This is the second story in a two part series. To learn more about why the proposed monitoring and minimization plans are facing public backlash, go to the first story here.
PFAS and 1,4 Dioxane are man-made, toxic chemicals found in some rivers and lakes in North Carolina. State regulators are proposing plans intended to reduce these chemical discharges. But the plans are facing public backlash, in part because they do not include any numeric limits on discharges.
WUNC Environment Reporter Celeste Guajardo spoke with weekend host Bradley George. This conversation has been edited for context and clarity.
Bradley: Before we talk about chemical discharges, remind us what the Environmental Management Commission is and what it’s tasked to do.
Celeste: The Environmental Management Commission is the state’s environmental regulatory authority. It’s the group that sets all the environmental rules in North Carolina. It’s made up of 15 people who are politically appointed.
And how is the Commission different from the state Department of Environmental Quality, or DEQ?
DEQ is a state agency that essentially acts as staff to the Commission. DEQ will recommend rules to the Commission, but it’s ultimately up to the Commission to adopt those recommendations. I think a good example of this dynamic is the situation we have now with this disagreement over numeric standards.
Tell us more about that. How did we get here?
Back in 2023, DEQ started presenting information to the Commission on adopting health-based numeric standards for nine different kinds of PFAS in rivers and lakes. Remember, there are thousands of different kinds of PFAS.
DEQ was recommending standards for these specific PFAS because “these compounds have a significant literature base so health effects can be determined,” according to a DEQ presentation to the Commission in November 2023.
The Commission seemed very open to this suggestion. But then, in 2024, the Commission went in a different direction and told DEQ to instead develop a monitoring and minimization approach, which is the proposal we have now.
What happened? Why the sudden change?
In the fall of 2023, Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation that took away some of the governor’s appointments on different state boards, including this commission. Former Governor Roy Cooper actually sued over this, calling it “a blatantly unconstitutional legislative power grab.”
Political scientist Chris Cooper at Western Carolina University pointed out that since Republicans took control of the state legislature in 2010, they’ve fairly systematically taken power away from the governor and given it to themselves.
“Almost every facet of public life we’ve seen, the General Assembly (has) put more power in their hands, which is already the most powerful branch, and (taken) it from offices that tend to be held by Democrats,” said Cooper.
So the Commission went from majority Democratic appointed to majority Republican appointed.
Why does that political shift matter?
To be fair, some folks argue it doesn’t matter. They say politics has nothing to do with this. But others say this new Commission was influenced by lobbyists.
“A group of wastewater treatment plants got to the EMC, asked them to table those health protective rules and to pursue this monitoring and minimization approach,” said Hannah Nelson with the Southern Environmental Law Center, referring to the Environmental Management Commission.
“And the EMC directed the state to do that,” said Nelson. “They directed the state to table the rules that … would've protected people and to instead pursue a rule that was ultimately written by the wastewater treatment plants.”
This group of wastewater treatment plants that Hannah’s referring to is the North Carolina Water Quality Association. Paul Calamita is the group’s general counsel.
According to emails obtained through a public records request by SELC, Calamita emailed the Commission in September 2024 expressing concern with DEQ’s proposed rules.
“We fail to understand how adoption of these proposed PFAS criteria … is warranted or appropriate at this time,” wrote Calamita. “Instead of such stringent criteria with highly problematic consequences that DEQ will lose control over, we would like to propose an alternative approach — minimization of industrial discharger PFAS loadings.”
Another email in March 2025 shows how much of an influence Calamita’s group had on the current proposal. A DEQ staff member sent a draft of the rule to the Commission, stating “we have done our best to incorporate all of Paul’s concepts and processes into this rule.”
When I spoke to Calamita, he denied that wastewater treatment plants drafted the rules. He said his group has major concerns with key aspects of the proposal to this day.
He added his group opposes numeric standards in part because it may impose massive treatment costs.
“There's a certain group that wants fixed numbers,” said Calamita. “They want really low fixed numbers that have no basis in statute or regulation versus letting us do our jobs and doing what has been successful elsewhere and working with these industries to see what is feasible, (to see) what best management practices … what can they do without putting themselves out of business to help us address these chemicals?”
Calamita maintains that voluntary reduction of PFAS and 1,4 Dioxane will work, saying his clients are already doing minimization work today regardless of any rule.
I’m curious to know — what is the reaction from the Department of Environmental Quality?
I spoke with Reid Wilson, the secretary of DEQ. He says his department stands firm that we need health-based numeric standards.
“What we think is the most effective and efficient and fairest way to protect people's health is to reduce the pollution at the source, rather than having a situation where water utilities have to install really expensive technology to filter out these contaminants from their drinking water supplies before they supply it to people's homes,” said Wilson.
For example, Wilmington-area utilities have spent more than $240 million since 2017 installing treatment technology to keep PFAS out of drinking water. However, these filtration systems do not address 1,4 dioxane.
As far as next steps, public comment is open until June 15.
