During testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) stated that federal per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulation should be grounded in science and prioritize source water protection.
Speaking on behalf of the world’s largest association of water professionals, Tracy Mehan, AWWA’s Executive Director of Government Affairs, said AWWA recognizes PFAS as a growing concern that merits swift and serious attention.
“The Safe Drinking Water Act mandates a consistent, transparent and science-based process for considering new regulations,” said Mehan, a former state and federal regulator. “AWWA supports following the steps outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act to assure PFAS risks are effectively and efficiently reduced from our drinking water.”
Source water protection is the best way to keep drinking water safe for consumers, Mehan stated. AWWA believes EPA should utilize existing laws, such as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), to understand and control PFAS risks before introducing harmful substances into commerce and that PFAS producers—not consumers or water utilities—should be liable for cleaning up drinking water and the environment.
In addition to SDWA, TSCA also helps protect public drinking water by empowering EPA to manage naturally occurring and human-made risks to drinking water. Utilizing these existing authorities, EPA should:
- Provide a report in one year describing the location of PFAS production, import, processing, and use in the United States for individual PFAS compounds based on data collected through TSCA. This report should be updated every two years.
- Describe actions taken or planned under TSCA to restrict PFAS production, use, and import and communicate the associated risks to the public.
- Describe actions taken by other federal agencies regarding PFAS, specifically the departments of Defense and Health and Human Services.
- Provide Congress with an annual report on statutory and non-statutory barriers encountered in collecting and distributing PFAS information to inform risk management decisions by EPA, states and local risk managers.
Mehan’s testimony also stressed the importance of additional research before EPA determines standards for PFAS. “Additional funding for research is needed to properly assess and address the human health effects of exposure to PFAS; identify analytical methods that quantify PFAS levels in source water, drinking water and wastewater; and further develop technologies to cost-effectively remove PFAS compounds to levels that do not post a human health concern,” he said.
Mehan discussed the need for proper funding to conduct the necessary research in the following areas:
- Health effects data on which PFAS compounds pose a human health risk (and there are more than 3,000 PFAS compounds)
- Analytical methods to quantify levels of PFAS compounds in environmental samples (natural waters, wastewater, soil, finished water)
- Technologies to cost-effectively remove problematic PFAS compounds from drinking water and wastewater to levels that do not pose public health concerns
More than 25 states have formal policy statements on PFAS management in drinking water and even more have policies aimed at controlling the release of PFAS from contaminated sites. Six states currently have maximum contaminant levels in place for PFAS, and other states have MCLs in development. AWWA stresses the importance of allowing EPA to conduct the appropriate research outlined above using the powers afforded it in TSCA, SDWA, and other statutes to best inform the regulatory process.
Source: American Water Works Association