House Bill 1047, the North Carolina Microplastics Study Act, directs the North Carolina Collaboratory at UNC-Chapel Hill to study the presence and impacts of microplastics and other plastic particles in the state’s waters. The bill defines several categories of plastic particles, including macroplastics, microplastics, nanoplastics, primary microplastics, secondary microplastics, and raw plastic materials, and frames the study around rivers, lakes, estuaries, inland waters, beaches, coastal waters, and ocean ecosystems.
The Collaboratory would be tasked with identifying plastic particles in waterways, researching ecological and human-health impacts, developing standardized sampling and detection methods, assessing concentrations and sources, and creating a risk-assessment framework. It would also evaluate strategies such as source reduction and product stewardship, and it must deliver a comprehensive report with findings and policy recommendations to legislative oversight committees by July 1, 2027. The bill appropriates $150,000 in nonrecurring General Fund money for fiscal year 2026-2027 to support the study, related research, public hearings, and stakeholder meetings.
HB1047 would not directly regulate plastic pollution or impose new restrictions on manufacturers, consumers, or local governments. Instead, it creates a state-funded research mandate for the North Carolina Collaboratory, with support from the Department of Environmental Quality and coordination with the Division of Water Resources and other entities. The bill could influence future environmental policy by generating scientific findings, risk assessments, and recommendations that may lead to later statutory or regulatory changes affecting water quality, plastic pollution, and environmental stewardship.
The bill appears generally supportive and precautionary in tone, reflecting concern about microplastics’ effects on ecosystems, drinking water, seafood, and public health. The findings section emphasizes environmental harm, persistence, and the need for early action, suggesting a consensus-oriented effort to gather evidence before considering broader policy responses. No committee debate or recorded votes are provided, so there is no visible opposition in the available materials.
The main potential point of contention is not over the study itself, but over whether state funds should be used for additional research rather than immediate pollution controls, and whether the bill could eventually support more expansive regulation of plastics. Another possible issue is the scope of the Collaboratory’s mandate, which includes broad research, stakeholder engagement, and policy recommendations touching on statutory changes. Because there are no transcripts or votes in the record provided, specific supporters or opponents cannot be identified from the available context.