Senate hearing: witnesses outline costs and trade-offs of PFAS treatment and lead service line removal
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Witnesses and senators discussed PFAS treatment options, waste-handling challenges, and the high cost of lead service line replacement. State and utility representatives urged balanced, phased approaches, source-based PFAS controls and protections for small systems.
Senators and witnesses at the EPW hearing discussed how to prioritize and pay for removal of PFAS and lead from drinking water, the technical limits and costs of treatment, and regulatory and liability concerns.
Eric Oswald, director of the Michigan drinking water program and president of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), said states have been testing for PFAS for years and urged a balanced approach to addressing detections. He described options in sequence: change source water, pursue regional hookups where feasible, and then install treatment. On technology he said, "We are there. I think we can remove all the PFAS... You've got reverse osmosis, you've got activated carbon." He added that treatment generates a waste stream that raises disposal questions and cost: "It's expensive and you've got to deal with the waste." Oswald estimated per‑service line lead replacement costs have risen from about $5,000 to roughly $8,000–$10,000.
Tom Gillett said small Nebraska communities sometimes find it more economical to connect to another system than to install PFAS treatment locally, noting economy-of-scale limits for very small systems. Kyle Dreyfus Wells said his agency had used IIJA emerging-contaminant funds for laboratory equipment and to study landfill leachate as a PFAS source.
Witnesses also raised policy matters: Gillett said rural water associations support the Water Systems PFAS Liability Protection Act (transcript: "water systems PFAS liability protection act") to shield systems from cleanup costs caused by industrial polluters, while Oswald urged EPA and states to provide streamlined guidance and funding flexibility so states can sequence investments without being forced into isolated, expensive projects. Senators pressed on operational trade-offs, waste disposal pathways and coordination between public and private sides of service lines: witnesses noted private-side ownership can prevent full replacements when homeowners with privately owned sections refuse access or cannot afford replacements.
Why it matters: PFAS treatment and lead-service-line removal are capital-intensive, have ongoing operational and disposal costs, and raise questions about who pays — ratepayers, polluters, state/federal grants, or a hybrid approach. Witnesses urged a mix of source controls, regional solutions and targeted federal funding to avoid placing disproportionate burdens on small communities.