During a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on Tuesday, Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) asked EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin about the proposed 90% cut to the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
Category
š
NewsTranscript
00:00Chairman Yieldsback, now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Aukum, calls for five
00:04minutes. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome back, Administrator. I want to talk about PFAS.
00:10When you were a member here, you were on the PFAS Action Force, yes? And I believe you voted for
00:17PFAS legislation, yes? Yes. My inclination is to think that's because you represented New York,
00:27and like Massachusetts, which I represent, both states have a pretty significant PFAS challenge,
00:32contaminated soil, contaminated water. You have a contaminated DOD site in Calverton,
00:38right, in your former district, which I know you advocated for and advocated to reduce PFAS levels
00:44there. So I was hopeful and remain hopeful that you can be a partner on PFAS remediation
00:49as administrator. Last week, you announced that the EPA would rescind the drinking water standard
00:56for four PFAS chemicals and extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFAS by an additional two
01:02years, giving water systems seven years to comply. I know you had indicated in previous testimony that
01:08for those two, that for PFOA and PFAS, you may actually consider lowering it from four to two
01:12parts per trillion, yes? For PFOA and PFAS, we're maintaining the four parts per trillion MCL.
01:19So you won't consider lowering it to two?
01:21With regards to the other four, we're going to be going through a rulemaking where at the end of
01:28that process, that number will be determined. It could be four, it could be two, it could be
01:34something else.
01:35Not the other four. I'm talking about the two, PFOA and PFAS. I'm just asking because you had said in
01:39previous testimony, you could potentially bring it down to two, but it sounds like you're going to
01:42keep it at four. Okay, extending the timeline to seven years. So now let's talk about the other
01:45four PFAS chemicals. PFH excess, PFNA, HF, PO, DA, and then the hazard index mixture.
01:57So the EPA has its own science, as well as up-to-date peer-reviewed science that says that
02:02these four PFAS have been linked to serious human health harms, even at very low levels.
02:06Why, instead of just retaining the MCLs for those four PFAS in accordance with the no backsliding
02:16provision, why would you just rescind it?
02:20One of the things that I understand as Administrator of EPA is that every single decision that I will
02:26ever make, I'll probably get sued for, whether I say yes or no on anything. I have inherited some
02:32litigation as well, including litigation on that rule that was finalized before I got there. There
02:39was a procedural error in the way in which they moved through the process on those four. I inherited
02:45that procedural error, and I'm going to fix it. All right, so just reclaiming my time then. So
02:50you're not contesting that there is good science that those four PFAS that you rescinded the rule for
02:56have been linked to serious human health harms. What you are asserting is that there are procedural
03:00error under the APA? Yes. Under the APA, that means that you have to rescind, but you are committing
03:07that you are going to reissue a rule for those four PFAS. We are going to go through the rulemaking
03:12process on those four. I see. Okay. Moving towards the budgeting aspect of this, the skinny budget
03:21proposal has a 90% reduction for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Is that accurate? Yes.
03:28How is New York and the 1.3 million New Yorkers who have PFAS in their water above the MCLs by the
03:39former rule, how are they going to get water treatment plants with a 90% cut? That's the
03:43primary funding mechanism for water infrastructure. So great news, and it's something that members of
03:48Congress who care about this issue would be very happy to hear. I would say the right word would be
03:56inundated of how much outreach I've received over the course of the last few months from companies
04:02that have acquired new technology that they're very proud of in ways to far, far more efficiently
04:10than ever before be able to remove PFAS. Can you name those new technologies? Because I've been doing
04:16this research as well, and all of it costs money. So you're talking about like carbon filters? You're
04:21talking about electrochemical? The names of the companies, and I'm happy to share with this committee
04:24the names of whoever has reached out to- Just give me a broad sense, just like the technology broadly.
04:31Like give me an example of a technology that's going to be cheaper, faster, better, that's not
04:35going to require money to update the water treatment facilities. It's going to cause a, it would require
04:42a small fraction, but we are in the process. I'm not going to sort of- Can you name a technology
04:47though? What's that? Just, just the technology broadly. Yeah. So I'm, I, these are ideas that
04:52are being pitched that we're vetting right now, and I'm not going to endorse any of it, but I would
04:57say that it's important for us and the agency- You don't have to endorse it. Just name a technology
05:01that you've heard about. It is, it is a, a, a treatment that, that breaks down the forever chemical
05:09so that it's no longer a forever chemical. It is a, it is a treatment of the water that breaks down
05:15the chemical. If you're talking about electrochemical oxidation, you can do that for, for the very,
05:19very condensed landfill, but you can't do that at the scale of municipal water treatment facilities.
05:23It's way too diffuse. If that's what you're talking about, that is not the answer, which
05:27is why I'm asking about other technologies, which you don't seem to be able to name. I'm
05:29going to yield back my time.