Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito
Click here or on the image above to watch Ranking Member Capito’s questions.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, today questioned Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Office of Water, in a hearing to evaluate the federal response to the persistence and impacts of PFAS chemicals.
HIGHLIGHTS:
LIABILITIES FOR WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES: “I mentioned a possible case study of a wastewater plant that would remove PFOA or PFOS from the water in terms of cleaning it, but then have biosolids left over and the disposal of those. There is some concern about what would the liabilities be? They didn’t create it. They’re trying to clean it up. Yet they have to dispose of that. If you could clarify the liability issue, what you all are looking at?”
PFOA AND PFOS IN DRINKING WATER: “There is a level right now that is suggested for safety. In your strategic roadmap has done something that I’ve been pressing for both through the last administration and this one: to set a definitive level that’s science-based so we can know what our kids and grandkids are drinking and what we’re drinking at an acceptable level. But in the roadmap, the length of time that this is going to take is very frustrating to me. Because we’ve been looking at this—gosh, I’ve probably been involved in this for two or three years. Why is it going to take so long when we know the Office of Water can move more quickly?”
PRIORITIZING SAFE DRINKING WATER: “Looking through the roadmap, all the different aspects of this, there’s a lot in there. There’s a lot of things to do. I would urge you—because I think this drinking water level is so very important—to prioritize this. If not the top then near the top of the list because of the impact it will have on all of us as a country.”
HIGHLIGHTS:
LIABILITIES FOR WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES: “I mentioned a possible case study of a wastewater plant that would remove PFOA or PFOS from the water in terms of cleaning it, but then have biosolids left over and the disposal of those. There is some concern about what would the liabilities be? They didn’t create it. They’re trying to clean it up. Yet they have to dispose of that. If you could clarify the liability issue, what you all are looking at?”
PFOA AND PFOS IN DRINKING WATER: “There is a level right now that is suggested for safety. In your strategic roadmap has done something that I’ve been pressing for both through the last administration and this one: to set a definitive level that’s science-based so we can know what our kids and grandkids are drinking and what we’re drinking at an acceptable level. But in the roadmap, the length of time that this is going to take is very frustrating to me. Because we’ve been looking at this—gosh, I’ve probably been involved in this for two or three years. Why is it going to take so long when we know the Office of Water can move more quickly?”
PRIORITIZING SAFE DRINKING WATER: “Looking through the roadmap, all the different aspects of this, there’s a lot in there. There’s a lot of things to do. I would urge you—because I think this drinking water level is so very important—to prioritize this. If not the top then near the top of the list because of the impact it will have on all of us as a country.”
# # #