South North Carolina News

North Carolina congressional representatives are raising concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to approve the importation of four million pounds of GenX waste to the Chemours Fayetteville Works Plant. The approval, which has provoked controversy, was temporarily halted by the agency last week.

The recent decision by the EPA has raised alarm among several North Carolina officials. North Carolina members of Congress are scrutinizing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of importing four million pounds of GenX waste to the Chemours Fayetteville Works Plant, according to an article by WECT. The EPA recently suspended this approval. In a statement, the EPA explained, "In response to recent concerns expressed by stakeholders including the state of North Carolina and Brunswick County, EPA reached out to Chemours requesting a pause on import of non-hazardous waste from the Netherlands to its Fayetteville, North Carolina facility. EPA takes these concerns seriously and will review the notices that the company has provided to ensure the public remains safe. EPA has been informed that no shipments have taken place in 2023 and none are currently en route from the Netherlands to North Carolina." Senator Thom Tillis, Representative David Rouzer, and Representative Richard Hudson penned a letter posing six questions to the head of the EPA, with a deadline for response set at the end of November.

These inquiries are aimed at understanding what processes were followed before granting consent for this operation. The six questions raised by North Carolina lawmakers regarding the EPA's approval of GenX waste imports are as follows, according to the article by WECT: Since its inception in 2005, how many import shipments of GenX waste has the EPA approved, and at what levels? What quantity of imported GenX waste material does the EPA consider permissible, and how are these levels determined? Did the EPA assess the impacts of the recycling and recovery process conducted by Chemours with the GenX waste before granting consent? Given the NCDEQ Consent agreement with Chemours, has the EPA modified its process for allowing imports of GenX waste? In light of the EPA's actions on GenX, has the agency altered its process for approving imports of GenX waste? What measures has the EPA taken to assist the State of North Carolina in addressing the presence of GenX beyond the stipulations of the Consent Agreement? The current head of the EPA is Michael Regan, formerly the secretary of North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality. Senator Tillis expressed his prior support for Regan's nomination, citing his reputation in the state; however, Tillis raised the possibility that Regan may not be intimately involved in the current GenX matter, questioning whether someone in his position would remember his roots in North Carolina and the extensive work he has done in this area.

Alongside these questions, there are additional perspectives from different parties regarding this controversial issue. Tillis expresses a primary interest in understanding the reasons behind the EPA's decision to pause approval of GenX waste imports, while an advocacy group contends that approval should be entirely rescinded, according to an article by WECT. "I don't know if in this review we're talking about chemical science or political science. The most fundamental question is what's changed?" Tillis stated. "A lot of it has to do with concern—concern with decision to begin with and then a lack of communication ahead of time." According to Tillis, letter's purpose is enhance EPA's communication long term although he does not anticipate a complete reversal approval pause. "We've got do better future. And we've got lot work do communicate what exactly led this approval," Tillis asserted. "It sounds like me decision's been made. I doubt seriously there's going any reversal decision." Dana Sargent, Executive Director of Cape Fear River Watch, contends that the EPA is reneging its commitment. "This is PFAS entering environment; this goes against everything the EPA has said they're committing to doing," Sargent emphasized. "Those questions were polite, and I appreciate that they sent letter, but the EPA just needs say 'You know what, we messed up, we're not going allow this.'"