[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROTECTING AMERICANS AT RISK OF PFAS
CONTAMINATION AND EXPOSURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-35
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-554 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Emily Marpe, Mother and Community Member, Petersburgh, New York.. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Jamie C. DeWitt, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of
Pharmacology and Toxicology, Brody School of Medicine at East
Carolina University............................................ 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Brian Steglitz, Manager, Water Treatment Services, City of Ann
Arbor.......................................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
G. Tracy Mehan III, Executive Director, Government Affairs,
American Water Works Association............................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Jane C. Luxton, Partner, Co-chair of the Environmental and
Administrative Law Practice, Lewis Brisbois.................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Erik D. Olson, Health Program Director, Natural Resources Defense
Council........................................................ 66
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Submitted Material
H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019............................ 112
H.R. 2377, Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act of 2019.......... 114
H.R. 2533, Providing Financial Assistance for Safe Drinking Water
Act............................................................ 116
H.R. 2566, the Safe Choice StandardAct........................... 120
H.R. 2570, the PFAS User Fee Act of 2019......................... 122
H.R. 2577, the Right-to-Know Act of 1986......................... 128
H.R. 2591, the PFAS Waste Incineration Ban Act of 2019........... 132
H.R. 2596, Protecting Communities from New PFAS Act.............. 135
H.R. 2600, the Toxic PFAS Control Act............................ 137
H.R. 2605, the PROTECT Act of 2019............................... 142
H.R. 2608, the PFAS Testing Act of 2019.......................... 144
H.R. 2626, the PFAS Accountability Act of 2019................... 149
H.R. 2638, To direct the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to issue guidance on minimizing the use of
firefighting foam containing PFAS, and for other purposes...... 157
Letter of May 15, 2019, from Diane VanDe Hei, Executive Officer,
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, to Mr. Tonko,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 159
Letter of May 14, 2019, from Kristen L. Mello, Co-founder,
Westfield Residents Advocating for Themselves, to Mr. Tonko,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 163
Letter of May 12, 2019, from Dr. Masami Kawamura, Director, the
Informed-Public Project, Okinawa, Japan, to Mr. Tonko,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 165
Letter of May 15, 2019, from Neil L. Bradley, Executive Vice
President and Chief Policy Officer, Chamber of Commerce, to Mr.
Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko.................. 170
Letter of May 14, 2019, from Robert J. Simon, Vice President,
Chemical Products and Technology, American Chemistry Council,
to Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. Tonko........................... 172
Fact sheet of April 10, 2019, Maximum levels of PFAS compounds,
Wisconsin, PFAS Community Campaign. Community Partners, et al.,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 174
Statement of April 2019, ``Joint Position Statement Supporting
Regulation of PFAS as a Class,'' Casa Maria Community, et al.,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 175
Statement of February 8, 2019, ``Joint Position Statement: PFAS
Treatment and Disposal Should Avoid Present and Future Toxic
Effect,'' by CSWAB, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko............. 176
Statement of a National PFAS Roadmap, by Dr. Matt Reeves, Western
Michigan University, submitted by Mr. Tonko.................... 177
PROTECTING AMERICANS AT RISK OF PFAS CONTAMINATION AND EXPOSURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m., in
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Tonko
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tonko, Barragan, Blunt
Rochester, Soto, Schakowsky, Matsui, McNerney, Lujan, Ruiz,
Dingell, Kuster, Pallone (ex officio), Upton, Shimkus
(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson,
Long, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
Staff present: Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel;
Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief
Counsel; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director,
Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Mel
Peffers, Environment Fellow; Teresa Williams, Energy Fellow;
Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment and
Climate Change; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Mary
Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and
Climate Change; Brannon Rains, Minority Staff Assistant; and
Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member,
Environment and Climate Change.
Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change will now come to order. I recognize myself for five
minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Our legislative hearing this morning will examine solutions
to reduce environmental and health risks from per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS. This
hearing builds on good work that began under the leadership of
our Republican colleagues last year when they held a hearing to
better understand these substances as well as EPA and DoD's
response to the growing number of communities dealing with
contaminations.
At that hearing, we established that PFAS are a large class
of chemicals numbering between 4 and 5 thousand, commonly used
in firefighting foams, food packaging, nonstick cookware, and
water-resistant fabrics. These chemicals are remarkably
persistent in the environment and incredibly toxic and
dangerous to human health, even in very small concentrations,
equivalent to a few drops in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
We are still learning the full extent of the dangers, but
PFAS exposure has already been linked to kidney disease,
thyroid dysfunction, and various forms of cancer. Other
committees have held hearings on the risk and toxicity of PFAS
chemicals, and it is clear that there is considerable interest
from members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to
determine how Congress should proceed in the face of this
growing crisis.
I know there are many members, including members of this
committee, dealing with PFAS contamination back home. Over the
past few years, I have had numerous opportunities to meet with
families of Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh in Rensselaer County,
New York, including Ms. Marpe who we will hear from this
morning, and her daughter Gwen. And just last week, I visited
the water system and other sites in Horsham, Pennsylvania,
learning from and seeing the challenges they have faced
firsthand.
I know these communities, their local leaders, and their
water systems are trying to do everything possible to protect
their residents. These contaminations and the resulting harm to
public health are not their fault and it is incumbent upon us
to make sure that they have the resources, information and
legal authorities to remediate contaminations to protective
levels and to hold polluters accountable even when those
polluters are a Federal entity.
Today's hearing is the first that will examine concrete
solutions being offered by our colleagues. We will consider 13
bills that have been referred to the subcommittee. These bills
address how we can reduce exposure, expedite cleanups, and
dispose of these chemicals safely. While addressing PFAS in
drinking water is a top priority of mine, today we will also
hear that PFAS exposure concerns go beyond water. These bills
range across multiple statutes including the Safe Drinking
Water Act, Superfund, TSCA, and the Clean Air Act.
Earlier this year, EPA released its PFAS action plan. I do
not doubt that the motivations of the administration are good,
but there can be no question that the response has been
inadequate. First, EPA's plan is not comprehensive. The plan
focuses primarily on two chemicals in a class of thousands,
PFOA and PFOS. These are certainly the best known PFAS, but
domestic manufacture of these two ceased years ago. Real and
ongoing risks for future exposure will come as companies
substitute them with other emerging and dangerous substances
such as GenX.
Second, EPA has given us little reason for confidence that
they will act with the urgency that impacted communities now
know is needed. EPA has not even committed to setting a
national drinking water standard and even on the most
aggressive timeline, regulatory action will take years. To be
clear, this is as much a criticism of the Safe Drinking Water
Act as that of this EPA.
In the past 22 years, there has been just one contaminant
determined to need a national standard. It has been years since
that determination and we are still waiting for it to be
finalized. It will likely take many years for PFOA and PFOS to
have a finalized, enforceable, and protective standard should
EPA determine that to be their course of action. We need to
have a larger conversation about SDWA regulatory reform, but
that issue cannot stop us from taking action on PFAS. SDWA's
shortcomings are bigger than PFAS and PFAS issues are bigger
than drinking water. We must consider what is needed to be done
right now.
This is just the beginning of this process. I welcome
feedback from any stakeholder or member interested in these or
other bills so that we can move forward in a way that best
protects our communities from the damage these substances are
causing. But one thing is clear. We cannot wait for EPA to act.
Congress needs to be actively involved to ensure the protection
of Americans' health. My hope is some combination of the bills
considered today can enable us to make progress to reduce the
risks of exposure, increase testing and monitoring, and require
as well as provide resources to support remediation.
I thank my colleagues for their work on this timely issue
as well as our witnesses for sharing their insights and
sometimes painful experiences. I look forward to working
together to find potential agreement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
Our legislative hearing this morning will examine solutions
to reduce environmental and health risks from per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS.
This hearing builds on good work that began under the
leadership of our Republican colleagues last year when they
held a hearing to better understand these substances, as well
as EPA and DoD's response to the growing number of communities
dealing with contaminations.
At that hearing, we established that PFAS are a large class
of chemicals, numbering between 4 and 5 thousand, commonly used
in firefighting foams, food packaging, nonstick cookware, and
water-resistant fabrics.
These chemicals are remarkably persistent in the
environment and incredibly toxic and dangerous to human health
even in very small concentrations--equivalent to a few drops in
an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
We are still learning the full extent of the dangers, but
PFAS exposure has already been linked to kidney disease,
thyroid dysfunction, and various forms of cancer.
Other committees have held hearings on the risks and
toxicity of PFAS chemicals.
And it is clear that there is considerable interest from
Members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to
determine how Congress should proceed in the face of this
growing crisis.
I know there are many Members, including members of this
committee, dealing with PFAS contamination back home.
Over the past few years, I have had numerous opportunities
to meet with families of Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh in
Rensselaer County, New York, including Ms. Marpe, who we will
hear from this morning, and her daughter Gwen.
And just last week, I visited the water system and other
sites in Horsham, Pennsylvania, learning from and seeing the
challenges they have faced first-hand.
I know these communities, their local leaders, and their
water systems are trying to do everything possible to protect
their residents.
These contaminations and the resulting harm to public
health are not their fault, and it is incumbent upon us to make
sure they have the resources, information, and legal
authorities to remediate contaminations to protective levels
and to hold polluters accountable--even when those polluters
are a Federal entity.
Today's hearing is the first that will examine concrete
solutions being offered by our colleagues. We will consider 13
bills that have been referred to the Subcommittee. These bills
address how we can reduce exposure, expedite cleanups, and
dispose of these chemicals safely.
While addressing PFAS in drinking water is a top priority
of mine, today we will also hear that PFAS exposure concerns go
beyond water. These bills range across multiple statutes,
including the Safe Drinking Water Act, Superfund, TSCA, and the
Clean Air Act.
Earlier this year, EPA released its PFAS Action Plan. I do
not doubt that the motivations of the Administration are good,
but there can be no question that their response has been
inadequate.
First, EPA's plan is not comprehensive. The plan focuses
primarily on two chemicals in a class of thousands: PFOA and
PFOS. These are certainly the best known PFAS, but domestic
manufacture of these two ceased years ago.
Real and ongoing risks for future exposure will come as
companies substitute them with other emerging and dangerous
substances, such as GenX.
Second, EPA has given us little reason for confidence that
they will act with the urgency that impacted communities know
is needed. EPA has not even committed to setting a national
drinking water standard. And even on the most aggressive
timeline, regulatory action will take years.
To be clear, this is as much a criticism of the Safe
Drinking Water Act than of this EPA. In the past 22 years,
there has been just one contaminant determined to need a
national standard. It has been years since that determination,
and we are still waiting for it to be finalized.
It will likely take many years for PFOA and PFOS to have a
finalized enforceable and protective standard, should EPA
determine that to be their course of action.
We need to have a larger conversation about SDWA regulatory
reform, but that issue cannot stop us from taking action on
PFAS. SDWA's shortcomings are bigger than PFAS, and PFAS issues
are bigger than drinking water.
We must consider what is needed to be done right now.
This is just the beginning of this process. I welcome
feedback from any stakeholder or Member interested in these or
other bills, so that we can move forward in a way that best
protects our communities from the damage these substances are
causing.
But one thing is clear: we cannot wait for EPA to act.
Congress needs to be actively involved to ensure the
protection of Americans' health. My hope is some combination of
the bills considered today can enable us to make progress to
reduce the risks of exposure, increase testing and monitoring,
and require, as well as provide resources to support,
remediation.
I thank my colleagues for their work on this timely issue,
as well as our witnesses for sharing their insights, and
sometimes painful experiences. I look forward to working
together to find potential agreement.
Mr. Tonko. With that, I will now recognize the ranking
leader of our subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. You can call me--Ranking Member Walden is not
here, so you can call me Ranking Member Shimkus. I am good with
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we are meeting
to learn more about the bills introduced in this Congress to
tackle various forms of contamination linked to highly
fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS, for short.
Based on a cursory read of all the long titles of the bills
introduced and referred to our committee this Congress, we are
looking at a comprehensive set of proposals that range from
instituting sweeping mandates in just about every law this
subcommittee oversees, authorizing a significant amount of
Federal money for PFAS-related actions on top of those programs
currently operated by the Federal and State Governments, and
creating labeling programs for consumer products that do not
contain PFAS.
If you are serious about these proposals becoming law, they
need a full and fair airing with a complete legislative history
and record. I hope you will at the very least commit to us
today that you will bring EPA in as part of this hearing, but
on another day for questioning on the technical aspects of
these bills, before the committee schedules any markups on
these bills, or they are considered on the House floor.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a delay tactic. This is a plea to
prevent major expensive mandates on states as well as
unintended consequences on EPA's ongoing work both on PFAS and
many other substances who would have to take a backseat to the
mandates in these bills. In addition to our subcommittee's
current lack of Agency input, I am concerned that almost one-
third of our subcommittee's members were not around last fall
when this subcommittee held both a member briefing with EPA
career staff and an oversight hearing about PFAS, ways the
Federal Government was and could respond under existing laws,
and ways to address contamination and appropriately communicate
risk.
That said, I am sympathetic to my colleagues whose
communities want urgent action to address PFAS. I also, though
am not a fan of rushing to install broad-based major changes to
Federal law at a time when high levels of anxiety exceed what
we know, this does not mean ``do nothing,'' rather, I believe
we should not make shortcuts in the law while EPA is taking
steps based upon solid scientific data to make regulatory
decisions. Moreover, if the problem is urgent, the Federal
Government has imminent hazard authority under many of the laws
we will talk about today to go in and take immediate action.
This view may not be popular with some of my colleagues,
but I believe we cannot only support the use of good science or
public input when it guarantees our preferred policy solutions.
This was a major principle for me during enactment of the major
reforms of the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is striking to
me that we are disregarding both these tenets to regulate
between 3 to 5 thousand substances by statutory fiat. Moreover,
these bills do not give the Federal Government the ability to
prioritize the risk of PFAS versus greater environmental and
public health efforts or other currently ongoing work, meaning
scarce resources would need to be moved to meet the mandates in
this bill before us at the expense of other items.
It may not sound like it, but I may be open to getting yes
on some of these proposals, yet of the bills for which I have
seen text and without getting technical feedback from the
agency that needs to implement it, I have too many questions
about the wholesale regulation of this large class of chemicals
when there are only a handful of these chemicals that we know
something about such as the ability to detect them in water or
their causal effects on health.
Further, states and the Federal Government including the
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
have been taking collaborative and independent action to drive
down and properly communicate the risk, and the equipment to
detect and treat all the substances is still evolving.
Fundamentally, I just need more information about the impacts
both positive and negative that these proposals could have to
make sure they are tailored to address the established risk
without establishing bad presence for regulatory efforts driven
by fear rather than by data.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and hope
that this will not be the last word on these bills in committee
before they are considered.
And let me just--that was the prepared statement. Let me
just say this, Mr. Chairman. This is a whole class of chemicals
that can range from 3 to 5 thousand chemicals. We did pass the
Toxic Substance Control Act which was to address using real
science and real data to make decisions on health-related
chemicals. I think we have got to be very careful as with the
hearing we last week of by legislative fiat banning things
which we may or may not know are harmful.
Now I don't question that there is probably some of the
PFAS categories that are harmful. But to threaten the 3 to 5
thousand list of those is not in line with the scientific
approach that we agreed to under TSCA and I look forward to
having EPA hopefully help us muddle through this. And this is
not a no on these bills, and this is not a delay tactic. This
is, just give me a little more time appeal. And with that I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we are meeting
to learn more about the bills introduced this Congress to
tackle various forms of contamination linked to highly
fluorinated chemicals--known as PFAS, for short.
Based on a cursory read of the long titles of the bills
both introduced and referred to our Committee this Congress, we
are looking at a comprehensive set of proposals that range from
instituting sweeping mandates in just about every law this
subcommittee oversees, authorizing significant amounts of
Federal money for PFAS related actions--on top of those
programs currently operated by Federal and State Governments,
and creating labeling programs for consumer products that do
not contain PFAS.
If you are serious about these proposals becoming law, they
need a full and fair airing, with a complete legislative
history and record. I hope you will, at the very least, commit
to us today that you will bring in EPA as part of this hearing,
but on another day, for questioning on the technical aspects of
these bills before the Committee schedules any markups of these
bills or they are considered on the House floor.
Mr. Chairman, this is NOT a delay tactic; this is a plea to
prevent major, expensive mandates on States as well as
unintended consequences on EPA's ongoing work both on PFAS and
many other substances that would have to take a back seat the
mandates in these bills.
In addition to our subcommittee's current lack of Agency
input, I am concerned that almost one-third of our
subcommittee's members were not around last fall when this
Subcommittee held both a member briefing with EPA career staff
and an oversight hearing about PFAS, ways the Federal
Government was and could respond under existing laws, and ways
to address contamination and appropriately communicate risk.
That said, I am sympathetic to my colleagues whose
communities want urgent action to address PFAS. I also, though,
am not a fan of rushing to instill broad-based, major changes
to Federal law at a time when high levels of anxiety exceed
what we know. This does not mean ``do nothing." Rather, I
believe we should not make shortcuts in the law while EPA is
taking steps, based on solid scientific data to make regulatory
decisions. Moreover, if the problem is urgent, the Federal
Government has imminent hazard authority under many of the laws
we will talk about today to go in and take immediate action.
This view may not be popular with some of my colleagues,
but I believe we cannot only support the use of good science or
public input when it guarantees our preferred policy solutions.
This was a major principle for me during enactment of the major
reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is striking to
me that we are disregarding both these tenets to regulate
between 3,000 to 5,000 substances by statutory fiat. Moreover,
these bills do not give the Federal Government the ability to
prioritize the risk of PFAS versus greater environmental and
public health efforts or other currently ongoing work--meaning
scarce resources would need to be moved to meet the mandates in
the bills before us at the expense of those other items.
It may not sound like it, but I may be open to getting to
``yes" on some of these proposals. Yet, of the bills for which
I have seen text and without getting technical feedback from
the Agency that needs to implement, I have too many questions
about wholesale regulation of this large class of chemicals
when there are only a handful of these chemicals that we know
something about, such as the ability to detect them in water or
their causal adverse health effects. Further, States and the
Federal Government, including the EPA or the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, have been taking collaborative
and independent action to drive down and properly communicate
the risks, and the equipment to detect and treat all these
substances is still evolving. Fundamentally, I just need more
information about the impacts--both positive and negative--that
these proposals could have, to make sure they are tailored to
address established risks without establishing bad precedents
for regulatory efforts driven by fear rather than data.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. And
hope they will not be the last word on these bills in committee
before they are considered.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full committee, for
five minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PFAS contamination is a very serious issue affecting
communities nationwide. These are persistent chemicals that
spread throughout our water, air, and soil. They are toxic,
with studies showing increased cancers, immune impacts, and
effects on growth, development, and fertility. And these
chemicals are everywhere in our environment, in our bodies, and
with new affected communities being discovered all the time.
Although chemical companies have known the hazards of these
chemicals for many years, we are still realizing the scope of
contamination and it is increasingly clear that we will need to
attack PFAS contamination with every tool we have as quickly as
we can. So I want to thank the many members in the House who
have introduced legislation to address the PFAS problem, and I
wanted to kind of go through that list.
Representatives Dingell and Upton have worked together to
introduce two important bills to address PFAS contamination
through the Superfund program. Representatives Boyle and
Fitzpatrick have a bill to set a binding, enforceable, and
strong drinking water standard for all PFAS. Representative
Soto has introduced a bill to provide industry with a voluntary
PFAS-free label for cookware so consumers can take steps to
protect themselves from exposure.
Representative Delgado introduced a bill to require
reporting of PFAS releases on the Toxic Release Inventory. TRI
reporting provides an essential tool to communities impacted by
environmental pollution and has a strong record of driving
polluters to reduce their releases. Representative Khanna has
introduced a bill to ban incineration of PFAS waste including
firefighting foam. Incineration has been a serious concern for
the local communities where it is happening.
Representative Kuster introduced a bill to ban new PFAS
chemicals under TSCA. There are already 4,700 PFAS chemicals in
commerce and it is astonishing that we continue to approve more
of these chemicals given what we know about them. Then we have
Representative Dean who has a bill that comprehensively
regulate PFAS under TSCA, including a phase-in ban of new and
existing PFAS standards for safe disposal of PFAS and labeling
for articles containing PFAS.
Representative Sean Patrick Maloney has introduced a bill
to address PFAS under TSCA, also using EPA's authorities under
that law to require health effects testing and reporting on all
PFAS chemicals. Representative Stevens has a bill to list all
PFAS as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. His
bill, or that bill was written in response to increasing
evidence that air emissions of PFAS are dangerous and
avoidable.
Representative Fletcher has legislation requiring EPA to
issue guidance for first responders to minimize the use of PFAS
and also deals with firefighting foam and cuts the risks they
face from that foam. We heard from the International
Association of Firefighters in March about the fear among
firefighters about how these chemicals are affecting their
health, so we have to address those fears. And then we have
Representative Rouda who introduced a bill to establish a trust
fund financed by user fees from PFAS manufacturers, and these
funds will help pay the ongoing operation and maintenance costs
of drinking water utilities and water treatment works that are
paying to clean up PFAS contamination.
And finally, I introduced a bill, the Providing Financial
Assistance for Safe Drinking Water Act, and my bill offers
significant Federal investments to help water utilities pay the
capital costs needed to adopt treatment techniques that can
remove PFAS from drinking water. And these treatment techniques
are very expensive and may be beyond what is affordable for
many affected communities.
Now I have mentioned or described 13 bills, obviously a
very bipartisan effort. More are being introduced every day.
And I think these bills are all important and they all address
the different aspect of the PFAS problem. Many people think of
PFAS as solely a drinking water issue, but all the PFAS in our
drinking water came from industrial activity. They will keep
showing up in our drinking water sources if we continue to
produce and use thousands of different PFAS chemicals.
So we need to stop PFAS pollution at the source, contain
the pollution before it spreads further, and get it out of our
air, soil, and drinking water. And we don't have a lot of time
to waste, so I look forward to working together quickly to
address PFAS contamination and implement some of the solutions
we are going to hear about today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
PFAS contamination is a very serious issue, affecting
communities nationwide. These are persistent chemicals that
spread through our water, air, and soil. They are toxic--with
studies showing increased cancers, immune impacts, and effects
on growth, development, and fertility. And, these chemicals are
everywhere--in our environment and in our bodies, with new
affected communities being discovered all the time.
Although chemical companies have known the hazards of these
chemicals for many years, we are still realizing the scope of
contamination. It is increasingly clear that we will need to
attack PFAS contamination with every tool we have, as quickly
as we can.
I want to thank the many members in the House who have
introduced legislation to address the PFAS problem.
Representatives Dingell and Upton have worked together to
introduce two important bills to address PFAS contamination
through the Superfund program.
Representatives Boyle and Fitzpatrick have a bill to set a
binding, enforceable and strong drinking water standard for all
PFAS.
Representative Soto has introduced a bill to provide
industry with a voluntary PFAS-free label for cookware, so
consumers can take steps to protect themselves from exposure.
Representative Delgado introduced a bill to require
reporting of PFAS releases on the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI). TRI reporting provides an essential tool to communities
impacted by environmental pollution, and it has a strong record
of driving polluters to reduce their releases.
Representative Khanna has introduced a bill to ban
incineration of PFAS wastes, including fire-fighting foam.
Incineration has been a serious concern for the local
communities where it is happening.
Representative Kuster introduced a bill to ban new PFAS
chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act of TSCA. There
are already around 47-hundred PFAS chemicals in commerce, and
it is astonishing that we continue to approve more of these
chemicals given what we now know about them.
Representative Dean has a bill to comprehensively regulate
PFAS under TSCA, including a phased-in ban of new and existing
PFAS, standards for safe disposal of PFAS, and labeling for
articles containing PFAS.
Representative Sean Patrick Maloney has also introduced a
bill to address PFAS under TSCA, using EPA's authorities under
that law to require health effects testing and reporting on all
PFAS chemicals.
Representative Stevens has a bill to list all PFAS as
hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This bill
responds to increasing evidence that air emissions of PFAS are
dangerous and avoidable.
Representative Fletcher has legislation requiring EPA to
issue guidance for first responders to minimize the use of PFAS
firefighting foam and cut the risks they face from that foam.
We heard from the International Association of Firefighters in
March about the fear among firefighters about how these
chemicals are affecting their health. We must address these
fears.
Representative Rouda introduced a bill to establish a trust
fund, financed by user fees from PFAS manufacturers. These
funds will help pay the ongoing operations and maintenance
costs of drinking water utilities and water treatment works
that are paying to clean up PFAS contamination.
And finally, I introduced the Providing Financial
Assistance for Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill offers
significant Federal investment to help water utilities pay the
capital costs needed to adopt treatment techniques that can
remove PFAS from drinking water. These treatment techniques are
very expensive and may be beyond what is affordable for many
affected communities.
I have described 13 bills, but there are more being
introduced every day. These bills are all important, and all
address a different aspect of the PFAS problem.
Many people think of PFAS as solely a drinking water issue.
But, all the PFAS in our drinking water came from industrial
activity. They will keep showing up in our drinking water
sources if we continue to produce and use thousands of
different PFAS chemicals. We need to stop PFAS pollution at the
source, contain the pollution before it spreads further, and
get it out of our air, soil, and drinking water. We have no
time to waste.
I look forward to working together, quickly, to address
PFAS contamination and implement some of the solutions we will
hear about today.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Whatever time I have left I yield to the
gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Tonko.
Today's hearing is obviously important as both have you,
everybody, both sides has pointed out. But briefly, I would
like to acknowledge that one of the witnesses is from my
district and he serves on the front lines to provide clean
drinking water to the residents of Ann Arbor, Michigan, but he
is a national expert. Brian Steglitz is the manager for water
treatment services for the City of Ann Arbor, and this year he
marks his 22nd year of service. He helped EPA toward them and
showed them the water treatment center with both Mr. Upton and
I last summer.
This committee can learn a great deal from his experience
and all the good work that is being done at the local level,
along with the challenges that we still face to safeguard the
public from the PFAS chemicals. So thank you for being here and
I look forward to hearing from all of you and asking more
questions later. Yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The Congresswoman yields back. The Chairman
yields back and--oh, OK. And we will now recognize Mr. Walden,
the Republican leader of the full committee, for five minutes
for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Go ahead and ad lib a minute, Mr. Chairman. I
will get my breath. Thank you. I was down at the FCC hearing.
So welcome, good morning.
I know the experience of your constituency in Hoosick
Falls, New York has driven your intense interest in preventing
and addressing PFAS contamination. Not only have I heard from
Republican members like Mr. Upton and Mr. Hudson about the
anxiety that discoveries of PFAS contamination have caused
their constituents in Michigan and in North Carolina, but I
also know the Air National Guard at Kingsley Air Force Base in
Klamath Falls that they have used this foam with PFAS to fight
fires in the congressional district I represent in Oregon.
So, this is a big issue we are all concerned about. In
fact, a few of these chemicals are quite prevalent while some
occur in just a few states. Complicating the issue is the
limitation of what we know about the very broad class of
chemicals and what we can do about it under existing law. So,
we need to address the concerns about uncertainty that PFAS
presents. The test for me in addressing PFAS contamination is
not the number of bills we pass or the creative ways we try to
shoehorn solutions into existing statutes; rather, it is
whether the response we provide can be reasonable, reliable,
and responsible remedial efforts that get help to people sooner
rather than later and without detours to the courthouse.
This is about public health and public safety. For this
reason, I am not convinced the existing body of environmental
law may be the best approach to the PFAS contamination
conundrum and we should not be limited by that universe. We may
need to think outside the box here. So, I think it makes sense
to think about addressing this problem within these overarching
principles.
First, we need to contain the existing damage and fix the
demonstrated problem before us. Second, in the process of doing
that do no harm either to existing sites and communities nor
exacerbate the existing problem with overreach. And last, we
need to learn more about the toxicity of the larger class of
chemicals, commit resources, and take future steps based on
what we know, not just what we suspect.
So, if I could give you a couple of examples. Where there
is merit to the use of Superfund authority to make Federal
funds available as well as compel reluctant parties such as the
Department of Defense to clean up these sites, the idea of
instantly making municipal governments and airports liable for
every PFAS chemical through no fault of their own is
concerning. I know some people want the EPA to publish a
maximum containment level, or MCL, for all PFAS in drinking
water; however, an MCL is not essential for a Superfund
cleanup. The EPA has already adjusted downward its lifetime
health advisory and EPA is working on making a legally
defensible decision on the regulation PFOA and PFOS.
I am concerned that short-circuiting the evidence-based,
science-driven, risk-informed process could force the EPA to
shortcut necessary elements to issuing a strong and legally
sustainable regulation. I know right-to-know reporting of PFAS
holdings is a priority for many and there are places where it
makes sense. But the bill that was recently introduced would
massively expand the number of chemicals that would need to be
reported under the Toxic Release Inventory by as much as 5,000.
It would also reduce by 90 percent the threshold at which a
person would be required to report and apply these requirements
to businesses with less than 10 people.
Finally, if we are to assume the majority would like all
these proposals enacted, the cumulative and aggregate effect of
all these statutory requirements and regulations could have a
stifling impact on EPA activities. States could face
significant unfunded mandates while foisting obligations on
private parties who are currently unaware of potential
liability, like farmers using biosolids from wastewater
treatment facilities to improve soil health. All this is likely
to result in litigation to prevent or prolong the situation
rather than move to promptly address contamination.
So, I want to be part of the solution, preferably the one
reported by this committee and I hope our friends on the other
side of the aisle are serious, and I believe they are, and
sincere in their willingness to work with us, which I think
they are, because this is a big deal and we have got to get it
right. As currently constituted, the language in the bills
before us present an enormous sweeping response to the PFAS
chemical class. It is important we take a close look to make
sure the actions we take are justified by science.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having this hearing. I
know we got notice of it Friday and our team were working
through the weekend to look at all of these bills, but it is
important to do. We want to move on this as well. With that,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Mr. Chairman, thanks for recognizing me.
I know the experience of your constituency in Hoosick
Falls, NY has driven your intense interest in preventing and
addressing PFAS contamination. Not only have I heard from
Republican members, like Mr. Upton and Mr. Hudson, about the
anxiety that discoveries of PFAS contamination have caused
their constituents in Parchment, Michigan and within the Cape
Fear River watershed of North Carolina; but I know that the Air
National Guard at Kingsley Air Force Base in Klamath Falls have
used foam with PFAS to fight fires in the congressional
district I represent as well as two other sites in Oregon. In
fact, a few of these chemicals are quite prevalent while some
occur in just a few States.
Complicating the issue is limitation of what we know about
the very broad class of chemicals - and what we can do about it
under existing law. We need to address the concerns about
uncertainty that PFAS presents.
The test for me in addressing PFAS contamination is not the
number of bills we pass or the creative ways we try to shoe
horn solutions into existing statutes. Rather, it is whether
the response we provide can be a reasonable, reliable, and
responsible remedial effort that gets help to people sooner
rather than later - and without detours to the courthouse.
For this reason, I am not convinced that the existing body
of environmental law is the best way to approach the PFAS
contamination conundrum and we should not be limited by that
universe.
I think it makes sense to think about addressing this
problem within these overarching principles:
First, we need to contain the existing damage and fix the
demonstrated problem before us.
Second, in the process of doing that, do no harm either to
existing sites and communities, nor exacerbate the existing
problem with overreach.
Last, learn more about the toxicity of the larger class of
chemicals commit resources and take future steps based on what
we know, not just what we suspect.
Let me give some examples.
While there is merit to the use of Superfund authority to
make federal funds available as well as compel reluctant
parties, such as the Defense Department, to cleanup these
sites; the idea of instantly making municipal governments and
airports liable for every PFAS chemical, through no fault of
their own, is concerning.
I know some people want EPA to publish a maximum
contaminant level (MCL) for all PFAS in drinking water.
However, an MCL is not essential for a Superfund cleanup, EPA
has already adjusted downward its lifetime health advisory, and
EPA is working on making a legally defensible decision on
regulation of PFOA and PFOS. I am concerned that short-
circuiting the evidence-based, science-driven, risk-informed
process, will force EPA to short cut necessary elements to
issuing a strong and legally sustainable regulation.
I know Right to Know reporting of PFAS holdings is a
priority for many and there are places where it makes sense,
but the bill that was recently introduced would massively
expand the number of chemicals that would need to be reported
under the Toxic Release Inventory by as much as 5,000. It would
also reduce by 90 percent the threshold at which a person would
be required to report and apply these requirements to
businesses with less than 10 people.
Finally, if we are to assume the Majority would like all
these proposals enacted, the cumulative and aggregate effect of
all these statutory requirements and regulations will have a
stifling impact on EPA activities. States would face
significant unfunded mandates, while foisting obligations on
private parties who are currently unaware of potential
liability - like farmers using biosolids from wastewater
treatment facility to improve soil health. All of this is
likely to result in litigation to prevent or prolong the
situation, rather than move to promptly address contamination.
I want to be part of the solution--preferably the one
reported by this Committee. I hope my Democrat colleagues are
serious about a sincere effort to work with us to address our
concerns about breadth and adverse consequences--if so, we can
get there. As currently constituted, the language in the bills
before us presents an enormous, sweeping response to the PFAS
chemical class. It's important that we take a closer look to
make sure the actions we take are justified by science.
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming the witnesses and I
look forward to learning more in an effort to make our work
more precise and effective, and EPA's response nimble,
informed, and positive.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. I was about to
recognize Representative Upton as you walked in the room, and
so why don't we recognize you for 30 seconds?
Mr. Upton. Well, I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, thank
you for holding this hearing. I appreciate it. I intend to be
here most of the morning and ask questions at my turn at the
end as I am not a member of the subcommittee. I am glad that we
are looking at a whole number of bipartisan bills. This is an
issue that maybe Michigan knows better than anybody else just
because we have done more discovery than anybody else, and that
should then not be an excuse for the rest of us to be engaged
on an issue that truly impacts the health and safety of every
American.
So, I want to thank both of you. And just to conclude, the
work on TSCA, a bill that we moved with strong, unanimous
support out of this committee, set the stage for where we are
today. So again, your leadership there has brought us to where
we are. We want to work with the administration and get it done
and I look forward to continuing my questions at the end of the
hearing. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. OK, the gentleman yields back. The Chair would
like to remind Members that pursuant to committee rules, all
Members' written opening statements shall be made part of the
record.
With that we will proceed to introduce our witnesses for
today's hearing. First, I will introduce Ms. Emily Marpe,
mother and community member from Petersburgh, New York. Emily
and I have had conversation in the past, and you have a painful
story and we really appreciate you sharing with us this
morning.
Next, we have Dr. Jamie DeWitt, Associate Professor of the
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at Brody School of
Medicine at East Carolina University. Then we have Mr. Brian
Steglitz, who received praise from Congresswoman Dingell, as
manager in water treatment services at the City of Ann Arbor.
Then, Mr. Tracy Mehan, Executive Director of Government
Affairs at American Water Works Association. Then, Ms. Jane
Luxton, Partner, Co-chair of the Environmental and
Administrative Law Practice of Lewis Brisbois. Thank you. And,
Mr. Erik Olson, Health Program Director with Natural Resources
Defense Council.
We thank each and every one of you for being here. Before
we begin with your statements, I would like to explain our
lighting system, which I believe we have up and running today.
In front of you are a series of lights. The lights will
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The
light will turn yellow when you have 1-minute remaining. Please
begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will
turn red when your time expires.
And at this point, the Chair will now recognize Ms. Emily
Marpe for five minutes to provide her opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF EMILY MARPE, MOTHER AND COMMUNITY MEMBER,
PETERSBURGH, NEW YORK; JAMIE C. DeWITT, Ph.D, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY, BRODY
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY; BRIAN STEGLITZ,
MANAGER, WATER TREATMENT SERVICES, CITY OF ANN ARBOR; TRACY
MEHAN III, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AMERICAN
WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION; JANE C. LUXTON, PARTNER, CO-CHAIR OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PRACTICE, LEWIS
BRISBOIS; AND ERIK D. OLSON, HEALTH PROGRAM DIRECTOR, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF EMILY MARPE
Ms. Marpe. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Emily Marpe and I am a
mother of three. At the beginning of this I was only a mother
of two. Now I have three. Oh, first up, that is different.
OK, so first I want to start by thanking two men that
started the journey for everyone involved, Mr. Rob Bilott and
Michael Hickey, a resident of Hoosick Falls, for finding the
contamination in our area. To those two gentlemen I am forever
grateful and thankful. They saved my family. okay, so in
February of 2016, I was informed by a letter in the mail that
they wanted to do a study and test our water for PFOA. After
the letter, I called, scheduled it. They came, they tested. Our
private well tested at 2.1 parts per billion of PFOA.
We called our house ``Cloud Nine,'' because throughout the
buying process, like we came from a 2-bedroom trailer. At times
there were seven of us crammed in the 2-bedroom trailer. I
don't know if you have ever lived in one, but one bathroom--not
fun. And then I worked so hard to become a first-time homebuyer
at 29 and to give my children their first home. It was a 3-
bedroom ranch on spacious 2.38 acres, beautiful, private,
secluded, everything we wanted after we had neighbors at our
back door for 10 years. I mean, it was great.
The day I received the results I was just told, ``Stop
brushing your teeth immediately.'' That is what he said to me
on the phone. It is just like a drop of water in an Olympic-
sized swimming pool. We then went on to get our blood tested.
When I pulled in the driveway and got the results, I opened my
son's first because he spent weekends with his father so I knew
he was exposed the least. His blood level was 103 parts per
billion.
I then moved on to my 10-year-old daughter. She was 207
parts per billion. That was a little tough to take, seeing the
increase. I then opened my own. I was 322 parts per billion,
and then Gwen's father was 418 parts per billion. He was
comparable to a DuPont worker. And I would like to remind you,
we only lived there for 4-1/2 years. It is still mind-blowing
to this day.
I lost myself. My kids lost their mom. I started missing
games. I started missing concerts. I was consumed. I fell in
the PFOA rabbit hole. I couldn't read enough. I couldn't
research enough. I couldn't meet enough people. I couldn't--I
brought my calendar from then to show you. Like this is pre-
PFOA, okay. This is after, like it consumed me, literally.
Gwen, my daughter who is sitting behind me, I still hear it
today because I still attend meetings and I still do things
like this.
They are my family. My job is to protect them. You know, we
were living the American Dream; our bubble was popped in a
horrible way. The safety and security of home fell from under
our feet. I couldn't sleep at night. How do you open your
window knowing that the stacks are blowing and your kids are
out in the tent sleeping in your yard and it is falling on
them, literally falling on them as they sleep? It is not a
comfortable feeling.
I ended up selling my home and that was a challenging
experience in itself. And then 2-1/2 years after I stopped
drinking the water, I became pregnant with my daughter Eliana.
I can't express to you the fear of knowing the story of West
Virginia and Parkersburg and all the towns in Ohio and West
Virginia. At 20 weeks, most mothers are so excited to find out
the sex of their child. I was just praying for two nostrils and
her eyes to be okay. I didn't want her to have to suffer like
others have. This is Ellie. She is 10 months now. She is
beautiful.
When you say there is not enough studies, I have been
diagnosed with thyroid disease. My daughter Gwen now has a
pediatric endocrinologist. We are suffering the health effects.
They are already here and we are only six years later. I don't
know what else to say, that I mean our lives should be more
than profit. It is really mind-blowing that it is not.
Congress needs to treat this as a crisis because it is a
crisis. I mean all the mothers out there, I couldn't
breastfeed. I couldn't do the most basic thing a mother does
for my child because I knew that it would elevate Ellie's
levels. She already got it from me. When she was seven weeks
old, she tested at 75.9 parts per billion. She was higher than
1,573 people out of 2,081 tested in the first round of blood
testing in Hoosick Falls, New York.
That is disgusting. Disgusting. At a minimum, Congress
needs to force companies like Taconic Plastics to report their
PFAS releases and to force our water utilities to tell us if
our drinking water is polluted with PFAS chemicals. Most
importantly, private wells, I mean these people are left
hanging. My house was a half a mile from the plant. The
municipal supply got tested before mine. That was a mile away.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Marpe follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Marpe.
Next, we will move to Dr. DeWitt. You have five minutes to
present your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE C. DeWITT, Ph.D.
Dr. DeWitt. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, good morning and
thank you for inviting me to speak with you about health
effects of exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or
PFAS, chemicals that are estimated to contaminate the drinking
water of 19 million Americans. My name is Dr. Jamie DeWitt and
I am an associate professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology at
East Carolina University.
I have been conducting research on health effects of PFAS
since 2005 with a focus on the immune system. PFAS as you know
are a class of nearly 5,000 closely related chemicals. They all
contain a carbon-fluorine bond. This bond makes them highly
stable, heat resistant, and versatile in manufacturing
processes and consumer goods. This bond also makes PFAS
extremely long-lived in the environment and in our bodies as
they do not readily biodegrade.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assesses the
U.S. population's exposure to environmental chemicals in a
cross-section of the population. They have reported that 98
percent of Americans have at least one or more PFAS in their
blood. Currently, my State of North Carolina is part of the
PFAS crisis. To better understand PFAS contamination in our
State and their health risks, I am part of this PFAS Testing
Network. It is a collaborative partnership of seven different
North Carolina-based universities using both Federal grants and
a substantial State investment to focus our PFAS research
efforts.
The North Carolina Policy Collaboratory, which was created
in 2016 by the North Carolina General Assembly to better
utilize academic expertise across institutions of higher
learning within our state, oversees the network. We can be a
model for other states to understand PFAS. Our scientific
understanding of health effects of PFAS is still growing. Of
the 5,000 PFAS, two have been very well studied and a handful
have limited data.
That said, in the last couple of years there has been a
concerted effort among researchers to expand our understanding
of PFAS. A comprehensive evaluation of toxicological data for
14 different PFAS compiled by the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry reported that people exposed to PFAS
experience a variety of health effects. These associations
include decreased antibody responses to vaccines, liver damage,
changes in serum lipids and cholesterol, increased risk of
thyroid disease, increased risk of asthma, increased risk of
decreased fertility, decreases in birth weight, and increases
in pregnancy-induced preeclampsia and hypertension. Some
populations have also seen increases in the incidence of kidney
and testicular cancer associated with exposure.
These health effects indicate that developing organisms,
the immune system, the endocrine system, and metabolic systems
all are sensitive endpoints to PFAS exposure. These also
indicate that PFAS have carcinogenic abilities. These adverse
health effects also have been observed in experimental animals
fed individual PFAS. Data from experimental animals is an
important component of human health research. It is this
combination of data from studies of exposed human populations,
experimental animals, and molecular mechanisms that has
broadened our understanding of how PFAS exposure leads to
adverse health effects in humans.
Prevention, including vaccines, is the first line of
defense against diseases. We need vaccines to be effective.
Exposure to PFOA and PFOS, two well-studied PFAS, reduces the
immune system's ability to produce antibodies, making our
vaccines less effective. PFAS-associated immune system effects
observed in epidemiological studies of children and adults and
in experimental animal studies of individual PFAS have
supported a causal relationship. In 2016, the National
Toxicology Program evaluated immune studies of PFOA and PFOS
and concluded that they are presumed to be immune hazards to
humans because they can suppress the ability of the immune
system to make antibodies. There is also evidence that these
chemicals can have effects on allergic responses, resistance to
infectious disease, and autoimmune disease.
It is time for Congress to act. Of the 5,000 known PFAS,
the vast majority have no associated research data or standards
for human biomonitoring. But it is not really feasible from a
time or resource perspective to test our way out of this
crisis. Employing a class approach for all PFAS will be
protective for vulnerable subpopulations as well as the general
public. It is not too late. Following the voluntary removal of
PFOA and PFOS from our environment, levels of these PFAS have
decreased in the environment and in our bodies. Since that
time, however, replacement PFAS have increased in production.
We need to learn more about these replacement compounds and ask
ourselves, ``Are these essential for the public good?''
Thank you for understanding the need for legislation that
will diminish the number and amounts of PFAS contaminating our
environment and our bodies.
[The prepared statement of Dr. DeWitt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. DeWitt. And we will now move to
Mr. Brian Steglitz for five minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN STEGLITZ
Mr. Steglitz. Good morning, Chairman Tonko and Ranking
Member Shimkus and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for conducting this hearing and for inviting me to
testify today. Thanks also to Congressman Upton, Congressman
Walberg, and Congresswoman Dingell from Michigan for your
bipartisan commitment and support to address critical public
health and drinking water issues facing our State and the
nation. My name is Brian Steglitz and I am the manager for
water treatment services for the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The city of Ann Arbor is in southeastern Michigan and our
utility serves about 125,000 customers, except for about eight
Saturdays in the fall when the city's pollution doubles. Yes,
we are home to the University of Michigan Wolverines. In early
2017, the city began investigating a new type of carbon and its
filters to remove PFOS from its source waters. In 2018 and
2019, the city invested approximately $850,000 in this new
carbon, which is about 10 percent of our operating budget.
PFOS, however, cannot be addressed with a single capital
investment. We will need to increase the annual expensive
carbon replacement by over a factor of two to achieve effective
PFOS removal at our plant. While we have come up with a
solution to ensure the city's drinking water is safe and public
health is protected, removing these chemicals at the end of the
pipe is not the most cost-effective approach. The best way to
address these contaminants is at their source.
Currently, utilities are in a situation where chemicals
where chemicals of unknown risk are entering circulation, are
not being monitored, are discharged from industrial sources and
municipal wastewater treatment plants into watersheds and enter
the source water for drinking water systems. It may not be
until chemicals are already detected in drinking water that
risk assessment and exposure evaluations are initiated. This is
just too late. For those chemicals that are already in
circulation and being actively used by industry, more effective
controls are needed to ensure these chemicals are not allowed
to enter our watersheds, as well as legislation that would
require the polluter to cover the cost of abatement.
As utilities develop solutions to address PFAS
contaminants, many of these solutions may require significant
capital investment. How is a utility to be sure that near-term
investments are able to address long-term public health risks
when much of the science and public health impacts has yet to
be developed? While financial resources for utilities to
address PFAS contamination sites are critical, resources to
address research are equally important. Until the water
community can understand the public health risks, it will not
be able to ensure that appropriate resources are dedicated to
addressing PFOS.
There are many other significant needs that cannot be
neglected as utilities stretch their resources to address PFAS,
aging infrastructure, lead, algal toxins, to name a few, remain
at the forefront of water quality issues facing drinking water
systems. Federal Government leadership will be critical to
putting the country on the right path to addressing PFAS
contamination and exposure.
The most common question we receive from customers is, ``Is
our water safe to drink?'' Ann Arbor is no different than
utilities all over the country who are facing this similar
question. Historically, utilities would commonly answer this
question with an emphatic, ``Yes, we comply with Safe Drinking
Water Act requirements.'' Even though this is still true,
because there are no regulatory limits for any PFAS, this
response is no longer acceptable to our customers.
While EPA considers future regulation, many states
including Michigan are not willing to wait. Over the next few
years there will likely be many different regulatory approaches
taken across the United States. Why is this problematic? It is
difficult to communicate to your customers in New Jersey or
Minnesota or Vermont that has evaluated the risks to their
residents differently and that one State places a lower value
on protection of public health than another. Ann Arbor
customers as well as many other communities around the United
States will accept nothing less than the most stringent
requirements.
That is why we have taken the approach to select the most
stringent PFAS limits that exist and use these as our own
current water quality goals. One may think that we really
didn't need to take such an aggressive approach, but customer
confidence and trust is the foundation of a successful utility.
We along with other utilities around the country will be asking
much from our customers in the future as we seek rate support
for much-needed investment. If we are unable to satisfy the
water quality expectations of our customers, we will not be
able to sustain the revenue support that we need to ensure that
we can deliver safe water for the next generations in our
communities. For these reasons, Federal leadership is critical.
To recap, we need stronger control of the chemicals that
enter circulation in the United States, source water protection
to ensure contaminants do not enter watersheds, to hold
polluters accountable for cleaning up contaminated sites,
financial support for research and to implement new treatment
technologies, and regulatory oversight that has been vetted by
the best science. With these tools, utilities will be best
positioned to address PFAS contamination and succeed in their
common missions to protect public health. Thank you for your
attention to support an issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Steglitz follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Steglitz. And now we recognize
Mr. Tracy Mehan for five minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF TRACY MEHAN III
Mr. Mehan. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee. My name is
Tracy Mehan and I am executive director for Government Affairs
for the American Water Works Association on whose behalf I am
speaking today. I appreciate this opportunity as do our members
to offer AWWA's perspectives on the many pressing issues
surrounding PFAS.
Let me--since this is Infrastructure Week, I do want to
thank the committee for your work on reauthorizing the Safe
Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund and doubling the
authorized amount as well as putting WIFIA on a more permanent
footing. These two programs are key in dealing what is
paramount threat to public health that is aging and
deteriorating infrastructure, so my members are most grateful
for your work on that.
AWWA's 50,000 members, including 4,000 utility members that
are subsumed in that 50,000 figures, represent the full
spectrum of utilities, small and large, rural and urban,
municipal and investor-owned. So, in addition, I am speaking
not just as AWWA person, but as a former State and Federal
regulator and an adjunct professor of environmental law. Let me
say first up that all our members are conscious, extremely
conscious of the concerns and the fears and the aspirations of
our members. We are customer-facing more now than ever. This is
a post-Flint environment and it--believe me, public affairs
risk communication are priorities for all of our members and
good education as to what we know and what we don't know is
first and foremost in all our members' minds.
Drinking water utilities and State environmental agencies
need to know where to focus monitoring resources to understand
what risks may be in source waters and implement source water
protection practices and engagement with these sources. That is
a fundamental principle of what we do, as Brian mentioned.
There are existing tools that EPA could be using to a greater
degree to help address such concerns regarding PFAS, in
particular as was noted, the Toxic Substance Control Act, or
TSCA. Deploying these TSCA authorities in the service of safe
drinking water is source water protection at the strategic
level. Call it prevention, if you will, as Brian indicated.
Utilizing its oversight authority over the work of Federal
agencies, we urge Congress to ensure that EPA takes advantage
of such existing authorities under TSCA to manage risk posed by
PFAS compounds. Using such authority, we think the Agency needs
to provide a report in one year and update it every two years,
describing the location of current and past PFAS production,
import processing, and use in the United States for individual
PFAS compounds based on data collected through TSCA. It should
also show appropriate actions taken or planned under TSCA to
restrict production, use, and import of PFAS and support
improved risk communications with the public.
Also, report on actions taken by other Federal agencies and
in particular the Department of Defense and Health and Human
Services to address PFAS concerns. And, finally, report on
statutory and non-statutory barriers encountered in gathering
and distributing information on PFAS in order to inform risk
management decisions by EPA, states, and local risk managers.
EPA officials have promised to issue a proposed regulatory
determination for PFAS and PFOA under the Safe Drinking Water
processes this year. We urge Congress to support EPA's Office
of Water, particularly on the appropriations side as it works
through the rule determination process.
With regard to the Federal drinking water standard process,
we understand that the process can be frustratingly slow.
However, a scientific risk-based and data-driven process that
discerns what substances are to be regulated and at what levels
is indeed going to take a significant amount of time and
effort. We caution against setting a precedent of bypassing
these established processes via legislative action. The nation
tested this approach with the 1986 amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act with untoward results and I was on the
receiving end of that as a State official at the Missouri DNR
at the time.
That said, we are eager to follow the data on PFAS
compounds wherever it may go in the investigative process so
that we may know how best to protect public health. We will
then prepare our members to comply with any new regulations and
they will do so expeditiously.
In our 2012 study, buried no longer, AWWA determined that
the United States needs to spend about a trillion dollars over
25 years to maintain, expand, and replace our current level of
water, drinking water infrastructure, and that is just on the
drinking water side of the house. Therefore, over time,
regulatory actions need to be prudently implemented to avoid
aggravating affordability issues for customers, particularly
those with low incomes.
We just came out with our rate survey for 2016 to 2018 and
it showed that it was up 7.2 to 7.5 percent, twice the level of
the CPI. So this is a risk-risk situation and we need to target
real risk and get true reduction and pay attention to the cost
side. Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mehan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Mehan. And now we recognize Ms.
Jane Luxton for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JANE C. LUXTON
Ms. Luxton. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee for inviting me to
testify today on legislation that has been introduced to
address PFAS contamination. My name is Jane Luxton. I am a
partner in the Washington, DC office of the law firm Lewis
Brisbois and co-chair of its Environmental and Administrative
Law Practice. I was informed this morning by committee staff
that a lawsuit was filed last night in which a firm client is
named as the defendant. This is the first I have heard of this
and I am not involved in that case. I am appearing today on my
own behalf as an environmental and administrative law
practitioner with decades of experience with environmental
regulatory matters.
Today, I would like to speak to the broader issue of the
challenges surrounding the regulation of PFAS chemicals and
address a few of the specific bills the committee is
considering. There is no question this is a serious issue. We
have heard testimony about the research that has been conducted
on PFAS chemicals, and the fact is, most of it has been
concentrated on PFOA and PFOS, but much less is known about the
other PFAS compounds. These compounds vary in terms of specific
chemical structure, chain length and composition, and these
differences matter in terms of fate and degradation in the
environment as well as toxicity, uptake, and retention in
humans, plants, and animals.
Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program
testified before a Senate subcommittee last fall that ``We do
not have strong data for which to base conclusions for the
great majority of thousands of PFAS compounds and we have only
limited findings that support particular adverse health
effects.''
A great deal of academic and governmental research is
currently underway to determine the extent of causal links
between exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and the many other PFAS
compounds and specific health effects in humans. There is a
solid consensus that more research is needed. There is also
wide agreement that the Federal Government has an important
role to play in regulating these chemicals and it is equally
important that those regulations be based on up-to-date,
credible scientific research, good data, and legally sound
procedures.
Imposing blanket regulations on thousands of PFAS
chemicals, as some of the proposed legislation proposes to do
when scientists agree we have, at best, limited information on
most, risks losing focus on the highest priority concern. As
the Centers for Disease Control stated in its most recent
report, ``Finding a measurable amount of PFAS in blood does not
imply the levels caused an adverse health effect,'' and ``Small
amounts of PFAS may be of no health consequence,'' an
indiscriminate approach would impose extraordinary costs on
Federal agencies, States, and local Governments requiring funds
they simply do not have, while diluting resources that should
be targeted on the highest risk chemicals.
Even chemicals of demonstrably significant concerns such as
dioxin, PCBs, and PAHs have been found on examination to differ
significantly in terms of potency among individuals' congeners
or types of chemicals. The alternative of attempting to impose
a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating PFAS chemicals poses
a real risk of doing harm. Bills that direct agencies to issue
specific Federal regulations can present other challenges.
For example, agencies must adhere to the rulemaking
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act which requires
agencies to follow a series of steps providing for transparency
and decision making, a defensible administrative record,
analyses of the benefits and costs of the regulatory action,
and the feasibility of alternatives and due process in the form
of public notice and comment if a regulation is to withstand
review by the courts. It does little good to issue a regulation
if it is going to be struck down by the courts as inadequate
under the law. It only leads to delay in the effectiveness of
any regulatory initiative.
EPA's action plan includes action under both CERCLA and the
Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA is taking steps to designate PFOA
and PFOS as CERCLA-hazardous substances which would provide
additional power to regulate responsible parties and require
them to undertake and/or pay for the remediation. But expanding
this approach to all PFAS compounds as H.R. 535 seeks to do,
could lead to wholesale reopening of remediated sites
potentially overwhelming the program and undermining progress
on the highest risk targets.
With respect to other bills, H.R. 2577 would amend the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 to
require reporting on releases of PFAS through the Toxic Release
Inventory. The PFAS of greatest concern of course are no longer
being manufactured, so releases of these compounds from
manufacturing is extremely unlikely.
Requiring reporting on thousands of other compounds the
toxicity of which is not established is of uncertain value.
This proposed legislation would greatly expand reporting
requirements at great cost.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Luxton follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Luxton. And we now move to Mr.
Erik Olson for five minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF ERIK D. OLSON
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Shimkus. I am Erik Olson. I oversee the health team at Natural
Resources Defense Council and I want to talk about PFAS because
these chemicals are in pretty much every person in this room is
carrying PFAS in your body. Many of those compounds have been
tested and many have not been tested and we are actually all
walking around as guinea pigs being exposed to these chemicals,
carrying them in our bodies and in many cases, there are
adverse health effects that we are very concerned about.
I spent part of last night with about 30 individuals from
across the country who have come to DC to talk about their
experience with PFAS contamination. Much like Emily's story, we
heard about people whose family members who had birth defects,
people who are suffering from cancer of the testicles, cancer
of the kidneys, other effects that really are of concern. These
are real worries. And unfortunately, this class of chemicals
shares three very consistent properties that are really
worrisome.
One is, they are very toxic at low doses. When we test them
and we look at them, the more we learn, the more toxic we know
they are. Secondly, they are extremely persistent. These are
forever chemicals. The carbon-fluorine bond makes them that
way. And we now know at least 600 sites across the country are
contaminated and we haven't looked in most places. I can
guarantee you that every congressional district has a PFAS
contamination problem, it just may not have been discovered
yet. And, thirdly, they are all very mobile. And the reason
that is a problem is they get into drinking water. They get
into soils. They get into people.
The health effects we have heard about and they are in many
cases heartbreaking, I want to talk about what we need to do
about this problem. Unfortunately, we have got a class of
chemicals as you have heard, 3 to 5 thousand of these, about
4,700 according to many reports. We need to deal with this
class. Think about how we could possibly regulate these one by
one. If you have 4,700 chemicals and it takes EPA years to
regulate a single chemical, how many millennia is it going to
take to regulate thousands of chemicals? We have got to deal
with this as a class. We know that they share common properties
and we know that they are causing adverse effects in too many
cases.
So, first of all, we need to stop approving new uses of
these chemicals and new PFAS chemicals. And there is a bill by
Ms. Dean that would do that. We need to also phase out the
existing products. Ms. Dean's bill would phase out existing
products. Ms. Kuster's bill, actually, would address the new
products and the new uses and we need to stop those.
Secondly, we need to document and disclose the extent of
the problem, so it is important to be monitoring groundwater
and drinking water, figure out how widespread the problem is.
There is legislation that would do that, have USGS do that. We
think there is a need for new legislation not yet introduced
that would force comprehensive monitoring of drinking water. We
have seen it in Michigan, and when you test, when Michigan
tested, they found sites all over the State with contamination.
Most states have not done this. In fact, virtually no other
State has done anything close to what Michigan has done.
We need to also make sure that the manufacturers and
processors disclose the use and also the discharges, releases
of those chemicals. And we certainly have a bill from Antonio
Delgado that would address that through the Toxic Release
Inventory. We also need consumers to be informed so they can
make intelligent choices. If you go into the grocery store or
you go into Target, it would be good to know whether the
products you are buying have PFAS on them.
We would like a safer choice program that would deal with
the full array of consumer products and disclose. We also think
it is important to have cleanup authorities. One of the big
issues here--and, Mrs. Dingell, thank you for introducing a
bill with Mr. Upton that would address these issues under
Superfund. It is very important to have class of PFAS
controlled under CERCLA so that we can ensure cleanup.
Polluters should be paying for the cleanup and we certainly
support a user fee that would help ensure that some of those
polluters are paying. We need regulation of the air emissions
and the water emissions under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water
Act.
Sewage sludge contamination is a big problem. We talked
last night to a farmer in Maine who had applied sewage sludge
to his dairy area where his cattle were grazing, severe
contamination of all of his cows. He has to throw away all his
milk. He is going to have to basically get rid of his dairy
cows because they are so contaminated. So we need to deal with
all these sources and ultimately clean up the contamination
that has already been caused. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Dingell [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony. We
have concluded the witnesses' opening statements. We now will
move to member questions. Each Member will have five minutes to
ask questions of our witnesses, and I get to start by
recognizing myself for five minutes.
So, when I quickly acknowledged one of our witnesses
earlier, I talked--and several of the witnesses mentioned how
Michigan has been hard hit by PFAS. It is in our drinking
water, groundwater, rivers, lakes, and ponds. It has
contaminated fish and other wildlife. PFAS foam is still
washing up and collecting across the State in places like the
Huron River Watershed which goes throughout my district and
your former military bases. We have even had to tell people,
``Don't eat the foam.'' I know you would think you wouldn't
have to tell people that but you do.
This chemical is impacting both Democratic and Republican
districts, and Fred Upton, Tim Walberg, and I are all very
concerned in working together. So, as you say, Michigan is
ground zero for PFAS sites, but it is because we are looking at
it and addressing it which many other states are not. It is a
growing threat nationwide. Comprehensive and bipartisan
solutions exist today to deal with these toxic, manmade,
forever chemicals. We are serious in a very bipartisan way
about ridding these hazardous chemicals wherever they exist
from our drinking water, firefighting foams, consumer products,
food containers--that bill is coming--and the air we breathe.
Each of these bills we are considering today, most with
bipartisan support, are meaningful solutions. Congress must
move forward and now.
So, because we have got so many of you and I am going to
personal privilege, Brian, these questions are going to be for
you. I am going to begin with you. Can you explain the
technologies you are employing as well as the costs you have
experienced to remove PFAS from Ann Arbor's drinking water?
Mr. Steglitz. We currently use carbon, granular activated
carbon and concrete filters to remove the PFAS. As the water
flows through the filter media the PFAS attaches to the carbon
particles. When the filters are washed the PFAS stays attached,
so the PFAS can only be removed through high temperature
thermal treatment. And this is the way that PFAS can be
destroyed, which is really important when we are looking for
solutions to address PFAS contamination so we are not moving
the PFAS from one source or media to another. It is important
for these chemicals to be destroyed because if they are not,
they can make it back into the environment.
On the cost impact for our customers had been a three to
four percent rate increase to deal with the one-time
replacement of the carbon and approximately one percent per
year after due to the increased frequency that we need to.
Mrs. Dingell. Are there any innovative solutions to address
PFAS contamination from a watershed approach that you are
considering?
Mr. Steglitz. It is more effective to remove these
contaminants and chemicals at the source. The City has begun
conversations with the State of Michigan and upstream sources
to evaluate implementing more robust treatment for these
chemicals and dealing with that in watershed as opposed to the
end of the pipe. The reason why this is innovative is because
right now industrial dischargers, municipal wastewater
treatment plants, and drinking water treatment plants are all
regulated in silos.
So by looking at the PFAS contamination from the watershed
approach, we can come up with more effective solutions to
address the pollution at the place where it is most cost
effectively removed.
Mrs. Dingell. I am going to ask you two questions quickly
because we are running out of time. I know that Ann Arbor
residents, because I hear from them regularly like you do, are
worried about the safety of their chemicals. And how are you
communicating the risks and how does the Federal Government
help you, and in the absence of Federal leadership what actions
are the City of Ann Arbor and Michigan taking, and from a water
utilities perspective how important is Federal leadership to
effectively protect human health and the environment from PFAS?
Mr. Steglitz. Well, we found that transparent and frequent
communication was critical to maintaining support from our
customers. By statute we are obligated to report on our water
quality annually, but beginning this month in May, we decided
to do monthly water quality reports that have a dashboard for
our customers to illustrate current water quality, and a copy
of our report is included with my written testimony. We have
had a lot of good feedback from our customers on this approach
and we have been posting all of our analytical results to our
website which is qualitywatermatters.org.
There is a lot of good information that ATSDR and EPA have
on their websites about PFAS, but the real challenge that we
are facing is how do you communicate about contaminants where
the risk is unknown and the science is developing? And this is
a place where more Federal leadership would be helpful to
provide us the tools that we need to communicate around these
difficult issues.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I am going to quickly move to Mr.
Olson because we are running out of time. But, Mr. Olson, if
PFAS chemicals were listed as a hazardous substance under the
Superfund program, what would this mean for the 610 PFAS
contamination sites identified across 43 states and our ability
to clean up these harmful chemicals in the environment?
Mr. Olson. Well, it would help to designate them under the
Superfund law because it would give the muscular authority to
the Federal Government and to states to try to force cleanup at
a lot of these sites. They would have to prioritize the sites.
They would have to evaluate how severe the contamination was
and then construct some kind of program to make sure that they
clean them up, which is really important.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I am out of time, so I will now
yield to Mr. Shimkus for five minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman. So many questions,
so little time.
So, I want to go to Mr. Mehan. Some of my colleagues have
made the argument that we need to force EPA to regulate all
PFAS, and we have already been talking about that. I mean we
are talking 4 to 6 thousand chemicals--because EPA has an issue
to regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act since 1996. Do
you agree that EPA has been sitting on its regulatory hands for
the past 22-plus years through multiple administrations when it
comes to drinking water?
Mr. Mehan. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. And be quick, I have got a whole----
Mr. Mehan. Yes. No, it is an urban legend. When I was at
the Agency in 2001, we got out the Arsenic Rule. That was a
long effort. It wasn't fast, but we got it out. There has been
a Radionuclides Rule. There is a Filter Backwash Recycle Rule.
There are two Disinfection Byproducts rules. There is an
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Long Term 1 and Long
Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Groundwater Rule,
Lead and Copper Rule has been revised, Revised Total Coliform
Rule, we have 15 health advisories that while they are not
MCLs, they have impacts. We are here today because of a health
advisory on this issue.
There have also been five information request rules that
have put literally hundreds of millions of dollars of burden on
utilities. I mean Brian could probably speak to this. And, in
addition, we have to look at the overall regulatory effort that
goes on with the Candidate Contaminant List and the Unregulated
Contaminate Monitoring Rule by which the Agency under the law
winnows and sifts what risks need to be regulated, and in that
process they have identified 24 or so contaminants that should
not be regulated, which is as important as identifying those
that should.
So we certainly don't feel like they have taken a vacation.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, thank you. Let me cut you off there. And
you mentioned lead and copper, which we think is coming
relatively soon; perchlorate, probably another one that is
going to be coming relatively soon.
Mr. Mehan. I think that is more than probable, right, under
a court order.
Mr. Shimkus. Right. And so, I mean so here is the issue. We
have a process. We have a system. So, if someone would litigate
those rules, if they go through the process they would probably
lose in court. If we supersede the system by doing a law
without going through the regulatory process of testing, do we
risk nothing happening on this?
Mr. Mehan. Well, I take the Agency at their word. They are
certainly looking at----
Mr. Shimkus. No, I am just talking about if we go the whole
class of chemicals without--we know that the most studied of
these are PFOS and PFOA, right?
Mr. Mehan. At this moment, yes.
Mr. Shimkus. Right. And we have got 4 to 6 thousand
chemicals. If we, by legislative fiat, ban 4 to 5 thousand
chemicals without the due diligence of a scientific analysis,
do we risk infinitum litigation and no action on this?
Mr. Mehan. I don't want to pre-judge litigation, but you
would probably see a lot of people concerned about precipitous
action without a good risk assessment and benefit-cost
analysis.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me go to Ms. Luxton. I know there are
concerns with GenX and about two dozen other PFAS chemicals.
You have already heard the 4 thousand, 6 thousand other
derivations of this. Are you aware of any class of chemicals
that has been regulated so thoroughly without regard to actual
supporting evidence of toxicity?
Ms. Luxton. No, that has not been done. And as I mentioned
in my testimony, dioxins, PCBs, PAHs, many other highly toxic
substances have been on study discovered to have significant
differences in toxicity and uptake and impacts on human health
with respect to the specific compound. And it does matter which
type of PFAS we are talking about.
Mr. Shimkus. So, if we go down this course would this
precedent bother you?
Ms. Luxton. Yes, I think there would be litigation. There
is no question. And to just sort of impose blanket bans is
highly risky. It risks overcorrecting, if you want to put it
that way, and changing, diluting the priorities that need to be
focused on the highest risks.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and let me go to Mr. Steglitz, because I
do believe that our water providers do the best they can to
meet the standards. There is a lot of capital cost. If you were
asked to regulate a chemical that was safe, would you want to
do that? If you had to clean out a chemical from the water
system that was safe and it cost a huge capital expense, would
you say, ``I am going to do that?''
Mr. Steglitz. We obviously have limited resources, so we
would want to be focusing on the contaminants that have public
health risk.
Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. The chairman now
yields five minutes to Chairman Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say it
just seems like everywhere we look for these toxic chemicals in
water we find them. There is so much that needs to be done. But
one of the things I always believed is that polluters are
responsible for this contamination and they should be
responsible primarily for the cleanup. And so I was pleased to
see a strong action in my home State of New Jersey with this
lawsuit filed just yesterday against the makers of PFAS
firefighting foam.
But I wanted to ask, you know, I mentioned 13 different
bills. Let me just ask some questions about some of them.
First, H.R. 2377, introduced by Representative Boyle, sets a
deadline for EPA to set a national drinking water standard for
total PFAS. Again, New Jersey has set a maximum contaminant
level for some PFAS. That is the first in the country.
But let me ask Mr. Olson, first. How would a national
drinking water standard protect communities in states without
standards and how could it drive up Superfund cleanups?
Mr. Olson. Well, basically there is an urgent need for
standards, enforceable standards for drinking water. We believe
that the states are moving forward. You mentioned New Jersey.
Several other states are moving forward, Michigan and others,
with drinking water standards. The problem is that some states
are not doing that.
So, ideally, you would like strong, health protective
national standards and Mr. Boyle's bill would require standards
to be set for the class. Our main concern is that the
underlying statute under the Safe Drinking Water Act when it
was amended in 1996 makes it virtually impossible to set
strong, good standards, or it makes it very challenging for EPA
to move forward with new standards of unregulated contaminants.
Mr. Pallone. And that is why we would need a legislation.
Mr. Olson. That is right.
Mr. Pallone. What about driving Superfund cleanups? How
would that impact it?
Mr. Olson. Well, Superfund cleanups, Superfund lists
chemicals that have a maximum contaminant level. Those are
considered what are called ``applicable, relevant, and
appropriate regulations,'' or ARARs that would drive the
cleanup.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. Steglitz, how could a national drinking water standard
help affected water systems access State Revolving Loan funds
to address PFAS contamination?
Mr. Steglitz. Well, some states have requirements for
regulatory compliance as a driver for receiving points as
potential products are evaluated for competing resources, so it
would help facilitate access to revolving loan funds in some
states.
Mr. Pallone. Well, there is a standard of course and only
part of the solution, and whether or not a standard is in place
drinking water utilities are moving forward with PFAS
treatment. So again, Mr. Steglitz, what capital costs has your
water system faced in addressing PFAS contamination?
Mr. Steglitz. We spent just under a million dollars to
replace some of our filter media, but we will also have an
ongoing cost of approximately $350,000 a year to replace
because it has a limited life expectancy when you are using the
filter carbon for PFAS removal.
Mr. Pallone. And what is the effect of this on your
operations and maintenance costs?
Mr. Steglitz. The capital investment was about a three to
four percent increase in revenue that we required that we had
to pass on to our customers and then the continuing operation
and maintenance costs will be about one percent.
Mr. Pallone. So, Mr. Mehan, can water utilities across the
country absorb those kinds of costs without additional
assistance? Are they going to be able to do that without
additional assistance?
Mr. Mehan. Well, one of our members, and Dr. DeWitt may be
up on this, Cape Fear, North Carolina, which had the issue with
Chemours and GenX, is actually spending $40 million, I think,
for granular activated carbon. They are sucking it up. Their
ratepayers are going to pick that up. And that was a pretty up-
to-speed system, if I can use that term.
So, yes. Right now they will do what they have to do if
there is public demand and political leadership demanding that
it be treated. But again, there is no question that if you do
5,000 chemicals under an MCL or a treatment standard, that is
going to have unforeseen costs that are going to affect other
investments whether it is lead service line replacement or
dealing with microbial disinfection byproducts. We haven't
talked about that. That is a big priority.
Mr. Pallone. All right, let me just get in one more
question to Mr. Olson about adoption of more effective drinking
water treatment techniques and how it benefits public health.
I'm sorry to cut you off, but just wanted to get one question--
--
Mr. Olson. Well, I think it is important. And one issue
with these technologies like granular activated carbon or
reverse osmosis are two of the technologies, they are going to
remove much of the class. Especially reverse osmosis, it is
going to--if you regulate it as a class, it is going to take
care of that entire class. So I think it is a little bit of a
false argument to say that we can't regulate that whole class
because the treatment technologies actually are going to remove
a full array. So the GAC may or may not remove certain of them;
in some cases you may need to go to a reverse osmosis.
Mr. Pallone. And that obviously benefits public health.
Mr. Olson. It has enormous public health benefits because
people won't be exposed.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman concludes, so we will now
recognize Representative Rodgers for five minutes, please.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
represent Fairchild Air Force Base, which is the largest tanker
base in America and the largest employer in Spokane County,
which in recent years has been leading some discovery efforts
in our community around the base to test for PFAS contamination
in the water supply for the base as well as in the
neighborhoods and community around the base.And this
contamination has largely been pointed to the uses of
firefighting foam through the years. We all agree that we need
to better understand the issue and the impact PFAS is having on
many of us.
I would like just to--Mr. Mehan, I would like to ask about
your current research efforts into PFAS and the family of
chemicals. Your testimony notes that additional research is
needed to develop analytical methods to quantify levels of PFAS
compounds in environmental samples like water supplies. If
science is currently unable to even detect the presence of some
PFAS compounds in water supplies, how would a water system be
able to determine whether the filters or any effort to treat
for the compound has been effective?
Mr. Mehan. Well, there are a few methods for some of the
PFAS and more are being developed by EPA, but we don't really
have it for wastewater and soil. So there is, you know, a vast
frontier of research that is needed out there. I was happy to
see EPA just let out 3.9 million on research projects.
But when I think of the--I spent eight years in Michigan
working on Great Lakes issues. When I think of the whole issue
with chlorinated compounds and chlorine and organic chlorines,
that was a 20-, 30-year effort, you know, and there are many,
many chlorinated compounds. We got down to a list of 25 and we
worked that hard and got maximum risk reduction for a
reasonable investment.
So I don't see--I, quite frankly, take issue with Erik on
that we know what the benefits and the costs are, what
technologies are available, what methods will tell us. Again, I
will defer to Dr. DeWitt on the science. I am a recovering
lawyer, not a scientist. But we are in unknown territory here.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Well, do you believe it would be
wise for EPA to promulgate a drinking water regulation for this
family of chemicals for human biomonitoring?
Mr. Mehan. When you say a family, you mean the whole family
of PFAS?
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Or this----
Mr. Mehan. I don't know how they can do 5,000. Now there is
some precedent, the disinfection byproducts I mentioned where
they have a suite of MCLs and treatment standards dealing with
a bundle of them, and that was done through a very
collaborative Federal FACA, Federal advisory committee process.
This one, I confess, I don't know how you, you know, unless you
just acted without information, without a risk assessment,
without benefit-costs, without knowing technology, how you do
that whole family. It just defies my understanding anyway.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK, thank you.
Mr. Steglitz, I wanted to ask you some about the Michigan
example and just the work that was done at the State level and
how that has supplemented or supplanted maybe what is going on
at the Federal level either at EPA or DoD, and do you--how do
you believe these State initiatives can work best with the
Federal level?
Mr. Steglitz. If I understand your question correctly, are
you speaking about the testing that this State has done to
identify sources?
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Has the State laid out some
standards?
Mr. Steglitz. So Michigan is in the process of establishing
recommended MCLs for PFAS compounds. It is unclear how many.
Dr. DeWitt is participating in that process, so by October of
2019 Michigan is supposed to have recommendations to the
Governor on MCLs and how these chemicals will be regulated.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK, so there is nothing currently at
the State level. It is----
Mr. Steglitz. Not currently.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK. How do you see that working with
efforts at the Federal level? Are you working closely with EPA
as you are working, moving forward?
Mr. Steglitz. My understanding is that EPA Region 5 is
engaged with the process. But Michigan is really taking this,
the leadership, they are moving forward with this because
they--of all of the testing and the analytical work that has
been done in Michigan to identify sources of PFAS
contamination, so really not waiting for EPA, moving forward on
their own because of, really, the demand from the residents of
Michigan.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK, OK. Thank you.
I will yield the rest of my time, yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back. I will now
recognize myself for five minutes.
Identifying the different chemicals in this class and
understanding the differences between them is challenging for
us as lawmakers, but it is especially challenging for the
affected communities, so I appreciate that the legislation
before us today addresses these chemicals as a class. That
approach ensures that we address all of the chemicals of
concern and avoid dangerous substitutions. I believe the
question of whether we treat PFAS as a class will be a central
question as we move forward with legislation, so I would like
to hear from the panel about this approach.
Mr. Olson, do you think it is important to treat PFAS as a
class for regulatory purposes?
Mr. Olson. It is crucial to treat them as a class for
several reasons. One is this carbon-fluorine bond that makes
them all share a lot of similar properties. Secondly, the more
we study any of these individual compounds, the more we find
they are toxic at low doses. We have a big whack-a-mole problem
where if we regulate PFOA and PFOS, there are a couple others,
they just move to GenX and then we study GenX and they move to
another, and we have 4,700 of these things and we will never
finish regulating. And, finally, two major scientific
statements by the Helsingor Statement and the Madrid Statement
from 200 scientists say that we should regulate these as a
class because of their similarities.
Mr. Tonko. And so the challenges that you see with trying
to regulate individual PFAS one by one pretty much gets
addressed by the fact that you said they can be just
transferred over?
Mr. Olson. That is right. You can--that is the problem is
that if you don't regulate them as a class, we simply have this
whack-a-mole treadmill where never get around to really
regulating things.
Mr. Tonko. Well, we have bills before us that touch on
multiple statutes, so I would like to make sure that I
understand as we go forward. Do you think PFAS should be
treated as a class when we are adopting treatment techniques to
remove them from drinking water?
Mr. Olson. Yes. And I think EPA could issue a treatment
technique rule that would say use this technology, it will
remove the full class. That would--rather than setting MCLs for
4,000 or 600 or however many individual chemicals.
Mr. Tonko. Well, what about when we are cleaning up
Superfund sites?
Mr. Olson. Again, I think EPA could move forward with some
treatment requirements. They could have certain chemicals that
are sentinel chemicals. If they are detected then start
requiring treatment.
Mr. Tonko. And what about when we are reporting releases
under the Toxic Release Inventory, would identifying each
individual PFAS release be challenging?
Mr. Olson. Well, I think there will be some challenges. We
would like to see perhaps identifying some chemicals that would
have to explicitly be disclosed and then the full class, so
that we have an idea of downstream sources if they know where
it is coming from but you also have captured the full class.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And given what we know about the
speed at which EPA is addressing chemicals since the Lautenberg
Act, what about under TSCA whether we are requiring testing,
banning new PFAS or comprehensively regulating all PFAS?
Mr. Olson. We are very concerned about how slow that will
be if Congress doesn't intervene. And it was this committee,
actually, on PCBs, Mr. Dingell, who led the charge to ban PCBs
as a class. I think, really, we need to go forward with a
class-oriented approach under TSCA.
Mr. Tonko. OK, any other examples of EPA doing that as a--
--
Mr. Olson. There are many examples. Dioxins is another
example and there are others where EPA has regulated classes.
Mr. Tonko. Turning to Dr. DeWitt, I understand that PFAS
share important chemical characteristics so I want to
understand whether they share toxicological profiles. Do you
agree that these chemicals should be treated as a class?
Dr. DeWitt. I do agree. And I think that Mr. Olson has made
some very important points about the carbon-fluorine bond which
is what these compounds all have in common. This bond makes
them impossible to degrade. This bond is very strong. So as far
as we know, all PFAS are persistent. They are going to be in
the environment. They can move into our bodies. Once they get
into our bodies they can interact with various receptors. And
as I mentioned, they can affect the immune system. They can
induce cancer. They can affect the endocrine system. And they
can affect lipid metabolism. These are common toxicities we
observe.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. When this subcommittee held a hearing
on PFAS in September, we heard testimony from a resident of
North Carolina whose drinking water showed 26 different PFAS
were present, many she could not even identify. So, Ms. Marpe,
given how hard it can be for affected communities to identify
the specific PFAS in their air and water, is it important to
you that we take action to address all PFAS rather than just a
select few?
Ms. Marpe. It is extremely important. I mean when I was
telling you my story, we were tested in our blood for six PFAS
chemicals and we had five out of the six. So even though I told
you about our PFOA blood levels, we have other chemicals. We
have PHXpA, PhFPS. Like, they are there. PFNA. As a mom, like
filter it, filter the water. I mean human health should come
first. Nobody should have to experience what we have gone
through.
I mean the solutions are there, everybody just needs to
come together and meet in the middle and find the common
ground. It shouldn't be cost over human health. No family
should go through what we went through. Nobody. My
grandchildren are going to have these chemicals, okay. My
grandchildren. My daughter is going to pass these chemicals to
her children, okay, if she decides to have a child in the next
five, six years. That is and through no fault of her own.
From bathing. From having a glass of water. You know, I was
strict. Believe it or not, I was really strict. No soda. Milk
or water.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Now the chair recognizes Representative McKinley for five
minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you, Ms.
Marpe, for your reference back to Parkersburg and Vienna, West
Virginia. That is my district and it was three years ago we
spent a great deal of time trying to address this issue and
figure out how we might be able to resolve it. And one of the
resolutions there was the activated carbon filters, and that
worked. But it opened up this whole education process and we
learned three years ago, opened up more questions.
And so I may be at odds with my party, but I am also, I am
at odds with this whole issue trying to understand it as an
engineer. I am one of just two licensed professional engineers
in Congress. So because what I look on this, one thing we
learned was 80 percent of our exposure to PFAS is 80 percent of
is not water, it is from the food we eat. CDC came out with,
their report said drinking water, ingesting food, from fish and
shellfish, packaged food, packaged products, hand to mouth,
primarily with carpeting. So you can get that from carpeting,
the dust and the filter with that and just working in a plant.
So we have got other than just water we should be addressing.
OK, now with that, the Geneva--they just had a conference
in Geneva two weeks ago. Because what I am concerned about is
imports. We can take an action in America and deal with it, but
until there is a global consciousness of this--and we are
importing--we are still going to have this exposure to it. And
what they did just two weeks ago in Geneva, they exempted all
the products we are worried about. They exempted firefighting
foam. They exempted implantable medical devices, fluorinated
polymers--that is our Teflon. They exempted plastic accessories
for car interior parts and they exempted manufacturing electric
wires.
I am just saying, folks, we can chase this rabbit about
water, but there are a lot more problems associated. We are not
going to be addressing that especially because we are part of a
global community and we are going to be importing things that
come in that are going to be contaminated and continue to do
this. So I am concerned about how we are going to protect
ourselves from being exposed in the future in other than water.
So, Mr. Mehan, can you explain or give me a little bit of
guidance here on how we might address this if, globally, there
is not a ban on Teflon?
Mr. Mehan. Well, I think you raise a very good point. And I
must say, I think the general view that the committee has taken
and I think Erik's written comments, this is a multimedia
problem. It is a multidimensional problem. A global
comprehensive approach makes sense. I mean looking at
Superfund, TSCA, as I mentioned in my remarks, and, you know,
we will look at MCLs and things like that through the process
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. So yes, we certainly view
ourselves as at the receiving end of this problem as utilities
and certainly our customers feel the same way. So yes, I think
everything should be on the table and looked at in terms of
what makes sense and is reasonable in terms of reducing risk
across the whole spectrum.
Mr. McKinley. They even went to China and the European
Union have asked for exemptions to the whole ban. So I am just
curious, as long as we are going to be importing products
coming in, especially food products from the European Union,
and carpeting, because that is where our toddlers, that is
where they are going to get exposed to it, I think we have--
let's--we need to slow this train down just a little bit, do a
better analysis of how we might approach this globally and push
back.
But apparently, we lost the fight at Stockholm and Geneva
and we are allowing these products to be manufactured and
shipped to us. Yes, maybe we can't make it, but other people
can and they come in, and our children, your children, your
grandchildren are going to be exposed to something not because
of an American manufacturer, but because of a European Union
manufacturer or a Chinese manufacturer.
I think we better--you explain. Is there a way we can
approach this from a global perspective?
Mr. Mehan. Well, you are getting into issues of
international environmental law and trade policy and I
certainly am not an expert in that. I know you hear a lot of
talk from Europeans about the cautionary principle and reverse
burden and then they make exceptions. They don't have a tort
law regime like we do.
So I think we need to keep our wits about us and do what it
takes to protect our environment, our public health, and our
people. And I think you are on to something there, looking at
the international dimension of the problem.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for
five minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chair and the ranking member and
I thank the witnesses this morning. I am sure this can be a
difficult hearing for you. But there is common ground to move
forward on the legislation, so I want to move to the issue of
air emissions of PFAS. We know PFAS are being released into the
air during manufacturing processes and during, and some of
those products during their disposal. We also know that PFAS
dust is an issue when contaminated sites are cleaned up.
Last September we heard from a resident of North Carolina
who testified that her community was finding PFAS in rainwater
80 miles away from the factory that was producing the
chemicals. Last month, I questioned the EPA Administrator
Wheeler about funding that research and ensuing we address PFAS
air emissions. Administrator Wheeler did not want to commit on
those emissions.
Dr. DeWitt, what are the risks presented by air emissions
of PFAS?
Dr. DeWitt. I think you have hit upon a point where we
really do need some additional information. But I think if we
look at how these compounds move around in the environment and
if we look at people's exposure levels to compounds that
shouldn't be in the environment, then we can start to make some
guesses about how these compounds impact us when we take them
up either through the skin or through inhalation. For example,
in Parkersburg, West Virginia, the boundary of PFOA has not
been discovered from this point source into water, so we know
that these compounds can move very far away from points of
origin. They can even move in from other countries.
We do have some very proactive organizations within our
country and within the European Union working to reduce these
compounds at the source. There are manufacturers within the
U.S. and IKEA in Europe are working very hard to do source
reduction which will help to reduce all sources of PFAS
exposure through their own incentives to help consumers make
appropriate choices.
Mr. McNerney. And, Ms. Marpe, for a community like yours,
you are doing everything you can to get PFAS out of the
drinking water. How does PFAS in air pollution complicate that?
Ms. Marpe. Air pollution is one of the reasons I moved and
I sold my house to get away from the smokestacks. I mean it is
so ambiguous and it is everywhere. So I find it very hard to
believe that I will be able to protect my children unless they
are on filtered water and that is why we chose to move to
Hoosick Falls.
A lot of people asked me, ``Why did you pick there? Why
would you go somewhere where the problem was worse?'' Well,
first of all, my house in Petersburgh was worse than the whole
village's supply, but I went there because I didn't have to
have the polluter coming into my space and violating my home. I
mean that is the main reason I moved. Our safety and security,
I was literally tied to the polluter. Every three months they
had to come into my home, sample my water, you know, to protect
my kids from the water is essential.
Mr. McNerney. So, I mean you have tools for protecting you
from the water, but the air, you basically had to sell your
house.
Ms. Marpe. It is everywhere. What are we going to do? We
can't filter our entire earth. I mean you have it in polar
bears.
Mr. McNerney. Yes.
Ms. Marpe. It is in their blood. The national average is
two. You probably have two parts per billion in your blood.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Marpe. You are welcome.
Mr. McNerney. Well, there are strong arguments in favor of
H.R. 2605 introduced by Representative Stevens to list PFAS as
a hazardous air pollution under the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Olson, how would adding PFAS to the hazardous air
pollution list help communities, public health, and the
environment?
Mr. Olson. Well, it is crucial to address all the media
that we are exposed to. You just heard a personal story from
Emily about being exposed. There are a lot of people that are
downwind of facilities that are releasing PFAS that have no
idea they are being exposed. We really do need to list PFAS as
hazardous air pollutants so that we can ensure that there will
be controls.
Mr. McNerney. Well, the Clean Air Act has 187 hazardous air
pollutants on its list, 17 in the list are in the group of
chemicals like mercury compounds and polycyclic organic matter.
Why should PFAS be included as a group on the HAP list?
Mr. Olson. Well, I think for exactly the reason we have
just heard, that they are very toxic at very low doses. They
are extremely persistent. They are forever chemicals and they
are quite mobile. They move well beyond where that stack is
emitting it. They are going to move downwind for many miles, so
we really need from a public health standpoint to ensure that
people are protected from those emissions.
And think about the incinerators as well that are not
really regulated. If they are incinerating this waste at low
temperatures that stuff is just going up in the air and we are
moving it from one media to another one, so we need hazardous
air pollutant rules for them.
Mr. McNerney. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yield
back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. We now move to those
who have waived on to the subcommittee. We appreciate your
interest. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan,
Mr. Upton, for five minutes.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate being allowed to sit on this subcommittee that I am
not normally a member of, and I appreciate your leadership and
Mr. Shimkus's and the hardworking staff as well.
So, 10 months ago, the city of Parchment in my district
awoke to a startling new reality. They found extremely high
levels of PFOA and PFOS not only at a capped landfill, but the
chemicals were also discovered in their drinking water at
levels many times above EPA's lifetime health advisory. And
while Parchment was the first community to have its water test
results come in that high, it was not the only place where PFOS
chemicals were found in the drinking water in Michigan, as we
have learned. And literally every community regardless of size
in terms of their municipal water supply was tested across the
State at the governor's orders and to try and assure that the
water quality was safe in their proper areas.
But some of the smartest minds working on PFAS
contamination are in Michigan not because of what is in the
water, but because of our water. And I am fortunate that one of
the premier scientists on PFAS, Dr. Matt Reeves, is based in my
district at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo and we
have the easy access to his work. He recently published a white
paper outlining a national road map for addressing PFAS and I
want to submit not his report, but rather his findings as part
of the record. The white paper itself calls for the development
of a research consortium with the express purpose of addressing
many of the critical research areas using best science
practices, state-of-the-art technology, and high-impact
dissemination of research findings and challenges.
Now I also know that our committee, full committee, is
going to be one of those that it is going to be relied upon for
developing infrastructure legislation likely to move, I think,
in the next couple of months. And I would like to think that
perhaps one of those provisions, part of that package would
include some of these bills that we are working on that were
addressed, and I intend to co-sponsor a number of them as we
work on this issue to try and get an answer for our citizens
that really do understand where we are and want some action
taken.
Ms. Luxton, I introduced a bill this last week, H.R. 2626,
bipartisan legislation that will give EPA a year to decide
whether to list well-characterized PFAS as a hazardous
substance under CERCLA Section 102(a). What are your thoughts
about qualifying PFAS substances within the term ``well-
characterized'' for EPA to prioritize which contaminants should
be reviewed for their potential to present a substantial
danger?
Ms. Luxton. Thank you. That, I think, is a constructive
suggestion. The one area of risk I would suggest is that it is
a new term not defined, so as someone who has seen a fair
amount of administrative law litigation, I would recommend
providing a definition or some criteria so that it is clear
what that term means and avoids delays that could be caused by
ambiguities in wording and subsequent litigation.
But the idea of trying to focus on those that are well-
characterized or about which enough is known to make a judgment
on toxicity and other factors is really a very constructive
idea and allows for prioritization of resources which, I think,
is a very important outcome in which legislation is adopted.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. And as you know as we have struggled
with PFAS contamination cleanups including State standards that
a number of States may pursue, including Michigan, do you think
cooperative agreements between the Federal and State
Governments provide a reasonable path forward to achieve
protective cleanups that meet the guidelines of both
governmental entities?
Ms. Luxton. Yes. I absolutely think that is another
constructive approach as are these consortia that we have been
hearing about today among academics and to share the resources.
There is so much ground to cover that any ways we can support
to cooperate on Federal and State capabilities and share
resources as well as the academic knowledge we are learning in
this frontier, as one of the witnesses said, is very important.
Mr. Upton. Just in closing, because my time has expired and
I just, I know a number of us have met with EPA over the last
number of weeks and months. They need to be, part of this
process as well. They need to be, and I believe that they are
brought in. We need to continue to make sure that it is
bipartisan and work with our committee to get some legislative
action. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and thank you
again.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. And we will visit
your request to enter the information into the record.
Mr. Upton. Yes, I am going to introduce the findings, not
the white paper.
Mr. Tonko. And we will do that at the end of the hearing,
so.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. So we thank you again. The Chair now recognizes
the gentle lady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for five
minutes, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So we have heard calls from industry to wait to act on
PFASs, to let TSCA, the TSCA process take its course and let
EPA set reference doses for each PFAS chemical one by one. But
even when we first passed TSCA back in 1976, Congress
recognized that the statute might not work for some classes of
chemicals and that is why PCBs were dealt with comprehensively,
quickly, and as a class through a separate TSCA subsection. It
was John Dingell's wisdom that led to the adoption of the PCB
subsection and it stands now as one of the only actions EPA was
able to take under the original TSCA. So, I welcome H.R. 2600
introduced by Representative Dean which takes the same approach
for PFAS chemicals.
I wanted to ask Dr. DeWitt, do PFASs present some of the
same concerns as PCBs in terms of how long they remain in the
environment and some of the risks that they pose? And let me
just go on and say, do you think additional PFASs as well can
be handled in that same way as that PCBs were?
Dr. DeWitt. Yes, I do think that PFAS can be handled
similarly to PCBs. I would also like to point out that PFAS are
in a sense very different from PCBs. PCBs like to be in fat.
They like to be in sediment. They don't move around and
eventually they do break down. PFAS are happy being in water.
They are happy being in soil. They are happy being in fat. And
they are very mobile and they don't break down.
It is estimated that DDT, an organochlorine pesticide,
takes about 30 years to break down into more toxic compounds.
We don't know yet if PFAS will take longer than that, but we
suspect that they will. So they are different from PCBs in that
they are----
Ms. Schakowsky. And worse.
Dr. DeWitt. And worse. And the suite of effects that they
produce seems to be broader than the suite of effects produced
by PCBs.
Ms. Schakowsky. So what do you think of then of the
assertion drawing from our experience addressing PCBs? You
think we should handle it the same way, I take it?
Dr. DeWitt. I think it would be a very wise move to deal
with a class of compounds that is persistent, bioaccumulative,
and toxic and mobile.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Olson, you noted in your testimony that
we can still detect PCBs in the environment despite the strong
statutory language adopted in 1976. Why is that?
Mr. Olson. Well, they are extremely persistent like PFAS,
so they last in the environment a long time as Dr. DeWitt just
mentioned. And we are very concerned that they are much more
mobile than PCBs, it appears, and these are these forever
chemicals and they are toxic at extremely low doses, just a
terrible combination.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Steglitz, are PCBs still a challenge for water systems
like yours?
Mr. Steglitz. That hasn't been something that we have had
to deal with in our watershed.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
It has been more than 40 years since Congress added PCBs,
but we are still cleaning them up. It seems likely that if we
take action today to regulate PFAS we will be cleaning them up
for generations. So again, Mr. Olson, given that it seems to me
like we should get started right away, do you agree?
Mr. Olson. I would agree. I think we need to get started
right away. We are now, everyone in this room, guinea pigs. We
are carrying these chemicals around in our bodies and we didn't
agree to carry them around in our bodies, yet we are being
exposed to them every day. Our kids are being exposed to them.
Our grandchildren will be exposed to them. We need to get
started now on doing something.
Ms. Schakowsky. Regardless, will they be there hanging
around for a while?
Mr. Olson. They will be around for decades.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for five
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to echo
some of the concerns that my colleagues have already expressed
today. These are really important issues, very important
issues, and we need to continue to work hard to make sure we
are doing everything we can do to address PFAS concerns
correctly and appropriately. Many states are dealing with
contamination issues. I know my home State of Ohio is. And we
need to ensure our States and regulating community are
receiving the scientific support and signals from the Federal
Government. That is why I am concerned that the EPA is not in
the room today to provide the necessary technical and
scientific insight on the bills that we are discussing,
especially as some of these bills were just recently
introduced.
So let me focus on some of the bills dealing with TSCA, and
Ms. Luxton, I would appreciate your thoughts on these. H.R.
2608 requires EPA to compel by order comprehensive new lines of
testing on all PFAS substances. It also waives requirements on
the EPA to create a statement of need for the tests or to rely
on lesser test methods to rule out the need to show toxicity.
With so many chemicals under the PFAS umbrella, about 5,000
or so, is there concern that the EPA could unintentionally
focus its time and effort on low-risk chemicals instead of
prioritizing high-risk chemicals?
Ms. Luxton. Yes, I think that is a very good question and a
very real risk. EPA has identified in its priority list of top
concerns that it wants to spend its greatest attention, three
of the five include addressing existing Superfund sites and
trying to accelerate the cleanups of those Superfund sites. We
are talking now about expanding that set of sites and then
fulfilling its requirements under TSCA, under the most recent
amendments, to go through those chemicals that have already
been identified as of high toxicity.
So again, the third is reducing nonattainment areas for air
pollution, existing air pollution. These are other priorities
that already exist for EPA to fulfill. Adding to those
indiscriminately, that is to say without looking at this in a
priority risk way, it risks overwhelming the system and
suppressing or reducing the ability to deal with a collection
of risks that affect the American population in many ways.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right, another bill on new chemicals,
H.R. 2596, would prevent any new chemicals that are PFAS from
being commercially manufactured, imported, or processed. Do you
think it would be a bit more reasonable for the EPA to use a
tiered approach that would limit the amount of data that is
required to collect if there isn't a toxicity problem evident
with one of the PFAS chemicals?
Ms. Luxton. Yes, I think tiering is a very good approach.
Looking at the types of PFAS chemicals, trying to group them in
terms of toxicity, the short chain/long chain issue, there are
differences among these compounds that really can make a
difference in terms of toxicity, uptake, and health effects.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Ms. Luxton, you mentioned that legislation
that mandates action by a Federal department or agency like the
bills we have before us today can have blind spots to the
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. In looking at
these bills as it relates to administrative procedure, the
Administrative Procedure Act, do you think items like notice
and comment are in danger of being minimized or ignored?
Ms. Luxton. Yes. Whenever there are bills that try to
expedite rulemaking and cut corners, those procedures that were
adopted and are well embedded in the law create litigation
opportunities which can have the effect of delaying the
effectiveness of new legislation all by itself because it is
tied up in the courts for years.
Mr. Johnson. You may have just answered this but let me
clarify. Would you be concerned that short-circuiting these
requirements make the objectives of these bills subject to
successful judicial challenge?
Ms. Luxton. Yes, we have seen that happen.
Mr. Johnson. And what happens when regulations are
litigated over process considerations?
Ms. Luxton. Delay. And if the rule is invalidated the
Agency has to start all over from scratch and put together a
new rule that can stand up in court.
Mr. Johnson. Wasted time, right?
Ms. Luxton. Wasted time.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, for five
minutes, please.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. When I had first heard of
the chemicals related to PFAS and PFOS, much like many in the
public it was through tragedy because these are chemicals that
many of us in the public were unaware of. And in this case, it
was our firefighter training school in Ocala, Florida where we
had a cancer cluster happen and it is to such an extent that
the VP of the National Firefighters Union, his brother was one
of those victims.
So I think as we are talking about all the technicalities
today, we need to really consider how this is affecting the
American public on a broader scale than things like rulemaking
and whether Congress should act. You know, a congressional law
is absolutely, under separation of powers, takes precedence
over any rulemaking of an agency. It is clear from everything
we are hearing today that we need to attack the PFAS
contamination from every angle and we should be working to stop
the flow of chemicals into our environment and into our bodies.
But government action can be slow. Hearing from my
constituents, they want us to act. Mr. Olson, what are some of
the everyday products people might use that would contain PFAS?
Mr. Olson. Thank you for the question, Mr. Soto, and thank
you for your bill that would address at least the cookware
issue. There are innumerable products that contain PFAS. They
range from the carpeting that our children may be crawling on
or walking on. They include a wide array of clothing. They
include textiles. They are sprayed on some of the furniture
that we use. They are used in just a wide array of consumer
products. And we would like to actually see your terrific bill
that would include an EPA program to make sure that consumers
can make an intelligent choice even expanded to other consumer
products.
Mr. Soto. How would they be able to make informed choices
right now with regard to PFAS exposure?
Mr. Olson. Basically they can't. If you go into a local
store you will see cookware, for example, often labeled PFOA-
free. Well, that doesn't tell you anything of value because
they may have just switched over to a different PFAS. So it is
very misleading to consumers in some cases if they are
continuing to use toxic PFAS and just labeling it PFOA-free.
Mr. Soto. So, let's say we implement the Safer Choice
program through the legislation that we introduced. How would
that influence companies as far as new products they put out on
the market?
Mr. Olson. Well, I think what we have seen in other cases
is when consumers know they can make a choice, if I go in and I
have my choice between a PFAS-free cookware or carpet or couch
and I can buy one that doesn't have that versus one that does,
I am going to make the choice. And right now, consumers don't
have that information.
Mr. Soto. We heard a lot of testimony today about
addressing all PFAS and not just focusing on PFOA and PFOS.
Would the label requirement under our bill have the same value
if it only covered PFOA or PFOS?
Mr. Olson. No, for exactly the reasons we were just talking
about because we know that even some folks are now labeling
them as PFOA-free or PFOS-free; we need to deal with the whole
class.
Mr. Soto. Ms. Marpe, I was really obviously taken aback by
your personal story and what you and your family went through.
On behalf of moms across America, what would be the cost of
inaction if we do nothing here?
Ms. Marpe. The cost of inaction has already been
extraordinary. I mean I talked to Tobyn McNaughton from
Michigan about her son Jack, you know, he tested over 400 parts
per billion in his blood, the highest child I know of. That is
such a tough question because it is everywhere. Like as much as
I wanted to protect my family, I still know. I know where it
is, like I have educated myself. I have killed myself to
educate myself. You know, New York State did not educate me.
Mr. Soto. And do you think there is a lot of families still
living unaware of this danger?
Ms. Marpe. Absolutely. You have to remember, Petersburgh--
well, you wouldn't have to remember because you don't know. But
Petersburgh----
Mr. Soto. Our chairman would know.
Ms. Marpe. Yes. The town of Petersburgh only has 76 wells
on the municipal supply, 76 wells. So, like before, you had to
have a population above 10,000, okay, now it is 3,500. OK, that
still doesn't save the little towns of Petersburgh. And these
companies set up shop in rural communities where they fly under
the radar. I mean you can't see it. You can't smell it. You
can't taste it. You have no idea it is there until somebody
tells you.
If Michael Hickey never tested the water, we still wouldn't
know. He took his own money, his own personal money to test the
water because his father died of kidney cancer. He was smart
enough to think, hey, can Teflon cause cancer? His father
worked for the plant in Hoosick Falls for 32 years. He came
home, his home was literally 800 feet from the plant, 800 feet.
The man showered in it, cooked in it, drank it, I mean and he
is gone. He died shortly after retirement.
You can't make this up. I mean it has already taken
decades. You are like 50, 60 years too late. This should have
been stopped in the '50s when it was created. It is a manmade
chemical. It doesn't belong in me. It doesn't belong in my
children. It doesn't belong in you. It is there. Go test
yourself, feel free. It is like 500 bucks.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. We now recognize the
gentleman from the State of New Mexico, Mr. Lujan, for five
minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
Ranking Member Shimkus as well for allowing me to join this
hearing. And, Ms. Marpe, thank you for your testimony and your
responses as well. Thank you to each of the witnesses for
sharing your expertise as well with the urgency of having to
respond to this environmental and health crisis that we are
facing across the country. We are just now beginning to see all
of the dimensions of this crisis.
And, Mr. Olson, in your testimony you made clear that these
are forever chemicals that don't break down. They can enter our
food and water and systems in many different ways. Ms. Marpe,
you just reminded us of that.
In my district, the Department of Defense's use of the
PFAS-laden firefighting foams has polluted the groundwater
needed by adjacent dairy farmers to grow their crops and water
their cows. The Department of Defense refuses to clean up the
groundwater. Think about what I just said. The Department of
Defense refuses to clean up this groundwater, even though they
fully acknowledge that their actions created this pollution. It
is why many pieces of this legislation are required. Along with
Senator Udall, I recently introduced the Prompt and Fast Action
to Stop Damages Act of 2019 to force the Department of Defense
to do what is right, to do what they should have been doing all
along in cleaning up the mess they created, make the impacted
dairy farmers whole.
Mr. Olson, I appreciate your discussion and support of my
legislation in your written testimony. Can you elaborate on why
it is critical for the Department of Defense to clean up all
sources of PFAS contamination?
Mr. Olson. Well, I think a lot of us learned in
kindergarten that if you make a mess you clean it up.
Mr. Lujan. Robert Fulghum is one of my favorite authors.
Mr. Olson. Exactly. And unfortunately, it seems maybe
Department of Defense didn't learn that in kindergarten and a
lot of polluters did not. It is very important for those that
have created a mess and created risks and poisoned their
community to be responsible for cleaning up, and that is why it
is important to hold those polluters accountable whether they
are Federal agencies or they are private companies.
Mr. Lujan. So I want to ask you another question that
points to several pieces of legislation that have been
authored. Should the Department of Defense be required to clean
up water sources used to produce our food and milk just like
they are required to clean up our drinking water?
Mr. Olson. They absolutely should. In fact, last night I
met one of your constituents, a farmer whose milk is
contaminated. He is having to destroy his milk every day. He is
probably going to have to destroy his dairy cows and they
aren't going to be able to be sold as food because they are so
contaminated. So we definitely need to make sure we are
protecting agricultural uses of that water as well.
Mr. Lujan. And rather than acquiring that farm, purchasing
those dairy cattle, and cleaning up their mess, the Department
of Defense is paying to buy the milk. Millions of dollars, I
mean like it doesn't make any sense when it is less expensive
to fix the problem to clean up their own mess. But again, that
is why if the Department of Defense is saying that they don't
have the authority, which I disagree with, this legislation
that is before this subcommittee, four other committees of
jurisdiction, will require them to do this. And I appreciate
your testimony, Mr. Olson.
Just in closing, I want to emphasize that the emotional and
financial hardships, much of which that has been shared today,
other testimony that has been shared through conversations from
constituents that have traveled from across America to be here
in Washington, DC this week, I want to encourage our members to
make sure that they are having town halls in these communities.
That they are making themselves available; that they are
listening to the constituents so that way we can share those
stories and show the urgency of needing to act across America.
That includes the farming community in Curry County, a
community that I am honored to represent.
Since the Department of Defense is neglecting its
responsibility to clean up the groundwater, the burden has
fallen entirely on the dairy farmers. They are having to put in
their own filters, put in their own work, plan for their own
futures. The Department of Defense needs to do the right thing
here. Farms have either stopped producing milk because they
don't have access to clean water or at their own expense
installed filtration systems costing hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
Mr. Chairman, they should be reimbursed for that by the
Department of Defense. They are doing their work for them.
While the farming community's very way of life is being
threatened, the Department of Defense is just standing there
doing nothing. These farmers are running out of time and it is
up to Congress to act, and for the sake of the farmers in my
district and the families across the country we need to act now
and act quickly.
And I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
indulgence and thank them for letting me sit in at this
important committee hearing today.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back and the Chair now
recognizes the gentle lady from the State of California, Ms.
Matsui, for five minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
the witnesses for being here today. We have seen that many
private companies are moving away from PFOA and PFOS for
shorter chain substitutes. While I think we can all agree that
this is a good step and of acknowledging that the known risks
that PFOA and PFOS pose, I am concerned that the amount of
research and information on some of these substitutes.
For example, over the past couple of years we have been
hearing numerous reports of high levels of the chemical GenX
being used by companies like Chemours. However, EPA issued a
draft toxicity review last fall of two chemicals, GenX and a
related compound PFBS that demonstrated even very low doses
could still present serious health risks such as issues of
prenatal development and immune system, liver, kidney, or
thyroid complications.
Dr. DeWitt, I think you are acutely aware of the issue
which has been a particular problem in your State of North
Carolina. At this point, what do we know about the health risks
of some of these short and intermediate chain substitutes?
Dr. DeWitt. They are just as persistent as the long chain
compounds. They are able to move from the environment into
bodies just like the long chain compounds and once in their
bodies they are able to interact with molecules in our bodies
to produce toxicity. You mentioned immunotoxicity which we see
with GenX. We still see increases in liver weight and increases
in liver enzymes which are a sign of toxicity, so we see many
of the same types of effects as the long chains.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Mr. Olson, in your view do we have enough
information about the risks posed by PFOS, PFAS as a class to
begin taking action now?
Mr. Olson. Absolutely we do, and if we don't regulate them
as a class, we are going to be on this treadmill of trying to
regulate one at a time and we will never get off of it.
Ms. Matsui. OK. All of us are aware here that PFAS is known
as forever chemicals because they don't readily or easily
decompose or degrade. Forever in our environment and forever in
our bodies and that is really a troubling thought.
Dr. DeWitt, I would like to ask you for more information
about the health risks for vulnerable populations like pregnant
women and children. What do we know about how PFAS impacts, how
it impacts a developing infant or child?
Dr. DeWitt. Infants, developing organisms, and children
consume a higher amount of water per body weight than adults,
so their relative exposure is greater. They also have
relatively poorly developed systems for metabolizing, even
though these aren't metabolized, and excreting compounds, so
their body burden remains a little bit higher so these
compounds stay in their bodies a little bit longer. And because
many of their other systems aren't fully developed, they are
more sensitive to the effects of these compounds.
We also know that these compounds can be excreted in breast
milk, so they are getting exposures through breast milk. And if
they are from families that live in contaminated communities
who choose not to breast feed, they will get exposed through
their contaminated drinking water and other items in the home
that may contain PFAS.
Ms. Matsui. OK, so based upon what you know about the
health effects of these chemicals, do you think it is
appropriate to treat them as a class?
Dr. DeWitt. I agree that is appropriate. I think it is a
wise decision.
Ms. Matsui. OK. These chemicals are dangerous and
extraordinarily persistent and what we are dealing with is for
generations and we have to make a difference. Do you perceive
an additional risk due to the fact that DOD is only looking at
these two specific chemicals rather than the entire class of
PFAS chemicals?
Dr. DeWitt. I think that looking at the chemicals as a
class is an important consideration because they have all been
designed to have similar functionality so their physical
chemical properties are very similar. The carbon-fluorine bond
does not break down, and as you mentioned they are forever in
our environments and forever in our bodies.
Ms. Matsui. Well, I do hope we take some action right now
and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the very patient gentle lady from New Hampshire,
Representative Kuster. You are recognized for five minutes,
please.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Chairman Tonko. And I want
to thank you and Ranking Member Shimkus for allowing me to sit
in on this hearing. This is not my normal subcommittee, but it
is an important issue not only in my district but across the
country.
I want to first take a moment to thank Emily for being with
us as a mother and a she-bear. I know how this feels and but I
can't even begin to imagine the fear that you felt and I am
glad you were able to take the steps to sell your home, because
there are from families all across this country that can't
move. They don't have that opportunity. They can't find someone
to buy the home that they have invested in.
And in my district, we are going through this in a small
town called Litchfield, New Hampshire. Contamination from the
Saint-Gobain's plastic company was found in water testing
coming through the air, getting into the soil. Fortunately, we
were able to, because of advocates like yourself, the people
living in this community brought it to our attention, brought
it to their board of selectmen. We were able to bring the
company in and we were able to get the attention of the EPA.
And the State of New Hampshire and Saint-Gobain reached a
monumental agreement that required the manufacturer to run
clean water to all of the affected homes. Some of these homes
have been hooked up to a neighboring city of Manchester to get
water to the door.
But I am concerned as the parents are about children
playing in the yard, about what is coming through the air,
about what is affecting them. In a neighboring town also in my
district, Amherst, New Hampshire, 2016, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services tested 11 wells within a
one-mile radius of the former location of Textiles Coated
International and again found very high levels.
So this is something that we are dealing with in New
Hampshire and I just want to really acknowledge your courage
because we need to put a face on this. I have studied way back
to the first Earth Day. I can remember picking up trash and
studying environmental studies in college and just putting a
face on this and being able to tell the story is important.
I am just going to turn briefly to my bill, H.R. 2596,
Protecting Communities from New PFAS Act, which would halt new
PFAS chemicals including, as my colleague mentioned, the short
chain PFAS from being approved through the EPA's pre-
manufacture notice system. And I want to ask Mr. Steglitz, from
your testimony you talked about ``The best way to address these
contaminants is at the source,'' do we need to halt the
approval of new PFAS chemicals from entering the commercial
supply chain?
Mr. Steglitz. And absolutely, if we can figure out what the
health impacts are before they enter circulation then that will
be the best practice, because addressing it at the end of the
pipe is clearly not the most, not in the most effective way to
address this.
Ms. Kuster. Right. You have talked about the expense to the
taxpayers and I think we need to go upstream, if you will, in
the chain from that.
Mr. Olson, your testimony also highlighted the importance
of ``turning off the tap,'' for the approval of new PFAS and
new uses for existing PFAS. While we know that tackling this
problem will take a multifaceted, comprehensive approach, we
have heard so many good ideas in this hearing, how important is
it to stop new PFAS chemicals from entering the supply chain?
Mr. Olson. It is absolutely critical. We have already got
4,700 of these things or more and adding new ones as I say in
my testimony it is sort of like Will Rogers said, ``If you find
yourself in a hole, stop digging,'' and we are still digging.
We are still approving new uses. We are still approving new
PFAS chemicals and we need to stop and take a step back and we
are pleased that your bill would do that.
Ms. Kuster. And what steps do you think that Congress can
take to put an end to new PFAS chemicals from being introduced?
Mr. Olson. Well, I think this requirement of having EPA
halt the new approvals, and there is a companion bill also that
would phase out the existing uses, we think that is important.
And Mr. McKinley was asking about imports. So, it is also
important that if you act under TSCA, you can also ban the
imports of these products which is very important as well,
because right now PFOA and PFOS even are allowed to be
manufactured overseas and we can get products coming into the
U.S. with them.
Ms. Kuster. Well, I hope that we will continue to work in a
bipartisan way.
And, Attorney Luxton, you used the phrase, ``our highest
priority concern.'' I can say for myself as a legislator and a
mother that my highest priority concern is the health and well-
being of my constituents.
And again, thank you, Emily, for bringing your story
forward. With that I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back, and again, thank
you for your patience, Representative Kuster.
And I do thank each and every witness that appeared today.
It is so important that we review these issues with every bit
of information.
I remind members that pursuant to committee rules they have
10 business days by which to submit additional questions for
the record to be answered by our witnesses. I ask each witness
to respond, please, promptly to any such questions that you may
receive.
We have had requests, several requests for documents to be
entered into the record. They include a letter from the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; a letter from
Westfield Residents Advocating for Themselves, round to the
acronym of REST; a letter from the Informed-Public Project; a
letter from the United States Chamber of Commerce; a letter
from the American Chemistry Council;a fact sheet issued by the
PFAS Community Campaign; research findings from Dr. Matt Reeves
of Western Michigan University; and then written testimony from
both Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick and Dan Kildee. So I
would request unanimous consent to enter the following into the
record.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
will not object. I want to--hopefully we are going to be
careful on receiving testimony from people we didn't ask to
testify. Both Fitzpatrick and Kildee are great friends of ours,
they do have relevant legislation. I am not objecting to the
submission, but I want us to be careful about a precedent we
may set and we will get all these testimonies on people who may
not be as actively involved in bills in the future. So with
that I will not object, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. OK, so the following will be introduced into the
record.
Mr. Tonko. And then at this time I indicate that the
subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]