A yearslong battle over toxic water pollution in North Carolina may be moving toward stronger protections for millions of residents, WUNC News reported.

State regulators are considering new rules that would require certain wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities to monitor and reduce discharges of PFAS, known as "forever chemicals," along with 1,4-dioxane, a likely human carcinogen.

"PFAS … [are] known as forever chemicals because they don't break down in the environment," said Knappe, a renowned PFAS researcher and professor at North Carolina State University. "The Haw River and the Cape Fear (River Basin) have … historically … high (levels) of 1,4 Dioxane and PFAS."

Advocates admit the proposal does not go far enough, but they still see it as an important step. At a minimum, the rules could help identify where the pollution is coming from and start cutting the amount flowing into major waterways, including the Haw River and the Cape Fear River Basin.

That could make a real difference for households across the state. 

According to WUNC, state environmental officials estimate roughly 3.5 million North Carolinians drink tap water with PFAS concentrations above the EPA standard. Researchers have also found unusually high levels of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane in both the Cape Fear and Haw rivers for years. The Cape Fear watershed is the state's largest.

The state's PFAS and 1,4-dioxane Monitoring and Minimization Plans would require covered facilities to sample their discharges for one year and then create reduction plans based on the results. 

Those plans would need approval from local and state regulators, be folded into existing permits, and be followed by continued monitoring.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission held six public hearings in April and May, and public comments are open through June 15.

For residents, the potential benefits are significant. Less contamination in rivers can mean safer drinking water, less pressure on treatment systems, and fewer long-term health risks. 

It could also reduce some of the financial burden that often lands on utilities and customers when pollution is allowed to enter waterways first and must be removed later using costly treatment technology.

There is an environmental upside, too. Reducing these discharges upstream can help protect fish, wildlife, and river ecosystems while making waterways safer for boating, fishing, and other recreation. 

According to WUNC, state health officials have already warned pregnant women against eating certain fish from the Cape Fear River because of PFAS contamination, underscoring how deeply these chemicals can move through the food chain.

Scientists have been warning about the problem for years. Nearly a decade ago, Knappe helped uncover that Chemours, formerly part of DuPont, was releasing GenX, a type of PFAS, into the Cape Fear River. Since then, researchers have identified PFAS not only in water but also in everyday products such as cosmetics, clothing, and takeout containers, according to the source article.

1,4-dioxane has a similarly troubling record in the state. According to WUNC, it was found in the Haw River as early as 1985, and major releases have continued since then, including exceptionally high 1,4-dioxane discharges into the Cape Fear River Basin from a wastewater treatment plant in Asheboro last May.

Health experts say exposure to these pollutants has been linked to serious concerns, including high cholesterol, immune system effects, and certain cancers. 

Duke University toxicology researcher Heather Stapleton has said that detecting PFAS in blood does not mean someone will get cancer, but longer exposure can increase PFAS levels in the body and the health risks that can follow.

The proposal has also drawn criticism. WUNC reported that it does not set hard numeric discharge limits, and it would require facilities to report only three PFAS compounds to the state: PFOA, PFOS, and GenX. 

Because there are thousands of PFAS compounds, critics argue that the reporting requirement may miss much of the contamination.

Even so, requiring more facilities to test, document, and reduce what they release would bring these chemicals into a formal regulatory process instead of allowing them to remain hidden. 

In a state that has spent decades grappling with contamination that many communities did not know was there, that alone would be a meaningful shift. Supporters also say the rules could create a foundation for stricter standards later.

Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.