conservation and a few environmental groups established collective annual caps for nutrients for the association and ways to fund offset for exceeding total allocations, if necessary. The agreement was renewed and revised in 1995, 2005 and the current agreement is from 2015 to 2025.

“The basic framework of that agreement was it established these end-of-pipe nitrogen and phosphorus caps for the association,” Huisman said. Adding that, “as long as the association remains under those group caps all the individual members are deemed compliant with their individual allocations.”

In 1997, the commission adopted a “non-association wastewater rule” that established a regulatory pathway for new and expanding dischargers not in the association, Huisman said.

Following that in 2000-2001, the nonpoint-source rule component of the Tar-Pamlico management strategy was adopted.

Point-source pollution is that which is discharged directly from a facility by a pipe, ditch or similar conduit into a water body. Nonpoint-source pollution, on the other hand, comes from stormwater runoff that collects and carries contaminants more broadly across surfaces to rivers and streams.

“Collectively, between the agreement, the non-association wastewater rule, and these nonpoint-source rules, this makes up the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Management Strategy,” Huisman added.

The current wastewater rule adopted in 1997 and then revised in 2020 addresses new and expanding facilities and association members and provides regulatory path for allocating trading in nutrient offsets and updated treatment standards.

“I do want to impress upon you, we’ve had this agreement in place now for almost 30 years, and there’s been steady compliance with those nutrient caps,” Huisman said, with the association remaining below their nitrogen and phosphorous caps. “They’re currently at 70% of their nitrogen cap and 68% of phosphorus cap, and they’ve been holding steady there at those percentages for the past decade or so.”

The “biggest players” in the association are Rocky Mount and Greenville, with permitted flows of 21 million gallons per day, and 17.5 million gallons per day, respectively. Of the remaining members, nine vary from about 1 to 5 million gallons per day, Huisman said.

Their total permitted flow is 62 million gallons per day, and their current flow is at about half the permitted total, hovering around 30 to 32 million gallons per day.

Collectively, the 15 members over the past 15-20 years represent 98.7% of the permitted flow in the basin.

Definition of a rule

Codifying the agreement is important, Huisman said, because in recent years, the Division of Water Resources had faced increased pressure to ensure that any requirements that meet the definition of a rule should be placed within a rule, rather than “an agreement or some sort of policy document.”

Codifying the existing requirements, according to the fiscal analysis, would also provide better clarity, a way to avoid potential legal challenges, and an opportunity to modernize the language.

Huisman said that the division, throughout its two-year process of drafting the amendments, had worked in collaboration with the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association on the proposed revisions.

The changes now heading to public comment add definitions of key words and from the agreement, discharge allocation numbers for nutrient and phosphorous for the association and its members, and flexibility with reserve allocations and with nutrient offset.

Tar-Pamlico Basin Association Executive Director Adam Waters told the commission that his group recognized the need to codify the agreement.

“We have been working with the division extensively over the past probably year and a half, and I think we have come to an agreement with the language that is in the proposed rule that best represents the association, and we are supporting it,” Waters said during the meeting.

Huisman reiterated that the division’s goal was to offset the water quality effects of any future discharge increase.

The 60-day public comment process is expected to take place in January and February, officials said. Based on comments received, division staff may make revisions and present the final rule for commission approval in May.

The Environmental Management Commission, when it meets this month, is to consider approving a public notice and hearing on proposed revisions to wastewater-discharge rules put in place to reduce fish kills, harmful algal blooms and other longstanding water quality problems in the Pamlico estuary.

The commission’s committees are to start meeting at 8:45 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 13, and the full commission is set to meet at 9 a.m. Thursday, Nov. 14, both in the ground-floor hearing room of the Archdale Building in Raleigh.

The public is welcome to attend the meeting in person, by phone or livestream. Instructions for how to join as well as the agendas and supporting documents are on the commission website.

The commission oversees and adopts rules for several divisions of the Department of Environmental Quality, including the divisions of Air Quality, Land Resources, Waste Management and Water Resources.

The commission in 1989 designated the entire Tar-Pamlico River watershed as nutrient-sensitive waters because of the problems choking its marine life.

In 1990, the Division of Water Resources and the commission signed an agreement with the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association, a group of point-source wastewater dischargers. The current version of the agreement expires next year.

A point-source discharge is “any single identifiable source of pollution from which pollutants are discharged, such as a pipe, ditch, ship or factory smokestack,” according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The commission adopted in 2001 the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Strategy, a set of rules designed to regulate nutrient pollution from wastewater, stormwater and
agricultural nutrient sources.

Officials say that the agreement’s renewal would continue work toward nutrient point-source reduction objectives and provide a clear regulatory path.

Also on the slate for the two-day session, the air quality committee is scheduled to meet first on Nov. 13, followed by water allocation, water quality and groundwater committees.

Each committee is expected to consider approving steps of the rulemaking process for a handful of permit changes. The water quality committee is to hear updates on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, source reductions and minimization plans based with a focus on the steps Michigan has put in place, and on 1,4-dioxane.

The state’s environmental regulatory agency has established temporary caps on the amounts of several PFAS that industries will be allowed to release into groundwater.

Until permanent limits are set, interim maximum allowable concentrations introduced by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources allows officials to set cleanup targets for groundwater contaminated with high levels of the chemical compounds.

The division’s announcement last week came on the heels of a study that found per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, including some of those for which the state has set interim allowable limits, have remained in groundwater offsite of Chemours’ Fayetteville Works plant for up to more than 40 years.

Water resources division Director Richard Rogers will, within a year, recommend to the state Environmental Management Commission, or EMC, whether any of the interim maximum allowable concentrations, or IMACs, should be replaced or terminated.

That 15-member commission, whose role is to adopt rules that protect, preserve and enhance the state’s water and air resources, voted earlier this fall to move forward with a proposed draft rule outlining health standards for three PFAS in groundwater.

The proposed rule includes PFOA and PFOS, which are classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as likely carcinogens, and GenX, a compound specific to Chemours’ plant on the banks of the Cape Fear River.

The Department of Environmental Quality, or DEQ, announced Monday that public comments on the proposed draft rule will be accepted from Nov. 1 – Dec. 31 by email to GWTriRevComments@deq.nc.gov or by mail to Bridget Shelton, NC DEQ Division of Water Resources, Planning Section 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1611. The EMC and DEQ will also host three public hearings on the proposed draft rule beginning next month.

The commission is expected to vote on the draft rule next year. If approved, the rule is anticipated to be effective by mid-2025.

The commission omitted five other compounds state environmental quality officials sought to include in proposed groundwater limits.

Those five – PFBS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBA and PFHxA – were specifically listed along with PFOA, PFOS and GenX in a July request by an Alamance County couple asking Rogers to establish interim maximum allowable concentrations in groundwater for all eight compounds.

Related: Public may comment on requested interim PFAS limits

State groundwater rules grant any person the right to request the water resources director establish an IMAC for a substance for which a groundwater standard has not been set.

Graham residents Jonathan and Stephanie Gordon wrote that at least a half-dozen drinking water wells in their community tested for “extremely high levels of PFAS.”

“Issuing an IMAC will only be one step towards the relief we need, but it will at least give us greater clarity about the risk we face and the eventual obligations for unknown responsible parties to address the contamination they have visited upon us,” they wrote.

The EMC’s decision to move forward with only three of the eight PFAS recommended by DEQ was met with swift backlash from residents and environmental groups fighting for protections from PFAS for both groundwater and surface water.

Groundwater supports about 50% of drinking water in North Carolina.

Environmental justice organization Democracy Green has launched the campaign “Ban the Eight,” which includes an open petition urging the EMC to include all eight compounds in the draft proposed rule.

“We want all eight because if you’re going to do it for one you do it for all because that reaches more of the 100 counties of North Carolina that are dealing with PFAS, whether it’s from military bases, whether it’s from airports, both small and large, the Haw River all the way down to the Cape Fear,” said Democracy Green cofounder, La’Meshia Whittington. “They’re piecemealing it. People in North Carolina can’t afford that. This is a big deal for DEQ to set this precedence to say we’re going to use the EPA’s fullest authority because EMC keeps dragging their feet.”

The EMC is scheduled to meet Nov. 13-14 in Raleigh. An agenda for that meeting has not been published.

PFAS have been observed in more than 7,000 private drinking water wells within about a 13-mile radius of the Chemours plant, according to DEQ.

The chemistry company and other industries are responsible for emitting PFAS into the environment in the Cape Fear River basin, the largest in the state and one with surface water resources that are the drinking source for about 1.5 million people.

The long, slow purge

A recently published study headed by researchers at N.C. State University found it may take decades before PFAS flushes from groundwater around the Chemours plant and into the Cape Fear River.

Dr. David Genereux, a professor with the university’s Department of Marine, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, and coauthor of the study said PFAS emitted into the environment up to more than 40 years ago were found in groundwater within a test site immediately surrounding Chemours’ Fayetteville Works Facility in Bladen County.

Researchers collected samples beneath streams, which is where groundwater directly flows into surface waters.

Genereux said that a great deal of work is being done by researchers documenting the current state of PFAS by measuring it in groundwater and defining what’s there now.

“What’s different in this new paper is that we’re looking ahead to the future and not just the way things are right now,” he said. “We’re specifically looking ahead to estimate how long that PFAS would be in groundwater up near Fayetteville Works and how long it would take for that PFAS to flush out of the ground and into streams by the natural flow of the groundwater because that really is its ultimate fate.”

Instead of degrading in the ground, PFAS flows toward streams. Once the compounds make into the streams, they then flow into the Cape Fear River.

Genereux said researchers estimate it will take until about at least 2060 “possibly much longer” for PFAS currently in the ground to flush into tributaries of the Cape Fear. If compounds diffuse into clays, “that would really slow it down,” he said.

“That means that PFAS could continue to affect the river water users downstream for some decades to come,” he said.

PFAS targeted in the study are those released during the so-called high emission years from roughly the 1980s to 2019, the year Chemours, DEQ and Cape Fear River Watch entered into a Consent Order that requires the plant reduce its PFAS emissions into the air, ground and river.

The company has, through various emission controls, reduced the amount of PFAS it releases into the environment in recent years, but not at net-zero, Genereux said.

That means PFAS released into the air and hitting the ground continues to feed into the groundwater.

“There’s no time horizon for when that will flush because that source is still ongoing,” Genereux said.

If PFAS diffuse into and then back out of clays, that can significantly slow the flushing process of a compound through a groundwater system. It’s a phenomenon studied for chemicals in other places, but not the private land and agriculture fields around the Fayetteville Works plant.

Researchers have large proposal pending to try and additional funding to study clay diffusion in that area and other aspects of PFAS, including health outcomes of private well water users exposed to decades of contamination.

They’re also working on a study focusing on a small number of drinking water wells to try and estimate how long PFAS might remain persistent in wells.

“The conclusions we reached in the paper about the groundwater system broadly, as a whole, are not necessarily directly applicable to each individual drinking water well,” Genereux said. “Some drinking water wells might clear up faster than the groundwater systems as a whole, especially shallower wells. But, overall, it could be a problem at individual wells for decades.”

North Carolina’s chief administrative law judge and former head of the state’s environmental regulatory agency has eliminated a state cap on the amount of a chemical solvent some municipal wastewater treatment plants discharge.

Chief Administrative Law Judge and Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings Dr. Donald van der Vaart revoked permit limits of 1,4-dioxane for wastewater treatment plants that discharge the chemical substance, one the federal Environmental Protection Agency classifies as a likely human carcinogen, into the drinking water sources of tens of thousands of people.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality officials did not follow the letter of the law written in state statutes when they calculated discharge limits and established an enforceable water quality standard for 1,4-dioxane, van der Vaart ruled. In his Sept. 12 decision, van der Vaart also said DEQ erred by considering the chemical substance a carcinogen.

“The [Environmental Protection Agency] has characterized 1,4-dioxane as ‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’” he wrote. “The EPA has not characterized 1,4-dioxane as ‘carcinogenic to humans.’”

DEQ has 30 days to appeal van der Vaart’s decision.

A North Carolina Department of Justice spokesperson said by email Monday state attorneys are reviewing the decision with DEQ.

In its 2023 draft revised risk determination for 1,4-dioxane as a chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA “proposes that exposure to drinking water sources from surface water that is contaminated by 1,4-dioxane released from industrial facilities contributes to the unreasonable risk” to human health.

The compound is used primarily as a solvent in chemical manufacturing.

Wastewater treatments plants operated by the cities of Greensboro, Asheboro and Reidsville receive 1,4-dioxane emitted from textile, chemical and plastics manufacturers. Those wastewater treatment facilities then discharge the chemical into surface waters that flow downstream to the Cape Fear region, an area plagued with drinking water contamination from industrial releases of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

PFAS are widely used, human-made chemicals that can be found in a host of consumer products, including stain-resistant carpets, fast food packaging, and water-resistant apparel. Studies of possible human health effects of PFAS, including those found in the Cape Fear River, the drinking water source for tens of thousands of North Carolinians, have found that the chemical substances can cause damage to the liver and immune system, low birth weight, and increase risk of some cancers.

In August 2023, DEQ’s Division of Water Resources issued Asheboro a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit limiting the city wastewater treatment plant’s release of 1,4-dioxane.

The city sued, challenging the state’s power to include the 1,4-dioxane water quality standard in the permit and arguing it faced excessive financial burden because of the new limits.

The cities of Greensboro and Reidsville joined in the lawsuit after both were issued notices of violation for 1,4-dioxane discharges in November 2019 and required to consent by special order to include discharge limits in their draft NPDES permits.

Brunswick County, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Fayetteville Public Works Commission intervened in the case, asserting that upstream 1,4-dioxane dischargers placed an undue financial burden on them to sample drinking water sources for the chemical and try and reduce the level of consumption of it to their customers.

In his ruling, van der Vaart noted that a regulatory impact analysis, which assesses possible financial impacts of proposed rules, states that costs associated with controlling discharges of 1,4-dioxane “… are anticipated to be prohibitively expensive for local governments and the citizens served by public utilities,” but acknowledges “ongoing costs benefits associated with the monitoring and treatment of 1,4-dioxane are likely to be considerable.”

Van der Vaart was appointed DEQ secretary in 2015 by then-Gov. Pat McCrory. In 2017, under the leadership of then-Secretary Michael Regan, van der Vaart was placed on administrative leave. Van der Vaart later resigned from DEQ.

Following growing public outcry in recent years, both the EPA, now headed by Regan, and DEQ have begun to address the releases of some of these compounds – there are more than 10,000 – into drinking water sources.

Earlier this year, EPA announced final maximum contaminant levels limiting a half-dozen PFAS in drinking water.

DEQ’s proposed draft rule outlining health standards for PFOA, PFOS and GenX in groundwater is heading for public comment after a unanimous vote of the state’s Environmental Management Commission.

Groundwater supports about half of drinking water supplies in North Carolina.

The commission decided to omit five PFAS initially included in the proposed draft rule.

The board is still hashing out DEQ’s proposal to establish surface water rules for all eight PFAS. Earlier this month, the commission’s water quality committee instructed DEQ to develop a draft rule and regulatory impact analysis that would establish monitoring requirements for every industrial and NPDES permit and require every industrial and significant industrial user to include PFAS source-reduction plans in their municipal pretreatment plans.

The Republican-majority commission has come under fire for what some state officials and environmental groups are calling stall tactics.

In a meeting earlier this month, some commissioners continued to refute those claims, saying that they were committed to addressing 1,4-dioxane discharges into drinking water sources in the state.

Commission members briefly discussed a petition to the EPA asking the agency to strip North Carolina’s authority to administer the NPDES permit program. North Carolina is one of 47 states authorized by the EPA to implement the permit program.

Cape Fear River Watch, Environmental Justice Community Action Network, Haw River Assembly, and MountainTrue filed the petition Aug. 28, arguing that the North Carolina General Assembly had blocked DEQ from “effectively implementing” its NPDES permit program and protecting North Carolinians from water pollution.

The General Assembly has amended laws that dictate who appoints members of the Environmental Management Commission and Rules Review Commission, “such that these commissions have been effectively captured by a supermajority in the legislature that is hostile to environmentally protective regulation,” according to the petition.

Legislators have also enacted laws that give the Office of Administrative Hearings “final decision-making authority over NPDES permits, thereby stripping DEQ and the EMC of the roles assigned them,” the petition states.

The EPA “generally works” with a state and petitioner to resolve issues raised in a petition, according to the agency’s website.

Kelly Moser, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Chapel Hill office, confirmed late last week that the EPA is taking the petition under advisement. The EPA’s Atlanta region press office did not respond to a request for comment.

“We’ve had concerns about the legislature control over the EMC and we’re just seeing that playing out in the latest delays that the EMC has created in North Carolina’s attempts to protect people from harmful industrial chemicals,” she said in a telephone interview. “The people of North Carolina deserve to have access to clean water and the actions by the state legislature, the EMC and now ALJ van der Vaart are standing in the way of North Carolinians having access to clean water. We are confident that EPA will take our petition seriously and that the state will hopefully be forced to come into compliance.”

Updated at 2:30 p.m.

A proposed draft rule outlining health standards for PFAS in groundwater, which supports about 50% of drinking water in North Carolina, is heading for public comment.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on Thursday morning unanimously waived a 30-day public notice, a move that expedites the rulemaking process for three per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS: PFOA, PFOS and GenX.

Hearing locations and dates will be published in the state Register. A public comment period will begin once that information is published.

The commission is expected to vote on the draft rule next year. If approved, the rule is anticipated to be effective by mid-2025.

The proposed rule was revised from an earlier version the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality drafted that included five other manmade chemical compounds.

The commission’s groundwater and waste management committee earlier this summer voted to omit those compounds from the proposed rule, focusing on PFOS and PFOA, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified as likely carcinogens, and GenX, a compound specific to Chemours’ Fayetteville Works facility on the banks of the Cape Fear River.

In a brief presentation to the commission, Bridget Shelton, DEQ’s groundwater standards coordinator, explained that when there is no established health standard for a manmade compound, regulatory agencies refer to practical quantitation limits, or PQLs.

PQLs are considered the base line in testing laboratories. PQL values can change over time and vary across different laboratories, Shelton said.

“To develop a groundwater standard for a substance we find each of these values, if they are available, and then we select the lowest of the value to be the most protective of human health,” she said.

The proposed rule would be used to establish goals for cleaning contamination in groundwater, limit permitted releases of PFAS to groundwater, and ensure residents whose drinking water exceeds contamination limits receive alternative water supplies.

“With us bringing forward the three compounds, the PFOS and the PFOA, we all know they’re legacy compounds,” Commissioner Joseph Reardon said. “There’s no dispute about where EPA is in the context of this being potential carcinogens. We know the struggles that the citizens of North Carolina have had with GenX and so we’re comfortable with these three chemicals, taking the levels of which have been identified in the body of the request here. On the other five remaining compounds, had the committee chose to include those, it would have allowed more of the chemical in the water, but by the department regulating at the PQL level for those other five, lessens the amount of these compounds in the water.”

Commission members are continuing to hash out DEQ’s proposal to establish surface water rules for all eight PFAS.

Following heated exchanges Wednesday afternoon, the commission’s water quality committee unanimously voted to instruct DEQ to develop a draft rule and regulatory impact analysis, or RIA, that would establish monitoring requirements for every industrial and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit and require every industrial and significant industrial user to include PFAS source-reduction plans in their municipal pretreatment plans.

Commission Chair JD Solomon, acting as an ex officio member of the committee, suggested Wednesday the committee act on that proposed rule as a way to move forward and get regulations in place to reduce PFAS concentrations in surface water.

“I think we’re at an impasse,” he said. “I don’t blame anybody at this point. I want to get it done for the people of the state and I want to get PFAS reductions in surface water. This way we keep it with the industrial dischargers and we can identify who the bad players are and make them pay and not just spread it out to the whole watershed because we can’t agree on what all that stuff is right now. I want to get this out. I want to get this moving.”

DEQ Assistant Secretary Sushma Masemore explained that DEQ began requiring monitoring of PFAS discharges for NPDES permit holders almost a year ago.

“We’re going to need guidance to require source reduction and associated plans,” she said to the committee. “Is this mainly voluntary? What are we going to be asking? We’re going to need some directions in order to produce a credible (regulatory impact analysis) in order to produce a rule text that you all think meets this process and at the end of the day, when someone asks are we achieving reductions, we want to be able to answer this question.”

The earliest this new proposed draft rule would go before the full commission would be during its November meeting.

It is unclear when and if the water quality committee will approve DEQ’s proposed draft surface water rules for eight PFAS, including the PFOA, PFOS, GenX, PFBS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBA and PFHxA to go to the commission for a vote.

Committee members at times verbally sparred over information included in DEQ’s proposed draft rule and regulatory impact analysis for surface water rules on those chemical compounds.

Members raised concerns about data that links the transfer of PFAS contamination in surface water to contamination in agricultural crops and animals, such as cattle that drink water containing PFAS.

“My concern is, have we overstated the exposure of PFAS from food?” Reardon said. “I’m concerned that the way this is written and the percentage that we’re associated with PFAS from food is going to unduly implicate the food in North Carolina as being latent with PFAS, or that our national food supply is latent with PFAS, that we expect 20-some percent of our exposure to come from food.”

DEQ’s Masemore explained that the water farmers and backyard gardeners use to grow food and hydrate livestock comes from surface water that could be laden with PFAS.

“The record shows that 86% of the water used in the agricultural practices, whether it’s to grow crops or to raise animals, are extracted from surface water intakes,” she said. “We’re not saying that all of this is there. What we’re saying is by having a regulation that reduces that PFAS in those surface waters, and therefore you’re reducing the concentration in those waters that are ultimately used for these purposes, then what are the potential benefits associated with that.”

The committee voted 5-2 that they will wait to move on the proposed draft rule until they meet with U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials or receive a written response from that agency for clarification.

Committee member Marion Deerhake opposed the motion, noting before votes were cast that comments she had emailed the committee chair on Aug. 6 were not included in a package shared with the committee and DEQ.

“I feel like my comments, my positive comments, are being ignored,” she said. “You said you would take care of it and it’s not in the package that you distributed. I am very concerned about the process that is being handled today. The comments that are coming in on the (regulatory impact analysis) are selective. They are from specific parties that are interested in this rule for their own benefit. I have to object to that.”

Some of her fellow committee members pushed back, saying they have not been unduly influenced.

“I reject that assertion that we are being guided by people from the outside,” Tim Baumgartner said. “You’re making it seem like we don’t have brains to look at this ourselves and make these determinations ourselves. I have an opinion on it. I don’t really care what the outside public says and I believe in our hearts because I think it’s the right thing to do for this motion to carry forward and for the department and EMC to have a discussion with FDA and (North Carolina Department of Agriculture) before this moves forward.”

Michael Ellison, the committee vice chair, concurred.

“I’ve received more phone calls and emails from outside individuals, somewhere around 200, that urged rapid and immediate action of PFAS based on these documents,” he said. “My questions are my questions and they’re technical. It does not serve the people of North Carolina to go forward to public notice or perpetuate this process when we know we have a severely flawed (impact analysis) that is, in many cases, predicated on fallacies, scientific fallacies.”

Both commissioners followed up on their comments Thursday.

Baumgartner said the commission has not “let cancel culture stand in our way.”

“When issues are pushed too hard, too fast, there’s always a back story and a reason,” he said. Some advice to pass on, if you push too hard, too fast, someone’s going to question a motive and ask why. Instead of trashing those attempting to understand, take a moment and work through the issues. You might get to the same end-point faster.”

Members of the commission charged with adopting rules to protect the state’s air and water resources voted this week to pursue health-based standards for only three PFAS prevalent in North Carolina drinking water sources.

The Environmental Management Commission’s groundwater and waste management committee Wednesday afternoon declined to recommend to the full commission all eight per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances included in proposed rules set forth by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, or DEQ.

The commission’s water quality committee also voted Wednesday to defer a motion to send the surface water rule package on all eight PFAS to the commission for action in its full meeting on Thursday.

The decisions of both committees this week further delay the rulemaking process for the chemical compounds, two of which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified as likely carcinogens.

The earliest the full commission could take action on each committees’ recommendations is at its next meeting in September. The commission can either accept the groundwater committee’s recommendation or put a public notice of standards for all eight PFAS.

The committees’ votes this week frustrated proponents, residents, DEQ officials and some commissioners.

But others on the commission continue to defend their decisions, with those on the water quality committee arguing that they need more time to review revisions to a fiscal analysis associated with the proposed surface water standards.

Groundwater and waste management committee Chair Joe Reardon said that the members on Wednesday agreed to recommend groundwater health standards for the three PFAS because two – PFOA and PFOS – have been identified by the federal government as likely carcinogens. The third, GenX, which had been discharged into the Cape Fear River directly from Chemours’ Fayetteville Works Facility, was included he said, “because obviously the citizens of this state have struggled with (it).”

The committee agreed not to advance PFBS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBA and PFHxA.

“The science is evolving in this dynamic and I believe the work of this committee was respectful and very pragmatic,” Reardon said.

Groundwater standards would be used to limit permitted releases of PFAS to groundwater, set the health threshold for providing alternative water supplies to residents whose drinking water exceeds contamination limits, and used to establish goals for cleaning contamination in groundwater.

Commissioner Marion Deerhake was one of two water quality committee members who voted Wednesday to recommend the commission take action on the proposed health-based standards for surface water. Fish consumption also is taken into consideration of surface water standards.

She cautioned fellow committee members during their meeting Wednesday against delaying a vote.

Commissioner and Water Allocation Committee Vice-Chair Robin Smith and Thursday during the full commission meeting that she was disappointed in the groundwater committee’s discussion and decision.

“I sat through the entire (groundwater) committee meeting and didn’t hear any substantive flaw identified in the calculation of those standards,” Smith said. “There was no contradiction of the bottom-line conclusion of the regulatory impact analysis. The adoption of all eight standards would impose no new cost on the state, or the citizens of the state, and, to the contrary, would actually reduce regulatory burden. If we can’t adopt standards in that set of circumstances it is hopeless to consider adopting standards in the much more common circumstance we’re going to be looking at in the surface water standards where there are going to be costs.”

DEQ Assistant Secretary Sushma Masemore asked water quality committee members at their meeting Wednesday to consider three points: whether or not the public accepts the science behind the health impacts of the eight compounds; the presence of the eight PFAS in drinking water sources in the state; and how the state wants to protect public health.

“We’re not saying thousands of PFAS out there, but these eight specific chemicals for which multiple federal agencies, credible academia, scientists and experts around the country and the world have put together in their consensus documentations and peer reviewed reports,” Masemore said. “We’ve shown in the many presentations, data, monitoring information, not only from us, but also third party, the permittees, that shows the presence of these PFAS at different levels. And we have articulated here, the best way to acknowledge the cost and the impact to the regulated community, because in the absence of that, the ratepayers, the everyday North Carolinian is going to have to pay for that to clean up that drinking water. They may have to pay for that through their health outcomes over a lifetime.”

The department estimates the tap water of some 3.4 million residents comes from systems that contain at least one compound exceeding new federal contamination limits on several PFAS.

More than 300 municipal and small water systems in North Carolina sampled in 2022 had PFAS detections above newly established federal maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs. Utilities that have drinking water contaminated with PFAS exceeding the MCLs have five years to integrate technology to bring them into compliance.

The costs associated with upgrading systems are by and large getting passed down to customers.

DEQ officials have been discussing proposed health standards with the commission since last November.

In April, the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce asked DEQ to postpone its pursuit of surface and groundwater standards for PFAS, arguing that further research is needed to understand the economic impacts of the proposed regulations.

Commission members continue to be accused of stalling the rulemaking process in order to protect industry.

During a virtual press conference hosted Tuesday by the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, speakers, including residents, business owners and elected officials in the lower Cape Fear region, reiterated those claims.

“The EMC’s mandate is to protect, preserve and enhance the state’s air and water resources and it’s time for them to fulfill this responsibility,” Wilmington City Councilwoman Salette Andrews said Tuesday. “I predict they will once again fail to act in the best interest of North Carolinians. The EMC should work for the people, not the Chamber of Commerce. The chamber has its own lobbyists and doesn’t need to commission in order to do their bidding.”

Cape Fear River Watch Executive Director Dana Sargent specifically called out newer commission members appointed last year by the Republican-controlled legislature, saying those members “have made it clear that they care more about the cost to heavy industry and the Chamber of Commerce’s values, which are also heavy industry.”

“They’re waiting for the Clean Water Act to be basically opened up by potentially a new EPA,” she said, referring to the November presidential election.

Cori Bell, a NRDC senior attorney for environmental health, said the commission has had months to ask questions of DEQ.

“There have been multiple opportunities to get more information and I don’t think that it’s a lack of information and DEC has also said publicly that it’s not a lack of information on the financial analysis here,” Bell said. “It’s really, I think, a result of chamber pressure and outside pressure.”

Commission Chair J.D. Solomon assured commission members at the close of their Thursday meeting that they’re going to “work this thing down the middle.”

“This is a long game,” he said. “We made some progress yesterday. We just have to find the balance.”

North Carolina Environmental Management Commission members are to continue their discussion on regulating toxins in the air and water during the commission’s meeting this month.

Commission committees are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. Wednesday, July 10. Agenda items include the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s proposed groundwater and surface water standards for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and a semi-annual progress report on 1,4 dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin.

At the full commission meeting set for 9 a.m. Thursday, July 11, members are to consider moving forward in the rulemaking process to revise ambient air quality standards and the periodic review of administering the dry cleaning solvent cleanup fund.

Meetings will take place in the Archdale Building in Raleigh and be streamed online. Webinar information, including the link, and meeting agendas and materials are on the website.

This commission oversees and adopts rules for several divisions of the Department of Environmental Quality, including the Divisions of Air Quality, Land Resources, Waste Management and Water Resources.

The number of North Carolinians whose tap water comes from systems that contain at least one chemical compound exceeding new federal contamination limits is “coming down daily,” according to a state environmental official.

Rebecca Sadosky, N.C. Drinking Water Protection Program coordinator, told members of the state Environmental Management Commission Thursday that the numbers — an estimated 3.4 million people — will continue to slide as drinking water suppliers across the state upgrade their systems with technologies that remove per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

Thursday was the first time the commission has convened since North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Elizabeth Biser sent a letter to its members expressing her disappointment that the agency’s proposed groundwater standards for PFAS would not be put to a vote in July.

In the May 1 letter, Biser stated that the chair and vice chair of the commission’s groundwater and waste management committee were “refusing to hear the proposed groundwater standards for PFAS as an action item” at their Wednesday meeting.

Members of that committee denied that accusation, saying that the decision was made to push back a vote on the standards so members could first review at least a draft of the fiscal analysis that would explain anticipated costs associated with the proposal.

Commission Chair John Solomon kicked off Thursday’s meeting with a pep talk of sorts, telling fellow commissioners that they need to get to know one another, break barriers and “really, really support each other to make good deliberation and good decisions.”

“We have got some big decisions to continue make,” he said. “We’re going to regulated 1,4-dioxane. We’re going to regulate PFAS. I think we’re getting there. I think as a body y’all are coming together, but again, continue to work together as I’ve seen some of you doing in the past week.”

During the groundwater and waste management committee meeting, held the day before the commission’s meeting, committee Chair Joe Reardon and Vice Chair Tim Baumgartner defended the decision to wait for a fiscal analysis and hit back at Biser, saying DEQ chose to “grandstand” by issuing public statements that leveraged accusations at the committee instead of working through the issues with the committee.

DEQ showed commission members a “lack of respect,” Baumgartner said Wednesday. “This committee and commission deserved a right to review a full package before any consideration to move forward on these rules.”

He went on to say that agency officials had indicated last November that the Division of Waste Management was working on a fiscal note at that time. Yet, he said, the committee had not received a draft fiscal note to review. He cited Administrative Procedures Act requirement in his remarks.

“During all DEQ’s grandstanding DEQ did not provide this committee nor the EMC with a complete set of documents two weeks prior to the meeting, which is currently EMC policy,” Baumgartner said. “This persistent disregard for this committee stops today. All documents and any requests before this committee will be provided for this committee no later than two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting date or that item will be removed from the agenda. This public we serve deserves a solid rulemaking process that complies fully with APA, that is completely reviewed and conforms with the statutes and rules. This commission cannot do that if DEQ intends to work against us, withholding documents and grandstanding instead of engaging.”

Reardon said the committee’s decision to remove PFAS from its Wednesday agenda was to give the committee time to have access to “all the materials at one time.”

“The decision to remove this from the agenda was solely based on that all the materials required for rules to be adopted, including the fiscal note, was not provided to us in a timely manner,” he said.

Cape Fear River Watch Executive Director Dana Sargent, in a news release Thursday, thanked Biser for her letter to the committee.

“The environmental management commission’s mission is to adopt rules for the “protection, preservation, and enhancement of the state’s air and water resources,” Sargent wrote. “If the new EMC members don’t understand their mission, they should stand down.”

The spat comes a month after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it had set maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs, on several PFAS.

The new federal regulation means hundreds of water systems will have to routinely monitor for PFAS and report the results of that monitoring to their customers.

Utilities that have drinking water contaminated with PFAS exceeding the MCLs have five years to integrate technology that will bring them into compliance. More than 300 municipal and small water systems sampled in 2022 had PFAS detections above the newly established MCLs, according to DEQ.

Sadosky walked the EMC on Thursday through that timeline, one that requires systems to submit water samples to EPA-certified labs for testing beginning June 25.

North Carolina currently does not have any EPA-certified labs to test for PFAS. Sadosky said the state is waiting for guidance from the EPA on where samples may be sent this summer.

The new federal drinking water standard is expected to put a hefty price tag on utilities. The federal government is funneling billions to assist with costs associated with the measure.

The state needs surface water and groundwater standards because PFAS gets discharged into those sources and ultimately into 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,” Biser said in her May 1 letter.

EPA does not establish surface water and groundwater standards.

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.

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.

“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.

When the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission meets this month, members are to hear recommendations concerning a new law to amend the state’s wetland rules.

The committees will meet from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 10. The full commission meeting is to start at 9 a.m. Thursday, Jan. 11. The public may attend the meeting in the Ground Floor Hearing Room of the Archdale Building in Raleigh in person or join the meeting by computer or phone.

In the 2023 North Carolina Farm Act, the commission was directed to amend the state’s wetland rules to be consistent with the federal “waters of the United States” or WOTUS, revised in 2023 because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that isolated wetlands are not protected under the Clean Water Act.

The agenda also includes a discussion on their case against the Rules Review Commission’s for “unlawful objection to EMC’s proposed rule amendments codifying its pre-existing narrative standards for the carcinogenic toxin 1,4-Dioxane,” and an update on the revision to a discharge permit from seafood packing and rinsing, aquatic animal operations, and similarly designated wastewaters for aquaculture.

Meeting information, including draft agendas and additional materials can be found on the commission website.

When the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission meet next week, members are to consider a proposed rule amendment that will add parameters “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)” and “Organic Fluorine” to the Laboratory Certification Rule.

The meetings are scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday in the ground floor hearing room of the Archdale Building in Raleigh. Face coverings are optional for staff and attendees. There will be limited seating, and the public may also attend via remote access.

The laboratory certification rule determines certification criteria for laboratory facilities performing any tests, analyses, measurements, or monitoring.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality said it expects to require many permitted facilities to test for PFAS in the near future. Permits require analyses to be performed by certified laboratories such as the Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification Branch, which currently does not have the authority to certify for the parameter known as PFAS. This parameter must be added to the rule. The analysis of organic fluorine provides an aggregate measurement of chemical substances that contain carbon-fluorine bonds, according to meeting documents.

Also on the agenda is a request to proceed to public comment with 11 proposed reclassifications in Watauga River Basin.

The groundwater and waste management committee will meet 9:30-11:30 a.m. Jan. 11 followed by the water quality committee from 12:30-3 p.m. No meetings are scheduled for the air quality and water allocation committees.

During the groundwater and waste management committee meeting, a Division of Waste Management representative is expected to provide an overview of the five sections within division: brownfields, hazardous waste, solid waste, Superfund, and underground storage tanks, and provide 2023 updates for the division. The Division of Water Resources will provide an overview of the groundwater quality standards to the committee as well.

Water quality committee members are expected to hear a semiannual progress report on 1,4 dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin from Division of Water Resources staff.

The Environmental Protection Agency required public water supply systems throughout the United States to monitor for the presence of contaminants, including 1,4-dioxane, between 2013-2015. Results indicated that 1,4-dioxane was most prevalent in North Carolina in the Cape Fear River Basin. NCDEQ has conducted more sampling to better determine the concentrations of 1,4-dioxane, and their potential sources within the basin. The EPA established that 1,4-dioxane is a probable human carcinogen.

The Environmental Management Commission is responsible for adopting rules for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the state’s air, land and water resources. The commission oversees and adopts rules for several divisions of NCDEQ, including the divisions of Air Quality; Energy, Mineral and Land Resources; Waste Management; and Water Resources.

More information is available on the Environmental Management Commission webpage.