Strategic Investment in NC Water Infrastructure: A PFAS Lens

Introduction

The recent announcement by Governor Josh Stein’s office that North Carolina counties will receive more than $200 million in loan financing to repair and renovate drinking water and wastewater facilities marks a pivotal moment for the state’s environmental public health agenda. As an environmental scientist who has spent over a decade studying PFAS fate in aqueous systems, hydrothermal liquefaction of sludge, and GenX destruction technologies, I view this infusion of capital not merely as an infrastructure upgrade but as a strategic lever to confront the pervasive challenge of per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that continue to linger in our water sources and treatment assets.

The Scope of the Award

According to the NC Newsline Environment report, the funding will support 48 distinct projects across 27 counties, targeting improvements to both drinking water distribution networks and wastewater treatment plants. The loan mechanism—administered through the state’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)—ensures that repayment terms are tied to the useful life of the assets, thereby promoting long‑term sustainability. While the announcement emphasizes “addressing PFAS and forever chemicals lingering in that infrastructure,” it is essential to unpack what this entails from a technical and regulatory standpoint.

PFAS Contamination in North Carolina: A Brief Context

North Carolina has been at the forefront of PFAS research and policy since the discovery of GenX (HFPO‑DA) in the Cape Fear River in 2017. Subsequent investigations by the NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and academic collaborators have documented widespread presence of legacy PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS, as well as emerging compounds like PFBS and PFNA, in both surface water and groundwater sources serving municipal systems. Notably, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) has implemented granular activated carbon (GAC) and ion exchange treatments to meet the state’s provisional health advisory level of 10 ppt for GenX, a benchmark that predates any federal maximum contaminant level (MCL).

Federal Regulatory Landscape: EPA’s Evolving MCLs

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved decisively toward national PFAS drinking water standards. In March 2023, the agency proposed a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS—PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO‑DA (GenX), and PFBS—setting individual MCLs of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS, and a hazard index approach for the mixture of the remaining four compounds. Although the final rule was still under review as of late 2024, the EPA signaled that compliance timelines would likely begin in 2026–2027 for large systems, with flexibility for smaller jurisdictions through state‑administered revolving funds.

North Carolina’s municipalities, many of which serve populations under 10,000, will therefore need to align any capital improvements with these forthcoming federal limits. The $200 million loan package offers a timely mechanism to pre‑emptively install or upgrade treatment technologies—such as high‑pressure membranes, advanced oxidation processes, or regenerative ion exchange—before enforcement deadlines arrive.

Linking Infrastructure Upgrades to PFAS Mitigation

The news release notes that funds will “seek to improve infrastructure, address PFAS and forever chemicals lingering in that infrastructure, replace [ … ]”. While the ellipsis obscures the full list, typical eligible activities under the CWSRF/DWSRF include:

1. Replacement of aging pipelines that may harbor PFAS‑laden sediments or biofilm, reducing the risk of desorption into treated water.
2. Upgrading treatment plant headworks to incorporate PFAS‑specific pretreatment (e.g., pre‑filtration or adsorption) thereby protecting downstream biological processes.
3. Installation of point‑of‑entry or point‑of‑use treatment at vulnerable wells or small community systems where centralized treatment is economically prohibitive.
4. Sludge handling improvements—particularly relevant to my research on hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL). By diverting PFAS‑contaminated biosolids from land application to HTL reactors, we can destroy the carbon‑fluorine chain while producing bio‑oil and char, a pathway already demonstrated at pilot scale for municipal sludge.

Each of these interventions directly reduces the mass flux of PFAS from source to tap, thereby lowering the likelihood that finished water will exceed forthcoming EPA MCLs.

Policy Implications for North Carolina

The state’s own PFAS Action Plan, released by the NC DEQ in 2021, emphasizes source reduction, monitoring, and treatment financing. The current loan award dovetails with three of its core recommendations:

• Financing Mechanism: Leveraging state revolving funds to spread capital costs over time aligns with the plan’s call for “innovative financing strategies.”
• Technical Assistance: The announcement references technical support from the NC Rural Water Association, ensuring that small systems receive guidance on selecting appropriate PFAS‑removal technologies.
• Data Transparency: Fund recipients will be required to report pre‑ and post‑intervention PFAS monitoring results, feeding into the state’s emerging PFAS database and informing future regulatory adjustments.

From a regulatory perspective, completing these upgrades before the EPA’s final MCLs take effect could position North Carolina utilities as early adopters, potentially qualifying for additional federal grant programs (e.g., the EPA’s PFAS Emerging Contaminants Grant) that reward proactive compliance.

Challenges and Considerations

While the funding is substantial, several challenges merit attention:

• Technology Selection: Not all PFAS respond equally to a given treatment. For instance, short‑chain PFAS like PFBS exhibit lower affinity for conventional GAC, necessitating alternative adsorbents or membrane systems. Decision‑making must be informed by site‑specific congener profiles, which can be obtained through targeted EPA Method 533 or 537.1 analyses.
• Operational Sustainability: Advanced treatments often increase energy consumption and generate secondary waste streams (e.g., spent adsorbents). Integrating regeneration or destruction steps—such as electrochemical oxidation or plasma‑based defluorination—can mitigate lifecycle impacts.
• Equitable Distribution: Although 27 counties benefit, the remaining 73 counties (including some with known PFAS hotspots) receive no direct allocation under this tranche. Ongoing advocacy will be needed to ensure that future funding cycles address statewide needs uniformly.

Conclusion

The $200 million loan award for water facility repairs and renovations represents more than a routine infrastructure upgrade; it is a strategic investment in North Carolina’s capacity to meet the looming federal PFAS MCLs while safeguarding public health. By aligning capital projects with the state’s PFAS Action Plan, leveraging emerging destruction technologies such as hydrothermal liquefaction of sludge, and insisting on rigorous pre‑ and post‑treatment monitoring, we can transform this financial infusion into measurable reductions in PFAS exposure across our communities. As we move toward the EPA’s anticipated regulatory deadlines, the decisions made today will determine whether North Carolina’s water systems merely comply—or become national models for resilient, PFAS‑responsive infrastructure.