WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 881

Pari-mutuel Wagering

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Adam Anderson

Bans PFAS manufacture/processing/distribution in NC and tightens pollutant disclosure and permit rules, plus public notice of drinking-water test results.

Died in Rules
#subjectindex #(adopted)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 881

Summary — HB 881: “PFAS Free NC.” (2025 session)

Status & procedural history
- Introduced: Nov 12, 2024.
- Passed first reading and referred to committees (Intergovernmental Affairs; later Commerce).
- Subsequent committee activity included hearings and referrals; legislative records also show the measure was later indefinitely postponed and reported as dying in Commerce Committee (dates in 2025). (Recorded actions are mixed; at minimum the bill advanced to committee consideration after first reading.)

Purpose and intent
- To protect public health and the environment by (1) banning the manufacture, use, processing and in‑state distribution of PFAS and PFAS‑containing products (with limited federal-law exceptions); (2) strengthening pollutant disclosure and permitting requirements for dischargers (including PFAS and 1,4‑dioxane); and (3) requiring public notification of certain drinking‑water testing results.

Key definitions
- “PFAS” — per‑fluoroalkyl and poly‑fluoroalkyl substances: a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. (This definition is used in the ban and discharge provisions.)
- “Practical quantitation limit (PQL)” — the statutory trigger for required pollutant disclosure in permit applications (the bill requires disclosure for pollutants reasonably expected to be at or above the PQL).

Major provisions
1. Ban on manufacture/use/distribution (Part I)
- Prohibits knowingly manufacturing PFAS for in‑state use or export, using PFAS to produce products in the State, or processing/distributing PFAS or PFAS‑containing products in commerce for use or export—except where federal law specifically requires or authorizes PFAS in a product.

  1. Civil penalties and enforcement (Part I)

    • Secretary (environment agency) may assess civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation (or up to $25,000 if the violation involves a hazardous waste).
    • Repeat violations: up to $10,000 per occurrence, with a monthly cap of $200,000.
    • Standard administrative contest/remission procedures: notice, 30‑day contest period, remission request procedures; unpaid penalties may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.

  2. Pollutant disclosure and limits for dischargers (Part II)

    • NPDES permit applicants (new or renewal) must disclose each pollutant reasonably expected to be at/above the PQL, provide expected discharge concentrations and CAS numbers (or a sufficient description).
    • Permittees that receive industrial waste must require industrial users to disclose pollutants at/above the PQL in pretreatment permit applications.
    • If an NPDES permittee’s intake/received waste includes PFAS or 1,4‑dioxane, the permittee must eliminate those substances prior to discharge to State waters. If elimination by the permittee is economically or otherwise impracticable, the permittee must require the industrial user to eliminate them.

  3. Drinking water sampling notices (Part III)

    • Public water systems subject to Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule sampling must provide public notice of results within 30 days of receiving results: written notice to each customer and posting on a publicly accessible website.

Who would be affected
- Manufacturers, processors, distributors and sellers of PFAS or PFAS‑containing products operating in North Carolina.
- Industrial users and facilities subject to NPDES permits and pretreatment requirements (wastewater dischargers, industrial contributors).
- Public water systems and their customers (new customer notification obligations).
- State environmental agency (implementation, enforcement, permitting) and the Attorney General (collection actions).
- Downstream: municipalities, wastewater treatment operators, product supply chains, and businesses that currently use PFAS in manufacturing.

Potential impacts and considerations
- Public‑health/protection: intended to reduce environmental releases and human exposure to PFAS and 1,4‑dioxane.
- Compliance costs: affected businesses (manufacturers, industrial users, wastewater utilities) may face costs to reformulate products, change processes, install treatment/pretreatment, and meet enhanced disclosure duties.
- Enforcement burden: the State agency would take on permit review, technical assessments, compliance monitoring and enforcement responsibilities.
- Legal/regulatory interactions: The bill includes an exception where federal law requires PFAS in products; implementation would require coordination with federal NPDES/SDWA rules and laboratory detection/quantitation standards.

Limitations in available text
- The bill text excerpts focus on Parts I–III (ban, discharge/permit requirements, customer notification). Other referenced study or implementation provisions (if any) are not included in the provided excerpts. Legislative records show mixed downstream actions (committee hearings, postponement, and committee death), so final status may have varied after first reading.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.