Why the MVP Southgate Hearing Matters for PFAS Protection in North Carolina

Introduction

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will hold a public hearing on Tuesday regarding the MVP Southgate natural gas pipeline project. As noted in the NC Newsline Environment article, DEQ previously denied a water quality permit for this project in 2020. While the current hearing focuses on the pipeline’s broader environmental impacts, the decision carries significant implications for PFAS (per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances) management in the state. In this editorial, I draw on my research in PFAS contamination, hydrothermal liquefaction of waste streams, and North Carolina water quality policy to explain why stakeholders concerned about PFAS should pay close attention to this proceeding.

The MVP Southgate Project and Water Quality Concerns

MVP Southgate is a proposed 75‑mile interstate natural gas pipeline that would transport fracked gas from West Virginia through Virginia and into North Carolina, terminating near the Hampton Roads region. The pipeline crosses several watersheds that feed into the Tar‑Pamlico, Neuse, and Cape Fear river basins—sources of drinking water for millions of North Carolinians. In 2020, DEQ denied the project’s Section 401 water quality certification, citing concerns about sedimentation, stream buffer impacts, and potential adverse effects on aquatic life and downstream water uses.

Although the denial was not explicitly based on PFAS, the project’s construction activities—including land clearing, trenching, and horizontal directional drilling—can disturb soils and groundwater that may contain legacy contaminants. In regions where industrial firefighting foams, biosolids application, or historic manufacturing have occurred, PFAS can be present in subsurface soils at low but detectable levels. Disturbing these matrices during pipeline installation could mobilize PFAS into surface waters or groundwater, particularly if best‑management practices for erosion and sediment control are insufficient.

PFAS Contamination Risks from Natural Gas Infrastructure

Natural gas infrastructure itself is not a primary source of PFAS; however, ancillary components associated with pipeline construction and operation can introduce PFAS exposure pathways:

1. Construction Materials – Some geotextile fabrics, pipe coatings, and sealants used in pipeline projects have historically contained PFAS to impart water‑resistance or durability. While many manufacturers have phased out long‑chain PFAS, short‑chain alternatives may still be present, and their environmental fate is less understood.
2. Hydrostatic Testing Fluids – Pipelines are often flushed with water mixed with corrosion inhibitors or biocides during testing. Certain formulations have been found to contain PFAS as surfactants or stabilizers.
3. Maintenance and Leak Detection – Technologies such as smart pigging may employ lubricants or gels that contain PFAS compounds.

If any of these materials are used without rigorous PFAS‑free verification, there is a risk of inadvertent discharge into nearby streams or aquifers. Given the mobility of many PFAS (especially short‑chain variants like PFBS and GenX) in aqueous environments, even low‑level releases can contribute to cumulative loading in watersheds already burdened by legacy contamination.

North Carolina’s PFAS Regulatory Landscape

North Carolina has been proactive in addressing PFAS pollution, particularly in the Cape Fear River basin where the Chemours Fayetteville Works facility discharged GenX and other PFAS for decades. Key regulatory milestones include:

• 2018 PFAS Testing Act – Required public water systems to monitor for a suite of PFAS compounds and report results to DEQ.
• 2020 PFAS Action Plan – Outlined strategies for source reduction, remediation, and public outreach, including the establishment of a PFAS advisory committee.
• 2023 Drinking Water Standard – North Carolina adopted state‑specific MCLs of 10 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, aligning with the EPA’s then‑proposed federal limits.
• 2024 EPA PFAS NPDWR – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six PFAS: PFOA and PFOS at 4 ppt; PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO‑DA (GenX) at 10 ppt; and PFBS at 2,000 ppt. These standards became effective in 2025, requiring all public water systems to comply by 2029.

DEQ’s denial of the MVP Southgate water quality permit in 2020 reflected a precautionary approach to protecting water resources. The upcoming hearing provides an opportunity to reassess whether the project’s revised plans adequately address PFAS‑related risks, especially in light of the stricter federal MCLs that now apply to drinking water utilities drawing from the affected basins.

Implications for Municipal Water Systems

Municipalities that rely on the Tar‑Pamlico, Neuse, or Cape Fear rivers for drinking water—such as Raleigh, Durham, Fayetteville, and Wilmington—must now monitor and treat water to meet the EPA’s PFAS MCLs. Treatment technologies like granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange, and high‑pressure membranes are effective but entail significant capital and operational costs. Any additional PFAS loading from infrastructure projects could exacerbate the treatment burden, potentially leading to higher water rates or the need for advanced treatment upgrades.

Furthermore, the EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) currently requires large water systems to collect data on 29 PFAS compounds, providing a national baseline for exposure. If the MVP Southgate pipeline were to contribute measurable PFAS increases, these would likely be detected in UCMR 5 sampling, triggering further regulatory scrutiny under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

From a risk‑management perspective, DEQ should consider conditioning any future water quality certification on:

• PFAS‑Free Materials Verification – Requiring contractors to certify that all geotextiles, coatings, and testing fluids are free of PFAS above detectable limits (e.g., <2 ppt using EPA Method 537.1).
• Baseline and Post‑Construction Monitoring – Mandating upstream and downstream surface water and groundwater sampling for PFAS before, during, and after construction, with results reported to DEQ and made publicly available.
• Adaptive Management Plans – Establishing triggers that would mandate additional mitigation measures if PFAS concentrations exceed a fraction (e.g., 50 %) of the relevant EPA MCL.

Such measures would align with North Carolina’s broader PFAS mitigation strategy and help ensure that energy infrastructure development does not undermine progress toward safe drinking water.

Conclusion

The MVP Southgate hearing is more than a routine regulatory review; it is a pivotal moment to evaluate how large‑scale energy projects intersect with emerging contaminant challenges like PFAS. As an environmental scientist who has studied PFAS fate in wastewater sludges and the effectiveness of destruction technologies, I urge DEQ, stakeholders, and the public to scrutinize the project’s potential to mobilize legacy PFAS and to adopt stringent safeguards that protect the state’s water resources. By integrating PFAS‑specific considerations into the Section 401 certification process, North Carolina can uphold its commitment to clean water while responsibly evaluating energy infrastructure needs. The outcome of this hearing will set a precedent for how future projects are assessed in an era where PFAS regulation is rapidly evolving at both the state and federal levels.