North Carolinians Sue Robeson County, PFAS in Tap Water From Landfill

CLIFF NOTES

• St. Pauls residents sued Robeson County over alleged PFAS contamination linked to the county landfill.
• Testing cited in the lawsuit found about 25 parts per trillion of GenX in tap-water samples.
• The samples reportedly averaged 30.3 parts per trillion of PFOA.
• The plaintiffs want the Rocco Water Treatment Plant restricted until PFAS removal is confirmed through sampling.
• Robeson County has reportedly secured land for carbon filtration and discussed landfill treatment technology.

Residents of St. Pauls, North Carolina, have sued Robeson County after testing cited in the complaint found unusually high levels of PFAS in local tap water. The lawsuit links the contamination risk to the county landfill and asks a federal court to restrict water plant operations until treatment and testing confirm that the chemicals have been removed.

What happened in St. Pauls, North Carolina?

A community organization and environmental attorneys filed a lawsuit against Robeson County on June 16 over alleged PFAS contamination near the Robeson County Landfill.

The Border Belt Independent reported that the landfill entrance is about half a mile from the home of local resident Viv Tolson Wayne. For years, residents living near the site have raised concerns about pollution, drinking water, fishing, and gardening.

The lawsuit alleges that actions by Robeson County allowed per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called PFAS, to escape from the landfill.

According to the complaint, the contamination created “an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.”

The legal action comes as Robeson County commissioners consider expanding the landfill by approximately 35 acres. The existing landfill covers 537 acres.

According to the Independent, this is the seventh proposed expansion in about three decades.

What are PFAS chemicals?

PFAS are a large group of synthetic chemicals used in industrial processes and consumer products. They have been used because they resist water, oil, heat, and stains.

These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because many of them break down very slowly. Once released, they can remain in water, soil, wildlife, and the human body for long periods.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has associated PFAS exposure with several possible health effects. These include increased risks of certain cancers, thyroid disease, reproductive problems, and developmental delays in children.

The presence of PFAS does not prove that a person will develop an illness. Risk can depend on the specific chemical, exposure level, length of exposure, and other health factors.

How much PFAS was reportedly found in the tap water?

Testing cited in the lawsuit found elevated concentrations of PFAS in treated drinking water supplied to residents.

Maia Hutt, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said tap-water samples contained approximately 25 parts per trillion of GenX.

The samples also averaged 30.3 parts per trillion of PFOA, according to the Independent.

These findings were reported as higher than PFAS concentrations disclosed by any other water treatment plant in North Carolina.

Hutt compared the results with an earlier contamination crisis in Wilmington.

“Comparable PFAS levels in Wilmington’s public water were considered a public health emergency,” Hutt told the Independent. “So why isn’t this a public health emergency?”

The comparison places the central question in plain view. Residents are not only asking where the chemicals came from. They are asking why contamination at these reported levels has not produced a stronger public response.

Why does the PFAS lawsuit matter?

The lawsuit concerns more than technical water standards. It affects daily decisions about drinking, cooking, gardening, fishing, and raising children.

According to the Independent, more than one-third of St. Pauls residents live in poverty. The population living closest to the proposed landfill expansion is majority non-white and disproportionately low-income.

These economic conditions can make contamination especially difficult to manage. Families may have to purchase bottled water, install filtration equipment, replace filters, seek medical advice, or avoid food gathered from local land and waterways.

Those costs often arrive before a court or government agency determines who is responsible.

Julia Odom, a 73-year-old resident, reportedly borrowed $6,000 to purchase a home water purification system.

Her decision shows the burden created by uncertainty. When residents no longer trust the tap, they must either accept the risk or find money for another source of water.

Tolson Wayne described how the fear extends beyond drinking.

“If it’s in my water, then it’s in the air that I breathe,” she told the Independent.

The statement reflects a broader concern among neighbors: contamination may not remain confined to a single pipe, property, or public system.

What does the lawsuit demand?

The plaintiff is the St. Pauls Community Association for Progress.

The organization has asked the court to halt operations at the Rocco Water Treatment Plant unless the facility can remove PFAS. The group also wants sampling to confirm that the chemicals are no longer present before normal use continues.

This demand places responsibility on the water system to demonstrate that treatment works. It is not enough to announce a future plan. The plaintiffs want testing data showing that residents are no longer being exposed through their tap water.

The lawsuit also challenges the county’s management of the landfill. Its allegations will need to be tested through the legal process, where the parties can present evidence about the source, movement, concentration, and treatment of the chemicals.

How has Robeson County responded?

Rob Davis, an attorney for Robeson County, said the county had obtained land for a carbon filtration system, according to the Independent.

Davis also said county representatives had met with a company about technology that could treat contamination associated with the landfill.

Carbon filtration can capture certain PFAS under the right operating conditions. Its performance depends on factors such as the type of PFAS present, contaminant concentration, water chemistry, filter design, flow rate, and replacement schedule.

The county’s reported actions suggest that officials are considering both drinking-water treatment and landfill-related controls.

The dispute remains over whether those measures will be sufficient, how quickly they will be installed, and whether testing will prove that they protect the community.

How does the contamination affect local decisions?

PFAS rules, treatment requirements, and enforcement policies can change. Families living with suspected contamination must make choices before those regulatory questions are settled.

Residents may need to decide:

• Whether to continue drinking tap water.
• Whether to use filtered or bottled water for cooking.
• Whether a home filtration system is affordable.
• Whether locally caught fish should be eaten.
• Whether garden soil or irrigation water may be affected.
• Whether available test results provide enough information.

These decisions can create a divide between households that can afford treatment and those that cannot.

The danger of contamination is therefore joined by another pressure: the cost of protection.

What do residents want?

Residents have continued to present a simple demand.

“We just want clean water,” Tolson Wayne said.

She also described why the legal fight extends beyond the present generation.

“I might not see it in my lifetime, but for my child and my grandchildren, we want it to be an environment that they can live and grow in.”

The statement defines what is at stake in the Robeson County dispute. The case concerns the safety of today’s drinking water, but it also concerns what will remain in the soil and water after current officials, lawsuits, and landfill proposals are gone.

How can reverse osmosis and whole-home water treatment relate to PFAS?

Reverse osmosis systems can reduce many PFAS compounds in drinking water when the system is properly selected, installed, maintained, and tested. These systems are commonly installed at the kitchen sink to treat water used for drinking and cooking.

Granular activated carbon is also widely used for PFAS reduction. However, effectiveness can vary by chemical type, filter size, water use, and replacement frequency.

A whole-home water conditioner serves a different primary purpose. It is generally designed to address hardness minerals and related scale problems. A standard conditioner should not be assumed to remove PFAS unless the equipment includes treatment media specifically tested and certified for that purpose.

For households concerned about PFAS in North Carolina tap water, the first step is reliable water testing. Treatment should then be matched to the contaminants found. Follow-up sampling is essential because installation alone does not prove that a system is working.

The St. Pauls lawsuit shows why that proof matters. When trust in public water is damaged, clear testing and verified treatment performance become the foundation for every decision that follows.

Source: Yahoo News