Conservation groups object to polluter-written PFAS and 1,4-dioxane rules

Timeline reveals origin of polluter-friendly PFAS & 1,4-dioxane rules proposed by North Carolina commission 

CHAPEL HILL, N.C.—The Southern Environmental Law Center today sent a letter to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on behalf of ten conservation groups strongly objecting to polluter-written rules regarding PFAS and 1,4-dioxane. The EMC instructed the Department of Environmental Quality to prepare these rules which do not require polluters to reduce their toxic pollution into North Carolina’s drinking water supplies. In fact, the proposed rules impose no consequences even if polluters increase their toxic discharges.  

“Rather than take real steps to control toxic industrial pollution, the EMC is pushing forward toothless polluter-written rules. After the decades that our communities have suffered from these toxic chemicals, it’s appalling that the EMC would choose to delay protections for North Carolina’s families, communities, schools, churches, and local businesses,” said Hannah Nelson, attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. 

More than 3.5 million North Carolinians drink water contaminated with unsafe levels of PFAS, and more than one million drink water laden with cancer-causing 1,4-dioxane. Harmful levels of PFAS have been detected in North Carolina fish and crops, and in certain parts of the state, women and children are told to refrain from eating even one fish to protect themselves from devastating health impacts. 

Both PFAS and 1,4-dioxane are harmful to our health at incredibly low levels and cannot be removed by conventional drinking water treatment. Stopping these harmful chemicals at their industrial source before they reach our rivers, creeks, and drinking water supplies protects the health of families and communities and ensures that polluters pay instead of downstream communities and drinking water treatment facilities.  

The N.C. Environmental Management Commission is made of 15 members—three of which are appointed by the Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger (R-Guilford and Rockingham Counties), three appointed by the Speaker of the House Destin Hall (R-Caldwell and Watauga Counties), two appointed by state Commissioner of Agriculture Steve Troxler (R) and seven appointed by Governor Josh Stein (D). If the commission votes to move these polluter-written rules forward at its next meeting in January, the rules could go for public comment in early 2026. 

Timeline of Polluter-Written PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane Rules with Public Records: 

1. March 10, 2022: The EMC approves water quality standards for 1,4-dioxane that limit the cancer-causing pollutant from industrial sources.  
2. May 19, 2022: The legislative Rules Review Commission blocks the 1,4-dioxane standards from becoming final after 1,4-dioxane polluters lobbied the commission.  
3. July 12, 2023: DEQ presents a plan to adopt water quality standards for PFAS to the EMC. The EMC is supportive of the upcoming rulemaking process.  
4. October 2023: North Carolina legislature passes Session Law 2023-136 (Senate Bill 512) over Governor Cooper’s veto. This law changed the make-up of the EMC by taking position appointments away from the governor and giving more positions to the polluter-friendly legislature and Commissioner of Agriculture. Newly appointed commissioners join the EMC at its November 9, 2023, meeting.  
5. November 9, 2023: EMC sues the Rules Review Commission for improperly blocking the 1,4-dioxane water quality standards.  
6. February 16, 2024: New EMC dismisses the lawsuit against the Rules Review Commission effectively blocking the 2022 1,4-dioxane water quality standards that limit the cancer-causing pollutant from going into effect.  
7. July 10, 2024: DEQ presents fully developed PFAS water quality standards for eight PFAS chemicals and an accompanying fiscal analysis to the EMC’s Water Quality Committee. These PFAS standards, when finalized, would force polluters to keep their PFAS discharges below a level that protects people’s health. DEQ asked the Water Quality Committee for approval to begin the public comment process. The Water Quality Committee defers the motion until its September committee meeting.  
8. September 6, 2024: Attorney for the North Carolina Water Quality Association, sends a letter to the EMC expressing “concerns with DEQ’s proposed surface water quality criteria for PFAS.” Wastewater utilities that are members of the North Carolina Water Quality Association are some of the largest sources of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane in the State. In his letter, Calamita asks that the EMC change course and adopt a rule that only requires monitoring and voluntary source reduction.  
9. September 11, 2024: EMC’s Water Quality Committee officially blocks DEQ’s PFAS water quality standards and tells the agency to prepare a rule that would require polluters to monitor and put together a plan for how they intend to reduce their toxic chemical pollution.   
10. January 8, 2025: DEQ presents to the EMC’s Water Quality Committee asking them for details of what they would like to see in a rule, including how they want to ensure polluters actually reduce their pollution. The Water Quality Committee votes to have a special meeting on February 25, 2025 to discuss the substance of the plan.  
11. February 24, 2025: DEQ sends the Water Quality Committee a presentation for the special meeting. The presentation explains that DEQ wants EMC input on how much polluters would be forced to reduce their PFAS and 1,4-dioxane discharges.  
12. February 25, 2025: JD Solomon, Chair of the EMC, sends an email to select group of commissioners on the Water Quality Committee expressing frustration with DEQ’s attempt to write a rule with reduction goals. Solomon stated that DEQ has a “wastewater community proposed rule” and should not “reinvent the wheel.”  
13. February 25, 2025: Chair of the Water Quality Committee, Steve Keen, cancels the special meeting the day it was supposed to occur.  
14. February 28, 2025: Attorney for the North Carolina Water Quality Association, sends JD Solomon and Steve Keen a draft rule that would require polluters to monitor their PFAS discharges and put together a plan on how to reduce their pollution. Nothing in the proposed rule requires polluters to follow their plans.   
15. March 3, 2025: Julie Grzyb, deputy director of Division of Water Resources, sends a draft rule that “incorporate[s] all of Paul’s concepts” and puts it into a rule format. She attached rule language with highlights on “what is in Paul’s proposal either directly or in concept.” 
16. March 12, 2025: DEQ presents a draft PFAS rule. Chair of the Water Quality Committee, Steve Keen, explains that the Water Quality Association put together 80% of the rule and DEQ just had to “fill in the blanks.” Vice-Chair of the Committee, Michael Ellison, explains that the PFAS rule was “not a treatment rule,” and that “[w]e weren’t getting into the reduction business with this rule.” The Water Quality Committee directs DEQ to prepare a fiscal analysis for the PFAS rule and to do the same monitoring and voluntary minimization approach for 1,4-dioxane.  
17. April 9, 2025: Richard Rogers, director of Division of Water Resources, sends email to select commissioners on the EMC’s Water Quality Committee providing “a list of the rule changes staff made at [the Committee Members’] direction.” The rule changes include limiting the scope of the PFAS rule to only three compounds (PFOA, PFOS, and GenX).  
18. April 10, 2025: Richard Rogers, director of Division of Water Resources, sends a draft fiscal analysis for the PFAS rules to a select group of members of the EMC’s Water Quality Committee. The draft fiscal analysis makes clear that benefits of the rule are “unquantifiable” because “[t]he rule does not require any specific action by the affected entity to reduce PFAS discharges into surface waters.” 
19. April 25, 2025: DEQ posts a revised version of the fiscal analysis supporting the PFAS rule. This version is sent to the NC Office of State Budget Management (“OSBM”) for approval on the same day.  
20. May 1, 2025: DEQ posts a draft fiscal analysis for the 1,4-dioxane rules.  
21. May 5, 2025: OSBM provides comments on the draft fiscal analysis for the PFOA, PFOS, and GenX rules, explaining that the analysis “must demonstrate that the benefits of these rules are likely to exceed the costs,” which the draft does not do. OSBM questions the basis for claiming there will be PFAS reductions and remarks that “[i]t is not clear as to how the rules, as proposed, will minimize discharges of these compounds. … [W]ithout performance measures or enforcement, [it] seems unlikely that minimization activities will occur in a meaningful way.” One comment asks why the agencies would not just “adopt a water quality standard.” 
22. May 7, 2025: DEQ prepares to present draft fiscal analyses and rules for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane to the EMC’s Water Quality Committee. The Committee Chair, Steve Keen, announces at the meeting that the decision on the rules would be deferred because OSBM had concerns with the fiscal analysis.  
23. May 9, 2025: OSBM provides comments on the draft fiscal analysis for the 1,4-dioxane rules. Like with the PFOA, PFOS, and GenX rules, OSBM raised questions about the purported benefits and the basis for assuming there will be reductions in pollution, among many other concerns.  
24. November 12, 2025: The Water Quality Committee votes to send the polluter-written PFAS and 1,4-dioxane rules to the full EMC.