In a recent session, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works delved into the complexities of managing PFAS chemicals within utility operations as lawmakers considered the implications of designating "forever chemicals" as hazardous substances.
Hannah Grover reports for New Mexico Political Report.
In short:
- The U.S. Senate is contemplating legislation to shield utilities from liability even as PFAS chemicals, known for their durability and widespread use, pose significant environmental and health risks.
- The debate centers around utilities as "passive receivers" rather than the original source of PFAS chemicals, highlighting concerns over potential legal and financial ramifications stemming from contamination responsibilities.
- Efforts are underway to refine regulatory approaches, including considering exemptions for certain entities and emphasizing the importance of preventing unnecessary PFAS usage in products.
Key quote:
“Frankly, PFAS chemicals have made, in many instances, life easier. But this has come at a significant cost and that is the cruel irony of these chemicals.”
— Tom Carper (D-Del), chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Why this matters:
The regulation of PFAS includes setting maximum contaminant levels for drinking water, requiring utilities to monitor PFAS levels and reporting levels that exceed those limits. Some states have taken more aggressive actions by setting their own stricter standards for PFAS in drinking water, soil and air. For utilities, this means implementing advanced treatment processes such as granular activated carbon filtration, ion exchange resins and high-pressure membranes (e.g., reverse osmosis) to remove PFAS from the water supply.
One casualty of PFAS contamination is agriculture. In Texas, farmers are now suing over dead livestock and poisoned water.
