Federal policies that respond to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the environment and water supplies should strive to hold polluters responsible, invest in necessary research, and aim for science-based regulations while protecting public health, AMWA said in a pair of letters sent to House and Senate committees that convened respective hearings this month on the federal response to the contaminant.
AMWA’s first letter was sent to the leaders of the House Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee as the panel convened a May 15 hearing on “Protecting Americans at Risk of PFAS Contamination and Exposure.” The hearing featured testimony on a number of legislative proposals that have been offered to combat PFAS, including one (H.R. 2377) that would require EPA to promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for total PFAS within two years. Witnesses speaking at the hearing offered a variety of takes on the proposal, with some favoring swift action to force EPA to set a drinking water PFAS standard “that is no weaker than the standards being set by the states,” while others warned against bypassing the contaminant regulatory process prescribed by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Democrats on the committee generally expressed a desire to actively legislate on the issue, with Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) saying that Congress “needs to have a larger conversation about SDWA regulatory reform,” while also directing EPA to regulate PFAS in the near-term. Republicans were more cautious, as Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Republican Greg Walden (R-Ore.) warned that “short-circuiting the evidence-based, science-driven, risk-informed” regulatory process could lead to litigation that postpones an effective response.
The statement that AMWA submitted for the hearing record also expressed caution about expediting a drinking water regulation for total PFAS, and the association reiterated its support for the “detailed, science-based regulatory process” that EPA is required to carry out under SDWA when considering new contaminant regulations. Given the limited scientific data about the prevalence and human health effects of exposure to many PFAS chemicals, AMWA warned that “a hasty formation of a PFAS [maximum contaminant level] would run contrary to the consideration of sound and transparent science that is at the heart of the law’s regulatory process.”
AMWA subsequently submitted a similar letter to the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee for the record of a May 22 hearing on “Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” Senators on the EPW panel seemed less eager than their House counterparts to require broad regulation of the entire class of PFAS chemicals, suggesting instead that the focus should be on those chemicals known to have adverse human health impacts. Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said he hopes the panel will produce “a bipartisan legislative package” on PFAS this year, though he also warned against proposals that would “sidestep” the regulatory process found in existing environmental statutes.
Neither panel immediately announced specific plans for further consideration of PFAS legislation, but congressional staff have said that some larger legislation – such as a Water Resources Development Act reauthorization – could serve as a possible vehicle for any PFAS bill that does make it out of committee.