Casey Moravec, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, spoke at a public hearing Tuesday in Fayetteville on proposed monitoring and minimization rules for industrial emitters of 1,4-dioxane and public wastewater treatment plants that receive their wastewater. Photo: Trista Talton
FAYETTEVILLE — Proposed monitoring and minimization rules for industrial emitters of 1,4-dioxane and public wastewater treatment plants that accept the waste from those facilities 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 Control Commission’s public hearing at Fayetteville Technical Community College criticized the proposed rules, arguing that they are insufficient to reduce the amount of 1,4-dioxane that enters people’s drinking water sources and lack enforcement.
These comments mirror those expressed during the commission’s April 9 public hearing on the proposed rule in Hickory. A third hearing is scheduled for May 12 in Jamestown.
“While the so-called monitoring and minimization rule establishes certain monitoring requirements, the term minimization is misleading,” Fayetteville resident Madison Williams said. “The way this rule is promulgated does not require polluters to reduce their emissions of PFAS or 1,4-dioxane into North Carolina’s drinking water supply, and even if those emissions increase, there will be no consequences. This is, in effect, a polluter-written rule.”
RELATED: Public hearing set for proposed wastewater discharge rule
The commission is hosting separate hearings, the first of which was held last week in Asheville, on similar rules regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA; Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, or PFOS; GenX is a chemical unique to the manufacturing plant near the Cape Fear River in Bladen County.
Under the proposed rule, public treatment facilities that receive industrial wastewater and their manufacturers would be required to monitor discharges of the industrial solvent 1,4-dioxane into rivers, streams, and streams.
Facilities will be required to conduct baseline monitoring every three months for one year. Based on these sampling results, the discharger may be required to conduct additional monitoring.
“If continued sampling is determined to be necessary, direct industrial dischargers will need to develop a minimization plan,” explained Bridget Shelton of the Department of Water Resources’ Planning Division. “A minimization plan is a strategy that reduces or eliminates pollutants at their source before they are released into the environment.”
Facilities that “meet certain criteria” may request exceptions from the continuous monitoring and minimization plan requirements, she said.
The proposed rule does not establish specific emission limits or penalties for violations.
This fact has drawn harsh criticism from residents, environmental groups, and public drinking water providers who are calling on the state to establish drinking water standards for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane and regulate direct emitters of these chemicals.
“More than 1 million North Carolina residents consume water from the Cape Fear River, which is contaminated with 1,4-dyxoane, PFAS, and other permanent chemicals that will continue to proliferate without adequate regulation at the federal and state levels,” said Jonelle Kimbrough, executive director of Fayetteville-based environmental nonprofit Sustainable Sandhills. “While the proposed 1,4-dioxane minimization rule appears to be an attempt to regulate, as written, it fundamentally does not protect the state’s natural resources or public health, which needs protection.”
Rob Clark, water quality program manager for Cape Fear River Watch, said the organization and its more than 1,000 members are jointly opposing the proposed rule.
“These regulations are woefully inadequate when it comes to addressing PFAS and 1,4-dioxane contamination in the Cape Fear River Basin,” he said. “The proposed minimization rules do not set legally enforceable limits on how much of these toxic compounds can be discharged into our waterways. Instead, they rely on polluters to monitor pollution and submit plans that explain how they will reduce it over time. Do we really think polluters will do the right thing and cut back on their profits to stop discharging these chemicals into our waterways?”
Representatives of downstream public water suppliers said the proposed rule lacks a clear goal of significantly reducing 1,4-dioxane levels in the state’s surface waters.
Rhonda Locklear, environmental program manager for the Fayetteville Public Utilities Commission, noted that statewide monitoring has identified 1,4-dioxane primarily in the Cape Fear River watershed.
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality says, “After sampling surface water from 15 of North Carolina’s 17 river basins, we determined that most industrial 1,4-dioxane sources are located in the Cape Fear River Basin. Since 2017, 35% of these samples have exceeded the non-detection threshold, nearly 10 times the rate in the Neuse River Basin and nearly 200 times the rate in the Yadkin Pea River Basin.” The Dee River Basin,” she said. “The problem areas are clearly defined and documented, and PWC expects DEQ to establish meaningful regulations and reductions in the Cape Fear River Basin.”
Kevin Morris, deputy executive director of the Cape Fear Public Utilities Authority, said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which classifies 1,4-dioxane as a possible human carcinogen, warns that even at concentrations of 0.35 parts per billion, long-term exposure to the chemical can increase cancer risk in humans and can have serious effects on the kidneys and liver.
“Downstream water systems continue to experience periodic spikes in 1,4-dioxane, despite having no role in the production or discharge of this chemical, demonstrating the limitations of the current regulatory framework,” Morris said.
He emphasized that wastewater from Asheboro’s sewage treatment plant is regularly tested for high levels of 1,4-dioxane, and that concentrations far exceed levels associated with long-term health risks.
“These wastewaters flow into waterways like the Haw River and the Cape Fear River,” Morris said. “They are dependent on downstream drinking water systems and require additional monitoring, treatment, regulation, and communication with customers. Ultimately, the downstream public bears the risks and costs of managing contamination that they are not responsible for. Voluntary abatement measures are insufficient to ensure consistent results or protect downstream communities. Utilities can only control what reaches their water intakes.”
As of Wednesday, DEQ had received more than 2,000 public comments and is counting on the commission’s proposed rule on 1,4-dyxoane and PFAS, said Josh Kaslinksy, DEQ’s deputy director of public affairs.
“The comments we received in writing largely reflect the comments we received in person,” he said.
Andrew Murot, president of the nonprofit North Carolina Pretreatment Consortium, which represents more than 180 pretreatment professionals in 64 state-approved pretreatment programs across North Carolina, was the only person to speak in support of the proposed rule Tuesday.
However, he said the organization has “some specific concerns” about the rules currently being written.
“The cost of treating 1,4-dioxane at the POTW (public treatment facility) level is staggering. Capital costs alone range from $10 million to $1.3 billion, making source control the only realistic path forward,” he said.
Murotto said the proposed rule would require redoing public treatment works in Greensboro, Burlington, Asheboro, High Point and Reidsville, which have had monitoring and minimization efforts dating back to 2015.
“We call for an explicit off-ramp for POTWs that have already completed successful programs, replacing any detections with actionable screening thresholds. As currently written, detection of 1,4-dioxane would trigger ongoing monitoring requirements and a full minimization plan. NCPC members do not believe this is feasible. We support alternative screening thresholds based on meaningful concentration or burden levels,” he said.
DEQ is accepting written comments until June 15. Comments may be emailed to publiccomments@deq.nc.gov with the subject line “1,4-Dioxane Minimization” or mailed to Bridget Shelton, DEQ-DWR Planning Section, 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1611.
