[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                  

                         [H.A.S.C. No. 116-89]

                        ADDRESSING THE LEGACY OF

                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE USE OF PFAS:

           PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES AND IMPLEMENTING REFORM

                               __________

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                           SEPTEMBER 15, 2020

                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-046                      WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                  JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii                DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
ANDY KIM, New Jersey, Vice Chair     AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma             JOE WILSON, South Carolina
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       ROB BISHOP, Utah
JASON CROW, Colorado                 MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico     MO BROOKS, Alabama
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan             ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
               Jeanine Womble, Professional Staff Member
                 John Muller, Professional Staff Member
                           Sean Falvey, Clerk
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Readiness......................................     1

                               WITNESSES

Nelson, Herbert H., Director, Strategic Environmental Research 
  and Development Program and Environmental Security Technology 
  Certification Program, Department of Defense...................     5
Sullivan, Maureen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
  Environment....................................................     4

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Garamendi, Hon. John.........................................    29
    Nelson, Herbert H............................................    38
    Sullivan, Maureen............................................    31

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    Prepared Statement of Terry M. Rauch, Acting Deputy Assistant 
      Secretary of Defense for Health Readiness Policy and 
      Oversight, Office of the Secretary of Defense..............    47

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    [The information was not available at the time of printing.]

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Ms. Houlahan.................................................    55
    Ms. Torres Small.............................................    55
                 
                 
                 ADDRESSING THE LEGACY OF DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE USE OF PFAS: PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES AND IMPLEMENTING REFORM

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Subcommittee on Readiness,
                       Washington, DC, Tuesday, September 15, 2020.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:05 p.m., in 
Room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Garamendi 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
        CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

    Mr. Garamendi. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I call this 
committee of the Readiness Subcommittee to order. I have to do 
the boilerplate so stand by. I will do it as quickly as I 
possibly can.
    I would like to welcome the members who are joining today's 
markup remotely. Those members are reminded that they must be 
visible onscreen within the software platform for the purposes 
of identifying verification when joining the proceeding, 
establishing and maintaining quorum, participating in the 
proceeding, and voting.
    Members participating remotely must continue to use the 
software platform video function while attending the 
proceedings unless they experience connectivity issues or other 
technical problems that render the member unable to fully 
participate on camera. That does not mean hit the mute button 
or the do not--or the video button. Keep it on. If a member who 
is participating remotely experiences technical difficulties, 
please contact the committee staff for assistance and you have 
a reasonable chance of getting help and reconnected. When 
recognized, video of remotely attending members participation 
will be broadcast in the room via the television internet 
feeds.
    Members participating remotely are asked to mute their 
microphone when they are not speaking. Mute your microphone 
when you are not speaking. We will say that several times 
during the meeting. Members participating remotely will be 
recognized normally for asking questions, but if they want to 
speak at another time, they must seek recognition verbally. In 
all cases, members are reminded to unmute their microphone 
prior to speaking. Members should be aware that there is a 
slight lag of a few seconds between the time you start speaking 
and the camera shot switching to you. Members who are 
participating remotely are reminded to keep the software 
platform's video function on for the entirety of the time they 
attend the proceedings.
    That is the third time I have said that. These members may 
leave and rejoin the proceeding. If members depart for a short 
period for reasons other than joining a different proceeding, 
they should leave the video function on so that we can see the 
room in which you are sitting or were sitting. If members will 
be absent for a significant period or depart to join a 
different proceeding, they should exit the software platform 
entirely and then rejoin it if they return.
    Members are also advised that I have designated a committee 
staff to, if necessary, mute unrecognized members' microphones 
to cancel any inadvertent background noise that may disrupt the 
proceeding, or if you intend to disrupt the proceeding, we will 
mute you. Members may use the software platform's chat feature 
to communicate with staff members regarding technical or 
logistical support issues only. Finally, remotely participating 
members should see a 5-minute countdown clock on the software 
platform's display but, if necessary, I will remind the members 
that their time is up.
    Doug, did I complete my work?
    Thank you, Doug.
    Now, following this meeting and before the next meeting, we 
will ask all of the members participating in the hearing to 
repeat verbatim what I have written because you have heard it 
enough times to have memorized it.
    Okay, deep breath and move on to the real hearing.
    With these administrative remarks out of the way, I move on 
to the substance of the hearing.
    The scourge of contamination from PFAS [per- and 
polyfluoroalkyl substances] and PFOA [perfluorooctanoic acid] 
and other perfluorinated compounds is being experienced by 
communities across the country and, indeed, around the world. 
Our constituents are worried. They are afraid that they are 
being poisoned by their drinking water or that PFAS is going to 
contaminate their livestock or produce and impact their ability 
to earn a living and support their families.
    This is not a partisan issue. Communities in my district 
surrounding Travis and Beale Air Force Base are dealing with 
DOD [Department of Defense]-originated PFAS contamination and 
the fear and anxiety of going with not knowing what that means 
for their health or how long they will have to wait for 
polluters--in this case, the military--to clean up the 
contamination.
    I know that many members of this committee on both sides of 
the aisle represent communities with similar concerns. While 
the task of addressing PFAS contamination must eventually fall 
on all polluters, this committee's mandate is to ensure that 
the Department of Defense is acting to address its legacy of 
contamination. The Department must keep faith with communities 
that host its installations and that are now being asked to 
shoulder this contamination burden.
    With this history in mind, we have required DOD to phase 
out AFFF [aqueous film forming foam] by 2024. This is the 
firefighting foam. We are not blind to the enormity of this 
task, but with the focus provided by a looming deadline we are 
confident that with the Department's resources they can find a 
solution that protects both our communities and the aircrews 
and shipmates who rely upon the protection currently provided 
by AFFF.
    We are confident this year's NDAA [National Defense 
Authorization Act] also aims to increase the transparency by 
requiring the Department of Defense to publish on a public 
website the results of drinking water and groundwater testing 
conducted on military installations or former defense sites and 
to notify the congressional defense committees when there has 
been an uncontrolled release of PFAS-containing firefighting 
agents. We also established a prize program to incentivize 
research into viable replacement agents and authorized 
additional funding for cleanup and research into PFAS disposal 
technologies.
    Now I look forward to this hearing from the witnesses about 
the Department's ongoing efforts to develop solutions to the 
myriad of problems presented by these forever chemicals and how 
the Department is implementing the requirements of the fiscal 
year 2020 NDAA to address the Department's PFAS legacy impacts 
on human health and the environment.
    With that, Mr. Lamborn, I believe you are remote, so, Doug, 
it is your turn. Welcome, and thank you for joining us 
remotely.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in 
the Appendix on page 29.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, Doug, you are not with us.
    Mr. Brooks. Yo, over here.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Brooks, I understand you are the stand-
in.
    Mr. Brooks. I am the stand-in.
    Mr. Garamendi. So it is all yours.
    Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Chairman Garamendi. My remarks will 
be very brief. Ranking Member Lamborn and many of our GOP 
[Republican Party] members are at a signing ceremony for the 
Abraham Accords at the White House and should be joining us 
shortly.
    I thank our witnesses for their testimony. You, not me, are 
who we want to hear from today. So with that I conclude my 
remarks with, let's get to it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Without objection, the remarks of Mr. 
Lamborn or other members that are not with us at the moment 
will be entered into the record. So ordered.
    Let me introduce our witnesses.
    First, Maureen Sullivan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Environment. You have a fascinating record, some 40 
years of participation in environmental issues at the 
Department. You and I were having a conversation earlier. I 
think we may have worked together in the late 1990s in the run-
up to the Kyoto Climate Conference.
    Also joining us is Dr. Herb Nelson, Director of Strategic 
Environmental Research and Development Program and 
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program.
    I understand that Dr. Rauch will not be able to join us. 
The edict coming from the White House is that all witnesses 
must testify in person and Dr. Rauch has a health problem which 
prevents him from venturing out into such contaminated places 
as the House of Representatives hearing room and will not be 
joining us.
    I want to make it very, very clear that this committee 
leadership believes that that requirement from the White House 
is incorrect. It denies the Congress the opportunity to obtain 
valuable information. Dr. Rauch has a specific task as the 
Assistant Secretary of Health Readiness Policy and Oversight. 
We will not be able to have his testimony today. And, however, 
we do have his written testimony and, without objection, that 
will be entered into the congressional record.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Rauch can be found in the 
Appendix on page 47.]
    Mr. Garamendi. So let us move on. One more thing before I 
move on to the testimony of Ms. Sullivan, I want to say happy 
birthday to Dr. Nelson. It is your birthday today. Thank you 
for coming across the river and joining us, Doctor. I will 
await your testimony.
    Ms. Sullivan, you go first.

 STATEMENT OF MAUREEN SULLIVAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
                    DEFENSE FOR ENVIRONMENT

    Ms. Sullivan. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, 
Mr. Brooks, sir, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 
I am Maureen Sullivan, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Environment. My portfolio includes policy and 
oversight of DOD's programs to comply with environmental laws 
such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 
CERCLA.
    I want to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to 
discuss per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. We believe DOD has 
been leading the way to address these substances. Over the last 
4 years, DOD has committed substantial resources and taken 
action to respond to concerns with PFAS. In July 2019, as one 
of his first actions, Secretary Esper stood up a task force to 
provide strategic leadership and direction to ensure a 
coordinated, aggressive, holistic approach on DOD-wide efforts 
to proactively address PFAS.
    CERCLA provides a consistent approach across the Nation for 
cleanup. DOD, like other Federal agencies, is specifically 
authorized under CERCLA section 104 to take actions to address 
pollutants or contaminants like PFAS regardless of a CERCLA 
hazardous substance designation. DOD's priority is to quickly 
address PFAS and PFOA in drinking water above EPA's 
[Environmental Protection Agency's] lifetime health advisory 
where DOD is a known source. DOD actions are consistent with 
EPA recommendations. DOD prioritizes sites for action using the 
longstanding CERCLA risk-based process ``worst first.''
    These known or suspected PFAS release areas are in various 
stages of assessment, investigation, and cleanup. To prevent 
further releases to the environment, DOD limits the use of 
aqueous film forming foam, AFFF, to responses to emergency 
events and no longer uses it for land-based testing and 
training.
    The Department treats each release of AFFF as a spill 
response. Currently available AFFF meets the military 
specification, contains PFOS [perfluorooctanesulfonic acid] but 
does not contain PFOS or PFOA above the 800 parts per billion 
limit of quantitation. None of the commercially available PFAS-
free foams meet DOD's strict safety standards. The Department 
is working aggressively to meet the requirements of the fiscal 
year 2020 NDAA related to AFFF; however, this is a formidable 
task. There are many circumstances where we use AFFF, so we 
have been identifying those situations and evaluating what 
needs to be done. We have an inventory of facilities with 
installed AFFF systems. Our fire protection engineers are 
documenting the viable options and criteria per facility type, 
determining the best approaches in developing funding 
requirements and implementation schedules. The Department has 
identified over 200 airports--Active, Reserve, and National 
Guard--that are joint use airports.
    These airports have a mixture of emergency response 
services with almost all currently using AFFF. We are 
partnering with the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure 
that these airports, ours and the commercial airports, maintain 
the current level of protection for passengers, crews, and 
equipment.
    It is important to note that mutual aid is a cornerstone of 
fire and emergency services. Providing mutual aid can involve 
the use of AFFF. These emergencies range beyond aircraft 
crashes to include overturned vehicles, large industrial fires, 
or large structural fires. We need to maintain these levels of 
firefighting support and understand the feasibility of using 
alternative foams in the future.
    In summary, DOD is taking actions to reduce the risks of 
PFAS. Our efforts reinforce DOD's commitment to meeting 
critical mission requirements while protecting human health and 
the environment. DOD recognizes that this is a national 
challenge involving a wide array of industries, commercial 
applications, as well as many Federal and State agencies. 
Therefore, it needs a nationwide solution.
    We look forward to working with you as you move forward. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sullivan can be found in the 
Appendix on page 31.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much for your testimony. Your 
written testimony provides a lot more detail and I will bring 
that to the attention of the committee members and the general 
public.
    I will repeat that. Thank you for your testimony. It is 
very complete. Your written testimony provides even more detail 
and I would advise members of the public who are interested to 
look at your written testimony. There will be questions, of 
course.
    Dr. Nelson.

      STATEMENT OF HERBERT H. NELSON, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC 
      ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND 
   ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNOLOGY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM, 
                     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Dr. Nelson. Chairman Garamendi, Mr. Brooks, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, so as the chairman 
said, my name is Herb Nelson. I am the director of DOD's 
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program which 
often is called SERDP and that is executed in partnership with 
the Department of Energy and the EPA, and also the director of 
the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program 
which is often called ESTCP because there is no real good way 
to say that acronym.
    So these are DOD's environmental research, development, and 
demonstration programs and our mission is to improve DOD's 
environmental performance, reduce cost, and enhance and sustain 
mission capabilities. I would like to thank Congress for the 
many years of very generous support for these programs and I 
would like to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to 
discuss the PFAS and AFFF problem that we are going to talk 
about today.
    SERDP and ESTCP are leading DOD's R&D [research and 
development] response to these issues and we do that through 
funding individual research projects that are led by academics, 
people in industry, people at DOD laboratories and other 
Federal agencies. These projects range from small-scale 
laboratory studies up to large-scale, almost pilot-scale 
demonstrations at DOD facilities, so we span the gamut from 
basic research through almost operational scale.
    SERDP initiated research into the fate, transporting, and 
remediation of PFOS and PFOA shortly after the EPA released its 
provisional health advisory in 2009. It became clear pretty 
early on in this that this was a much more complex problem than 
many of the contaminants that we have dealt with in the past, 
so our research program has expanded into, really, four areas 
covering all of the scope of PFAS. That is sampling and 
analysis, fate, transport, and characterization of the 
compounds themselves, ecotoxicity of these compounds, and 
remediation, of course; the goal at the end, of course, is 
remediation.
    Similarly, in the AFFF area, we have a four-prong line of 
approach to that also. We are looking to develop new PFAS 
reformulations. We are looking to demonstrate the performance 
of both commercially available and developmental formulations 
in large-scale tests where we can really document the 
performance of PFAS-free materials. We are also looking at the 
ecotoxicity of these potential replacement compounds.
    And, finally, one that maybe is a less well thought of, we 
are looking at strategies for cleaning out the firefighting 
hardware. If we change over to a PFAS-free material, we 
obviously have to get it cleaned up in the hardware so we don't 
have to bear the price of replacing all the hardware. All of 
these efforts that we are working on are coordinated closely 
with our colleagues in the military departments, the EPA, FAA 
[Federal Aviation Administration], NASA [National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration], and also a number of international 
partners, and we do this through twice-yearly program reviews 
for each of these projects and periodic workshops where we all 
get together and talk about the issues.
    So in summary, I think we have established a wide-ranging 
research and development program. We are confident that SERDP 
supported research and development will make a significant 
contribution to the solutions of this problem that is a 
national problem. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Nelson can be found in the 
Appendix on page 38.]
    Mr. Garamendi. I thank you very much, Doctor.
    Normally, questions would go to--for my opportunity first, 
followed by Mr. Lamborn. I don't know if, Mr. Brooks, do you 
want to take up questions or do you want to await Mr. Lamborn's 
arrival?
    Mr. Brooks. I am happy to go ahead and get my questions in.
    Mr. Garamendi. Why don't you do that.
    Mr. Brooks. With the chair's permission.
    Mr. Garamendi. Before you do that, I am going to yield my 
questions to Ms. Slotkin and she can take my time. And when her 
time eventually arrives, I will take my turn then.
    Ms. Slotkin.
    Ms. Slotkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to our witnesses for being here. You know from 
our previous meetings that there is a lot of us who care a lot 
about this issue and I know that puts you in a tough spot 
because you are trying to navigate between the Department of 
Defense where I used to work and the communities who are really 
dealing with this problem.
    I represent a community that has a number of PFOS 
contamination sites. People can't eat the fish from the rivers. 
They can't let their dogs or their children touch the foam that 
is coming up on their beachfront property. And they are 
concerned about their drinking water. So it is something that 
is pretty serious for our community. And in our last NDAA, we 
were able to pass six provisions on PFAS that the chairman went 
through.
    The question I have is on an issue we have discussed, Ms. 
Sullivan, about adhering to the strictest possible standard 
when it comes to cleanup, State versus Federal. And in our 
State, we just promulgated a new, more stringent standard which 
is quite different from the EPA standards. And I know when we 
talked when you were generous enough to come to my office about 
your concerns about that provision, but could you elaborate for 
the communities that are living--why can't the Department of 
Defense clean up PFAS up to the most stringent standards, given 
the health implications?
    Ms. Sullivan. Well, let me clarify, ma'am.
    Ms. Slotkin. Of course.
    Ms. Sullivan. So as part of the CERCLA process, the State 
standards do come in as part of the cleanup decision.
    Ms. Slotkin. Right.
    Ms. Sullivan. So when we get to the remedy selection, the 
State standards play an integral role in that remedy selection. 
So, ultimately--it is called an ARARs, applicable and relevant 
and--I always get this wrong--applicable and relevant, 
required, appropriate standards--so the State standard, the 
Michigan standard, will come in, actually, in the remedy 
selection when we get to that phase of the process. Absolutely.
    Ms. Slotkin. Yeah. I understand that. But factoring it in 
and having to live by it are very different things. And in our 
experience of sort of these painstaking and somewhat painful 
negotiations on some of--around some of our retired military 
bases in Michigan, you may have considered that standard but 
not used it in the end. And we haven't seen any movement by the 
Department of Defense to do anything other than the EPA 
standard.
    So I guess my question is, wouldn't it just be easy enough 
to replace the EPA's Federal standard with the State standard 
given that we are talking about people's health here? What is 
to prohibit us from doing that?
    Ms. Sullivan. So let me distinguish two things.
    Ms. Slotkin. Yes.
    Ms. Sullivan. So one is the actual remedy, the cleanup, the 
long-term decision. We are not at that point in those sites in 
Michigan.
    Ms. Slotkin. Yeah.
    Ms. Sullivan. And that is where it will come in. Where you 
are talking about is a decision point earlier in the process 
which is called a removal action. The way the current CERCLA 
process works, it is unclear, legally, how those standards come 
in. So I am trying to work through this with our general 
counsel to get a clarity in terms of that. But right now, the 
State standards come in at the remedy selection, the long-term 
solution. I need clarity from our attorneys on the issue of how 
it plays in, in a removal action which happens before, early, 
much earlier in the process.
    Ms. Slotkin. Yeah. And I do understand removal versus 
remediation.
    Ms. Sullivan. Right.
    Ms. Slotkin. And again, we are not--I understand the 
complications that this would cause the Defense Department to 
have to live by these different State standards, but we are 
only doing it out of sheer desperation because the EPA won't do 
their job and set a clearer standard that is based on science.
    So based on science, sir, if I can turn to you--and happy 
birthday, by the way--Michigan State University, which I 
represent, is one of the few PFAS research institutes in the 
country. Can you talk to us about what is needed on 
remediation? We know it is difficult. We know there is not a 
lot of answers. What would kickstart the investigation and 
support of remediation methods?
    Dr. Nelson. Well, I actually don't know that it needs a 
kickstart. I think we are starting to move some remediation 
methods out of SERDP which would be the R&D, the laboratory 
scale and maybe a small, little plot in the backyard, out to 
installations. So we had a few successes. What is not so far 
successful is bioremediation. That is used a lot in other 
contaminants where there is some, you find some microbes that 
will help you break down the compounds.
    Since the carbon-fluorine bonds in PFASs are very, very 
strong, it is really difficult to find candidates for 
bioremediation. So I guess I just answered the question without 
answering the question. If we could find some more, make some 
more progress in bioremediation I think this whole thing would 
go faster.
    Ms. Slotkin. Thank you.
    And I know my time has expired. Thank you, Chairman, for 
yielding your time.
    Mr. Garamendi. I thank you very much, Ms. Slotkin.
    Mr. Brooks.
    Mr. Brooks. I had turned it off rather than on.
    Just for the benefit of everyone who is watching, PFAS 
refers to per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances and it is 
called PFAS, for short.
    This question is for Dr. Nelson. In your written testimony 
you state ``none of the commercially available PFAS-free foams 
meet the Department of Defense's strict safety standards to 
rapidly extinguish dangerous fuel fires and prevent their 
reignition during rescue operations.''
    Are you confident the Department of Defense will be able to 
not only identify an effective PFAS-free foam, but also by 2024 
install PFAS-free foams on all Department of Defense 
installations that use aqueous film forming foam?
    A lot of tongue twisters.
    Dr. Nelson. Absolutely. So that is why people say AFFF 
instead of trying to say that whole--I don't know if confident 
is the right word, but quite optimistic. We are making good 
progress in the research program on identifying substances that 
can meet the extinguishment requirement. All the PFAS-free 
foams meet the reignition standard, so it is get the fire out 
and then keep it out while the rescue people go in or something 
like that.
    So they all meet the reignition standard. They don't yet 
meet the 30 seconds for a 28 square-foot gasoline fire. That is 
the qualification test for the military specification. Many of 
the PFAS-free foams can do it in 40 or 45 seconds. So we are 
making progress. We are not there yet.
    Mr. Brooks. Ms. Sullivan, this is for you. Our forces 
operate on several joint use airports across the Nation where 
they share firefighting responsibility with their civilian 
counterpart. How is that impacting the PFAS replacement effort 
and can you give us some insight into the Department's 
collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration or other 
Federal agencies to address PFAS use in these cases?
    Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, sir. It is actually quite a 
complicated situation because we have basically four types of 
joint use airports where DOD provides all of the support, DOD 
provides partial support, provides minimal support, or none. 
Where we provide partial or minimal, we have to ensure whatever 
foam that we are in fact using is compatible with the foam that 
the commercial airport is providing so that the foams can 
interact properly and don't discount each other. So we are 
working very closely with FAA on demonstration, validation, 
sharing test results to be able to make sure that the foams are 
in fact compatible. The other thing is we really need to be 
careful in terms of not going down a sole-source type of 
airport foam. We need to have multiple types of foams so we 
have multiple sources and ensure how they can all interact 
together while in fact continuing to support at the level of 
protection that the airports need.
    Mr. Brooks. This question is for either one of you 
concerning PFAS alternatives that are now being looked at, 
researched and developed. Has there been any environmental 
testing done of these alternatives to determine their level of 
risk compared to PFAS?
    Dr. Nelson. So we have just started that. Normally, of 
course, we would develop something that worked and then we do 
environmental testing. Since we have the short deadline, we are 
having to do everything in parallel, so we have six projects 
started this fiscal year looking at the environmental impacts 
of these alternatives.
    So some of that effort is going to end up being wasted 
because we are having to test things that haven't quite proven 
themselves out yet in the firefighting, but that is what we 
have got to do to get this to go on. So I think that we are 
adequately covering that issue.
    Ms. Sullivan. So if I could add to that, we are also in 
addition to the work that Dr. Nelson's group is doing, we are 
partnering with the National Toxics Program to look at the 
human health aspects of these alternatives. That studying takes 
a lot of time so we need to be patient and work with them. That 
is part of NIH so, because that is their mission to look at 
human health.
    Mr. Brooks. Are there any early indicators as to whether 
these PFAS alternatives are going to be environmentally safer 
or more hazardous if used?
    Dr. Nelson. I think it is too early to answer that 
question. We are just getting started. Normally, on this day I 
could give you some early indicators, but as like everyone else 
on this Earth, they have really taken a delay because of the 
COVID [coronavirus] situation. Many of the people are out of 
their laboratories, so maybe they are 6 months further behind 
than we would expect them to be.
    Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. I thank you, Mr. Brooks. A very good line of 
questions along the way.
    I will simply add one thing to your question about the 2024 
deadline. I suspect there may be one or two of us in this room 
that did all of its work before the final exam, or did we wait 
until the final exam deadline? The deadlines are necessary for 
that purpose. A lot of work, obviously, needs to be done.
    Our next--let me run down the gavel order here--Horn, 
Stefanik, Houlahan, Slotkin, back to Slotkin again.
    Ms. Horn.
    Ms. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses. I want to ask about our assessment and understanding 
of contamination. Specifically, in my district and home State, 
Tinker Air Force Base, which is right at the edge of my 
district and is incredibly important, we have seen five sites 
in Oklahoma City that have been identified to have PFAS in 
drinking water or groundwater and three of these sites were 
military related. And with seven bases across our State, five 
have had identified areas of contamination.
    And this question is for both of you. So what I am trying 
to understand is that in the 2017 report, Secretary Sullivan, 
the 2017 report showed that Tinker had 73 to 170,000 points 
above the EPS--excuse me--the EPA's health advisory. But then 
there is also the March 2020 task force that claims that no one 
on or off base is drinking water above the EPA's level of 70 
parts per trillion.
    So I know there is issues of cleanup and adjusting the 
foam, but what I am trying to understand is those two things 
seem to be contradictory to me that we have identified sources 
of contamination but then there is another report that says 
they are not. So how do we address this?
    Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, ma'am. Good question and I 
appreciate the opportunity to clarify.
    So let me distinguish groundwater versus drinking water. So 
what is really important is we may have identified the presence 
of these compounds, PFOS and PFOA, in the groundwater. That 
does not mean it is in the drinking water. Not all sources of 
groundwater are used as drinking water. There may be treatment 
processes in between the groundwater and the drinking water. So 
I want to make that distinction in terms of there may in fact 
be presence in the groundwater, but it is not in the drinking 
water.
    These are two separate tests and I will point out that EPA 
only has an approved test method for drinking water. There is 
no approved test method for groundwater. We have identified 676 
installations across the United States where we need to go and 
look. We are looking in every one of them. But I will say that 
we have been studying cleanup issues in groundwater around our 
bases for decades now, so we have a lot of information about 
the groundwater flows which enables us to actually identify 
where we suspect it is in the drinking water outside the base 
and move quickly to do the testing. And if the water is above 
EPA's lifetime health advisory, we have the authority to act 
right away and work with either the private landowner or the 
municipality to treat the drinking water.
    So that is the distinction I would want to make. Where we 
know it is in the drinking water and we are in fact the DOD 
source, we are acting right away. The other sites we are 
following the standard CERCLA process to do the full 
investigations.
    Ms. Horn. Thank you.
    Dr. Nelson, do you have anything to add to that?
    Dr. Nelson. No, ma'am. I think I have covered it pretty 
well.
    Ms. Horn. Okay. A few, a couple more questions, actually. I 
want to change directions just a little bit and talk about our 
veterans and preparing the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs], 
because what we know is that there are--we know about the 
implications of PFOS and PFOA contamination for the health of 
our current and former service members, and as I mentioned 
seven military installations in Oklahoma and five have tested 
positive for PFOS. And then there was a 2012 report that 
estimated about 750,000 veterans and family members qualified 
for filing a claim related to incidents between 1953 and 1987.
    So my question is what we need to be doing to prepare for 
health impacts now for our veterans.
    Ms. Sullivan. Most of that, ma'am, I am going to have to 
refer to Dr. Rauch who is not here today. But I can tell you, 
one of the things I was very specific about in that we have 
done is we tested back in 2016, all of the drinking water that 
we provide on our bases as well as working where we buy water, 
and all that information I have made sure is archived in our 
safety and occupational health databases.
    So we will have that data readily available for historic 
questions so people will know what the levels were now. We also 
just updated all our policies that are going to do another 
round of drinking water testing on all of our bases. Again, all 
that information will be readily archived and available for 
future use.
    Ms. Horn. Thank you very much, and my time has expired so I 
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Garamendi. I thank you, Ms. Horn. I appreciate your 
work on this as well as your work on the housing issues. I 
enjoyed our visit to your district and where we went into both 
of these questions.
    Ms. Stefanik.
    Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Assistant Secretary Sullivan, in June of this year, the 
Department of Defense released the report titled ``Remediation 
Plan for Cleanup of Water Impacted by PFOS and PFAS.'' Within 
the report are outlined steps for DOD to investigate and clean 
up contaminated sites. I represent Fort Drum and the 10th 
Mountain Division in Upstate New York which has been identified 
as having PFAS detections on the installation. Can you provide 
an update on the status of DOD's remediation plan for the Fort 
Drum community?
    Ms. Sullivan. Sorry. Yes.
    Ms. Stefanik. Great.
    Ms. Sullivan. Too many things at once.
    Yes, the preliminary assessment site investigation is 
ongoing and actually it is supposed to be completed in the 
first quarter of 2021, so this coming fall. That collects all 
the information that they have, does some testing, and 
determines the levels of unacceptable risks that are in the 
community and what the path forward should be.
    Right now, the Air Force is predicting that it will go to 
the next step which is a remedial investigation sometime in 
2021, which is a much more in-depth look, a lot of engineering, 
water modeling data collection. So that is well on its way at 
Fort Drum.
    Ms. Stefanik. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Ms. Stefanik.
    Ms. Houlahan.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you all for 
being here today. I think that some of my questions are 
probably better served for Mr. Rauch, Dr. Rauch, so I will 
start with what I can ask here today.
    One of the questions that I have follows along Mr. Brooks' 
line of questioning. I am intrigued because it sounds as though 
in an effort to find substitutes for PFOS there is a 
concurrent, you know, accelerated program ongoing where we are 
finding them, studying them, investigating, you know, their 
hazardousness, and it sounds an awful lot like what we are 
doing in response to COVID in terms of our rapid fire, rapid, 
you know, response plan for COVID vaccine.
    It sounds for me based on what you guys are talking about 
that this is a relatively unique approach to a very acute 
problem that we are having. Is this a new idea to be 
effectively doing a warp speed project on something like PFOS?
    Dr. Nelson. So I would be loath to call it a new idea. It 
is not the normal way the Department does it. Normally, a much 
more staged approach to things. Obviously, in this case we 
don't have the time to do that so we are having to do things in 
parallel. Others have done this, of course.
    Ms. Houlahan. Is there any, has there been any thought to 
sort of a postmortem of sorts when we get to the point where we 
have passed the deadline, so to speak, when the term paper is 
due, to see if that accelerated approach has been more 
effective than not or more cost-effective than not?
    Dr. Nelson. Actually, that is a great idea. Yeah. I think 
it will turn out to be there will be some inefficiencies. We 
are going to study some compounds that are not going to make 
the final cut, so that is just what is going to happen when we 
do this quickly. But did we get there quicker? Is it net a good 
thing? That is a very good idea.
    Ms. Houlahan. And also maybe some of the compounds that 
don't make the cut maybe they make some other cut, they are 
useful for some other purpose.
    Dr. Nelson. Absolutely. And on that line, ESTCP, the 
demonstration program, is clearly aimed right at the deadline 
because we have to have something ready to go. The SERDP 
program, which is the R&D program, will continue on this and 
there can be a generation 2 and a generation 3 and a generation 
4 as we learn more things in the laboratory. So that won't stop 
when we get to the deadline.
    Ms. Houlahan. Excellent. I think that maybe we should take 
a look at that together. I think it would be an interesting 
problem set to solve.
    My next question is also for you, Dr. Nelson. And you 
mentioned in your introduction some of the cross departments 
that you are working with. One of the things that I was able to 
introduce in this NDAA, this year's NDAA, was the Interagency 
Research Coordination Strategy Act to make sure that we are 
coordinating efforts across the Federal Government in addition 
to the DOD, but with others.
    So could you describe briefly what is going on to make sure 
that we are--the DOD's PFOS activities are integrated with 
other agencies and if there are any challenges that you have 
encountered coordinating those activities.
    Dr. Nelson. I don't think we have encountered any 
challenges. My colleague, Andrea Leeson, who is the program 
manager for this particular area, convenes a periodic call with 
the people and all the other agencies that are supporting PFAS 
remediation. So we are talking about the remediation now. And 
they kick around what they are doing, what are the big problems 
that come up, and of course we invite them to all of our 
workshops.
    The outputs of our workshops are generally a short-, 
medium-, and long-term research plan so everybody gets to be 
involved in that and we publish those on our website so that 
every agency can take a look at what we are going to do in the 
short, medium, and long term. So I think it is going on. It 
will be more formalized after this, you know, if the provisions 
in the NDAA pass that there will be maybe a more structured 
approach, but it is going on informally.
    I think the same thing in AFFF. It is a pretty small 
community. There was this talk about communicating with FAA. 
One of our big investigators helped the FAA design their test 
facility at the Atlantic City Technical Center, so they are all 
really interconnected. FAA is just getting back to work from 
their COVID break. We have set up a call once a month with our 
two testing places at Tyndall Air Force Base and at the Naval 
Research Lab with the FAA Technical Center people so that 
everybody knows what they are doing, what they are getting 
ready to do. So I think at a working level it is well-
coordinated.
    Ms. Houlahan. Okay. And I look forward to seeing when it is 
more formalized what----
    Dr. Nelson. Absolutely. And then it will be a higher level 
and--yeah.
    Ms. Houlahan. And with the last minute of my time, I 
believe my questions are, as I mentioned, for Dr. Rauch, but I 
will put them out there in case you guys have something to add 
to them.
    I am looking to understand what sort of measures--and this 
piggybacks on what Representative Horn was talking about--that 
we are doing to make sure that our military members both 
existing and veterans are continuing to have good health, and I 
am specifically wanting to understand if there is any ongoing 
blood testing for military firefighters. Have you begun that 
testing? Will this testing include civilians as well as DOD 
firefighters?
    Ms. Sullivan. It is Dr. Rauch's area, but I will answer. 
Yes, we will be starting in October to test all of the 
firefighters that work for DOD both military and civilian. We 
have got all the protocols in place, the labs all certified, 
the fact sheets for both the clinicians and the firefighters, 
and so we are doing the final dotting the i's and crossing the 
t's to get all the instructions out, but it will start October 
1st.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Ms. Houlahan.
    I believe it is time for a Republican question. Mo, do you 
have another question, series of questions?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, I have just been handed 
one. This question is for both Dr. Nelson and Ms. Sullivan, so 
whoever wants to take it on, please feel free.
    My understanding is that incineration is the primary method 
used to dispose of PFAS materials during remediation and 
removal. Are you aware of any alternative methods that are 
mature enough and scalable enough to provide a viable 
alternative to incineration?
    Dr. Nelson. Sorry. I didn't know that was going to end up 
being for me. So no, I am not aware of anything that meets the 
criteria you just outlined currently available. There are 
certainly things in the research program. The EPA though is 
conducting a study of all available destruction methods and are 
looking to provide some guidance by the end of the year, I 
believe. Don't maybe hold the EPA to my deadline, but shortly 
they are going to do that. So I think we in DOD will take 
guidance from this EPA study.
    Ms. Sullivan. I am sorry.
    Yes, Dr. Nelson is right. We are looking for EPA to issue 
their guidance which is due out by the end of this year in this 
area. But I will say that we have an ongoing need to dispose of 
streams coming from AFFF replacement, from the cleanup 
activities that we do have going on, from water treatment 
practices--that there is an ongoing stream of materials that 
has to be disposed of, just day-to-day operations that we need 
alternatives available to us.
    Mr. Brooks. Would the Department have any concerns if it 
was required to stockpile PFAS?
    Ms. Sullivan. This would be a significant challenge for the 
Department. We do not have the space to store large amounts 
because we are generating--we are in the process of changing 
out the legacy AFFF to the newer versions which is a safer, 
more environmentally, solution. And we would have to stockpile 
all of that material, take up valuable storage space, plus we 
have ongoing waste that is being generated associated with 
these remedial actions that we are taking, you know, soils, 
waters from dewatering at construction sites.
    There are a lot of day-to-day waste streams that are being 
generated just to meet what we have today. We don't have the 
space on military installations to store all that material. It 
would require us to stop certain activities.
    Mr. Brooks. Dr. Nelson, do you have anything to add?
    Dr. Nelson. No, sir. I think that covered it.
    Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
    My understanding is our remaining Republican colleagues 
will be here in a few minutes and so we are going to keep this 
rolling along until they come because I know that they also 
have questions and we would like to have their questions on the 
record and the information available.
    In the meantime, it is my turn for questions. First of all, 
I want to thank our colleagues and the witnesses for the 
questions and the answers that we have received thus far. There 
are just an overarching strategy that this committee is 
employing and has employed for the last 3 to 4 years, and that 
is we don't know the answers but we are going to get the 
answers. We don't know exactly what PFOS and PFOA does to the 
human body and to the ecosystem. We don't know exactly what the 
toxicity to the ecosystem is and, therefore, we are going to 
keep the pressure on until the answers are forthcoming.
    We do know that there is contamination. We don't know what 
the appropriate maximum level of exposure is or the longevity 
in which that exposure would take place. However, we are going 
to do everything we can to find out those answers, which means 
keeping the pressure on the Department to search for the 
answers.
    Within the Congress and the Senate, we have our own 
problem; there is a jurisdictional issue, and what this 
committee wanted to do we have not been able to do in the NDAA 
for jurisdictional issues with other committees. However, we 
will work our way through that problem, but I want to note that 
is a problem, one that has retarded much of what we would want 
to do in the NDAA. Nevertheless, we do expect to continue 
process.
    So my first question goes to the overall intensity and way 
in which the Department is addressing the issue. Do you have 
the necessary authorities and money to carry out the tasks that 
have presently been assigned to you? I will start with Ms. 
Sullivan and then Dr. Nelson.
    Ms. Sullivan. I would say the Department is really focused 
on this. We are putting all of the attention, you know, we have 
the task force that is chaired by the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Sustainment and includes the three assistant 
secretaries of the military departments. They meet every other 
week to go through all the things that are on the list that we 
have to address.
    We have issued multiple policies and directions. We are 
collecting tremendous amount of data and setting the standards 
pretty high for our folks to address. They range everything 
from drinking water, to firefighter testing blood, to 
wastewater, to cleanup standards, to AFFF replacement. We are 
covering the whole gamut including what we are doing overseas. 
So I think there is a lot of attention being focused on this.
    I will say, to me, the biggest challenge is going to be the 
resources that we need to do the AFFF replacement. To fully 
understand where we have--it is not just the air rescue 
firefighting vehicles that are on the flight line which we have 
a lot of, but it is all the facilities, all the hangars, all 
the fuel infrastructure, all of the hazardous storage 
facilities where we have AFFF systems installed, fully 
understanding the scope of that and what it is going to take to 
actually change out those systems.
    In addition to the cleanup, we have to be able to grapple 
with that. That is a--the cost and the workload of that is an 
unknown that we really have to understand and fully be prepared 
to deal with.
    Mr. Garamendi. Given that problem, in your research for a 
replacement are you taking into account and directing that 
research in a way that could utilize the existing 
infrastructure? Is that your priority or are you just searching 
the world and all the encyclopedias to figure it out?
    Ms. Sullivan. So let me--there are multiple responses to 
that. We are looking at not just AFFF replacement for 
facilities, that there are other firefighting solutions that 
don't involve foam and so we have a pretty wide aperture of 
solution sets that we are looking at. But as Dr. Nelson 
mentioned, one of the big things is if we can clean the insides 
of the equipment, we won't have to replace it.
    And so that is why we are doing that parallel investment in 
cleaning the equipment so it won't require us to replace large 
infrastructure with facilities or with the trucks, the inside, 
what I call the guts of the truck, in order to provide. So to 
try and get ahead of this problem so that when we do have a 
solution that comes forward that we can do a drop-in and 
minimize the disruption in the process.
    Mr. Garamendi. Dr. Nelson, would you like to expand on 
those?
    Dr. Nelson. I think Ms. Sullivan covered it pretty 
completely. Obviously, it is--the big unknown is how much we 
have to replace in equipment, and a lot of our work is trying 
to get some numbers next to that so we can write down on a 
piece of paper what it is going to actually cost to do this 
changeover.
    As to this, you sort of brought up a drop-in replacement, 
you know, where you trying to find something to just go in the 
current equipment and, of course, that is the gold standard. If 
we could find something that we take out the old, wash it, put 
in the new, we are all in good shape. That may not happen.
    But we are looking at and as part of our demonstration 
program we are really trying to expand the horizon of 
variables. What happens if you up the pressure a little bit in 
the tanks? What happens if you use a different nozzle? And then 
we will present all that to the fire protection people and then 
they will make their decision on what they need, knowing what 
is the impact of higher temperature, higher pressure, bigger 
nozzles, whatever.
    Mr. Garamendi. In the current legislation, the current 
NDAA, we are providing more money and a prize for some 
brilliant person or group out there that can figure this out. 
What do you make of that?
    Dr. Nelson. I am quite hopeful of that. You may know that 
right now the EPA is running a prize for PFAS destruction. We 
are co-sponsoring that with them. And the way I think of it is 
there are a lot of clever people in this country. We know a lot 
of them, but we don't know them all. So this is a way to get 
some people that we are not--that aren't familiar with our 
problems and that we are not familiar with their work, to get 
involved in this. So I think it is a good idea.
    Mr. Garamendi. There is a series of questions that have 
already been asked. I want to go into them a little further, 
and that has to do with exposure, existing and past exposure 
that firefighters and others have had to the AFFF chemicals. We 
required last year that blood testing take place. What else is 
the Department doing to protect first responders from ongoing 
exposure?
    Ms. Sullivan. Actually, sir, I am going to have to defer to 
Dr. Rauch's organization. They have occupational health and 
exposure. I don't have that in my portfolio any longer, sir.
    Mr. Garamendi. We note that Dr. Rauch in his written 
testimony he speaks to this generally. Unfortunately, and I am 
going to go back and beat this drum one more time, I think it 
is extremely foolish for the administration to prohibit 
testimony in formal hearings from witnesses that cannot or 
should not appear in person. So we will have to ask a written 
question of Dr. Rauch about that issue.
    Dr. Nelson, if you would like to expand on that you are 
welcome to do so.
    Dr. Nelson. No, that is really outside of my area of 
expertise. It would not make much sense for me to discuss that.
    Mr. Garamendi. I thought it might be, but one never knows 
what might be hidden somewhere in your brain.
    Dr. Nelson. Well, good try, but different kind of doctor.
    Mr. Garamendi. One of the purposes for the blood testing is 
to establish a foundation of data and information. That fits 
with another law that is in last year's NDAA and expanded this 
year, that the military keep records, personnel records and 
health records of every individual who is exposed to known 
chemical contaminants from the firepits in Iraq to PFOS going 
forward.
    All right. So that probably fits in with--and I understand 
Mr. Lamborn is on his way.
    I do have another set of questions. I mentioned that this 
committee has jurisdictional issues with other committees, at 
least two, Transportation and Infrastructure, specifically the 
FAA, and the Commerce Committee who has EPA. We have our own 
issues. I want to question both of you about the ongoing work 
within the administration, the coordination, you have spoken to 
coordination with EPA and FAA.
    What I am interested in are problems. Stop signs or other 
kinds of problems that may exist as a result of authorities, 
that is the laws and the regulations that exist. Your ability 
to work with them, is it in any way retarded by a lack of 
authority to allow for the coordination?
    Ms. Sullivan.
    Ms. Sullivan. I think right now we are closely coordinated 
with EPA. We are waiting on several things from them that they 
are required to provide, such as the disposal guidance document 
that they need to get out, which would help us tremendously in 
our disposal guidance that we are required to get out. I think 
the challenge is continuing to make sure that we all stay 
current on everything that is going on.
    I think--we defer to EPA on a number of things and we look 
to them to be a source, where look to be a source on toxicity 
values, on guidance on discharge standards and things like 
that, test methods. Right now, the only approved EPA-approved 
test methodology is for drinking water. We don't have approved 
test methods that EPA has sanctioned for groundwater, for soil, 
for stormwater.
    These present challenges to us while we move forward, and 
we continue to work with them to come up with--support them to 
come up with these standards so they can in fact help us as we 
proceed through our cleanup program.
    Mr. Garamendi. Dr. Nelson.
    Dr. Nelson. So I would echo that. I don't think we have 
much coordination issues. We fund some projects at the EPA 
working on these kinds of issues. All of our projects that I 
talked about earlier are selected and managed by what we call a 
technical committee, and since EPA is one of the partner 
agencies, EPA has representatives on these.
    So they help us select projects. They help us put together 
our call for proposals, identify the issues, so I think we are 
quite well coordinated with them. We have sort of made the FAA 
people sort of an ad hoc member of those committees for the 
purposes of this problem, so at the technical level we work 
quite well with the FAA people also, so I don't see any 
barriers.
    Mr. Garamendi. My questions, this particular set of 
questions is driving at the authorities that exist.
    Ms. Sullivan, you mentioned four, three of them just a 
moment ago, having to do with drinking water of which there is 
a standard, and for contamination for which there is not a 
standard. This is less for the administration, but rather for 
us in Congress that we work amongst ourselves and the 
committees to close authority gaps, for example, where the EPA 
may not have the authority to do something that is necessary to 
deal with the AFFF or the PFOS/PFOA.
    So that is what I am looking at is how--information we need 
to work with our committee, our other committees to carry it 
out. You spoke to EPA, Ms. Sullivan. How about the FAA?
    Ms. Sullivan. Well, let me--can I touch EPA first?
    Mr. Garamendi. I would simply say as a member of the T and 
I, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the FAA, 
the subcommittee, there is a problem.
    Ms. Sullivan. So FAA's deadline, their requirements are 
different than ours. They have a 2021 deadline and so that is a 
challenge. We are working very closely together because right 
now for an airport to be certified--I have learned this so much 
I can't tell you--they have to have right now it requires them 
to use the MIL-SPEC [military specification] in order to meet 
the certification.
    That requirement will go away come October 2021, so it 
won't be mandated. That leaves a free-for-all on types of what 
foams these airports are going to do. We are mutually concerned 
about that and we are actually actively talking about well, 
what is, you know, what is the standard? What level of support? 
There is a lot of work to be done there. I can say one of the 
EPA things that I want to make sure that we understand, there 
seems to be some confusion or common belief that because EPA 
has not declared PFOS or PFOA a hazardous substance under 
CERCLA that Federal agencies can't do anything. Because of the 
separate section 104 under CERCLA, Federal agencies already 
have an affirmative responsibility to move forward unlike 
anybody else across the Nation. So we, the Federal family, are 
already proceeding under CERCLA where nobody else is across the 
Nation.
    These are the challenges that we have to say. You mentioned 
drinking water; it is a non-enforceable standard. We are 
testing all of our drinking water on our bases because we are 
concerned citizens for our service members, their families, our 
civilian workforce. Again, we look to EPA to what that standard 
should be across the Nation.
    Mr. Garamendi. This set of issues is really important in 
that the solutions are going to be difficult to find and to 
certainly enforce if there is this ambiguity that you have 
described in at least two different places.
    I am asking our staffs--Doug, your staff, my staff--to go 
into this in detail. We have known from our previous efforts on 
this area that there is this jurisdictional issue within our 
domain and we are going to need to work our way through that so 
that the administration is required by law to coordinate and to 
have a similar standard across the in this case FAA, EPA, and 
the Department of Defense.
    So I have taken up well more than 5 minutes of Ms. 
Slotkin's time awaiting your arrival, Doug. I know that you 
were over at the White House for a very important event and so 
if you would like to take your 5 minutes to talk about the 
event you are welcome to do so or you can go to your questions. 
Thank you for coming back to join us.
    Mr. Lamborn. Well, I will go to the questions. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, for keeping things 
moving along. I want to thank Representative Brooks for sitting 
in until I got here. I want to thank the witnesses for their 
testimony, and I do have a little bit of follow-up.
    Representative Brooks asked some of what was concerning me, 
but just a little bit more follow-up and then I will turn the 
time back. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your dedication on 
this and the other logistical and environmental and readiness 
issues that we get to work on.
    Mr. Garamendi. No, we don't do that by ourselves, do we? We 
do it across the aisle.
    Mr. Lamborn. That is right. We work together and we have 
got great staff who help us in so many ways.
    Thinking about the CERCLA standards and what would happen 
if States stepped in and had a more stringent, I won't say 
higher or lower, but a more stringent, a stricter standard, are 
there risks if DOD had to comply with a State standard that was 
out of sync with the other 49 States, is there any kind of risk 
where that State standard may not be relevant or appropriate?
    Just a little more detail. I know we have touched on this 
earlier but, Ms. Sullivan, if we could start with you on this.
    Ms. Sullivan. Sure. So the CERCLA process, the cleanup 
process has been long established. We have been working under 
this law for decades now. State standards come in. This is 
something we do day to day whether it be PFOS, PFOA, arsenic, 
trichloroethylene, we are used to dealing with a State 
standard, so it does come in.
    There is a whole process of how it comes in to the CERCLA 
process when we get to a remedy selection, so we already are 
addressing it where it--across the nation. So we will in fact 
every situation, every decision is site-specific; that remedy 
selection is site-specific. In the cleanup program this is what 
we do business day to day.
    In drinking water, it is a little bit different. In 
drinking water, the standards, first of all, where we are the 
purveyor, where the military installation actually provides the 
drinking water, yes, we will follow the State standard under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act. We again, we have been doing that 
across the Nation with all sorts of other presence, all sorts 
of other chemicals.
    Where it becomes more of a challenge is drinking water off 
bases that may have been impacted by the Department of Defense. 
Right now, our legal authorities are somewhat confusing. We are 
trying to work through them and that is where the biggest 
challenge is, in my mind.
    Mr. Lamborn. If you had to give--if a State standard was so 
stringent that maybe it is out of line with what science has 
said or EPA has said is necessary, is there a risk there that 
that stringent standard could impose?
    Ms. Sullivan. It could be precedence-setting. So part of 
the process is there has to be a promulgation process that the 
State has to go through in order to be qualified to be 
considered, so that is part of the process as well so that if 
the process that the State went through to actually issue that 
standard is looked at as well as the science behind it to 
determine if it is applicable and relevant to be included as a 
cleanup standard.
    Mr. Lamborn. So it has to be applicable and relevant.
    Ms. Sullivan. Yes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. So if it is too much of an anomaly there 
is a way out?
    Ms. Sullivan. It depends on the science and the process 
that they used.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay.
    And, lastly, Mr. Chairman, thank you for having my opening 
statement read into the record by unanimous consent. I will 
highlight one thing and that is, the City of Fountain is near 
Peterson Air Force Base and is maybe the first or one of the 
first communities in the country to be impacted by this and to 
realize, hey, we have an issue here we have to work on.
    So I want to commend the people of the City of Fountain 
that they jumped in and they are doing everything they can, but 
they do have limited resources so that is why the Air Force and 
the DOD is a necessary partner in making sure that this problem 
is resolved and overcome for the people of Fountain. So, Mr. 
Chairman, with that I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. I thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
    I note that one of our committee members has joined us. Ms. 
Haaland is on remote. And, Ms. Haaland, you had some questions 
so it is your turn.
    Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
convening today's panel. This issue affects communities across 
our country including at Kirtland Air Force Base which is in my 
district. And all three bases in New Mexico have to deal with 
the consequences of the continued use of PFAS including the 
community and farmers surrounding Cannon Air Force Base.
    New Mexicans deserve clean water to raise their families, 
grow their businesses, and support agriculture, but harmful 
chemicals have taken a toll in our communities. I see what 
happens to the health of families and friends when toxic sites 
are not cleaned up, and it is not something that we should 
risk.
    PFAS presents a clear and present danger to our children, 
to our farmers, and environment as a whole, yet in response to 
the requirement in last year's NDAA for the Department of 
Defense to provide its plan to clean up PFOS, all that was 
produced was an anemic 7-page document explaining the Superfund 
cleanup process. The report doesn't help my constituents. It 
doesn't help the hardworking farmers in my State worried about 
their livestock being contaminated, or struggling New Mexico 
families or children growing up with a host of health problems 
that we don't even fully understand yet.
    You are hoping that by the end of fiscal year 2022, 96 
percent of the installations where PFAS was released will have 
completed only the first step of the cleanup process, ignoring 
the dozen, the two dozen, the two or so dozen--excuse me--
installations that won't even make it that far. You then move 
on to the next step that takes anywhere from 3 to 6 years 
before even starting to address the contamination.
    And Secretary Sullivan--Secretary Sullivan is present; is 
that correct?
    Ms. Sullivan. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Haaland. Okay. Thank you so much. Secretary Sullivan, 
if this committee told you that in anywhere from 3 to 10 years 
we will fund or otherwise address concerns that the Pentagon 
raised in its appropriations request you sent us in the spring, 
would that be helpful?
    Ms. Sullivan. I am not sure I understand the question. I 
apologize. If you could clarify?
    Mr. Garamendi. Ms. Haaland, you are--the sound system is 
not particularly good. Please repeat your question and we will 
see if we can pick it up here.
    Ms. Haaland. Okay, I apologize. Is that a little better?
    Mr. Garamendi. Yes.
    Ms. Haaland. Okay. If this committee told you that anywhere 
from 3 to 10 years that we would fund or otherwise address 
concerns that the Pentagon raised in its appropriations request 
that you sent us in the spring, would that be helpful?
    Ms. Sullivan. Right now, from my perspective, the money 
that Congress has so generously provided us has enabled us to 
really make tremendous progress in the cleanup program. Let me 
make it perfectly clear that our priority has been drinking 
water. If we in fact know that drinking water has been impacted 
by Department of Defense activities, we have all the tools in 
place, all the funding in place, the authorities in place to be 
able to address that immediately and we continue to thank the 
members for their support to do that.
    The cleanup process is complicated. It takes time to be 
able to do all of the analysis and studying really to 
understand water flows, to understand the engineering, to 
understand how the fate and transport process works to be able 
to design the solution. You want to make sure you have all the 
information in place, in hand, so that you are designing the 
right solution up front and you don't have to go back and 
repeat work.
    Ms. Haaland. Thank you for that answer. One last question, 
Ms. Sullivan, Secretary Sullivan. You previously testified it 
can take 30 years to clean up the PFAS that has been confirmed. 
If PFAS is also confirmed at the sites where such contamination 
is now suspected, how much longer will cleanup take?
    Ms. Sullivan. Well, it is really hard to say how long 
cleanup will take because it is going to be dependent on a lot 
of site-specific circumstances. That is why it is so important 
the work that Dr. Nelson and his team is doing to see if there 
are alternatives that will actually enable us to work on 
addressing the cleanup.
    Remember, there is cleanup of groundwater. There is cleanup 
of soil. There is all sorts of aspects. We have really good 
solutions for drinking water, but we really need to work on 
more efficient and effective measures to treat groundwater, to 
treat soil, and see if we can accelerate that process in any 
way. But again, it is going to be site-specific how long that 
solution is going to take and the specific circumstances at 
that site.
    Ms. Haaland. Chairman, it looks like my time is up and so I 
will yield.
    Mr. Garamendi. Ms. Haaland, thank you so very much for 
joining us remotely. I look forward to additional questions.
    The members and Mr. Lamborn and I may have written 
questions that we would want to submit for the record and will 
do so. There are a couple of things here that I want to just 
pick up that we have talked about the disposal and, Ms. 
Sullivan, you just spoke to that issue. There are contaminated 
soils, water, and so forth.
    The use of incineration has been discussed as a way of 
dealing with it. There is incineration and then there is 
incineration, pyrolysis, for example, of super high 
temperatures, other things. With regard to those incineration 
very broadly defined, are those, all of those types of 
incineration being considered?
    Dr. Nelson. Yes, they all are in the research program, so 
you completely, correctly, outlined it. There is incineration 
and incineration. These are very stable compounds which means 
they take higher temperatures and longer time to break down 
than many of the contaminants we do.
    So we moved a number of projects from the lab to a pilot-
scale work. Among them are things like plasma destruction, 
which is higher energy; smoldering combustion, which is pretty 
high temperature but longer time. So we are trying to get at 
one of those two, either higher temperatures or longer time. 
And so we are now testing them at realistic sites to see how 
they do.
    Of course, one issue in these things is we have to get down 
to very, very low levels at the end of this. You know, these 
compounds are hazardous at a very low level, so we can't have 
99.9 percent destruction. We have got to have five 9s or four 
9s or some number like that. So that complicates the issue, but 
we have some technologies we have hope for.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, the PFAS and PFOAs are not the only 
chemicals.
    Dr. Nelson. Exactly. And that is part of what the problem 
is. They can break down into something equally hazardous that 
is halfway to destruction, so we have to not--and even larger 
contaminants can break down to PFAS and PFOA during the 
destruction process. So it is this whole cascading chain 
through the hundreds or thousands of these compounds.
    So yeah, we are definitely alive to that. We don't want to 
make PFOS or PFOA go away and something else hazardous show up.
    Mr. Garamendi. The chairman of this committee has an 
intense interest in these destructive technologies having 
worked on it since the 1990s when I suspect Ms. Sullivan and I 
were interacting at that time on some of these questions. 
Before we adjourn here, just a couple of heads-up to the 
Department. This committee and the full committee, in fact the 
entire Congress and Senate, have been working on PFAS issues at 
least since 2016 legislation. And I suspect before that there 
was without specific focus this issue was out and about and 
being discussed.
    We are not going to let it go. We are picking it up again 
in this year's NDAA with several advancements in the law as 
well as the authorities and the funding. And so we will 
continue to press this issue in the conference committee. We 
have every reason to believe that the Senate is aligned with us 
on these issues, so we will carry out with additional 
requirements and as well as funding.
    There is an issue within the Congress itself, and I know 
this issue exists over in the Senate, and that has to do with 
authorities. I have spoken to that Transportation and 
Infrastructure FAA, and Energy and Commerce with regard to EPA, 
so we are going to--and we also have the Resources Committee 
involved in some of these issues also. It is important for us 
to know where we bump up against the interagency authorities.
    And so a question for the record to all three of our 
witnesses is, where are the interagency problems that prevent 
appropriate and timely resolution of those problems? They may 
very well be law or authorities or funding issues. I would like 
to know so that I can work with the other committees to resolve 
our side of the issues and align the authorities in such a way 
that the administration is able to overcome whatever barriers 
may exist. So for the record, please provide us with that 
information.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Mr. Garamendi. We have talked about funding here. We will 
plus-up again this year the authorities and I believe the 
appropriations committees will follow along to address that. I 
think all of us are very concerned about the replacement for 
the AFFF. We understand the complexities. We understand the 
costs associated with something that is entirely different and 
that will come back to roost in this committee, so we will want 
to be aware of that.
    We do have a problem and that is that, Ms. Sullivan, you 
are retiring without permission from this committee. We 
recognize that you have been at this some 40 years and we know 
that you are just an enormous wealth of information not only 
about the details of what these complex issues are--the 
science, the chemistry, and the like--but perhaps even more 
important the way in which the organizations function 
successfully. That is because you know where they function 
unsuccessfully and you are able to work your way through that. 
That is an incredible resource that we will be losing at least 
in your formal role. We do have your identification numbers and 
we may use the services of the intelligence, surveillance, 
reconnaissance efforts of the Department to reach out to you 
and put you on a temporary contract and make use of your 
extraordinary knowledge.
    We will miss you. We thank you for those 40 years of 
service to America and to the world because it has been on the 
environment for 40 years. It is an incredible, incredible task 
and we thank you for that. Thank you so very much.
    [Applause.]
    Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Garamendi. With that I think we have completed our 
hearing and we are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
     
=======================================================================

                            A P P E N D I X

                           September 15, 2020
    
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                           September 15, 2020

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

=======================================================================


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                           September 15, 2020

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                           September 15, 2020

=======================================================================

      

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HOULAHAN

    Ms. Houlahan. Has the Department of Defense assessed and compared 
other technologies already being used by the private sector that can 
treat PFAS contamination, including any that can treat groundwater 
within a contaminated aquifer rather than requiring it to be pumped out 
and then treated? What role does cost savings play in DOD decision 
making regarding the technologies chosen to mitigate PFAS 
contamination?
    Ms. Sullivan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Ms. Houlahan. Has the Department of Defense assessed and compared 
other technologies already being used by the private sector that can 
treat PFAS contamination, including any that can treat groundwater 
within a contaminated aquifer rather than requiring it to be pumped out 
and then treated? What role does cost savings play in DOD decision 
making regarding the technologies chosen to mitigate PFAS 
contamination?
    Dr. Nelson. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
                                 ______
                                 
                QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TORRES SMALL
    Ms. Torres Small. It has been nearly 2 years since the Air Force 
held a town hall to update the surrounding Cannon AFB communities on 
the status of the contamination and hear their concerns. This is 
unacceptable. Will you commit, today, to holding regular meetings with 
local residents and officials?
    Ms. Sullivan. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Ms. Torres Small. In Curry County, New Mexico, and the surrounding 
communities of Cannon AFB, it has been confirmed that the safe drinking 
water LHA levels of PFAS have exceeded the EPA's regulated 70 ppt 
standard. DOD has offered clean bottled drinking water to some of the 
affected farmers, but this does not address water for agricultural 
purposes used to produce products destined for human consumption as 
described by section 343 of the FY20 NDAA. It appears DOD does not see 
this as an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. How 
have you determined that the losses suffered by agriculture assets are 
not due to contamination from PFAS as the farmers have themselves 
claimed?
    Dr. Nelson. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]

                                  [all]