North Carolina’s Stand Against Weakened PFAS Reporting: Why Transparency Matters for Public Health

Introduction

In November 2024 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would create additional exemptions for businesses reporting the manufacture, processing, and use of per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) program. The proposal, framed as a means to reduce reporting burden, has drawn sharp criticism from states, environmental groups, and public‑health experts. North Carolina, through its Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Attorney General’s office, joined a coalition of states submitting formal comments opposing the rollback. As a scientist who has studied PFAS fate in the Cape Fear River Basin and advised on municipal treatment strategies, I view this federal move as a direct threat to the transparency needed to protect North Carolina’s water resources and public health.

Scientific Context of PFAS Reporting

PFAS are a class of >9,000 synthetic chemicals characterized by exceptionally strong carbon‑fluorine bonds, granting them persistence in the environment and resistance to conventional degradation. Their mobility in water and propensity to bioaccumulate have led to widespread detection in drinking water, surface water, and even human blood serum. The EPA’s CDR rule, last updated in 2020, requires manufacturers and importers of chemicals produced above certain thresholds to report detailed information on production volume, uses, and exposure‑related data every four years. For PFAS, this reporting is especially critical because:

1. Source Identification – Knowing which facilities manufacture or process specific PFAS enables regulators to trace contamination back to point sources, a capability that proved essential in identifying the Chemours Fayetteville Works plant as the primary source of GenX in the Cape Fear River.
2. Risk Assessment – Exposure data feed into toxicological models that inform health advisories and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Without accurate production figures, risk assessments become speculative.
3. Regulatory Accountability – Reporting creates a public record that empowers communities, water utilities, and NGOs to demand accountability and advocate for treatment investments.

The EPA’s November 2024 proposal seeks to expand exemptions for low‑volume PFAS (e.g., <10,000 lb/year) and for certain “intermediate” chemicals used solely as precursors. While the agency argues that these exemptions reduce administrative strain, the scientific consensus holds that even low‑volume releases can contribute significantly to cumulative exposure, given PFAS’s persistence and the lack of safe degradation pathways in the environment.

North Carolina’s PFAS Policy Landscape

North Carolina has been at the forefront of state‑level PFAS governance for over a decade. Key milestones include:

• The 2017 GenX Crisis – Detection of GenX (a PFAS used in fluoropolymer production) in the Cape Fear River prompted the NC DEQ to issue a health advisory and launch extensive monitoring.
• The 2021 PFAS Testing Act – Mandated that all public water systems serving >10,000 persons test for a suite of PFAS compounds and report results to the DEQ, establishing a baseline dataset now covering >80 % of the state’s population.
• The 2022 PFAS Trust Fund – Allocated $50 million for remedial actions, including granular activated carbon (GAC) and ion‑exchange upgrades at affected utilities.
• Ongoing PFAS Action Plan – Updated biennially, the plan outlines strategies for source reduction, treatment technology evaluation, and inter‑agency coordination.

These initiatives rely heavily on accurate, publicly accessible data about PFAS production and use. If federal reporting requirements are weakened, the state’s ability to corroborate self‑reported data, identify emerging PFAS, and prioritize enforcement actions would be compromised. In our formal comments, NC DEQ emphasized that the CDR program is a cornerstone of the state’s source‑tracking toolkit, especially for tracking short‑chain PFAS that are increasingly prevalent in consumer products but not yet regulated under the EPA’s forthcoming MCLs.

Implications for Municipal Water Systems

Municipal water utilities in North Carolina already face mounting pressure to meet the EPA’s enforceable MCLs for PFOA and PFOS (4 ppt each), finalized in April 2024, and to prepare for anticipated regulations on additional PFAS such as PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX. The treatment train most commonly adopted—GAC followed by ion‑exchange—requires precise knowledge of influent PFAS concentrations to size media beds and schedule change‑outs effectively.

A reduction in federal reporting would have two direct consequences for utilities:

1. Increased Uncertainty in Source Characterization – Utilities often rely on EPA CDR data to infer upstream industrial contributions when conducting watershed assessments. Diminished reporting could obscure trends, leading to over‑ or under‑design of treatment systems.
2. Erosion of Public Trust – Transparent reporting fosters community confidence. When citizens perceive that regulators are allowing industry to hide PFAS releases, willingness to support rate‑funded infrastructure upgrades diminishes, potentially delaying essential investments.

Moreover, the NC PFAS Testing Act requires utilities to report detected levels to the DEQ, which then aggregates the data for statewide trend analysis. If federal reporting gaps create discrepancies between state‑collected utility data and federal production data, it becomes harder to attribute observed concentration changes to specific regulatory actions or industrial shifts.

Conclusion

The EPA’s proposal to relax PFAS reporting rules under TSCA represents a step backward in the nation’s effort to curb forever‑chemical contamination. For North Carolina—a state that has confronted PFAS head‑on through rigorous monitoring, legislative action, and investment in treatment infrastructure—the move threatens to undermine the very data infrastructure that has enabled progress thus far. As an environmental scientist committed to evidence‑based policy, I urge federal regulators to retain, and where possible strengthen, reporting requirements. Transparent accounting of PFAS production and use is not a bureaucratic burden; it is a fundamental safeguard for the water we drink, the ecosystems we depend on, and the health of our communities. Only with complete information can we design effective regulations, target remediation where it is most needed, and ensure that North Carolina’s waters remain safe for generations to come.