[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DEVIL THEY KNEW:
PFAS CONTAMINATION AND THE NEED
FOR CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 24, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-53
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://www.oversight.house.gov or
http://www.docs.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-586 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Member
Columbia Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland James Comer, Kentucky
Harley Rouda, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Katie Hill, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Ralph Norman, South Carolina
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Peter Welch, Vermont Chip Roy, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Mark DeSaulnier, California Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Ro Khanna, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Britteny Jenkins, Subcommittee Staff Director
Joshua Zucker, Assistant Clerk
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Environment
Harley Rouda, California, Chairman
Katie Hill, California James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Minority Member
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Paul Gosar, Arizona
Jackie Speier, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Jimmy Gomez, California Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 24, 2019.................................... 1
Witnesses
Mr. Bucky Bailey, Affected Resident and Activist, Parkersburg,
West Virginia
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Ms. Emily Donovan, Co-Founder, Clean Cape Fear
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Ms. Sandy Wynn-Stelt, Affected Resident and Activist, Belmont,
Michigan
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Dr. Jamie C. DeWitt, Associate Professor, East Carolina
University
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Mr. Glenn Evers, President, IS2 Consulting
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Ms. Catherine R. McCabe, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Mr. Robert R. Scott, Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Mr. Steve Sliver, Executive Director, Michigan PFAS Action
Response Team, Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes,
and Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Ms. Jane C. Luxton, Partner, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Oral Statement............................................... 35
* The prepared statements for the above witnesses are available
at: https://docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The entered into the record for this hearing are listed below,
and are available at: https://docs.house.gov.
* Letters from citizens across the country detailing their
fears regarding PFAS chemicals; submitted by Rep. Lawrence.
* 3M Study; submitted by Rep. Rouda.
* Meeting minutes from a 1978 3M Meeting; submitted by Rep.
Rouda.
THE DEVIL THEY KNEW:
PFAS CONTAMINATION AND THE NEED
FOR CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY
----------
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Harley Rouda,
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Rouda, Tlaib, Kildee, Dingell,
Lawrence, Sarbanes, Levin, Comer, Gibbs, Armstrong, and Keller.
Mr. Rouda. The subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the
committee at any time.
This subcommittee is holding this hearing examining the
chemical industry's past and current production and emission of
polyfluoroalkyl and PFAS across the United States.
I now recognize myself for five minutes to give an opening
statement.
Good afternoon. This is the second hearing the Subcommittee
on Environment has convened this Congress to address the
critical issue of polyfluoroalkyls and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, a class of manmade chemicals often referred to as
PFAS.
Let us not beat around the bush here. The chemicals are
toxic. They are known as forever chemicals. They do not easily
break down. Instead, they accumulate in the environment and in
the human body.
There is no way to avoid exposure to PFAS chemicals because
they are found in regular household goods that we use every day
such as nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, takeout
containers.
In fact, 99 percent of us here in the United States have
these chemicals in our blood, and to give you an idea of the
scope of the problem, PFAS chemicals have been found in the
bloodstreams of polar bears living in the Arctic Circle.
At our subcommittee's very first hearing of the 116th
Congress, we examined the crisis of PFAS contamination of
drinking water in and around military installations largely due
to the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam for DOD
training exercises.
Veterans who have already risked their lives for our
country are being asked again to risk them again each and every
day by drinking water filled with chemicals that have led to
serious adverse health outcomes in humans including low
fertility, birth defects, suppression of the immune system,
thyroid disease, and cancer.
At our meetings in March, the EPA's assistant administrator
for the Office of Water, David Ross, agreed that PFAS
contamination was, quote, ``a national emergency.''
We agree with Mr. Ross and that is why we are holding
another hearing today, this time focusing on another major
source of exposure to these chemicals, corporate pollution
being the key.
Companies such as 3M and DuPont, which used PFAS to make
household products that Americans used in their homes every day
like Teflon and Scotch Guard knew for decades that these
chemicals were toxic.
In the 1970's, DuPont began regularly testing the
concentration of PFAS in employees' blood. In 1978, an internal
3M memo reported that PFOA and PFAS, the two most notorious
PFAS chemicals, and I quote, ``should be regarded as toxic,''
unquote.
You would think that in the United States when we know a
substance is toxic we would take immediate action to prevent
corporations from pumping those substances into our bodies and
the environment.
But it was only earlier this year that the EPA now said it
would consider regarding PFOA and PFAS, and in light of the
EPA's decision last week that it would not ban the use of
additional chemicals shown to damage brain development in
children, forgive me if I am not especially confident that the
Trump administration's EPA will do the right thing regarding
PFAS chemicals in the necessary timeframe.
Let us really think about the full extent of what has been
happening over the last half century. 3M, DuPont, and other
industrial users knew that PFAS chemicals were bioacccumulative
and toxic and yet they continued to use products that contained
PFAS.
These corporations neglected to tell people what was in
those products and suppressed the scientific evidence that
these chemicals were hazardous.
And they didn't just use PFAS in industrial production.
They discharge these chemicals into rivers and into landfills
where they seeped into the groundwater.
Americans have basically been drinking Teflon and Scotch
Guard for decades and the worst part is that they didn't even
know it. This should not be happening. Americans expect that
the products they use are safe.
We are rightfully outraged when, say, a toy company recalls
a product because it contains lead or other toxic chemicals.
We feel betrayed because we feel that it is the companies'
responsibility to ensure that its products do not pose a danger
to our children. When companies violate that responsibility to
our community, to society, we need to hold them accountable.
We, in the Federal Government, have stood by as industrial
manufacturers polluted our households, our drinking water, and
our food supply.
We have simply accepted it on faith when these--when those
industrial polluters started using shorter carbon chain
alternatives to PFOA and PFAS such as a chemical known as GenX.
GenX and similar compounds have not been shown to be safe.
In fact, research indicates that they may be toxic.
One of our esteemed witnesses here today, Jamie DeWitt, a
medical professor and researcher, will talk about her work on
toxicity and GenX chemicals.
Contrary to what some colleagues on the other side might
say, I have no problem with 3M, DuPont, and Wolverine, Saint-
Gobain, and other companies turning a profit by making
Americans want to buy their goods.
I believe in smart capitalism and good government. What I
do have a problem with is when these corporations place their
own bottom lines ahead of Americans' health. Because when you
buy a product here in the United States the fundamental
assumption is that the product is safe.
If you told someone, you can have nonstick cookware--you
can have waterproof clothing, but it will come to you at the
cost of your health, your children's health, your liver, your
kidney, your thyroid, maybe your life, I imagine there is not a
single person who would make that trade.
And corporations like 3M, DuPont, and others knew that
Americans would never make that trade. That is why they
suppressed and diluted the science that showed how toxic PFAS
chemicals were because they didn't want Americans to know what
they were being exposed to.
We have all heard the saying that with great power comes
great responsibility. Well, these corporations have indeed
achieved great power in America.
But it is time for the responsibility piece to kick in.
These companies have evaded responsibility for far too long
already and we are finally going to start holding them
accountable.
Both Democrat and Republican state governments have already
begun to do so, and representatives from Michigan, New Jersey,
and New Hampshire are here today to talk about the steps they
are keeping to keep their constituents safe.
But state action, while immensely valuable, is not enough.
What we need to take action is at the Federal level immediately
and I want to assure everyone here today and the American
people that we in Congress are paying attention and that we
will not stop paying attention until we are sure that every
person in the country can drink water from their faucets, from
their wells, without worrying that it someday might kill them.
We have already established another hearing on this issue
for September 10th at which 3M Company and others, hopefully,
will be here to testify in person.
We look forward to their appearance and we urge DuPont to
follow suit and also commit to testifying before the committee
in the fall.
Thank you, and I now invite the subcommittee's ranking
member, Mr. Comer, to give a five-minute statement.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon and
thank you for today's hearing on a large group of chemicals
collectively known as PFAS, and I join the chairman in thanking
all the witnesses for appearing before us today.
Potential drinking water contamination is frightening for
any community and I am glad we are holding a second hearing on
this topic to both hear from impacted communities and consider
appropriate responses.
PFAS substances provide strength, durability, and
resilience in a broad range of applications. Since the 1940's,
PFAS have been used in such products as medical devices,
nonstick cookware, roof coatings, stain-resistant fabrics, food
packaging, firefighting foams, waterproof clothing, and
countless others.
Unfortunately, scientists have found evidence that at least
some PFAS substances break down very slowly in the natural
environment, travel easily through the water and air and soil,
and can accumulate in the human body.
Scientists have also found evidence that sustained exposure
to certain PFAS substances above specific levels can lead to
adverse health effects.
Nearly everyone has some detectable concentrations of PFAS
in their blood. It is worth noting that as U.S. industry has
stopped manufacturing certain PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS,
and started using alternative substances that are less likely
to accumulate in the body, blood levels of those substances
have declined significantly in the past few years.
In February of this year, EPA launched its first ever PFAS
action plan. In it, EPA outlined and gave estimated timeframes
for a number of short-and long-term actions to minimize risk,
increase scientific knowledge about the broad range of PFAS
substances, prevent exposure, and cleanup existing
contamination.
The plan also outlines EPA's actions to coordinate with
other Federal agencies and state, local, and tribal governments
to address the issue.
I am committed to working with my colleagues on solutions
that will contain any existing damage from legacy PFAS
substances and reduce the risk of future harm.
But I also hope that we, as a body, make responsible
evidence-based science-driven decisions. It is important to
note that nearly 5,000 chemical compounds make up the PFAS
family.
These compounds have different structures and
characteristics, which means they also have varying health and
environmental impacts.
Thorough research has only been done on a small number of
these compounds. So we should be very careful about taking any
sweeping actions that could have the unintended consequence of
negatively impacting a broad segment of the economy including
critical public entities like hospitals and airports.
Any legislative or regulatory actions we consider should be
based on a solid scientific understanding of the toxicity of
specific compounds.
Again, thank you to the chairman for convening today's
hearing and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
I yield back.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Now I would like to welcome our witnesses: Bucky Bailey, an
affected resident and activist from Parkersburg, West Virginia;
Emily Donovan, co-founder, Clean Cape Fear; Sandy Wynn-Stelt,
affected resident and activist from Belmont, Michigan.
If you could all please stand and raise your right hands I
will begin by swearing you in.
[Witnesses are sworn.]
Mr. Rouda. Please let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Thank you. Please be seated. Please note the microphones
are very sensitive so make sure you turn the button on and lean
in and speak directly into them.
Without objection, your written testimony--written
statement will be made a part of the record.
With that, Mr. Witt, you are now recognized to give an oral
presentation of your testimony for five minutes.
I am sorry. Mr. Bailey. Apology.
STATEMENT OF BUCKY BAILEY, AFFECTED RESIDENT AND ACTIVIST,
PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Bailey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Congressman
Comer, for both of your opening statements.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Again, my name is
William Bailey and I am here today to share the effect that the
widespread industrial contamination has had on my family and
myself.
I was born in Parkersburg, West Virginia, in early 1981
with numerous birth defects. I only had one nostril, a keyhole
pupil, and a serrated eyelid all on my right side.
I struggled to breathe normally immediately after birth and
the doctors told my family it was likely I wouldn't make it
past the first night.
My mother, who was in shock at the time of my birth, had no
idea what could have caused my birth defects. While pregnant,
she was a full time employee of DuPont at the Washington Works
facility in Parkersburg, West Virginia.
Her role at DuPont was to control the production of the
Teflon, or PFOA or C8 in a combined area--confined area, excuse
me--keeping the bubbling chemicals under control and pushing
the excess chemicals, in her words, out back.
After my birth and recovering and from the hospital my
mother recalls receiving phone calls from DuPont
representatives inquiring about my health.
Upon returning back to work, she found evidence that other
pregnant women were removed from the Teflon line. She also
found studies from 3M, a former manufacturer of Teflon, which
found the same birth defects after being exposed to the
chemical.
Nevertheless, she was reaffirmed by DuPont that C8 was not
the cause of my birth defects. After dozens of reconstructive
surgeries between the ages of two and five, my family moved to
Virginia as my parents felt the call to start a church in
northern Virginia.
With no health insurance at that time, my parents went to
court to demand that DuPont simply pay for the reconstructive
surgeries.
However, door after door was closed to us by lawyers who
refused to take cases against a corporate giant like DuPont.
Around the age of 25, I came into contact with Rob Bilot
and I was made aware of the litigation, the settlement, and the
scientific study that was happening.
I was so glad to hear this. I never thought the day would
arrive, and I knew the results of the study would show the
disposal and the contamination of the water and the air would
be made known publicly.
I was disheartened to find out that some of the sicknesses
and diseases that my mother was facing was because by this
contamination and linked by scientific study.
Knowing that other friends and acquaintances who were
battling these sicknesses and diseases including some who had
lost their lives broke my heart.
My deformities were not determined to be a result of the
contaminations despite admissions by DuPont scientists stating
that evidence C8 could harm fetuses.
Upon further testing on myself, scientists concluded that
my children would have a 50 percent chance of the same
deformities that I had, and being newlywed, it nearly destroyed
all hopes I had at building a family with my wife.
I knew there was no way that I could subject my children to
the looks, to the ridicule, to the years of medical procedures,
and other battles that I faced I knew they would encounter.
A decision to trust my faith in God took approximately 10
years before my wife and I pursued pregnancy. With my son, now
three years old, and daughter, now three months old, completely
whole and healthy, I am so thankful that they have been spared
the issues that I have dealt with my entire life.
However, today I have another reason for trepidation. With
my high levels of C8 chemical in my blood, will I have to
endure kidney cancer?
Will I have to endure testicular cancer, ulcerative
colitis, thyroid disease, and high cholesterol?
Will I have to endure those six--one of those six diseases
that were linked to this scientific study? Will I lose my life
to one of these diseases?
I am honored to testify before this committee today and I
must express that action is as important as oversight. I feel
that we, more so than any, have the means to provide everyone
with clean water.
PFAS discharges should be subject to the Federal Clean
Water Act. Polluters such as DuPont and 3M should not be
allowed to simply discharge PFAS into our water supplies.
I strongly support the Capito-Gillibrand amendment to the
Senate version of the NDAA, which requires polluters to report
these discharges.
I believe that polluters like DuPont and 3M should be
required to pay their share of the cleanup costs. The Dingell-
Kildee amendment to the House version would ensure this.
And finally, we need to take further steps in monitoring
our water. We must monitor the PFAS levels.
Again, I am honored to testify to this committee today and
hope that my words will somehow initiate the change in the
standards that we set.
Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Bailey.
Ms. Donovan, five minutes for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF EMILY DONOVAN, CO-FOUNDER, CLEAN CAPE FEAR
Ms. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee for elevating the issue of PFAS water
contamination to the highest level possible.
My name is Emily Donovan and I wear multiple hats. I am a
youth director at a church--a Presbyterian church on
Wrightsville Beach. I am a wife and a mother raising 10-year-
old boy/girl twins, and I am also co-founder of Clean Cape
Fear.
We are a water advocacy group that formed after learning
DuPont Chemours was dumping large quantities of highly toxic
PFAS into our primary source of drinking water, the Cape Fear
River.
Today, I would like to speak to you as a mother who has
spent the last two years getting a crash course in
biochemistry. Imagine waking up to headlines that the same
company who spent a historic $670 million to settle over 3,500
lawsuits in another state for poisoning their drinking water
was doing the exact same thing to yours.
That is exactly what DuPont spinoff Chemours did with GenX,
their C8 replacement for making Teflon, and GenX was only 12
percent of the total PFAS found in our finished tap water.
I am largely here today because a handful of scientists
from North Carolina stumbled upon something in the Cape Fear
River at alarmingly high quantities and decided to investigate
it.
Due to their tireless research, we now know at last 25
different PFAS have been discovered in our finished tap water
and in private wells around DuPont Chemours facility in
Fayetteville.
We learned early on through court documents that DuPont
Chemours has mastered the art of deception. I believe this
chronic polluter has no problem exposing millions of citizens
to these toxic chemicals.
It has been two years since we learned about GenX and our
worst fears have been confirmed. We have detected over 50
different PFAS in our air, soil, and water, all coming from
Chemours.
The FDA has found GenX and a slew of other PFAS in the
produce at a farmer's market near Fayetteville. Wilmington
residents have three times more C8 PFOA in their blood than the
national average and two times more PFOS and these two
chemicals were phased out a decade ago.
Residents also have a special chemical cocktail found in
the blood not seen anywhere else in our state. Some of these
PFAS were in 99 percent of the blood samples take. Ninety-nine
percent.
Ask any scientist and they will tell you rarely does a
study find 99 percent of a toxin in every person's--in every
person studied.
We still know nothing about the majority of these chemicals
in our finished tap water and local produce around Fayetteville
and in Wilmington residents' blood. Not a single health
official, scientist, or policymaker can tell me if the 16
mystery PFAS I found in the tap water at my son and daughter's
public school are safe to drink.
There are no recommended dose levels. There are no toxic
mixture studies to guide me on how these chemicals interact
with each other or could potentially harm my children as they
grow up, and it sickens me to think that I may have hurt my
children by simply raising them to drink the tap water. I will
forever wonder if that choice will one day cause them major
medical harm.
I now send my children to school with water bottles filled
with the reverse osmosis water because it seems to be the only
reliable filtering method to remove these toxins and RO filters
are incredibly expensive.
I pray daily it is enough to keep them hydrated the whole
day. I worry constantly about the children drinking the school
tap water because their parents are either unaware or can't
afford to access properly filtered water.
And it is not just parents who are worried about their
children. We, as adults, are also worried about our own health.
These toxic chemicals do not act equally in our bodies. Some
people may never develop serious health problems while others
aren't so lucky.
Our state's leading PFAS toxicological researcher publicly
stated the true impact of GenX may take years to become known
because cancer takes time to reveal itself in humans.
I am here to tell you--to testify today that Wilmington-
Fayetteville area residents are already showing signs of
obscure and rare cancers, immune disorders and diseases in
populations far too young to pass of as normal.
How many of your friends are battling cancer? I am 42 and
my friend, Sara, is battling stage three colon cancer. My
friend, Tom, who is here today, has terminal brain and bone
cancer, and my friend, Cara, has stage three breast cancer, her
gall bladder stopped working and recently developed
hypothyroidism, and her mom has blood cancer and her dad over
here has leukemia and bladder cancer. And my own husband had a
benign brain tumor and almost lost his eyesight, and I am
frightened.
We already know testicular cancer is on the rise in our
region. We have a large thyroid cancer cluster, nearly double
the state and national average in Brunswick, Pender, and New
Hanover Counties.
Cancer is a reportable illness. We have 24 years of data
available at the Federal and state level. We deserve to know if
cancer clusters are associated with high levels of PFAS
exposure in communities across the country. The ATSDR has
excluded looking for cancer from their national PFAS exposure
study. Why?
Every utility should be required to test and monitor for
PFAS in their drinking water regularly. PFAS as a class should
be added to the toxic release inventory so states like North
Carolina can monitor their use.
The public needs to know which consumer products contain
PFAS in order to make informed choices on how to reduce
continued toxic exposures and, ultimately, we need to make it
illegal for companies to discharge PFAS as a class into our
air, soil, and water source.
We shouldn't have to be forced to sue Chemours in order to
get them to pay for the damages they have done. We need PFAS to
be listed as hazardous substances to unlock the EPA's authority
under Superfund law and to seek cleanup costs for our
contaminated, municipal, and private wells, and we need you to
act swiftly.
I have a community letter signed by a thousand of my
neighbors begging you for action.
Ms. Donovan. Please, we need you to do whatever it takes to
protect the public.
I am begging you to engage your humanity and find the moral
courage to protect the most valuable economic resource--human
life--because it is already too late for some of us.
Thank you so much for your time. It was an honor to testify
before your committee.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ms. Donovan.
Ms. Wynn-Stelt?
STATEMENT OF SANDY WYNN-STELT, AFFECTED RESIDENT AND ACTIVIST,
BELMONT, MICHIGAN
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. Thank you all for letting me come here and
speak. I am here representing the people of Belmont, Michigan,
which is north of Rockford.
Our community has been devastated by PFAS contamination. My
husband, Joel, and I were married in 1991. Joel was a
Children's Protective Services worker and I work in mental
health, and when we bought our first home in 1992 all we wanted
was peace and quiet.
We found a home that we thought was perfect. It was across
the street from a Christmas tree farm, and Christmas trees make
great neighbors.
We thought it was the perfect location. Joel and I were
best friends. I have never met anyone so smart and funny and
passionate as he was, and we absolutely adored each other.
I am sorry.
In 2016, we were getting ready to celebrate our 25th
anniversary and Joel had some stomach problems. He went in for
what we thought was a minor hernia surgery. But he was
diagnosed with stage four liver cancer and he died three weeks
later, and my world was shattered.
And if you have lived through the pain of losing your
partner and your provider and your protector you would know the
pain that that feels. But I pray you don't know that pain.
A year later, two people from the Department of
Environmental Quality came to my home and asked to test my
water for PFAS. I had never heard of PFAS. But, again, my life
changed.
My water was tested initially at 27,000 parts per trillion,
well above the 70 parts per trillion that the health advisory
level is at.
They assumed that was an error. It was tested again at
38,000 parts per trillion, and last week it was tested at over
80,000 parts per trillion in my water.
Over time what we learned was that my groundwater had been
contaminated by Wolverine Worldwide, the manufacturers of
Hushpuppy Shoes.
The Christmas tree farm that we loved so much was actually
a dump site for tannery waste, and they would bring huge semi-
trucks full of tannery waste, including Scotch Guard, and dump
it in giant troughs and when those troughs would fill they
would dig another one and another one and another one.
And when that acreage filled they would dig down through
the clay barrier until they hit the groundwater, and it has
contaminated 25 square miles of groundwater now.
The dumping ended in the 1970's. But we did not move into
the home until the 1990's and we were never told that this
dumping occurred. We never knew that there were these forever
chemicals that were in our water.
In November 2017 my blood was tested and it was found to be
at 5 million parts per trillion, or 750 times the national
average. My neighbors and I cannot fix this in any way. Our
township, like many, has no money to put in funding for cleanup
of this and we cannot afford municipal water.
Because of the contamination, we cannot put in new wells
and we cannot expand the existing wells we have. So if our well
dies, which has happened, we have no way of getting water.
I have people in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who do not have
water. Children in our neighborhood cannot play in the
sprinklers. They can't swim in their pools. They can't eat food
from the gardens.
We are not a neighborhood that borrows sugar anymore. We
borrow jugs of water from each other in 2019.
So I come to you today asking you to take swift action to
ensure that your communities as well do not end up in this
position. We need manufacturers and polluters to be held
responsible for the contamination that they have done.
Taxpayers in no way should be burdened with this cost. We
should not be the ones that are charged with doing this while
corporations have profited for decades over this chemical.
We need PFAS to be designated as a hazardous substance
under Superfund so that we can get the EPA to hold polluters
accountable.
We need to require that people who use this report where
they have put it and how those chemicals are disposed of, and
we need this to be part of the Federal Clean Water Act.
And finally, we need to be proactive in the future. We
cannot let new generations of chemicals just be used and sold
and dumped without researching the health effects. They should
be--it just shouldn't be allowed.
I have lost so much. I have lost my husband and my best
friend. My home that we saved for and we paid off is now worth
nothing. I have come to terms with the fact that this chemical
that is in me will probably result in my demise.
But in my neighborhood there are 22 children under the age
of 13 that live within a quarter mile of this dump site. They
were raised on this water.
And you have a responsibility to protect them and I am
asking you to do that and to do that quickly.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ms. Wynn-Stelt, and all of the
witnesses for your testimony.
At this time, I would like to have Congresswoman Tlaib have
five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, and thank all of you so much
for your courage to advocate on behalf of so many families that
might not be here in this room but we are going to bring them
in this room.
Just like so many of you did by having someone physically
being here but in your spirit and I just want to thank you all
so much.
I am sincerely very fearful as well of the human cost, and
I want to thank so much Ms. Wynn-Stelt for your heartbreaking
story, for sharing that, and for exposing what it looks like to
do nothing with corporate polluters and what the serious human
cost is.
People are suffering because of this carelessness, because
of corporate greed, and I hope your story continues to help
expose that and continues to help so many other families.
As we all know, the state of Michigan has initiated a
lawsuit against Wolverine. But that is not nearly enough, and
we all know that, to really truly stop this and prevent it from
happening over and over again.
We desperately need Federal action, like you said, Ms.
Wynn-Stelt. I think everything that you mentioned is things
that we should be able to do easily.
But we not only have to investigate Wolverine, 3M, and
DuPont and other companies for their egregious and reckless
actions but also to ensure that other Americans are spared from
the effects of these toxic chemicals being carelessly and
irresponsibly dumped in their back yard, literally.
Ms. Wynn-Stelt, in your testimony you said that you lived
in your home for 25 years before you found out through the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality that your well
water might be contaminated.
Did you ever get a knock on the door, a phone call, or a
notice from representatives from Wolverine or 3M which supplied
the Scotch Guard that Wolverine used in its production telling
you that the water around your home had been exposed to
contamination or that they were concerned about the health risk
of PFAS exposed to your family?
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. Thank you for your thoughts and your
comments.
No, we had not been ever notified that that was the case.
We had heard sort of through the neighborhood that perhaps
Wolverine had owned the land. But we were unaware that there
had been anything dumped that was dangerous or toxic.
The challenge with this chemical is you can't see it. You
can't taste. You can't smell it. You don't know it is there. So
there could be, literally, millions of people in the same
position that I was in.
Ms. Tlaib. And for over 25 years, no representative of 3M
or Wolverine could even have the energy to walk across the
street or even call you.
But yet, they had the energy to come to Michigan to speak
with Wolverine executives and yet, not--that they--you know,
yet they would not come to people like you to tell you that
they are poisoning you and that, to me, is reprehensible.
There is a definition--there is a definition of putting
corporations over people. You know, for me, that is essence
what it is, and there are Michiganders like you and this little
child, which I really am so glad you brought it because
sometimes we need to truly put a human face to this.
I have here a picture of a little boy living in your
community who has PFAS level in his blood that is nearly
500,000 parts per trillion.
Ms. Wynn-Stelt, you are familiar with his family. Could you
briefly describe some of the concerns that you have for this
little boy's health?
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. Well, he is just too cute is part of the
problem but he is----
Ms. Tlaib. I know. I have my--I have my eight-year-old here
in this--yes.
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. Yes. Oh, hi. Yes. He is three, I think,
now. He has very high levels. What has happened is we have--his
family has discovered that his vaccines were not effective and
so he has had to get booster vaccines because there is
immunological issues that occur with this, especially in
children.
And so I think as we hear about measles epidemics and
things like that that go on that is terrifying for families
that maybe have experienced this.
Ms. Tlaib. And I imagine this little boy's story is not
unique, as we heard from some of you on this panel. Are there
any of those children, to your knowledge, suffering from any
problems that are currently linked to PFAS contamination?
Can you tell me of any stories about adults in your
community that are also suffering from these health problems?
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. I know of--I mean, like Emily talked about,
we all know of people that have had cancers. We know of
children that have had cancers, of thyroid conditions, of all
of those things. The challenge is making that connection.
Ms. Tlaib. And, you know, for me I represent the 13th
congressional District, which is Wayne County, Detroit, and
surrounding communities. People always think this is a rural
issue, that this is outside.
But we found PFAS in Del Ray near the construction of the
new bridge to Canada. When they were there, they found PFAS.
They found PFAS in Melvindale and Downriver, which I share with
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell and the communities there.
That, I think, Mr. Chairman, it is very important for folks
to know this is widespread--that this is not just well water.
This is not just the community but we are finding it everywhere
where there is high industry and high corporate polluters.
So I thank you so much for your leadership and thank you so
much for my Michigan delegation being here and trying to lead
this, and thank you all again for your courage.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
And I want to reemphasize again that the EPA right now is
70 parts per trillion and I believe what you just said was that
that young boy is 500,000 parts per trillion and you are at 5
million parts per trillion.
Okay. And there is some debate as to whether 70 parts per
trillion is too high.
Let us move on and recognize Ranking Member Comer for his
questions for five minutes.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, and again, thank you all for you--for
your testimony.
The EPA has announced $3.9 million grant for two research--
research grants, and the earlier--in April the CDC announced up
to six grants for $3 million for studies on the human effects
of exposures to PFAS through drinking water.
I want to ask each person on the panel what--how do you
think that money should be spent in research? How do you think
that money should be--should be spent?
What should the EPA and the CDC--what should they looking
for to help try to determine a solution to the problem? And any
of you can begin.
Ms. Donovan?
Ms. Donovan. Cancer is well documented. I mean, it is one
of the only human diseases that has a national registry and
state level registries.
It is not difficult to go and look at every cancer and then
correlate it back to exposures, and take blood serum where
needed in those contaminated communities. We are already the
human guinea pigs.
We have already been exposed to these compounds. There
doesn't need to be any more research. There doesn't need to be
any more studies. You just need to go and start linking it
because we know it is there. I mean----
Mr. Comer. Well, how--you know, and look, both my parents
passed away from cancer. I mean, it is very prevalent in my
family and a lot of families.
Ms. Donovan. It is not normal.
Mr. Comer. Let us just talk about the link and how would
you link it, just----
Ms. Donovan. Well, I would leave that up to the scientists
because I am not one. And so I am sure we should probably defer
to them.
Mr. Comer. Right. Okay.
Ms. Donovan. But one thing I do know is I live in a
community where I am tripping over people who are sick, and
they are even willing to come here today. They are in the
audience. So we know it is there.
The EPA can find it, put the money toward it. I don't know
why cancer is not being added to the national PFAS exposure
study. It should have been.
Mr. Comer. Okay. Ms. Wynn?
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. I would agree. I am not a scientist and I
am not a researcher, so I would leave that up to them. But I do
worry that sometimes you can get into analysis paralysis here
where we are just looking and looking and looking rather than
acting.
If the research is saying that we believe there is a link
then we should assume there is a link and act on that and not
wait to just keep uncovering more and more research.
So that would be my suggestion.
Mr. Comer. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Donovan. Can I add one more comment?
Mr. Comer. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Donovan. I mean, there is a peer-reviewed article that
is coming out almost daily about the dangers of these
chemicals. The science is behind us on this one. It is there.
Mr. Comer. Okay.
Mr. Bailey?
Mr. Bailey. Thank you for the question.
My first reaction was $3.9 million with an M seems quite
low when the industry is by one manufacturer $25 billion a
year. Leave it to the scientists, but we have a foundation
already.
We have done a study of 70,000 people that have linked
diseases. There is something to buildupon. I think it is, you
know, giving them the ability to act more than anything.
Mr. Comer. Right. And I guess my next question would
revolve around--because we want to be helpful here. We want to
try to come up with a solution.
You know, when there are a lot of issues we face in
Congress it is hard to get bipartisan agreement on very many
things. But it is bipartisan that we want clean drinking water.
It doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal or
moderate; we all want clean drinking water. There is no
question about that.
I assume you don't feel that the education levels are where
they need to be in the communities that have higher
concentration rates of PFAS and how do you better get that
information out to the residents? Or do the residents already--
are they well aware of the higher levels of PFAS in the water?
Ms. Donovan. I mean, in our community, you know, there is
definitely more research--not research but there is definitely
more communication that needs to be done. Our physicians----
Mr. Comer. Let me--who is communicating? Just for my
knowledge, who is----
Ms. Donovan. Who is? Well----
Mr. Comer. Is the EPA doing anything? Is the local
government----
Ms. Donovan. There is nothing. Well, because this is--these
are unenforceable unregulated chemicals. There is no
documentation. So we are grabbing at straws.
Our doctors that deal in endocrinology they are seeing
large cases in our community and they know there is a problem,
and when they go to the books that they are supposed to go to,
to try and figure out what this is, there is nothing there. The
EPA is not providing them with anything and the states are
scrambling to try to provide us with things.
When we found out about GenX in our water, at the state
level our toxicologists struggled to even find the studies to
try and create a safe drinking water level and we were the only
state to create 140 for GenX, and that was--that took two weeks
to try and figure out what that was.
Mr. Comer. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ranking Member Comer.
This is a very important topic and I am thrilled that we
have bipartisan support and you here today to help us
understand how immense this issue is and how much work we have
in front of us, and we also have several members here that have
joined our subcommittee, and without objection, I would like to
have them authorized to participate in today's hearing.
And those four individuals include Representative Lawrence
from Michigan, Representative Kildee from Michigan,
Representative Dingell from Michigan, and Representative
Sarbanes from Maryland.
Mr. Rouda. And with that, I recognize for five minutes
Representative Lawrence.
Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start by thanking the witnesses today who had the
courage to come, and without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to submit into record letters that have been sent from
citizens of this country detailing their fears.
Mr. Rouda. So moved.
Ms. Lawrence. Dr. Kyle Horton, a physician in Wilmington,
North Carolina, wrote, saying, ``I hope other physicians will
never know the heartbreak of facing a patient with cancer,
asking if their tumor was in part caused by poisoned water
coming out of their taps, and the same water their children are
drinking,'' and he states, ``I cannot tell you the pain of
having to always say, 'I don't know.'"
He also states, ``May you never have to know what it is
like talking to a breastfeeding mother who cannot afford
filtered water in her home.''
Also, I have from a resident of this great country, Karen
Pignetti, a resident of Westfield, Massachusetts, who writes,
``I am one of many who have been exposed to this poison in my
drinking water.
I am one of many who turns on my faucet to make dinner for
my children and wonder if I am hurting my child. I am one of
many burdened by the cost of bottled water.
I am one of many being taxed out of my home and paying
extremely high water bills to pay for someone else's mess.''
These stories remind me of what we recently went through in
Michigan, and I was with the leadership of Congressman Kildee.
We were so engaged, and you know what started the fight? Were
people just like you who said something is wrong.
They repeatedly told us something is wrong, even when the
government said, oh, there is nothing wrong with it, and even
the shenanigans of a Governor drinking the water--see, it is
okay--and went home to his safe water.
So I want to thank you because we cannot have another Flint
water crisis. I am so committed to it. I sit on Appropriations
and I want you to know it may not seem like a lot but it wasn't
there before. Eighteen million dollars has been appropriated
for research and study of PFAS. It is just the beginning.
But I want you to know I am so sensitive to this--to this
issue and I say repeatedly in America a basic human need to
live as a human being is water, food, and shelter, and water
must be clean, it must be safe, and it must be affordable.
To the panel in the brief time I have left, all of you have
gone around the country telling your story, and I am sure you
have met other people harmed by PFAS.
Can you tell us about your interactions to these
communities and how widespread you feel it is? And also, you
touched on it, Ms. Donovan, that--I am sorry, it was with you,
Ms. Wynn, that the local communities don't always have the
money, and that is why you are sitting in front of us in
Congress to fix this issue.
So whoever wants to comment on that.
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. Thank you for your commitment to this. I
greatly appreciate it.
I have spoken to some people by accident. I didn't realize
it was this big of an issue. I am lucky in Michigan because
Michigan has really stepped up trying to find this and I think
we are frightened how much they did find it.
But we are finding it everywhere, not only in our state. I
got a call yesterday from someone from Maine trying to find
some help with this.
So I think to think it is just in one particular state or
another would be foolish on--at the Federal level. I think this
is a bigger problem than what we realize, and we just have to
fix it.
Ms. Lawrence. Yes.
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. We just have to fix it. We can't argue
about it. We can't debate it.
Ms. Lawrence. I agree.
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. It just has to be fixed.
Ms. Lawrence. I agree.
Yes, Ms. Donovan?
Ms. Donovan. EWG has a great tracking map and in the map it
showed what Michigan looked like before Michigan did its full
statewide testing, and then it shows what Michigan looks like
after Michigan did its testing.
And so, locally, I would have friends go, ``Well, don't
move to Michigan,'' and I am, like, no, that is not it.
Michigan tested. When you test for these you will find them,
and if we started testing for these chemicals we will find them
in every community. I feel we will find them in almost every
community.
Ms. Lawrence. I also want to say when we--there is also a
bill that I submitted that every public school should be tested
for the water.
You would be surprised how many schools actually have
plastic bags around drinking fountains because for some random
reason they tested the water and found that water has been
coming out of these taps for years that is contaminated with
lead.
Just keep in the fight. You are making a difference. We saw
it happen in Flint and we can do this.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congressman Gibbs for five minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. I thank the chair and thank you for the
witnesses to your bravery to come here and, you know, no family
should have to go through what you have gone through.
So I want, just for clarity, to start with Ms. Wynn-Stelt.
You talked about the dumping. I assume this was a legal dumping
or they had permits or tell--okay, just let me know. You know,
because you shouldn't just be able to go out and just dump
stuff.
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. Yes. Thank you for the question.
I will try and explain it. I believe at the time it was a
legal dump. However, I think there were some--I am not clear on
all of it and I am actually involved in litigation.
And so I look at my attorneys and go, wow, and they seem to
know all those answers. So I will tell you I think initially it
started as a legal dump. I think----
Mr. Gibbs. As a legal--it started as a legal dump, did you
say?
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. I believe it did, but I think at the point
it contaminated groundwater that was where it became
problematic. But I would defer to others who have more
knowledge.
Mr. Gibbs. The reason I just ask because I know the Clean
Water Act, is you know, lots of regulatory processes, you know,
and discharge permits and PDS permits and all that, and it just
kind of raised a red flag when you said that.
I was wondering what is really going on there because,
obviously, any entity that is going out and dumping like that
should be held accountable. Okay. So I just wanted----
On testing--this is for any one of the witnesses, I guess--
because my information I have there is--could be over 5,000
compounds of this--in this--these different classes of--this
category you have, PFAS.
So do communities, I assume, are communities that, you
know, supply water? Do they--do they test for these chemicals
or generally when they test for, you know, other things do they
test for these?
Mr. Bailey. Thank you for the question.
Actually, what we have come in contact with, speaking with
Environment Working Group is they don't want to be held at
fault. So they are not--I don't want to speak out of turn.
They are not really essentially testing the water because
it is coming from them--treating the water at best. But they
don't have the type of equipment to take this compound out.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Well, I imagine it has got to be----
Ms. Donovan. I can add.
Mr. Gibbs. Oh, go ahead.
Ms. Donovan. Yes. So it is interesting. In the three-county
area that is downstream from Chemours and our area, Brunswick
and New Hanover County are testing for these compounds
voluntarily because, again, no one is required.
Pender County is testing for it annually. But, see, we all
get the same raw water from the same place and then each
municipality finishes it using the treatment technology that is
in their location.
So, you know, why are--why am I in Brunswick County, able
to know every two weeks the level of PFAS that is in my water
and New Hanover County is able to know but Pender County is
not?
I think it is an economic issue, unfortunately, for them
and that is unfortunate because we are all drinking the same
level of water.
Mr. Gibbs. I am just guessing the tests--because we are
talking 5,000 compounds--is probably pretty sophisticated.
Ms. Donovan. Well, unfortunately, they are not even testing
for 5,000. The EPA's 537 method is the one that is--that
everyone is using right now and I think that is only, at the
most, 40, 50 compounds of the 5,000 out there.
Mr. Gibbs. Now, the other information I have in front of
me, so it talks about here the reality is that significant
research has only really been done on three of the 5,000. Would
you concur with that?
Ms. Donovan. Exactly. And so when we are talking about
being responsible, I guess my question to you is when you take
your children or your grandchildren trick or treating do you
let them have mystery candy?
I don't think you do. And so why in the world are we
allowing ourselves to drink mystery chemicals? And so if we are
wanting to be responsible why are we not testing this first and
then allowing the chemicals to be used in consumer products?
So the fact that we have 5,000 and we are worried about
what--about finding out which one are safe before we remove
them, that seems a little backward way to look at it.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I didn't mean--I didn't mean that. I was
just trying to figure out what is going on.
Ms. Donovan. Oh, no. I know--I know you didn't mean it but
I think it is a really important point, that maybe we need to
flip our logic here and realize that we probably shouldn't have
5,000 chemicals like these that are forever persistent
bioaccumulative in existence unregulated and any product they
can ever be put in that is not essential uses but we don't know
how to dispose of them, and then decide if they are safe.
That is backward. Let us decide they are safe first and
then release them.
Mr. Gibbs. I am almost out of time but I just--I see that
there is a consent decree order with Chemours in your area.
Spent $100 million in advanced technologies. Can you go and
just elaborate on what is going on there?
Ms. Donovan. Yes. So Chemours was required legally to put a
filter on their air stacks and on their discharges and they are
not doing a good job about it.
They knew. I mean, Chemours is a spinoff of DuPont. And so
they continue to operate the same way DuPont operated for 30
years in our area and then they had to be told to stop.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Congressman Gibbs.
The chair now recognizes Congressman Kildee for five
minutes.
Mr. Kildee. First of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the committee--subcommittee for holding this really
important hearing, and for the witnesses, thank you for being
here.
Thanks for putting a human element to a story that often is
argued in statistics and parts per trillion and acronyms that
nobody understands and terminologies that are scientific, and
when we listen to your stories, obviously, what we know we have
is a very, very serious human tragedy that is playing itself
out one person, one family, one community at a time and you are
the most important voices we can hear at this point.
You said that Congress does need to act and we have taken
some steps. We, you know, recently formed a bipartisan task
force to address this issue across committee jurisdictions,
across party lines.
It has been said this is not and shouldn't ever be a
partisan issue. This is something where we have a very serious
health problem that we better get serious about addressing or
the stories that you have told are going to be told for
generations to come.
So thank you. You are the reason that we do this, and Ms.
Wynn-Stelt, from my home state I appreciate you being here, and
I wonder if each of you--Ms. Donovan, Bucky--it is good to see
you again--if you could just--I mean, obviously, the personal
tragedies that you have experienced are hard to imagine.
But I wonder if you might just comment. Like, what--how has
this changed Belmont and how has this changed the community you
live in in Cape Fear and what difference has this made to the
people in Parkersburg?
How is life different than what you expected it would have
been when you bought that house across the road from a
Christmas tree farm?
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. Thank you for the question.
We have a lot more trucks in the neighborhood now, I will
tell you that, and life revolves around remember to putting
water jugs out and getting whole home filters tested and
knowing things like PFAS and parts per trillion and things that
I never would have guessed to know.
That being said, and I am guessing everybody comes from a
community that they see as extraordinarily resilient and I
think Belmont and northern county is a very resilient
community.
Wolverine is an important part of that town and I think
that makes industrial waste a little trickier to deal with
because they have been a good support in the community except
for this one little problem.
So I think it has--we have come together as a community. I
will say that. But it makes you look at things different.
On the positive, I think we have become a community that
has been very pleased that we can actually make change and that
people thought that no one listened in Lansing, our state
capital, or in Washington, and I think we are actually kind of
surprised to see, good grief, you all showed up. That was
great. Somebody listened.
So I think that is kind of in a positive, if I can say
that. So thank you.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
Ms. Donovan?
Ms. Donovan. So, you know, my PTO now asks for bottled
water donations before a party instead of baked goods. I worry
about my kids getting dehydrated when I am not around them
because they are afraid to drink tap water now from any source.
I endure--well, it is not an endurance--it is--it is an
endurance to know that we pray weekly for my friend, Tom
Kennedy, who is on borrowed time--that I hear constantly my
friends who are suffering from yet another illness.
Those are things that in our 30's and 40's we shouldn't be
doing because these are the best years of our lives. We should
be going on fun trips and enjoying barbecues and not having to
wonder who brought the right water for the barbecue. So there
is that.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
Mr. Bailey, we see your story played out in the, I think,
very important documentary that I hope everybody takes a look
at, ``The Devil We Know.'' But could you tell us the rest of
the story for Parkersburg?
Mr. Bailey. Well, we did move to northern Virginia so I
can't speak directly. But the conversations that I have had--my
grandfather worked at Parkersburg and he would come home sick
at times with the Teflon flu is what circulated around the
plant.
My mom worked in the same line, and when you worked for
DuPont you were the cream of the crop, and that mentality still
goes there.
And Congressman Gibbs had asked about the water district
and the initial litigation found--sought after by Joe Kiger was
a letter that the water district sent, stating that DuPont
deemed their water levels with the chemical in it to be
acceptable.
And Mr. Kiger asked why is DuPont deeming anything about my
water supplies, and it is because of the stature. And I liken
them and 3M and others to a bully who has taken your lunch
money and is waiting for you to make a move to take it back.
And it has been too long for us to do that. We can look at
their internal documents. We can look at their own records and
see the evidence that is tangible 50 years ago and more, and it
is time for us to do that.
One regret that I have that stopped me is my father passed
away in 2008, and he will never get to see my kids because I
was so scared of what they were having to endure and I waited
and waited. But, you know, it is a shame what some of these
families are going through and it can't go on any longer.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you so much for being here. There are a
lot of hearings taking place in this town today but I don't
think there is any more important witnesses than the three
people in front of us.
Thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Congressman Kildee.
Congressman Keller, you are now recognized for five
minutes.
Oh, you didn't? Okay. My apologies.
And we will go to Congresswoman Dingell from Michigan for
five minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is really great to see all three of you, and you can
tell that Michigan deeply cares by the presence here, and we
are seeing it in all of our communities.
Unfortunately, the--as you are talking about Wolverine it
went into the Huron River and came down into my district, and
there is very much an environmental justice issue here because
when you ask if people test for water, the community of Ann
Arbor is, like, two of your communities that test for it weekly
in screenings and gives--you know, educates it is becoming one
of the municipalities across the country.
And yet there are many other areas--like Dan said, Flint--
where the water did become polluted and we have got to talk
about that.
We are going to hear from our states and our state
director. Michigan has been a state that, unfortunately,
because of Flint people pay attention to these issues and we
have got to find a way that we are going to raise that
awareness and I think not everybody understands.
I mean, we--the Republican Governor, Governor Snyder before
Governor Whitmer, actually appointed a state task force to
study the issue and it was comprised of doctors and engineers
from across the country who found that actually--and most
people don't realize that the 70 is only a guideline.
It is not a mandatory standard. So we have no national
standard. And Governor Snyder's task force found that that was
probably too high a number.
But I guess I would like to ask you, Ms. Donovan, because
North Carolina has--is, I think, another state that is more
aware than many other states, and we know that their defense--
we have had--it is also important to--we understand that
firefighting foam and there are a lot of things that were doing
good things that caused this and we don't know how to get rid
of it. We don't know how to clean it up, which is another very
real issue.
But in Michigan, and we are going to hear more testimony
about that, and you talked about it--we are looking for--what
is the state of North Carolina doing?
Ms. Donovan. So right now, I would just like to point out,
too, we don't know how to get rid of it. We need to stop it at
the tap then because if we don't know how to get rid of this
stuff then we don't need any more research.
We need to stop it, test the ones that are safe and then
rerelease them out onto product. We need to put this onto maybe
look at essential uses and really narrow that scope down.
But in North Carolina our state level DEQ is now starting
to try and look at the sources. And so it is a little of a back
end approach where they are asking all of the wastewater
treatment plants along the Cape Fear River to test for PFAS,
find out how much is in it and then identify where their
sources are and tell the sources.
And then they are going to--the theory is that they will go
and then tell the source how much they can and can't release
into the environment.
And then, again, we get back to the whole thing of why in
the world are we allowing these products. I mean, AFFF we knew
forever was toxic.
Yet, we entered into a military spec and an agreement with
the manufacturers to basically lock in that technology, and it
stifled innovation and it stifled the ability for us to find
toxic-free alternatives for firefighting foam. We need to stop
going that.
We need to stop allowing industry to poison us with
products that we don't necessarily need and put that money into
research for things that can be a little more eco-friendly,
humane friendly, too.
Mrs. Dingell. So maybe all three of you, very quickly
because I am down to a minute, could talk about how designating
PFAS as a hazardous chemical might expedite the cleanup process
and hold polluters accountable.
Why don't we start with Ms. Wynn-Stelt and go right down?
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. I think the obvious thing is I need
polluters to be held accountable so that my tax dollars don't
go to clean it up because I need my tax dollars to go to
Children's Protective Services and mental health funding and
education and that. So that is why I need that.
Ms. Donovan. Yes. If we don't designate PFAS, all of them,
as a class as a hazardous substance you are guaranteeing that I
am having to pay for the cleanup and we are looking at $100
million in Brunswick County and $46 million in New Hanover
County.
So if we can get these designated then that at least gives
the EPA the possibility to go back to the polluter and get the
polluter to pay. Otherwise, you are also forcing us to spend
long legal battles, which is what we are doing right now. These
are long legal battles. We have no clean water.
Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Bailey?
Mr. Bailey. I think our first course of action would be to
stop allowing companies to pollute. Right now, they can go dump
any amount they want. I think electing this as a hazard
chemical would stop that, hopefully, and move forward.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Congresswoman Dingell.
And the chair now recognizes Congressman Sarbanes for five
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to participate today. Thank you all for your extremely powerful
testimony. I want to thank everyone who is in the audience
today who made the trip to support and reinforce your
testimony.
Ms. Donovan, I want to thank you for your efforts, your
testimony here, also the local advocacy that you have
undertaken, which I know has made a difference. It is extremely
commendable work.
You stated in your written testimony that your community
only learned that their drinking water was contaminated by PFAS
chemicals in 2017, I believe.
How long was that industrial site that was previously owned
by DuPont and now owned by Chemours operating when you learned
that your water was contaminated?
Ms. Donovan. They admitted in public disclosure to elected
officials that they had been operating since or they had been
releasing GenX into our water for a little over 30 years.
They had started releasing GenX in 1980. The facility, I
think, was founded in 1968, I believe. It is in my testimony.
Mr. Sarbanes. And the community didn't learn that until
2017?
Ms. Donovan. Correct.
Mr. Sarbanes. After surrounding communities learned of the
contamination crisis, what was the response of Chemours? Did
representatives from the company address the community with
public meetings? Did they meet with affected residents?
Ms. Donovan. No. Fourteen days went by before they released
any statement, which was them coming down to a closed door
meeting where they only allowed one reporter in the room, and
then after that we never heard from them again.
They refused to answer reporters' questions. They have, to
this day, never come to Wilmington, Brunswick--Wilmington area
to hold any public meetings.
They gave one public meeting near Fayetteville after
groundwater contamination. I feel like that happened maybe six
months to a year after public knowledge or public disclosure of
the contamination.
Mr. Sarbanes. So, obviously, a thoroughly inadequate and,
arguably, very cowardly response on the part of the company.
Something we have heard from the defenders of Chemours and
DuPont is that while PFOA and PFAS might be harmful, that their
alternative compounds with shorter carbon chains such as GenX,
which you talked about today, that are safe replacements for
PFOA and PFAS.
Do you believe that GenX is a safe alternative? I can
anticipate your answer but I will give you a chance to
emphasize it.
Ms. Donovan. So when you file a TSCA--when you do a TSCA
filing it is self-reported and that means that you have a
suspicion that the chemical is not going to be safe for
exposure, and they filed 16 for GenX and all of them came back
as awful.
So, no, they knew, and we drank GenX routinely and
regularly at average quantity of 631 parts per trillion every
day.
So I know there had been some discussion and debate about
well, GenX is not in the blood; therefore it can't be toxic.
We need to start having a real heartfelt conversation about
the word toxic because just because it is not in my blood
doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't toxic while it was passing
through my body, especially when I was exposed to it at a
regularly basis every day, and I think sometimes at high levels
of 4,500 parts per trillion. And Michigan, for some reason,
also never tested for GenX and so that always confused me.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
I know that you mention in your written testimony that your
husband developed medical conditions you believe are
attributable to PFAS, and I wondered if you wouldn't mind
describing that a little bit more for the committee.
Ms. Donovan. Yes. So my husband is an identical twin, and
when he started--he started just having problems with his
vision, and so he was constantly getting readers and I was,
like, why do we have all these readers in the house, and he
was, like, I just can't see.
So we went to an eye doctor, and the eye doctor said there
is something really wrong--let us do an MRI. We did the MRI and
he had--he had a brain tumor the size of a golf ball stuck in
the back behind his nose, compressing his optic nerves, his
olfactory, his pituitary, and his central nervous system, and
the doctor said, we need to get this out immediately because
any longer it is in there you are going to lose your vision and
vision is nonrecoverable.
So they removed the tumor. We were grateful that it was a
benign tumor. And so now he has to get routine MRIs. He has to
get hormonal looks constantly surveilled just to make sure he
is okay.
And his identical twin brother lived in another part of the
state not in a contaminated area and had an MRI as well and
there was nothing.
Mr. Sarbanes. So it is unusual for us to get something that
looks so much like a naturally occurring experiment, as you
described here when you are talking about two twins that will
share 99.9 percent of their DNA.
Your husband developed the tumor after living in a
contaminated community. His twin, who did not live in that kind
of community, never developed a similar condition. That says
something powerful.
Thank you very much for your testimony today. We are going
to continue to urge EPA to regulate all of these chemicals
including the emerging PFAS chemicals.
And with that, I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Congressman Sarbanes.
The chair now recognizes myself for five minutes, and it is
clear from the testimony here from all of you that
polyfluoroalkyls literally is killing us and the related
chemicals, and when--I want to focus on how that has directly
impacted you, Mr. Bailey, and your mom because as Congressman
Sarbanes pointed out, it has been put forth in a documentary,
which it would behoove all of us to see it.
But I want to point out that DuPont, since 1951, has been
manufacturing PFOA at their manufacturing facility in
Parkersburg, West Virginia, and your mother, I believe to my
knowledge, was in charge of getting rid of the chemicals. Is
that correct?
Mr. Bailey. That is correct. She was containing the
chemicals to a container of some sort as well as she could.
When the chemical would come out of the container, she was told
to squeegee it and the contents would go outside.
Mr. Rouda. So she is literally breathing the fumes while
she is pregnant with you?
Mr. Bailey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rouda. And, to your knowledge, was there any effort
made by DuPont to inform or warn employees about the potential
dangers of exposure to these chemicals?
Mr. Bailey. No, sir.
Mr. Rouda. You had mentioned that you had undergone dozens
of reconstructive surgeries during your childhood and teenage
years to help address the physical challenges you were born
with.
Beyond just providing your mom with insurance through the
course of her employment, did DuPont help your family pay for
any of the surgeries or medical expenses?
Mr. Bailey. No, sir.
Mr. Rouda. How difficult was it for your family to make
those payments?
Mr. Bailey. Very difficult. Luckily, we found a great
physician and great plastic surgeon who was able to do most of
my work pro bono.
Mr. Rouda. And you are fortunate in that sense when so many
families and so many victims of these chemicals don't have
access to that type of humanity.
In the documentary, ``The Devil We Know,'' you and your
wife talk about some of the fears you had when making the
decision to start your own family. You were moved to tears
earlier. One of your biggest regrets is your father not being
able to see your children.
Do you know at what level these toxic chemicals are
currently in your body?
Mr. Bailey. I have not tested current--within the past five
to 10 years.
Mr. Rouda. And your children?
Mr. Bailey. I have not tested them yet, either.
Mr. Rouda. The subcommittee extended an invitation to
DuPont to participate in today's hearing. Unfortunately, they
declined.
Do you feel as though DuPont has been held accountable for
their role in contaminating communities like the one you grew
up in?
Mr. Bailey. Absolutely not.
Mr. Rouda. And if they were here today what would you most
want to tell them?
Mr. Bailey. Tell us the truth and be human.
Mr. Rouda. Ms. Donovan, same question. What would you like
to tell DuPont and some of the other polluters if they were
here today? What would you want to ask them? What would you
want to tell them?
Ms. Donovan. There is a reckoning and that there are human
beings making these decisions, and if I poison my neighbor's
well I go to jail.
I would also like to point out, too, something very
interesting. I don't know if you followed but DuPont and
Chemours are now in a legal battle, and if you are familiar,
DuPont spun off Chemours and then--and gave Chemours a
tremendous amount of debt and all the liability, and now
Chemours is coming back and saying, wait a second--we can't
handle that.
So, in my mind, it really sounds like DuPont is saying, I
am going to make you fail, I am going to make you bankrupt, and
I am going to have you take all of responsibility with you so
that we are all left--all of us are left paying for their
crimes.
Mr. Rouda. Ms. Wynn-Stelt, same question.
Ms. Wynn-Stelt. I just want people to step up and be
responsible and make this right. That is what we teach our kids
to do. If your kids break something, smash something, spill
something, we expect them to clean it up and make it right.
And I need them to stop avoiding that and just do the right
thing. That is all they got to do.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Thanks to all of you for your testimony. I will share with
you I have submitted legislation that would provide $2 billion
in fees from these organizations, from these companies, from
these corporations to address these chemicals that they are
responsible for.
And I am hopeful to continue to gain support from all
Members of Congress and the Senate as well so we can move this
legislation forward because it is so important that we address
this issue for all of our communities across the country,
including those communities who have yet to even test to fully
understand the impact these chemicals are having on their
drinking water and the health of their citizens.
With that, we are ending the first panel of testimony. We
are going to hop into the second panel. So you guys are free to
go, which means I am sure you are going to take a seat and
continue to join us.
As the witnesses are switching out, please be aware that
you may receive additional written questions for the hearing
record and we appreciate your prompt and thorough response.
[Pause.]
Mr. Rouda. We are going to go ahead and get started with
the second panel. I would like to thank the first panel for
their testimony again and welcome our final witnesses and thank
them for your patience.
With us today is Dr. Jamie C. DeWitt, associate professor,
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Brody School of
Medicine, East Carolina University; Catherine McCabe,
commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection; Robert R. Scott, commissioner, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services; Steve Sliver--got that
right--executive director, Michigan PFAS Action Response Team,
Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy;
Glenn Evers or Evers--Evers--thank you, Glenn--president, IS2
Consulting, former research scientist at DuPont; and Jane
Luxton, co-chair, environmental administrative law practice
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith.
Please stand and raise your right hands and I will begin
swearing you in.
[Witnesses are sworn.]
Mr. Rouda. Let the record reflect that the citizens--
witnesses answered in the affirmative and please be seated as
you have.
Please note microphones are very sensitive. So when you are
speaking first turn it on, lean in.
And with that, your--let me note your written statement
will be made a part of the record, and Dr. DeWitt, you are now
recognized to give an oral presentation of your testimony for
five minutes.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE DEWITT, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY, BRODY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, EAST
CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
Ms. DeWitt. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, members of
the subcommittee for having me here today.
Yes, I am an associate professor of pharmacology and
toxicology at the Brody School of Medicine of East Carolina
University.
But I am also a citizen of eastern North Carolina. I also
grew up in the state of Michigan. I have family in the state of
Michigan. So I am a concerned citizen as well, and I am more
than just a dispassionate scientist who stares into test tubes.
I now bear an enormous responsibility to the people in my
state, my home state, and the country who are consuming water
filled with PFAS.
I have an overwhelming burden now and I don't want to look
into faces anymore and say, ``I don't know.'' I want to be able
to help them with my science and I want to be able to help you
to understand the science so that we can make decisions
together about how to protect citizens in our country from
these chemicals that are found in our water, in our food, in
our air, and now in our bodies.
Yes, there are over 5,000 different PFAS chemicals. But it
is important to remember that they are all made to have similar
functions.
They are made to be stable under chemical conditions. They
are made to be stable under conditions of high heat. They are
made because of that carbon fluorine bond and the strength of
that bond.
So they have these same functional characteristics. So
there are one group or one class of chemicals that do the same
things. They are interrelated. They are transformation products
of one another.
And I think one of the issues that we have with these
chemicals is that they are persistent. We call them forever
chemicals and when these persistent chemicals are released into
the environment and contaminate our food and water resources,
the problem of cleanup is extremely challenging. We have heard
some comments about cleanup. Some of the issues we have right
now with cleanup is that there is no readily available or
affordable way to clean these chemicals out of our water at the
large scale.
Right now, we filter, we capture, and then we move these to
another part of the country or we move them to an incinerator,
and we are not even really sure if incineration will completely
break down these chemicals into nontoxic components.
It is really imperative that we find low cost ways to
remove these contaminants from the environment and to come up
with ways for determining which ones should be used for
essential purposes for the good of society.
I would like to paraphrase a scientist--a senior scientist
from the nonprofit organization International Chemical
Secretariat.
She said that--and her name is Anna Lindquist--she said the
real dilemma with persistent chemicals is that if we fail to
appreciate their toxicity today and find out later that they
are indeed toxic, as has happened numerous times in the past,
it will be too late.
Continual exposure to toxic persistent chemicals will
eventually increase the risk of adverse health effects.
I first started studying these chemicals in 2005, and when
you start to work with a new chemical your job as a scientist
is to go through the literature, and I started with the
publicly available scientific literature, and I found that some
of the earlier studies in the published literature occurred in
about the early 2000's, and these were studies on the immune
toxicity.
I look specifically at how these chemicals affect the
immune system. There were some scientists that determined that
mice were very susceptible to the immune effects of these
particular compounds.
Well, as I started to learn more about PFAS, I started to
go into the past, and when you go into the past in the
literature sometimes you go outside of the published
literature, and I found out about some studies that occurred in
the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's.
With respect to the immune system there were some studies
done in 1978 that demonstrated these chemicals were impacting
the immune systems of mice and monkeys.
As far as I know, these publications or these studies have
not made it into the published literature. Dr. Philippe
Grandjean, a professor at Harvard and the University of
Southern Denmark, said, ``If I would have known about these
studies earlier, I would have started asking questions about
the human immune system,'' much earlier than he did.
We now know that some of this information is available as
chemical companies submit information under premanufacture
notices. So there are some people who know about the toxicity
of these compounds--some of the newer ones that we are facing.
But as a scientist and a citizen, it is challenging for me
to get that information to make decisions about where I should
go next in my research.
We now know that there are numerous health effects
associated with these chemicals. We have listed them out. You
have mentioned them several times today.
One of my colleagues, Gretta Goldenman, who works for a
consulting company or started a consulting company in Brussels,
recently wrote a report for the Nordic Council of Ministers,
and she and her colleagues estimated that it would cost
billions of dollars a year in U.S. dollars.
We are approaching $100 billion a year to pay for the
health care costs associated with PFAS chemicals.
So we need to do something today, not tomorrow when those
health care costs are building up.
Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Mr. Evers for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF GLENN EVERS, PRESIDENT, IS2 CONSULTING, FORMER
RESEARCH SCIENTIST AT DUPONT
Mr. Evers. Hello. My name is Glenn Evers. I would like to
briefly introduce myself. I am going to introduce you to the
largest transportable sources of PFAs.
I am going to replace some of the bamboozling nomenclature
that PFAs like to use and I am going to give you three simple
criteria to help you stop PFA contamination.
I am a B.S. chemical engineer, 22 years with DuPont. I left
them in 2002. I am an R&D scientist, a very devout R&D
scientist. I mean, I would have had the tattoo DuPont oval on
my rear. Very, very strongly DuPont.
From 2004 to 2019, after I had left DuPont, I worked as a
consultant working for the largest pigment, paint, and resin
manufacturers in the world. So working with world-class
chemical companies.
Out of my eight issued patents, I hold two patents that
incorporate DuPont fluorochemicals. I have used it. I know what
it is used for. I know what the chemicals are and I know the
toxicity of what they are involved with.
Zonal RP was used for greaseproof of popcorn bags and paper
plates, dog food plates, cookie bags, paper, baking. It came in
contact with you every way and in ways you don't even know, and
it was initially qualified by FDA for use on paper.
And when they did the first studies it was a reject. FDA
said, no, this is toxic stuff. And they came back and said,
well, but if you could control the concentration at low enough
levels then it wouldn't affect anybody and, oh, by the way,
DuPont argued, that it would go in your blood and it would
leave very quickly.
So they actually worked through a study. They had a
compromise with the FDA and the FDA said, okay, if you can feed
the dogs 1,000 times what they would be normally eating and do
this over a three-month period and they all look good, then we
will say it is okay. In place of that, you are going to have to
do a two-year study.
Well, they ran the three-month study, what they found were
dogs with bloated livers. They found dogs with testicular
lesions. They found lungs with lesions as well.
And the argument was, well, but it goes through the body.
Don't worry about it. And I was involved in a whistle blowing
activity because we found that the original premise that the
chemicals stay on the paper didn't work and, in fact, their
processes had changed and they were being extracted at three
times higher concentrations that were allowed by FDA back in
the 1960's.
Your children and your mother, everybody involved had an
opportunity to eat PFAS and a particular paper fluorochemical.
So today it is still here. It is in windshield cleaners,
waxes, oil additives. By gosh, you know, you are walking--you
are in the traffic and you see that truck in front of you with
that big black puff of smoke as it goes by? He went to Jiffy
Lube and so he could get better lubrication and extend his
engine life.
He got one with Teflon particles, not PFAS, and it is
burning. Teflon is not to be burned. It is in the MSDS. It is
insane.
It is on carpet fabric treatment still today, in clothing,
in food packaging. They did a trick. What they did was they
realized that C8 was no longer fashionable, no good on paper.
But it is so profitable to put on your paper that what they
decided they would do is they would take a C8 and break it up,
and what they did--these are two--this is C2 right here.
This is another C2 right here. And if I put enough of these
C2s together you notice that they all have fluorine, right?
That is the eye you got to keep on--you got to keep your eye on
the fluorine, not the number of carbons, because the Italians
figured out that the way to solve the problem of still selling
the fluorochemical is to start inserting oxygens between the
C2s.
So what they did to make the same molecule was they started
inserting oxygens in between there, and that was not a C8
product. That was a C2 product.
And so when you hear about GenX, you are going to say oh,
well, that is a smaller molecular weight version. But in
reality it is still keep an eye on the fluorines. That is the
key. It is not whether it is PFAS or PFAX or whatever or PFOA.
I can hide behind an ultra pure form of a surfactant, study
it to death, and then say it doesn't have toxic effects. That
is not the case here. You have to keep an eye on that.
I am really jumping to the end of my presentation here. The
clear criteria for whether or not you have something that is
hazardous, this is manmade. It doesn't biodegrade.
There is not a single bacteria, mold or virus, anything
that will ever break this molecule down. It is only found
because man made it, and it is in your blood.
So if it is surface active and in your blood and it has got
fluorine, it is still bad.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Ms. McCabe, five minutes.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE MCCABE, COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Chair Rouda, Ranking Member Comer,
and members of the committee. Can you hear me now?
Okay. As the most densely populated state in the country
and one of the most industrialized, New Jersey has had a
particularly high occurrence of PFAS contamination in our
drinking water, and that is why we have taken the threat of
PFAS very seriously and from an early time we have been a
leader among the states in addressing this problem.
As you have heard from all the other witnesses and have
said yourselves, the scientific evidence shows pretty clearly
now that exposure to these chemicals presents serious risks to
public health and we do take that seriously.
The New Jersey DEP first investigated the occurrence of
PFAS in public drinking water systems in 2006, again in 2009,
near industrial facilities that were processing or using PFAS.
We focus particularly on the two chemicals known as PFOA
and PFAS, and found a very high percentage--65 percent--of the
water systems tested positive.
We also found contamination in hundreds of private wells
that were located around these facilities. In 2013 to 2015,
EPA's UCMR National Survey of Unregulated Contaminants in
Public Water Systems revealed PFAS contamination in almost 11
percent of New Jersey's large water systems, the highest rate
in the country.
We have also found PFAS contamination in many of our
surface waters. In 2018, an assessment of 11 waterways in New
Jersey found PFAS compounds in all the surface water samples
and in most of the sediment samples.
We also found PFAS in the fish, prompting fish consumption
advisories. So to address the level of public health risk from
PFAS contamination in the drinking water and to determine what
level, if any, of PFAS is safe for human consumption, we called
upon the expertise of our highly regarded Drinking Water
Quality Institute.
The institute's members are independent scientists and
drinking water experts as well as toxicologists and other
scientists from the New Jersey DEP and Department of Health.
We also consulted with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, which has provided some health guidelines but no
national regulatory standards for PFOA and PFAS in drinking
water.
New Jersey and other states have repeatedly urged the EPA
to move forward with setting nationwide regulatory limits for
PFAS under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
But the EPA has been very slow to act. New Jersey,
therefore, had no choice but to move ahead to set its own
guidelines.
In 2018, New Jersey became the first state in the Nation to
establish a regulatory limit for a PFAS chemical in drinking
water, setting a state Safe Drinking Water Act maximum
contaminant level of 13 parts per trillion for PFNA and we also
proposed limits of 13 and 14 parts per trillion for PFOA and
PFAS. We expect to make decisions on those proposed standards
in the next few months.
New Jersey's extensive research on the latest available
science shows that these low limits are necessary to protect
public health including the health of vulnerable members of the
population such as infants, who can be disproportionately
exposed to these contaminants through drinking water.
We disagree that EPA's current health guideline of 70 parts
per trillion is sufficiently protective. What worries us
perhaps even more than what we now know about PFNA, PFOA, and
PFAS is what we do not yet know.
There are thousands of PFAS chemicals in commercial use, as
everyone has pointed out. Many or most of the sources of PFAS
contamination have not yet been detected, much less
investigated and addressed.
States lack the most basic information regarding the
volumes and locations of historic production and distribution
of these chemicals and we know almost nothing about the
replacement chemicals that are currently in use.
As with their predecessor, these have been billed as
nontoxic but experience is teaching us otherwise. We need
corporate manufacturers to share information about these
chemicals and their toxicity and we need the Federal Government
to help us do that.
Even more, we need the Federal Government require chemical
companies to use more care and to disclose the risks before
putting these chemicals into commerce.
The current approach of market first and let us suffer
later is subjecting the environment and the public to the
detrimental effects of these chemicals without a full
understanding of the nature and the degree of risk that they
present.
This leaves states in the position of perpetually
scrambling to address the injuries caused by these chemicals
rather than preventing them in the first place.
In the meantime, New Jersey had moved ahead to take legal
action to require DuPont, Chemours, 3M, and Solvay Chemicals to
investigate and pay for treatment and cleanup of the PFAS
compounds in our drinking water and environment.
I issued a Statewide directive to these companies to do
this in March of this year, and the New Jersey attorney general
has filed lawsuits against DuPont, Chemours, and 3M.
I thank you, Chair Rouda, Ranking Member Comer, and members
of the committee for your attention to this important issue.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Commissioner McCabe.
And the chair now recognizes Mr. Scott for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SCOTT, COMMISSIONER, NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee.
Again, my name is Bob Scott. I am commissioner of the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Our mission in
the state of New Hampshire is to protect public health and the
environment, and in this capacity drinking water standards are
a concern.
New Hampshire, unfortunately has been very heavily engaged
in the PFAS issue, starting with contamination at one of our
former DOD sites at Pease Air Force Base. And I will pause
there, if I could.
When I deal around the country I hear a lot about DOD
sites, airfields, AFFF, and that is very important. Some
circles, when I talk like that, I think that is the only place
people think this contamination exists.
We are finding it also and have found it at former
Superfund sites, at landfills, at fire training areas. You
know, the municipal fire departments have to train with this
type of foam.
We found it at biosolid disposal sites. We have even found
it at a school where we suspect that the cleaning solvents used
in the floor--rightly so, the schools clean a lot--their
floors.
The janitor dumps it down the drain and it goes to the
septic tank and contaminates the local well. So this--it is
important for me for you all to understand that it is not just
a DOD issue. It is not just a big state--an industrial state
issue. This is an everywhere issue.
We also have the distinction, I think--we are one of the
states where we have had air emissions--deposition from air
emissions from, in this case, it was Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics.
We were able to demonstrate drinking water well impacts.
New Hampshire has, roughly, 49 percent--46, 49 percent of our--
all our drinking water in our state is private wells. They had
impacts from that one stack of over 64 square miles of
deposition; not all over standards, but still we had impacts.
That is unprecedented and it was really difficult for the state
to have the resources to deal with.
I will say the--Saint-Gobain, I would call them a good
corporate citizen. They have connected--by the end of this fall
they will have connected over 700 properties to public water
because of the contamination issues.
So, again, as I mentioned, it is just--it is not a unique
thing just to DOD sites. I will cite, and an example is the
Saint-Gobain issue where we do have an excellent relationship
with EPA Region One, with EPA's Office of Research and
Development in particular in dealing with the air deposition.
They are very great partners and we would like to make sure
that continues.
Moving very quickly here, my counterpart to my right
mentioned standards. As of last week, we now have the
distinction in New Hampshire of having the most stringent water
quality standards for PFAS in the country today.
That was a result of our--we have a very engaged public in
New Hampshire, rightly so. We have a very engaged citizen
legislature. Our executive branch, our Governor, were tasked by
our legislature.
Initially, they wanted to set drinking water standards,
MCLs, enforceable standards legislatively. As an agency we said
please let us follow the science. Give us that purview and we
will do it. We followed the science and that is where we came
out.
Why is that important? There is probably--I think there is
seven other states currently on a path to do exactly the same
thing for enforceable standards, and then there is a handful of
states that will be looking at health risk advisory action
levels or other nonenforceable standards.
So what this means is we will have a patchwork throughout
the country of different standards inevitably which makes it
very difficult for the citizens to understand what that means
but also for industry.
I was fortunate--I came from a meeting in Indiana. On my
way I came here. I was meeting with some of the national
drinking water companies. They have been advocating for
national standards also.
So one of my key things here is I think we would all be
better off if this is done at the national level. But failing
that, we are going to see states like New Hampshire be forced
to move ahead to protect their citizens.
So summarizing, I see I have a few minutes left. Again,
this is an every state issue. We do need this to come out of
commerce so we need industry, the Federal Government, and
internationally we need to see these things come out of
commerce in a reasonable way.
There is firefighting foam and other things that are
providing a good public benefit but we need to find substitutes
for that. We need national standards. We need the science. We
based our standards on science but we need the Federal
Government to help on that.
And at the end of the day, we are going to need financial
assistance to be able to remediate this from the environment.
Imagine, if you will, we have landfills where the leachate
is contaminated, which goes to wastewater treatment facilities,
which don't want to take that anymore, which have biosolids
that are questionable now.
We are going to need assistance in not spending millions of
dollars to move this contamination around but to destroy it.
Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Commissioner Scott.
Mr. Sliver, you are now recognized for five minutes for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF STEVE SLIVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN PFAS
ACTION RESPONSE TEAM, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT
LAKES, AND ENERGY
Mr. Sliver. Good afternoon, Chairman Rouda, Ranking Member
Comer, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this
opportunity to talk about what we are doing about PFAS
contamination in Michigan.
My name is Steve Sliver and I am the executive director of
Michigan's PFAS Action Response Team, or MPART. MPART is
coordinating a rapid and comprehensive evaluation of PFAS in
drinking water, groundwater, surface water, waste water, soil,
biosolids, industrial byproducts, fish, and even deer.
We have 62 sites where groundwater contamination exceeds
our state cleanup criteria and we continue to investigate
hundreds more, and as you have heard, we have this many PFAS
sites because we are looking, not because we have more
contamination than anyone else.
These sites include military installations, airports,
landfills, and industrial facilities. Our priority is
protecting public health. So when we discover a site we
immediately evaluate whether drinking water supplies in the
area have been impacted.
MPART and responsible parties have been testing thousands
of private wells. More than a third of those tested last year
had some amount of PFAS contamination and 4 percent exceeded
that 70 part per trillion lifetime health advisory threshold.
Alternate drinking water is offered whenever there is a
detection during these ongoing investigations and remediations
of the sites.
We are studying the occurrence of PFAS in our surface
waters by adding PFAS to the ambient testing of water and fish.
This enables us to track down discharges of high concentrations
of PFAS so they can be reduced and to identify threats to
public drinking water supplies that have surface water intakes.
Much of the focus is on PFOS in surface water because it
accumulates in the tissue of fish we consume. Our surface water
quality standard for PFOS is 11 parts per trillion in surface
water that is also a source of drinking water.
We have identified industrial discharges of PFOS in the
thousands of parts per trillion range and we are realizing
significant contaminant reductions in the impacted waterways by
working through our local wastewater treatment plants to get
the industrial users to treat the problem at its source.
MPART is also systematically serving our drinking water
supplies. This data helps us to identify and protect residents
who are exposed while helping us understand the occurrence of
PFAS throughout Michigan.
We know from statewide testing of all community water
supplies last year that 97 percent don't have a PFAS
contamination issue at this time. We are currently monitoring
and investigating further 62 of those supplies where we
discovered elevated concentrations of PFAS and we are expanding
our investigations to other supplies.
Michigan is engaged in all of these efforts with very
little support from the Federal Government. U.S. EPA has not
established national enforceable standards despite evidence
that PFAS are in our drinking water and that some have been
associated with adverse health effects.
At the direction of Governor Whitmer, Michigan, like
several other states, is proceeding to develop our own
standards because U.S. EPA has not acted in a timely manner.
Our MPART science advisory work group just recently
provided recommended health-based levels for seven PFAS in
drinking water as a foundation for our rulemaking process for
drinking water standards.
The health-based values are lower than EPA's recommended 70
parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS, cover more compounds, and
reflect the trend that we are seeing among other States that
are doing the same thing.
There is much more to be done and the promulgation of
drinking water standards will add to that, and we need more
resources. State alone has already allocated over $50 million
over the past two years to investigate and remediate PFAS
contamination and to identify responsible parties.
As Michigan's new drinking water standards are promulgated
and take effect, the additional burden of dealing with this
legacy contamination will fall squarely on the shoulders of the
municipalities responsible for treating our drinking water and
ensuring it is safe for their customers.
We will continue to hold responsible parties accountable
for contamination they cause and we will continue to manage the
sites where no responsible party is known.
But we need to sample more water supplies, more chrome
platers, more airports, more fire stations. That costs money
and it can cost the state millions of dollars to remediate just
one of these orphan sites.
Michigan urges the Federal Government to move more swiftly
in addressing PFAS issues. We also urge Congress to ensure
proactive states like Michigan are provided financial
assistance to ensure that our citizens are protected from these
chemicals.
I commend the subcommittee for examining the levels of PFAS
contamination across the country and industry efforts to clean
them up. We have got considerable information available on the
Web and look forward to assisting in any way we can, and I look
forward to your questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Sliver.
Ms. Luxton, five minutes for your opening statement. Thank
you.
STATEMENT OF JANE LUXTON, PARTNER AND CO-CHAIR, ENVIRONMENTAL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PRACTICE, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
Ms. Luxton. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman Rouda,
Ranking Member Comer, and members of the subcommittee and
committee members who have also come to this hearing.
I am a partner in the Washington D.C. Law Office of Lewis
Brisbois and co-chair its environmental and administrative law
practice.
I am testifying here on my own behalf as an environmental
and administrative law practitioner who has a strong interest
in science policy issues, which has led me to follow
developments relating to PFAS chemicals. I am not representing
any client on PFAS issues.
Today, I would like to highlight some of the issues
surrounding the effective regulation and management of PFAS
chemicals.
First, while a significant amount of scientific research
has been done on PFAS chemicals, much of this research remains
incomplete and much more needs to be done, as we have heard
from virtually everyone, to adequately understand the potential
health effects of PFAS chemicals and risks posed by the many
compounds that have not yet been studied.
The Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry reported
in its June 2018 toxicological profile that, quote, ``The
mechanisms of toxicity of perfluoroalkyls have not been fully
elucidated and that comparison of the toxicity of
perfluoroalkyls across species is problematic.
Because of the differences in elimination of half lives,
lack of mechanistic data, species differences in the mechanism
of toxicity for some health end points, and differences in
measurement exposure levels between epidemiology and
experimental studies,'' closed quote.
Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program,
testified before a Senate committee last fall that, quote, ``We
do not have strong data on which to base conclusions for the
great majority of PFAS and we have only limited findings that
support particular adverse health effects,'' closed quote.
More research is needed to determine the extent of causal
links between PFOA, PFOS, and the many other PFAS compounds and
specific health effects in humans, as well as fate and
degradation in the environment and toxicity uptake and
retention in humans, plants, and animals.
Additional work is sorely needed on developing effective
analytical methods and disposal techniques. A great deal of
both academic and governmental research is underway and efforts
are increasing to coordinate this work, to expedite the
process, and minimize costs.
But rigorous data-driven research is critical to ensuring
the resources are properly focused on addressing the highest
priority public health risks.
Second, regulatory efforts are proceeding under the Safe
Drinking Water Act and other Federal statutes for increased
regulation and enforcement of PFAS chemicals.
EPA's February 2019 action plan and its recently issued
regulatory agenda commit the agency to issuing by the end of
this year regulatory determinations for PFOA and PFOS that are
the legally required key step in the process for setting
maximum contaminant level standards.
EPA is further committed to making final determinations by
the end of 2020 with additional steps to follow as prescribed
by law. EPA is also committed to proposing hazardous substance
listings for PFOA and PFOS for the cleanup process by October
of this year and to developing new test methods to support
monitoring of more PFAS compounds and at lower levels than was
previously feasible.
Third, this Congress has passed legislation that, if
enacted, would direct additional Federal regulatory initiatives
as well as facilitate research and, importantly, provide grants
for drinking water systems.
In conclusion, states, Federal agencies, and the scientific
community are working vigorously to address PFAS issues against
a backdrop of limited scientific knowledge, uncertainty,
complexity, economic realities, and competing public health
priorities.
While pressure is understandably strong for expedited
action, truly effective regulation and management of PFAS
chemicals must be based on the best scientific evidence
available using legally defensible processes that will stand up
under judicial review.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ms. Luxton, for your testimony as
well as all the other witnesses.
That buzzing you heard is our call to vote, and as such, I
am going to ask that the members here please try and come back
within 10 minutes after the end of the last vote.
And until such time, we are in recess. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rouda. We are going to reconvene with recess being
over, and I will remind all the witnesses you are still under
oath.
At this time I am going to recognize myself for five
minutes of questioning, and Mr. Evers, I am going to turn to
you first, if I may.
How much involvement did you have with PFOA research and
PFAS issues, more broadly, while employed at DuPont?
Mr. Evers. I had access to seeing the documents while they
were still available that disclosed concentrations in the
employees, certainly, in products that were used particularly
in the paper industry and what their health effects were.
Mr. Rouda. Can you talk about that last phrase, the health
effects? What access to information within DuPont were you
provided regarding the negative health effects by being exposed
to these chemicals?
Mr. Evers. So DuPont had Haskell Laboratories, which is now
a skeleton of its own organization, and they did very thorough
jobs on trying to determine where the fluorochemicals were
going, and where I worked at the Chambers Works plant I was
particularly concerned about the products that came from these
fluorochemicals.
So the studies are kind of flawed to begin with. First of
all, Haskell did a wonderful job of identifying every part of
the human body and as part of EWG's submission of documents--
you can go back and find out the analysis that they did for a
lot of employees.
The flaw with their study was that they took the Washington
Works employees and they were looking at their health effects
to try to determine if there was something unusual opposite a
control, and the control were other DuPont employees.
So they found some that were elevated and some that were
not. So the problem was with this whole study is that from the
day I joined the DuPont company in 1981 after I had set my
payroll to go to my bank I met with H.R. and they signed me up
for the blood bank.
I had to pay in Delaware to join the blood bank. Why would
a company on every single employee sign them up for a blood
bank?
Mr. Rouda. Obviously, they were checking your blood levels
for chemical levels on the blood stream.
Mr. Evers. Chemical levels and in addition to that, it
purged you.
Mr. Rouda. And can I ask you as a followup to that, my
understanding is DuPont tried to suppress evidence that they
had regarding the ill health effects of the chemicals. Did you
come across that at any time while you were at DuPont or after
your time at DuPont?
Mr. Evers. Okay. So when I presented the 3X higher levels
of fluorochemicals that were being extracted from paper, I also
presented the papers that showed that this was a situation
where the fluorochemicals were not leaving the body.
They were bioaccumulating. And so it is one thing to say
that a dog will eat a thousand times the amount that it is
realistic. But then it is another thing to say that over time
these chemicals stay in your blood and don't leave.
Mr. Rouda. Okay. So was that the basis of the--what they
were trying to hide was the fact that the chemicals actually
were not leaving the body; they maintained their presence in
the bloodstream and accumulated over time?
Mr. Evers. And they were also hiding the fact that these
levels were being extracted in various ways that are now of
concern. They were now coming out of the food wrap into your
kids' ketchup.
Mr. Rouda. Which they weren't supposed to do.
Dr. DeWitt, in your written testimony you also reference a
study sponsored by 3M Company which you state, quote,
``demonstrated immune-related changes in monkeys, giving PFOA
or related PFAS for 90 days.'' You also state that these
studies were, quote, ``not part of the published literature,''
unquote, in the 1970's.
I would like to enter a copy of this study into the record.
Mr. Rouda. Dr. DeWitt, as a researcher, what would the
study have told you about these chemicals?
Ms. DeWitt. So these earlier studies would have told us
that mammals given these chemicals have a response at the level
of the immune system. We now know that humans also have a
response at the level of the immune system.
The immune system can be suppressed or it can be hyper
activated. So you can get allergy, asthma, or a decreased
response to vaccines.
Had we known about these studies, we could have started
additional studies with rodents earlier. We could have started
additional studies or evaluations of humans earlier to gather
more publicly available evidence earlier so that this hearing
today could have been 10 or 15 years ago.
Mr. Rouda. And can I ask you to expand on that in the sense
that--the first panel was in here. We saw the horrendous
situations they have gone through in their family, their
friends, their neighbors, and that is where there is such a
pervasive increase of chemicals in the bloodstream and the
exposure that we see those types of outcomes.
But what we perhaps don't know is the impact on all of us
with either smaller doses, smaller impact of these chemicals
being in our bloodstream, and I just want you to talk a little
bit about the increased levels of inflammation, the increased
levels of asthma and any other areas that you think that we are
collectively suffering from but perhaps don't quite know all
the ins and outs.
Ms. DeWitt. Well, sure. I think a report came out in 2017
indicating that there are 9 million premature deaths a year
from exposure to environmental pollutants.
It is the number-one cause of premature deaths in the
nature and in the world, and it is the number-one cause of
premature death in communities that carry a disproportionate
burden of environmental pollutants and who don't have the money
to protect themselves from the pollutants. It also
disproportionately affects children.
And so there are many different types of health effects.
Some of the health effects associated with inflammation include
cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, obesity, et cetera,
and PFAS may play a role in all of these diseases.
Mr. Rouda. But without proper studies we will never have
the true understanding of the implications of it being in our
bloodstream to these degrees?
Ms. DeWitt. I think we have enough data right now to say
that there are diseases that are caused by PFAS. We have
evidence from animals and we have mechanistic evidence to
support what we are observing in humans.
So I don't think there is really any doubt in the mind of
most scientists.
Mr. Rouda. Okay. Thank you for that very important
clarification.
With that, I would like to recognize for five minutes the
ranking member, Mr. Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and many members in
Congress and advocacy groups have been pressing the EPA to set
a maximum containment contaminant level for PFOA, PFAS,
demanding that the EPA move more quickly, as everyone would
understand.
Ms. Luxton, we have heard a lot of the discussion in the
news about the need for a maximum contaminant--I am tongue
tied--level.
Ms. Luxton. We call it MCL.
Mr. Comer. Right. In the Safe Drinking Water Act. Can you
please elaborate a little more on the steps and the process to
set an MCL, what is required and what does the agency need to
do?
Ms. Luxton. Yes, thank you for the question.
The MCL is an easier way, but environmental law is rife
with acronyms. But it is a four-step process and it is
prescribed by law how those steps have to be laid out.
The first two in the process have been done already. They
are contaminant selection and PFOA and PFOS have been listed in
both 2009 and 2016. It is a process that occurs every five
years.
The second is monitoring to collect nationwide data on the
prevalence of these contaminants in water systems. PFOA and
PFOS and four more PFAS compounds were identified in 2012.
EPA, in its action plan and its regulatory agenda, has now
said that it will take the next step, which is making a
preliminary regulatory determination by the end of 2019 and a
final one by the end of 2020.
After that, the actual development of the drinking water
regulation, or MCL, would take--would occur and that is
required to be proposed within 24 months of the final
regulatory determination.
It can be at the beginning of that period of time. And then
a final national and maximum contaminant level goal and maximum
contaminant level that is required. Those are supposed to be as
close to each other as possible.
So it is a complicated process with legally required steps
and a lot of scientific studies and evidence that needs to be
considered in order to make it a regulation that will withstand
judicial scrutiny.
Mr. Comer. Talking about science, what role does science
play in EPA's chemical regulatory process and what type of
information does EPA consider as part of this process?
Ms. Luxton. Well, it is a critical process. For any legally
defensible final rule there has to be a basis in both science
and the procedures have to be followed because if they are not
the proposed and final rule will be struck down as arbitrary
and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.
That involves procedures for public comment and, again, an
administrative record that is scientifically robust enough to
justify the costs and benefits--the cost of the rule--because
of the scientifically shown benefits of imposing it.
The danger here if this isn't done right is that the rule
will be struck down and we will be back to the starting point.
So trying to shortcut or speed up the rules in a way that
isn't carefully done can just cause more trouble than--can
cause a lot of negative effects because it will spend a lot of
time and won't produce effective results.
Mr. Comer. Are there legal and other possible ramifications
if EPA doesn't base its regulatory actions on sound science?
Ms. DeWitt. Yes, and that is exactly where I was going with
that last answer, that the net effect of not doing it right can
lead to results that are--put you worse off than when you
started. You have to start over again.
Mr. Comer. What is the best way if you determine that
water--the water levels are excessive with the PFAS and other
chemicals, how do you rid that out of the water? I mean, is
there a good enough filter process out there? Is the technology
out there to be able to ever get that water safe again?
Ms. DeWitt. Well, as we have heard in testimony earlier
today, reverse osmosis is one of the recognized techniques for
dealing with that. But when it comes to water systems there are
needs for greater analytical methods and treatment methods, and
we have also heard the disposal method is unclear.
What do you do with all this PFAS when all these measures
require it to be taken out of water treatment systems and
potentially out of ground--you know, Superfund sites, all kind
of things, and I don't think there is any consensus yet on the
best way to deal with that.
Mr. Comer. Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ranking Member Comer.
The chair now recognizes Congressman Keller for five
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I would like to thank
the panel and the previous panel for your testimony today.
You know, we are examining the contamination threat posed
by PFAS chemicals on our air, drinking water, groundwater, and
food supplies.
Chemicals are used to make--these chemicals, as we have
noted, are used to make things, from nonstick surfaces to water
repellants to fabrics, food packaging, all those things.
And I know there has been proposals to regulate, roughly,
5,000 of these PFAS chemicals as a class instead of
individually.
Ms. Luxton, just a couple questions, you know, following
the testimony. I thought you had mentioned about research that
has been done on PFAS chemicals. To what extent are the
chemicals different--are different structurally? You know, is
there any--do you have any information on that?
Ms. Luxton. I am not a scientist, but yes, the studies show
that there are tremendous differences among these compounds and
not all of them are known. They are chemically different,
structurally different. They have short chains or long chains,
different half lives.
Some of the testimony or some of the--one testimony in one
report that I referenced talked about those differences and
that they are not well understood.
Those things can make a difference in terms of toxicity
uptake, retention in the body, and metabolism including
mechanisms of action within the body and whether they truly are
toxic and to what degree.
I mean, it is commonplace in toxicology to say the dose
makes the poison, and so knowing what these particular
substances are and their relative toxicity makes a great deal
of difference.
Mr. Keller. And then in order to be able to regulate them
effectively it would be best to research them individually and
they might have different regulations depending upon their
chemical structure?
Ms. Luxton. Yes. Ideally, in the best of all worlds, you
would have the time and you could do that. But everyone is so
concerned, understandably, about these compounds that one of
the areas that is really being prioritized is trying to group
them into different classes so that--and, again, by some of
these characteristics that have different properties that
relate to toxicity and other adverse effects.
So the National Academy of Sciences report that I
referenced, and it is cited in my written testimony, is--spends
time talking about some of the more promising ways of doing
that kind of classification to expedite this process.
Mr. Keller. Okay, and that would tell us then how to best
handle the chemicals if we were to do more research on those?
Ms. Luxton. Knowing that would really go a long way in
trying to manage the process of research and understanding of
these substances and then regulation, yes.
Mr. Keller. Okay. Have there been any other challenges that
you have been made aware of through any of the research that
you have done related to finding out how the chemicals differ
and what we need to do to best protect our air, water, and food
supplies?
Ms. Luxton. Well, those are some of the most important,
really, understanding the chemicals better, trying to get a
handle on these very large numbers of compounds and how best to
understand them, classify them, and manage them.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. We did lose a few members due to
votes. So as such, I am going to do another round of
questioning from the members here.
And Mr. Comer or Mr. Keller, if either one of you would
like to ask a few more questions you are more than welcome to
have an additional five minutes.
I am happy to go first if you would like me to.
Mr. Comer. Go ahead.
Mr. Rouda. Sure. Give you a minute to catch up.
Mr. Comer. I have got it.
Mr. Rouda. Ms. Luxton, let me start with you. The statement
you just made--the dose is the poison--if any dose is poison,
wouldn't we be better off not having any doses until we knew
more about these chemicals rather than allow the chemicals to
be used without knowing the full impact of them?
Ms. Luxton. It is a good question, but we don't know if any
dose is poisonous. Many--just to take an example, many
essential elements----
Mr. Rouda. Exactly. We don't know. That was the testimony
earlier too, which would suggest that before it is introduced
into our bodies via water, air, land, and otherwise, it would
be good to know what the full impact of it is, especially since
we have seen what the impact is on test animals.
So I have a tough time understanding why we are supposed to
have humans act as guinea pigs to figure out what is the right
level. Is that what you are suggesting?
Ms. Luxton. No, of course that is not what I am suggesting.
We don't know what we don't know about many things. But our
laws don't operate that way. Our laws require that there be
some risk-based knowledge to justify regulating something, and
for things where we don't have any reason to believe they are
toxic.
We have no scientific evidence of that. We can't ban them
in advance, not to mention the next chemicals that may be out
there that we don't know about right now.
Mr. Rouda. Well, I hope we never get to a point in our
country where any chemicals can be introduced and only until
there is sufficient evidence to find that it has a material
impact on our health that we can take action.
That being said, I would like to move to the two
commissioners because your states have implemented laws that
far exceed in a positive way what the Federal Government has
done so far.
I would like to--two areas of exploration here that I would
like to cover is, one, just having a better understanding that
while you have implemented these thresholds how do you intend
to enforce those who violate it and how do you want to be able
to monitor it and have sufficient transparency and
accountability?
Ms. McCabe. For monitoring we are going to focus on the
public water systems, which we are already monitoring, having
issued the first MCL for PFNA in New Jersey last September.
The water systems in New Jersey began monitoring for that
compound. But they also find other PFAS. They will find PFOA
and PFAS as well, and we are seeing those results already
coming in and that will be phased in over the next two years.
We know there is many more. We know we have GenX in New
Jersey as well that we haven't specifically started the
regulatory process for.
But in monitoring for the ones that we have started, we are
going to find a lot of information about where the problems are
and then we will track down the sources from there and we will
hold the responsible parties liable for the cost of treating it
and preventing any further discharge.
Mr. Rouda. And is that codified how you will hold them for
the costs or do you--is that more taking legal action against
them and recovering the costs?
Ms. McCabe. It is by operation of our existing laws. Once
we have made an MCL a standard for them that is legally
enforceable then we can take action under a number of laws that
we have in New Jersey that also are--have counterparts in the
Federal Government. We have a Spill Act that is comparable to
CERCLA, et cetera.
Mr. Rouda. Commissioner Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Similarly, again, we have done administrative rules, which
have the force of law. So starting October 1, basically the
fourth quarter of this year, all public water systems, so
again, a lot of our drinking water in our state is private that
is not regulated.
The testing requirement will be now including the four PFAS
substances that we are now regulating. So there will be a
requirement every quarter for drinking water systems to
monitor.
Mr. Rouda. Just to clarify, you said four when we have
heard numbers of 5,000. Is that four classes or four specific--
--
Mr. Scott. Four specific. So I mentioned earlier in my
testimony we had the dialog with our legislature, which
resulted in a law.
We felt there was data enough--the epidemiology and
toxicology data for four of these compounds. We had enough--we
had enough of the science for those four and those are the ones
we have moved with.
Mr. Rouda. Okay.
Mr. Scott. So at the end of the four quarters, if drinking
water systems above or the average is above, so if you are very
high it could be--for first quarter--then you will have to--
that drinking water system would have to present a plan to us
on how they would get compliance.
Mr. Rouda. Mediation?
Mr. Scott. Right. So it could be granulated activated
carbon, reverse osmosis. It could be ion exchange. What we are
already seeing is blending. So if you have multiple wells you
can blend to get below the levels.
Some, thankfully, we have--for other reasons, whether it is
just an effect from byproducts, that type of thing, in the
water chemistry there is what is called finishing going on. So
they will just change their media more often.
So we are seeing the--already being very proactive on that
end. But we are very concerned about the cost to municipalities
and drinking water systems and we are exploring options there.
Mr. Rouda. And, Mr. Comer, if there is no objection, may I
continue?
Mr. Comer. Go on.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
The other question I wanted to ask the two of you is that,
obviously, you have spent a lot of time and effort with your
states and coming up with the appropriate legislation.
What would you like to see the Federal Government do to
address this issue? What are the key outcomes issues that we
need to address?
Ms. McCabe. Well, on the treatment end, as Commissioner
Scott was just saying, this is going to be expensive so we are
going to need some help. We are already challenged in our
public----
Mr. Rouda. Can you clarify? Water treatment or treatment of
landfills and Superfunds?
Ms. McCabe. Water. Water treatment.
Mr. Rouda. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. McCabe. Drinking water treatment, because when we first
find it in the drinking water that is where we are aiming our
concern right now.
So when we find it, as Commissioner Scott was saying, you
can treat it with carbon filters and reverse osmosis. But these
things can be expensive and some of these communities that are
going to experience the costs are small, and they will need
assistance with that.
We are already challenged in the Northeast, particularly
with a lot of lead in our drinking water and we are using a lot
of our SRF funding where we can to help communities with that.
It is not enough of it so we will need more help on that.
But on the front end of this, talking about the thousands
of other compounds that are already out there and new ones that
are probably being invented every day, where we really need
help from the Federal Government is to use TSCA to get in front
of this and to figure out how to direct the chemical companies
that are making these new compounds to do that research, do
those studies first before we allow these chemicals to be put
in the marketplace.
Mr. Rouda. Okay. Thank you.
And let me turn to--actually, I mentioned this slightly
earlier. I have introduced H.R. 2570, PFAS User Fee Act, where
we would hold polluters accountable for their role in the
crisis.
The bill establishes a trust fund through user fees from
PFAS manufacturers to pay for ongoing operations and
maintenance costs of water treatment centers and plants to help
remove PFAS chemicals, and the plan there was no less than $2
billion a year in those fees, which I know is actually, no pun
intended, a drop in the bucket still to address making sure
that we have safe drinking water nationally.
So you talked about what we need to do on that end. I would
like to kind of go to those individuals that have been affected
by PFAS, and can you talk a little bit, Doctor, about how do we
address those who are having these incredible health care
issues because of the contamination from PFAS?
Ms. DeWitt. I think one of the things that we need to do
and I need to do as a scientist is to help to educate
physicians about pollutants and to bring physicians together to
tell them about what pollutants might to do to individuals.
So in terms of PFAS, we need to educate them about what
they are, where they come from, what happens when they get into
people's bodies, and what they can do to help their patients to
do some medical monitoring to make sure that they can get ahead
of any health effects that they might experience.
Mr. Rouda. And what can we do as the public to find out
what our personal levels of PFAS contamination is?
Ms. DeWitt. Sadly, right now we don't have many
alternatives. There aren't any clinics that you can go to to
get your blood tested. You can become part of a biomonitoring
study that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is--I
think they are reviewing applications for those proposals this
week. You could potentially be a member of another study group
and find out what your blood concentration is.
Mr. Rouda. So let me be clear here. If I want to go find
out what my personal PFAS levels are you are saying it is
pretty difficult to get that done, at best?
Ms. DeWitt. Yes. It is extremely challenging and I think
that has been a call from many different communities, ``How can
I find out what is in my body? I don't know. There is no place
I can send my blood.''
There are some organizations that are doing affordable
water testing. But as far as I know, there are no clinical labs
that can routinely do testing that community members need to
find out what is inside of their bodies.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. I may have some further questions.
But with that, let me go ahead and yield to the Ranking
Member Comer to ask questions.
Mr. Comer. Just from the testimony today, I have learned
that different states are already implementing certain types of
testing.
I am curious, Ms. Luxton, are there--are there concerns
with states setting their own different levels of what is
acceptable and what is not or are the states working with the
EPA?
Who is--who is the entity that determines which level is
acceptable and which level is too high?
Ms. Luxton. Well, that is a good question. I mean, we heard
I think it was Commissioner Scott say that there is a patchwork
of numbers, and that is true. We have heard different numbers.
I think New Hampshire has one, New Jersey three. I am not sure
about Michigan. I used to have the number.
But they are very different, and so that lack of
consistency is a question. There are many questions about
analytical methods, how you can detect these compounds,
particularly when it gets past some of the best known ones and
treatments.
So having different standards is an issue, and EPA is
working through the process. I am not here to defend EPA and I
think you have had an oversight hearing of them.
Some of the legislation talks about expediting some of
their steps. But that is--I think most of the states are
calling for a national approach to this to have a consistent
standard nationwide.
Mr. Comer. Mm-hmm. You know, one of the--I was asked
earlier if I had had many calls on this issue and from my
district in Kentucky, and I had one.
Actually, the Kentucky Professional Firefighters Union,
when they came to meet with me, they brought this up because
they knew that I was ranking member on the Oversight Committee
and we had had one hearing on it, and they just said that this
was something that they absolutely had to have in fighting
fires.
And I haven't talked to anyone at Fort Campbell or any of
the military people or bases in my congressional district. But
I just wanted to throw that out there when we are talking about
possible solutions and uses of this. But another question I
have is are all PFAS chemicals the same structurally?
Ms. Luxton. Maybe others can address that as well.
Mr. Comer. Yes.
Ms. Luxton. But I think the answer is no. They are
chemically different and structurally different.
Mr. Comer. All right.
Mr. Evers, do you want to--you would probably be the expert
on that.
Mr. Evers. Yes. So there are major differences between
these chemicals and even when you talk about PFOA, as an
example, or any particular, what they are doing is they are
talking about the average of what is there. So in
perfluoroalkyl chemicals they will say C8.
But what they didn't tell you is that from the production
of C6 there were some big molecules like C10, which they
couldn't use. And so they blend that into the C8, and the C2s
and the C4s--all these little cousins and aunts and uncle.
They can't control a specific size, okay, and so you have
this broad band of chemicals, and then they can put on
different heads that love water, some phosphate groups--
ammonia, carboxyl groups on it. Then they can even make
molecules that have twin tails, like twin dragons, you know,
that have tails.
So the number of chemicals that are out there from a single
product is incredible, just from a single product. So the
question comes back, how do you identify them, right. And so I
was--I was talking with Ms. McCabe.
She said what would be the silver bullet that you would use
for controlling this, and I said actually the silver bullet
isn't the toxicity.
The silver bullet is the fact that it is in your blood, and
what people don't realize is that when a fluorochemical, and I
put a little fluorine atom on a carbon, is in your blood, the
industry will say, well, it has a half life of nine years or
four years.
Okay. So if it has a half life of four years or nine years,
that means half of it goes away. If it is not biodegradable
where does it go?
That is the issue, and I can tell you right now that we can
take the most scholarly guys from the best universities,
Ph.D.s, and they will all say the same thing. It doesn't go
away. This is a manmade chemical. We just pass the baton to our
generations of kids.
In fact, if you were to incinerate and cremate me, I would
technically be a fluorochemical hazardous source. The Teflon
mesh that is used in my hernia produces a very toxic gas and
decomposes to something called Devil's piss, which is
hydrofluoric acid. You can't kill this beast. You can only
control it.
Now, why does publishing this--if you just put this--you
know what an F minus is on a report card, right? It is not too
good, right.
But I have the right to know and the most aggressive law
that I have ever seen in industry when I worked at DuPont at
Chambers Works was the New Jersey Right to Know law.
They didn't want an MSDS that said proprietary. If you
wanted to keep it proprietary you still had to tell us what the
chemical was. They had to know. But that is the important
thing.
So the public decides, do I want this in my blood. And
don't talk to me about parts per trillion. Talk to me about
number of molecules, because when you take the molecular weight
times the Avogadro's number, you wind up with a thousand
molecules in a liter of water.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Congressman Levin from Michigan is with us and, without
objection, I am going to allow him to ask a few questions. But
before he does, since he just sat down, I am going to give him
a few minutes to settle in, and I think we are going to be
finished here in about 10 minutes or so, just to let everyone
know what the timeframe is.
I would like to give all the witnesses just a moment,
because there has been a lot of testimony today from both
panels, and Ms. Luxton, starting with you, if there is anything
that you would like to clarify, add, that you have heard today
that you think is important that you haven't had an opportunity
say, please take a moment to do so.
Ms. Luxton. Thank you, Chairman Rouda.
I just wanted to pick up on something that Ranking Member
Comer mentioned--the firefighting foam, which is one of the
PFAS issues that has really gotten the most attention.
What he said is right. At the moment, there doesn't seem to
be a feasible alternative. And so when I have heard people talk
about this, they say, then what do you do on a submarine if you
don't use this substance--allow it to burn.
So even in the legislation that has been proposed there is
a phaseout time period to try and identify alternatives that
are acceptable that really do work.
So I think it is another example of the complexity of this
issue where everyone is trying to find solutions and
understanding how complex and what is needed to do it in a
scientifically robust way really is a big challenge.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. And I have heard from California
firefighters as well and the feeling is wanting to make sure
that the exposure to it is nonexistent--that they have proper
apparel to address it and that the use of the chemicals doesn't
contaminate our groundwater.
Mr. Sliver?
Mr. Sliver. Yes, thank you, Chairman.
So I think one of the things to emphasize here is our job
one is protecting public health, and we know from our
scientists that certain PFAS are harmful when ingested as
through drinking water.
And that is why Michigan went to a panel of scientists and
asked them, look across the country and tell us your best
advice which compounds we have defensible science for today to
proceed with establishing state drinking water standards.
We feel compelled to do that because we probably got the
most comprehensive study of any state on what is in our
community water supplies.
We tested all of them, and so we have got a really good
data set. And we now have health-based value recommendations
from some of the top scientists in the country.
And so we know from EPA's, you know, PFAS action plan that
we are not going to see any MCLs out of them for years and they
are only right now considering two.
We have got scientists telling us look at seven. And so we
are in that rulemaking process right now, like other states
have been through, and we will have draft rules by October 1,
which will lay a path forward to institutionalizing or
memorializing this testing in our drinking water supplies and
whatever mitigation is necessary, going forward.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, and I applaud your state for the
testing that you have done throughout the state as well.
Commissioner Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Short term, again, I don't think we have a choice but to
look at what science we do have and regulate on that end. As I
alluded to earlier, destroying what is in the environment is
going to be very important.
So we have talked within our state and regionally about
thermal oxidation, regional facilities, combining resources,
that type of thing. That is important that we don't perpetuate
the problem.
Long term, I don't think playing whack-a-mole, if you
understand the analogy, with--you know, we do four today and we
are talking about 5,000, we will never finish that, that type
of regulation.
So I think long term I would call upon industry, EPA, and
others to work together to get this out of the consumer stream
to begin with.
You are correct, there are some uses like firefighting
foam. If today that is what is needed I certainly support that.
In our state, we don't tell if you need Class B because you
have a liquid fuel fire, we say go ahead and do that but let us
know.
We will help you contain it and we will remediate it. That
is the important thing. But in the long term, there needs to be
a better solution than that.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Commissioner McCabe?
Ms. McCabe. I understand about the need for the
firefighting foam and to, you know, use a phase-out approach to
that. But do you remember DDT?
Mr. Rouda. Mm-hmm.
Ms. McCabe. Everyone said, oh my God, you can't take that
away. It will ruin our agriculture. We won't have enough food
to eat.
Well, we did. Necessity is the mother of invention. We are
very inventive, we Americans. We can find other solutions. But
someone needs to make us do it because the marketplace itself
isn't going to do it, and that is where we need Congress.
What you have heard from the states about what we are doing
is what we can do. We are dealing with the past. We are dealing
with the legacy of what has already been let loose out there
that we are now finding out is in our drinking water and in our
blood.
We will do what we can with that. It would be better to
have a national Federal rule. We don't like, you know, having
all of this difference between the states. We don't like having
to do 50 times what EPA could do once.
We don't believe that you need years more of study to
figure out that this is a problem. So we do want the Federal
Government to do something about it.
But most of all, we want the Federal Government to get a
handle on what only the Federal Government can do, which is the
interstate commerce part of this.
The presumption should be that until they can show it is
safe, it doesn't go into the marketplace. We shouldn't have to
be scrambling to catch up with the science, which takes us
years to figure out this was dangerous only after it is already
in our bloodstream.
Mr. Rouda. Good point. Thank you.
Mr. Evers?
Mr. Evers. The atomic bomb on PFAS went on December--on May
15, 1998, and it was because there was a great law that the
Federal Government had--is that going--time going? I can't see
my time.
Mr. Rouda. Well, if you keep it to 30 seconds to a minute
that would be great.
Mr. Evers. Okay.
So it was at that time that they were required by law to
report it within 24 hours and they got out of the business. A
hundred and fifty million dollar business, they got out
instantaneously.
Your legislation putting a fund together is excellent. It
provides a safe haven for all the guys who didn't realize that
they were doing bad. But what it needs is transparency.
It needs the ability that you say you want to be part of
the insurance fund, fine. Tell me what you were using. Give me
the list of all your customers, and that helps EPA. It helps
the states identify where the point sources are.
You cannot get government protection until you tell us
where the problem is. And I would endorse not reusing activated
carbon as a source for--it does a great job of stripping out
the fluorochemicals but as we have also heard, we don't know
what to do with it when we--when we got rid of it, you know,
and the old equation of, well, it has got a half life in your
blood--where does it go.
Mr. Rouda. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Evers. So I think you guys are doing a great job and I
would also commend the Environmental Protection Agency. I would
not be a witness if it weren't for the EPA. They came to my
house with their black SUVs and T'd my car as I was leaving
with my wife, and they said, we are the Criminal Investigation
Unit from Environmental Protection Agency.
Who knew, right? I said, this has got to be a car rip off
thing here, you know. And I rolled down the window slightly. I
said, let me see your badge, and he pulled out his
Environmental Protection Agency badge and then he showed me his
gun and the other agent was there said, whoa.
I said, hey guys, I am on the same team here. I don't know
how you found me.
And we spent all night talking about sources of
fluorochemicals. But you know what kept the big companies from
harassing me?
It was a criminal investigation, and the second a manager
or an attorney from somebody who came to harass me said
something, they got a note from the EPA that said, you are an
obstruction to justice.
So let EPA do what they need to do. Full transparency.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Evers.
Dr. DeWitt?
Ms. DeWitt. Thank you.
PFAS might be 5,000 different chemicals that are cousins,
uncles, siblings, aunts. But they are all part of the same
class, and like those relatives that don't go away, they are
never going to go away. They are here with us forever.
They can move from the environment into our bodies, and in
their bodies they stick around for a while. They have long half
lives, and when they are in our bodies they can interact at the
level of molecules to change how our bodies work, how our
bodies function.
In some people, that bodily change might be cancer. In
other people, it might be thyroid disease. In other people it
might be increased allergy or asthma. In other people, it might
be absolutely nothing.
But these chemicals are able to get into our bodies and
adjust our physiology--adjust how we function. The newer
generation of PFAS are even more insidious because they are
persistent.
They are bioavailable. They can get into our bodies and
they are very mobile so they can move around the environment a
lot more rapidly.
I can give a mouse an amount of PFOA, which is eight
carbons--one of the legacies--at 75,000 nanograms per mL of
PFOA in the mouse's blood. They will not be able to respond to
a vaccine very well.
I can give GenX to a mouse and it is 7,000 nanograms per
mL. They won't be able to respond to a vaccine very well. GenX
supposedly has a more favorable toxicological profile than
PFOA. I think the key phrase here or the key word in that
phrase is not favorable. It is toxicological.
So these compounds are not safe. They are still toxic and
we are continually exposed to them because they are still
persistent and they can still move into our bodies.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Doctor.
At this time, the chair would like to recognize Congressman
Levin from Michigan for five minutes of questions.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chairman Rouda, and thank you so much
for your leadership on this. I really appreciate it.
This is a super important issue. I see I am surrounded by
names of my colleagues from Michigan who presumably may have
been here to question you earlier.
This is a big deal for us and I am afraid I do feel like
PFAS is the DDT of our--of our era and we are going to be
dealing with this for a long time to come.
So we have people from--officials from New Jersey,
Michigan, New Hampshire, Democratic and Republican state
governments, who are committed to addressing PFAS contamination
within their own borders because, in part, the Federal
Government has not acted and has not set maximum contaminant
levels or MCL standards for the entire nation.
I certainly commend the three of you for your efforts and I
thank you for being here with us today.
Commissioner McCabe, you pretty clearly stated that the
EPA's PFAS action plan, which was released earlier this year,
isn't sufficient to address the problem. Is that correct?
Ms. McCabe. Yes, that is correct. We don't think that the
timeframe is good enough and we don't think that the protective
level that they are considering setting for an MCL is
protective enough.
Mr. Levin. So if I have my recent history right, you came
to work for New Jersey after a stint with--as acting EPA
administrator and acting Region Two administrator in the Trump
administration. Is that right?
Ms. McCabe. Among my other career jobs that were not
acting, yes.
Mr. Levin. Yes. So based on these experiences, do you
believe the Trump administration will set an MCL for PFAS
chemicals?
Ms. McCabe. I have no confidence that they will set a PFAS
MCL that will be protective.
Mr. Levin. And why not?
Ms. McCabe. There is a dialog that goes on that has to do
with the Department of Defense, and the Department of Defense
has a significant amount of exposure across the country and
they have consistently argued that the level should be higher.
So that pressure is no doubt going on in the discussions in
the Federal Government. So regardless of what the career people
at EPA and the career scientists may be saying, based on the
latest available science about whether that 70 level is
protective enough, and we don't think it is, the pressure right
now will be to make it higher.
Mr. Levin. Based simply on liability?
Ms. McCabe. Yes.
Mr. Levin. The DOD's--based on their liability we would
endanger millions of Americans all around the country?
Ms. McCabe. I would not think that anyone would consider
doing such a thing. But I suspect the pressure is there.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Commissioner.
Dr. DeWitt, you specialize in the health effects of
environmental contaminants, specifically, PFAS chemicals. As
the commissioner was saying, 70 parts is--you know, that is not
a good standard.
What do you think the maximum contaminant level of PFAS and
PFOA in drinking water that could be considered safe for humans
might be?
Ms. DeWitt. Well, the right answer to that question is
zero. We shouldn't be exposed to these synthetic chemicals that
don't belong in our bodies.
I think the appropriate question is what is an acceptable
maximum contaminant level and that is what is acceptable for
Ms. Donovan to have in her body and her children to have in
their body. Something lower than 70 parts per trillion, likely
in the single digits, would be acceptable.
But zero really is the best answer because they shouldn't
belong in our bodies.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. Thanks very much.
Mr. Sliver, I am glad to see you here. I am proud of the
work that EGLE has done--the Michigan Department of
Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. Proud of our leadership
in this.
Can you talk a little bit about the science that you relied
on when you were setting the maximum contaminant levels for
Michigan?
Mr. Sliver. Well, actually, we haven't set maximum
contaminant levels yet. We asked----
Mr. Levin. Okay. So tell me about the process you are going
through.
Mr. Sliver. Right. And so actually Dr. DeWitt would
probably be better to explain what the methodical process they
went through in looking at the information from across the
country.
She was one of our science advisory work group members that
we asked to look at the available science out there and
recommend health-based values to basically inform the MCL-
setting process, which is currently underway. MPART accepted
their recommendations back at the end of June and we are now
targeting October 1 to look at other factors in setting the
MCLs.
Mr. Levin. So my time is pretty much up. Let me just ask
you, there are so many--there is, like, thousands of these
chemicals.
Will this be--what you do in October, hopefully, cover all
of them or some of them or what is a regular Michigander, you
know, to understand about that?
Mr. Sliver. So we asked our science advisory work group to
focus on the 18 PFAS that are part of the nationally recognized
EPA method for testing drinking water and tell us which of
those there is enough defensible science to proceed with
setting MCLs, and they came up with seven.
And so no groupings of those. It was seven that we will
look at individually in the rulemaking process for municipal
water supplies.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Chairman, I just have to say I am so proud.
But just think what a small start this is on dealing with a
huge and very scary problem.
Thank you all so much for coming today and thanks for
giving me the time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Congressman Levin.
And thank you to all of the witnesses in both panels for
bringing your personal stories as well as your expertise and
helping all of us better address this crisis and advocate for
meaningful solutions.
Also, thank you to the Environmental Working Group for
their work on this issue. I would like to submit their
statement for the record. That includes critical information
related to 3M and DuPont's knowledge of the dangers of these
toxic PFAS chemicals.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rouda. During this hearing, many important questions
related to what corporations and manufacturers knew, when they
knew it, and the need to have answers and accountability from
them.
So I look forward to making sure that they provide answers
to the American public.
Finally, I would like to thank the staff of both the
minority and the majority that are sitting behind Ranking
Member Comer and myself.
These guys do a heck of a job getting us ready for this and
preparing us, and so thank you. We really appreciate your hard
work.
Finally, without objection, all members will have five
legislative days to which to submit additional written
questions to the witnesses to the chair, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you
are able, and this hearing is hereby adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]