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

Press Release

“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, what 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?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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?”

Source