This is the second story in a two-part series. To learn more about the proposed monitoring and minimization plans and why they are facing public backlash, visit the first story here.
In North Carolina, the presence of man-made toxic substances, PFAS, and 1,4 Dioxane in state waters has led to significant regulatory propositions aimed at reducing their discharge. However, the absence of specific numeric limits in these proposals has drawn public criticism.
WUNC Environment Reporter Celeste Guajardo discussed the issue with weekend host Bradley George. Portions of their conversation have been edited for clarity and context.
Understanding the Environmental Management Commission
Bradley: Could you explain the role of the Environmental Management Commission?
Celeste: The Environmental Management Commission serves as North Carolina’s primary environmental regulatory body, composed of 15 politically appointed members responsible for setting environmental regulations in the state.
Cornell Watson
/
for WUNC News
The Role of the Department of Environmental Quality
How does the Commission differ from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)?
DEQ functions as a supportive agency to the Commission, offering recommendations on environmental rules, though the final decision rests with the Commission. The current debate over numeric standards exemplifies this dynamic.
Timeline and Political Influence
How did the current situation develop?
In 2023, DEQ advocated for health-based numeric standards for certain PFAS types with substantial research backing their health impacts. By 2024, the Commission shifted focus to a monitoring and minimization strategy instead.
What prompted this change?
Legislative actions in late 2023 influenced the Commission’s composition, shifting it from a Democratic to a Republican majority. Political scientist Chris Cooper noted a trend of power transfer from the governor to the legislature.
Why is the political shift significant?
Opinions vary on the political impact. Some argue politics is irrelevant, while others suggest lobbying influenced the Commission’s decision. Hannah Nelson from the Southern Environmental Law Center claims wastewater treatment lobbyists prompted the shift to a minimization approach.
Cornell Watson
/
For WUNC News
Paul Calamita, general counsel for the North Carolina Water Quality Association, has been highlighted in emails for influencing the Commission’s current approach, suggesting a focus on minimizing industrial discharges instead of stringent numeric standards.
Calamita contends that numeric standards could result in significant treatment costs. He argues for feasible practices that industries can adopt without jeopardizing their operations, emphasizing voluntary reductions already in progress.
DEQ’s Perspective
What is the Department of Environmental Quality’s stance?
Reid Wilson, DEQ’s secretary, advocates for health-based numeric standards, emphasizing pollution reduction at the source to avoid costly filtration by water utilities. Wilmington-area utilities, for example, have invested over $240 million since 2017 to filter PFAS, which does not address 1,4 Dioxane contamination.
Public comments on the proposal are open until June 15.
