Fecal Contamination at Saxapahaw WWTP Highlights Gaps in NC’s Approach to Emerging Contaminants

Introduction

On April 17, 2026, the Haw River Assembly urged the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) to investigate persistent fecal bacteria discharges from the Saxapahaw wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Alamance County. The group’s statement, reported by NC Newsline Environment, notes that the facility has been releasing elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria into the Haw River for several months, compromising a waterway that serves as a drinking‑water source for downstream communities such as Burlington, Graham, and parts of Greensboro. While the immediate public‑health concern centers on pathogen exposure, the incident offers a timely opportunity to examine how shortcomings in conventional wastewater treatment can also facilitate the transport of emerging contaminants—most notably per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—into North Carolina’s rivers and reservoirs.

The Saxapahaw WWTP and Haw River Water Quality

The Haw River Basin supplies roughly 30 % of the drinking water for the Piedmont Triad region, according to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources’ 2023 Water Use Report. The Saxapahaw facility, operated by Alamance County Utilities, treats municipal sewage before discharging effluent into the Haw River near the historic mill village of Saxapahaw. The Haw River Assembly’s recent monitoring data indicate fecal coliform concentrations repeatedly exceeding the state’s recreational water quality standard of 200 colony‑forming units (CFU) per 100 mL, a threshold designed to protect swimmers and boaters from gastrointestinal illness.

From a treatment perspective, elevated fecal bacteria often signal insufficient disinfection or solids removal. Conventional secondary treatment (activated sludge) followed by chlorination or ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is designed to reduce pathogen loads, yet operational challenges—such as influent flow variability, equipment maintenance lapses, or inadequate contact time—can compromise efficacy. The Haw River Assembly’s call for an NC DEQ investigation therefore targets both compliance with the state’s wastewater discharge permits and the broader adequacy of the plant’s operational protocols.

Linking Fecal Contamination to PFAS Pass‑Through

While fecal bacteria and PFAS differ markedly in chemical behavior, they share a common vulnerability: limited removal by conventional wastewater treatment trains. Peer‑reviewed research consistently shows that standard activated sludge, sedimentation, and disinfection processes achieve only modest PFAS attenuation. For example, a 2022 Water Research Foundation evaluation of full‑scale municipal plants reported average removal efficiencies for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) ranging from 30 % to 70 %, with short‑chain PFAS such as perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) often exhibiting even lower retention. These findings imply that even when a plant meets bacterial effluent limits, PFAS can traverse the system largely unchanged and enter receiving waters.

In the Haw River watershed, PFAS detection has become increasingly routine. NC DEQ’s 2024 Surface Water Monitoring Program identified measurable levels of PFAS—including PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and the replacement compound GenX—in multiple Haw River sampling stations downstream of major wastewater outfalls. Although concentrations have generally remained below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) newly enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS, the cumulative hazard index approach employed by the EPA for PFAS mixtures raises concern when multiple contaminants coexist. Moreover, North Carolina’s own health advisory levels, set by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), are more stringent for certain PFAS (e.g., 10 ppt for GenX), underscoring the state’s precautionary stance.

Regulatory Context: EPA MCLs and NC PFAS Policy

In April 2024, the EPA finalized the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS, establishing legally binding MCLs of 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, and a hazard‑index‑based limit for PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX. The rule requires public water systems to monitor for these contaminants and to implement treatment technologies—such as granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange, or high‑pressure membranes—when levels exceed the thresholds. Compliance deadlines are staggered, with larger systems required to meet the MCLs by 2029.

North Carolina has responded with a complementary PFAS Action Plan, first released in 2020 and updated in 2023. The plan emphasizes source‑reduction strategies, expanded monitoring, and funding for advanced treatment at both drinking‑water plants and wastewater facilities. Notably, NC DEQ has begun requiring select industrial dischargers to conduct PFAS effluent characterization under the state’s Industrial Stormwater Permit program. However, municipal WWTPs like Saxapahaw are not yet subject to routine PFAS effluent limits, a gap that environmental advocates argue must be closed to protect surface‑water quality.

Implications for Municipal Water Systems

The Haw River’s role as a raw‑water source for several municipal utilities means that any contaminant—whether fecal bacteria or PFAS—has direct implications for finished‑water quality. Utilities drawing from the Haw River typically employ a combination of coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. While these processes are effective at removing particulates and pathogens, they provide limited barrier protection against dissolved PFAS unless supplemented with advanced treatment. Consequently, a WWTP that fails to adequately mitigate bacterial loads may also be a conduit for PFAS, increasing the treatment burden and operational costs for downstream water providers.

From a regulatory standpoint, the Saxapahaw incident highlights the need for integrated permit oversight. NC DEQ’s wastewater discharge permits currently focus on conventional parameters (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, fecal coliform). Incorporating PFAS monitoring into these permits—perhaps as a conditional requirement based on upstream industrial activity or detection in receiving waters—would create a feedback loop that encourages WWTP operators to evaluate and, where necessary, upgrade treatment trains. Technologies such as powdered activated carbon (PAC) dosing in the aeration basin or post‑treatment GAC filters have demonstrated PFAS removal efficiencies exceeding 80 % in pilot studies, offering a feasible retrofit path.

Conclusion

The Haw River Assembly’s plea for an NC DEQ investigation into fecal bacteria pollution at the Saxapahaw WWTP is more than a call to address a single‑parameter violation; it is a reminder that wastewater treatment plants sit at the nexus of multiple contaminant pathways. As North Carolina continues to implement EPA PFAS MCLs and refine its own PFAS policy, ensuring that municipal wastewater facilities are equipped to handle both traditional pollutants and emerging contaminants like PFAS will be essential to safeguarding the Haw River—and the communities that rely on it—for generations to come. Proactive permit revisions, targeted funding for advanced treatment, and robust surveillance can transform this moment of concern into a catalyst for lasting water‑quality improvement across the state.