VIDEO: Capito Raises Questions on EPA Regulatory Impacts on Water Systems, Process on Maximum Contaminant Level

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, participated in a hearing marking the 50th anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

During the hearing, Ranking Member Capito questioned Cathy Tucker-Vogel, Public Water Supply Section Chief of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, about the impact of Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed PFAS designation on local water systems. Additionally, Ranking Member Capito questioned Radhika Fox, Former EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, on EPA’s failure to address critiques regarding the Biden administration’s process for setting Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for PFAS.

HIGHLIGHTS:

WATER SYSTEM IMPACT OF PFAS DESIGNATION:

RANKING MEMBER CAPITO:

“Water systems often receive and encounter PFAS contaminants without producing or intentionally accepting or distributing them. Given the EPA’s proposed PFAS designation under CERCLA, would the impact be for water systems and consumers of the potential liability that this could place on local utilities that bear no responsibilities? I mean, you said you had 900 separate systems, you've got to be, obviously, anticipating and thinking about this. So what is your perspective on the passive receiver issue?

CATHY TUCKER-VOGEL, PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SECTION CHIEF OF THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT:

“If you look at the memo from EPA on their discretion on enforcement for PFAS under CERCLA, it does exempt community water systems, however, well, I shouldn't say exempt. It says they will use discretion on enforcement at community water systems. However, it does not mention non-community water systems, non-transient, non-community, which are schools, those nonresidential water systems that serve the same people every day. So the big one that comes to mind are schools. And so we want, we would want to make sure that that schools are also included in that discretionary enforcement. Water systems under the new PFAS rule will have to comply. So, if they do have PFAS in their water, they will have to install treatment in order to be compliant with the new regulation. So funding will be a big problem.”

SCIENCE CRITIQUE OF MCL STANDARD:

RANKING MEMBER CAPITO:

“I'm going to ask you a question about something that occurred while you were in your capacity. On the safety, you know that this safe drinking level, this Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), was something that I was pushing constantly for, set a level that we can understand, measure, and be safe with. But the Science Advisory Board sort of questioned the processes for setting those levels. They identified major flaws in the EPA approach, like inconsistent inclusion and exclusion of epidemiology and animal studies, lack of predefined protocol, insufficient transparency. So, what would your response be to that? And how can we improve upon, a.) the processes, but also make this MCL level workable for the systems that Ms. Tucker-Vogel talked about, and also the President of the Navajo Nation is going to have to deal with this as well?”

HON. RADHIKA FOX, FORMER EPA ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER:

“One thing I will say, Senator Capito, having been at the EPA for three years, I absolutely agree. And I think Cathy, you would probably agree with this too. There are vast improvements we can make to the regulatory development process, creating greater efficiency, transparency. So from a process perspective, I absolutely agree with you. On the question of the process that EPA went through to set the level at four parts-per-trillion. You know, what I recall is that was very much, that was a recommendation that was made by the career staff experts who had reviewed hundreds of studies, and we arrived at the four-parts-per-trillion because some of the more recent studies, from when states had set MCLs, showed that PFAS clearly causes cancer, and that is what really led to the decision to set at four parts-per-trillion.”

RANKING MEMBER CAPITO:

“So you don't really have a response to what the Science Advisory Board, the questions that they raised on the setting of this level?”

HON. RADHIKA FOX:

“I believe that there was robust discussion between the staff who were managing the development of that regulation and the Science Advisory Board.”

Click HERE to watch Ranking Member Capito’s questions.

Click HERE to watch Ranking Member Capito’s opening statement.

 

# # #