Congressional Hearings
PERFLUORINATED CHEMICALS IN THE ENVIRONMENT: AN UPDATE ON THE RESPONSE TO CONTAMINATION AND CHALLENGES PRESENTED
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.C 73/8:115-163
Congress: House of Representatives
CHRG-115hhrg36246
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| hsif00 | H | S | Committee on Energy and Commerce |
[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PERFLUORINATED CHEMICALS IN THE
ENVIRONMENT: AN UPDATE ON THE RESPONSE TO CONTAMINATION AND CHALLENGES
PRESENTED
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 6, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-163
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-246 WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, po@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
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
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
Subcommittee on Energy
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOE BARTON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois SCOTT H. PETERS, California
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio GENE GREEN, Texas
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia KATHY CASTOR, Florida
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio PAUL TONKO, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma Massachusetts
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
TIM WALBERG, Michigan officio)
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 9
Witnesses
Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Groundwater and Drinking
Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Answers to submitted questions............................... 151
Maureen Sullivan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Environment, U.S. Department of Defense........................ 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Answers to submitted questions............................... 161
Lisa Daniels,, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection......................... 52
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Answers to submitted questions............................... 167
Sandeep Burman, Manager, Site Remediation and Redevelopment,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency............................. 64
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Answers to submitted questions............................... 174
Carol Isaacs, Director, Michigan PFAS Action Response Team,
Executive Office of Governor Rick Snyder....................... 77
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Answers to submitted questions............................... 184
Emily Donovan, Co-Founder, Clean Cape Fear....................... 87
Prepared statement........................................... 89
Erik Olson, Senior Director, Health and Food, Healthy People &
Thriving Communities Program, Natural Resources Defense Council 101
Prepared statement........................................... 103
Submitted Material
Letter of June 6, 2018, from Members of Congress to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. McNerney..... 130
EPA response................................................. 132
Statement of the National Groundwater Association................ 134
Statement of Culligan International Company...................... 136
Statement of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families................... 138
Statement of Purolite \1\
Statement of the Water Quality Association....................... 142
Letter of August 1, 2018, from Hon. Fred Upton to the National
Guard Bureau and the Air National Guard........................ 144
Letter of July 17, 2018, from Members of Congress to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 145
Letter of July 24, 2018, from the Governor of Michigan to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency........................... 147
Letter of July 24, 2018, from the Governor of Michigan to the
Secretary of Defense........................................... 149
----------
\1\ The information can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20180906/108649/HHRG-115-IF18-20180906-
SD027.pdf.
PERFLUORINATED CHEMICALS IN THE ENVIRONMENT: AN UPDATE ON THE RESPONSE
TO CONTAMINATION AND CHALLENGES PRESENTED
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Upton, McKinley,
Olson, Johnson, Flores, Hudson, Walberg, Carter, Duncan, Walden
(ex officio), Sarbanes, Welch, Tonko, Ruiz, Peters, Green,
McNerney, Cardenas, Dingell, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Samantha Bopp, Staff Assistant; Daniel
Butler, Legislative Clerk, Health; Karen Christian, General
Counsel; Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Energy/Environment;
Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Ali Fulling,
Legislative Clerk, Oversight & Investigations, Digital Commerce
and Consumer Protection; Drew McDowell, Executive Assistant;
Brannon Rains, Staff Assistant; Mark Ratner, Policy
Coordinator; Annelise Rickert, Counsel, Energy; Peter Spencer,
Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; Madeline Vey, Policy
Coordinator, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection;
Elizabeth Ertel, Minority Office Manager; Jourdan Lewis,
Minority Staff Assistant; John Marshall, Minority Policy
Coordinator; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; and Tuley
Wright, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. If I can ask all our guests today to please
take their seats. The Subcommittee on Environment will now come
to order. The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement. All right, let's quiet down.
Good morning. Today's hearing focuses on a class of
emerging environmental contaminants that are highly fluorinated
chemicals. Technically known as perfluorinated polyfluoroalkyl
substances, they are more commonly referred to by their
acronym, PFAS.
PFAS is a group of man-made chemicals numbering in the
thousands that have been manufactured and used in a variety of
industries around the globe. These chemicals have been used to
make coatings and products that are widely used by consumers
due to their oil and water repellent characteristics.
Items containing PFAS include food packaging like pizza
boxes and microwave popcorn bags and in non-stick products like
Teflon as well as polishes, waxes, paints, and cleaning
products. The chemicals also serve to make components of
firefighting foams and mist suppressants from metal plating
operations. The military uses them in foam to extinguish
explosive oil and fuel fires.
PFAS are considered emerging contaminants because today's
advanced analytical technology is increasingly detecting their
presence in the environment and there isn't a great deal of
toxicology data on many of these substances, meaning that we
don't know enough to say how risky each PFAS chemical is or
what the exact impact of exposure to these substances will be
for each person.
In truth, while we are only on the front end of the
understanding how they move in the environment or their effect
on the environment and public health, what we do know is that
because of their unique properties and vast usage, most people
have come into contact with at least one PFAS. In addition,
studies on a few PFAS chemicals suggest those chemicals might
cause health problems for humans. And, these PFAS chemical
appear to be very persistent in the environment and in the
human body, meaning they don't break down.
In the past few years, public anxiety about PFAS detection
and uncertainty about what to do about it has grown. News
reports have highlighted several communities, near military
bases or facilities making PFAS, have discovered these
chemicals in their drinking water.
This hearing is about starting the dialogue on PFAS. It
means taking stock of what the government knows about PFAS,
what efforts to contain its contamination have promise, and
what is preventing people from being helped with cleanup or
avoid contamination of their air, soil, and water. It is time
to figure out what can be done right now and what needs to be
done to respond appropriately to legitimate risks created by
PFAS contamination in the environment.
I understand that in 2016 EPA established health advisories
for certain PFAS chemicals to provide drinking water system
operators and state, tribal, and local officials with
information on health risks of these chemicals. In addition, in
May of this year, EPA kicked off a national PFAS effort. We
welcome back the committee, Dr. Grevatt, the unofficial EPA
PFAS czar who will walk us through EPA's ongoing as well as
future plans for addressing PFAS.
We also will hear from the Department of Defense because
the various branches of the military have often used these
chemicals for fire suppression and now many military
installations are faced with significant issues concerning PFAS
contamination. We welcome Mr. Niemeyer, the Department
Assistant Secretary of Energy, Installations, and Environment--
that is not right--Ms. Sullivan, who will talk us through what
DOD is doing to tackle this issue.
For the critical state perspective, which represents the
front lines for addressing the issue, we will hear from our
friends in the state drinking water and solid waste agencies.
We welcome back Ms. Daniels who is here on behalf of the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, and Mr.
Sandeep who is here on behalf of the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
Without stealing from my colleagues from Michigan and their
thunder, I also want to welcome Ms. Isaacs from the Governor's
Office in Lansing. She is the official Michigan PFAS czarina
and it will be good to understand her State's work in this
area.
And with that I would like to yield to Mr. Hudson for the
remaining of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
The Subcommittee will now come to order and I will
recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of offering an
opening statement.
Good morning.
Today's hearing focuses on a class of emerging
environmental contaminants that are highly fluorinated
chemicals. Technically known as perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances--they are more commonly referred to
by their acronym: PFAS. Many of us are familiar with these
substances because of the work of our colleagues, Mr. Tonko,
Mr. Upton, and Mr. Hudson, in their districts and states.
PFAS is a group of man-made chemicals, numbering in the
thousands, that have been manufactured and used in a variety of
industries around the globe. These chemicals have been used to
make coatings and products that are widely used by consumers
due to their oil and water repellent characteristics. Items
containing PFAS include food packaging like pizza boxes and
microwave popcorn bags, and in nonstick products like Teflon,
as well as polishes, waxes, paints, and cleaning products. The
chemicals also serve to make components of fire-fighting foams
and mist suppressants for metal plating operations. The
military used them in foam to extinguish explosive oil and fuel
fires.
PFAS are considered emerging contaminants because today's
advanced analytical technology is increasingly detecting their
presence in the environment and there isn't a great deal of
toxicology data on many of these substances--meaning we don't
know enough to say how risky each PFAS chemical is or what the
exact impact of exposure to these substances will be for each
person.
In truth, while we are only on the front end of
understanding how they move in the environment or their effect
on the environment and public health, what we do know is that
because of their unique properties and vast usage, most people
have come into contact with at least one PFAS.
In addition, studies on a few PFAS chemicals suggest those
chemicals might cause health problems for humans. And, these
PFAS chemicals appear to be very persistent in the environment
and in the human body--meaning they don't break down.
In the past few years, public anxiety about PFAS detection
and uncertainty about what to do about it has grown. News
reports have highlighted several communities, near military
bases or factories making PFAS, have discovered these chemicals
in their drinking water.
This hearing is about starting the dialogue on PFAS. It
means taking stock of what the government knows about PFAS,
what efforts to contain its contamination have promise, and
what is preventing people from being helped with cleanup, or
avoid contamination of their air, soil, and water. It's time to
figure out what can be done right now and what needs to be done
to respond appropriately to legitimate risks created by PFAS
contamination in the environment.
I understand that in 2016 EPA established health advisories
for certain PFAS chemicals to provide drinking water system
operators, and state, tribal and local officials with
information on the health risks of these chemicals. In
addition, in May of this year, EPA kicked off a national PFAS
effort. We welcome back to the Committee, Dr. Grevatt--the
unofficial ``EPA PFAS Czar'' who will walk us through EPA's
ongoing as well as future plans for addressing PFAS.
We will also hear from the Department of Defense because
the various branches of the military have often used these
chemicals for fire suppression and now many military
installations are faced with significant issues concerning PFAS
contamination. We welcome Ms. Maureen Sullivan, the
Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment who
will walk us through what DoD is doing to tackle this issue.
For the critical state perspective, which represents the
front lines for addressing the issue we will hear from our
friends in the State drinking water and solid waste agencies.
We welcome back Ms. Daniels who is here on behalf of the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators and Mr.
Sandeep who is here on behalf of the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
Without stealing my colleagues from Michigan's thunder, I
also want to welcome Ms. Issacs from Governor's Office in
Lansing. She is the official Michigan PFAS Czarina and it will
be good to understand her State's work in this area.
Last, but not least, we welcome back Mr. Olson from NRDC
and extend a new welcome to Ms. Donovan from Clean Cape Fear
who will, respectively, provide the perspective of national
environmental advocates and a local community affected by
contamination from PFAS chemicals known as GenX. Members of
this committee should be familiar with EPA's work on this PFAS
compound because of our work by Mr. Hudson.
I hope that this hearing will result in a productive
dialogue that will allow the Subcommittee to better understand
the challenges presented by these chemicals; the roles of
Federal, State, and local officials and programs--like the
Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund that we renewed on
voice vote; and what the current response is and what may need
to be done to improve what we are doing across the country.
Before closing, I want to acknowledge that my Democrat
colleagues are seeking a hearing on implementation of reforms
to title I of the Toxic Substances Control Act. While we could
have foreseen that the new law would be litigated, we could not
have expected the acrimony that has occurred so quickly about
these provisions. Moreover, many of us were told to expect
implementation of this law to go one way, only to see it play
out quite the opposite. While our staff has been receiving
briefings every few months, the uncertainty surrounding a
political head in the chemicals' office has complicated a
having a hearing. I promise my colleagues that I will see what
can be done with the time available to us to look at this
subject.
I now yield to my colleague from New York, our subcommittee
Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member
Tonko. I appreciate you holding this hearing today on PFOS and
PFAS chemicals. This issue remains a top priority for me and I
am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
I want to thank the EPA for agreeing to testify so we can
continue to learn more about these chemicals. The EPA recently
accepted an invitation to hold its third community engagement
summit in my district. Dr. Grevatt, I look forward to hearing
from you and what you have learned at that summit as well as
discussing what plans EPA has to release a public health
advisory specifically for GenX.
I also want to thank Emily Donovan, a former North
Carolinian, who will be testifying on our second panel. Too
often we are focused on the technical sides of these issues and
forget at the end of the day we are talking about real people.
So I look forward to Emily's testimony that will put a human
face on this issue, Mr. Chairman.
And with that I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from New York, my good friend Mr.
Tonko, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our guests,
including the czars and czarina. So, it is awesome to have you
here.
Seventy parts per trillion, per trillion--it is hard to
even fathom that amount--drops in an Olympic-sized swimming
pool, but that is the health advisory level established by EPA
for lifetime exposure to PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. When
we discuss other serious drinking water contaminants we often
deal in parts per billion. Lead and perchlorate and other
dangerous contaminants are considered on a scale order of
magnitude larger than PFOA. That gives you a sense of how toxic
this class of chemicals is.
After a number of high profile incidents in 2016, EPA
significantly lowered its health advisory level from 400 parts
per trillion to 70. Since then, we have seen some States set
standards lower than 70 parts per trillion, and the press has
reported what appears to be political interference that sought
to delay a CDC toxicity study which suggests that these
substances are dangerous at even lower levels than previously
stated by EPA.
Clearly, we have issues with risk communication. So I
understand the frustration felt by individuals and communities
that do not know who to trust. Perfluorinated substances,
collectively known as PFAS, have been linked to cancer, to
thyroid disease, and other serious health problems. These
compounds such as PFOA, PFOS, and GenX have been used for
industrial purposes including cookware, food packaging, and
firefighting foam.
We know PFAS are toxic, bioaccumulative, and stick around
in the environment for years to come. We know almost all
Americans have had some PFAS exposure and we know drinking
water contaminations are being found in communities across our
country. Research from Environmental Working Group estimated
PFAS contamination in the water supplies of 15 million
Americans. Due to how these chemicals are monitored the number
is likely underestimated.
Under the EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, or
UCMR, from 2013 to 2016, all U.S. public water systems serving
10,000 or more customers tested their supplies for PFOA, PFOS,
and other similar compounds, but as it is UCMR is not adequate.
It only covered six PFAS out of thousands within this chemical
class that have been found in products or the environment.
About 50 million Americans are served by water systems that
were not required to test for these PFAS at all, and 15 percent
of Americans rely on private wells which are not covered by any
EPA drinking water standards or testing requirements.
Communities nearby my district are dealing with the
consequences of contamination. Hoosick Falls, New York, in
Upstate New York, only discovered they had a problem after a
private citizen tested his water.
I want to stress that communities like Hoosick Falls and
Newburgh in Upstate New York and the dozens and dozens of
others are not unique and the elevated rates of cancer and
unusual diseases are surely not a coincidence. It should not
and cannot fall upon every private citizen to test the water
only after a loved one passes away from kidney cancer. This is
why we have national protective standards that require
monitoring and treatment for dangerous common contaminants. We
need EPA action on an enforceable standard, but without such
action this committee has made efforts to ensure more
widespread monitoring of PFOA and PFOS.
In the Drinking Water System Improvement Act passed by the
committee last year, we would require water systems serving
more than 3,300 people to test for unregulated contaminants, a
vast improvement over that 10,000. Unfortunately, this does not
help people served by the smallest systems or private well, but
it is a start.
Mr. Chair, we should continue to look into additional ways
to improve testing and monitoring. Today is a great opportunity
for us to learn what EPA and state governments are doing to
address the growing course of concerns from scientists and
private citizens about the risks posed by PFAS. I hope we will
hear that EPA is exploring all regulatory options available and
plans to act expediently. But even on the most aggressive
timeline, regulatory action will likely take years, so we must
consider what can be done right now to identify contaminations,
prevent exposure, and expedite cleanups.
We are also joined today by the Department of Defense. For
decades, aqueous film-forming foam, a firefighting foam that
contains PFAS, has been used by DOD and commercial airports. In
communities where PFAS are not manufactured, ground water
contamination has often been traced to a nearby DOD
installation where these firefighting foams have been used.
Communities near these bases and industrial facilities did not
sign up for this risk and deserve, deserve clean water.
DOD must step up and make it right. We know the cost of
remediation can be expensive and the health consequences of
exposure can indeed be fatal. Ultimately, we must hold
polluters accountable to clean up and make the communities and
families that have suffered from this pollution whole again.
And yes that standard must apply to our United States
Department of Defense.
Mr. Chair, I am grateful that you have called this hearing
today. I expect we will learn a lot about the options of EPA,
DOD, states, and communities to protect people from these
dangerous contaminants. But a hearing is not enough. I firmly
believe there is a need for legislation to ensure that adequate
testing, monitoring, remediation, and protection is occurring,
and this can best be guaranteed if Congress requires EPA to
take the steps necessary to make a determination on a maximum
contaminant level in addition to other potential protective
actions.
I believe there are legislative proposals that would have
bipartisan support and I hope we can continue to look into this
issue based on today's conversations. With that Mr. Chair, I
yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. We can
tell by the length of the statement that Jackie has returned,
so welcome back.
Mr. Walden. Swing and a hit.
Mr. Shimkus. The chair now recognizes the chairman of the
full committee, Chairman Walden, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this hearing. It is really, really important work and I
know many of our colleagues on the dais--Mr. Hudson, Mrs.
Dingell, Mr. Upton and others--have been very involved in this.
On my way back to Washington at the end of last week, I
went at Mr. Upton's request to Michigan to learn more firsthand
from him about this horrible situation in his district and
state. And I think it is really important we got right on this
hearing. I appreciate everybody's input.
We are going to do three things here today. First is we
need to increase our understanding of what the government knows
or doesn't and establish what the public should know about the
risks, how confident they should be in that information, and
the best ways to prevent unhealthy exposure to these chemicals.
Second, we need to explore what can be done right now to
address contamination by these substances based on what we do
know starting with the practical steps that may be taken to
reduce risk from contamination. And third purpose of the
hearing, it should help develop an outline for a more sustained
strategy to fill important information gaps, identify any
longer terms challenges, and set realistic expectations for
results based on science and risk-informed decision making.
And that is why we have our witnesses today who can help us
in this effort. I want to thank Chairman Shimkus for assembling
these two very good panels of witnesses. They have important
knowledge not only on the complicated nature of PFAS
contaminated sites and the state of the science on these
contaminates, but also on policy.
I know EPA announced a more comprehensive PFAS plan this
past May and have been traveling the country to hear from
people impacted by PFAS contamination. And we look forward to
hearing what EPA ranks PFAS exposure in terms of other
environmental and public threats that are facing us and how the
Federal Government plans to try to tackle the issues associated
with PFAS chemicals including around Defense Department sites.
And we look forward to learning about the technical and
economic barriers that states and communities face in dealing
with this contamination. We have seen these sorts of things
before in America. We know how difficult they can be and deadly
they can be in various examples in the past including at
Department of Defense sites. I think of Hanford in my region
and the waste that is there from World War II we are still
trying to clean up, and other things that have occurred around
the country.
So I appreciate our panel being here. I appreciate this
hearing. I am going to yield the balance of my time to the
former chairman of this committee, nobody who has worked harder
on this issue--got on it right away with Governor Snyder--than
Fred Upton. So, Mr. Upton, I would yield the balance of my time
to you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Thank you for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman. I will be
brief.
Today, the Environment Subcommittee is holding a hearing on
a class of certain man-made organic chemicals--what are known
as per-fluorinated chemicals--that are found in many common
household items such as food packaging, non-stick cookware,
clothing, shoes, furniture, and carpets.
I know these chemicals are a topic on the minds of many
Americans. I was recently in Michigan with Mr. Upton and
understand the concerns of many there where these chemicals are
so pervasive, toxicity information for numerous PFAS is
illusive, and people are rightly confused and scared. I
understand, from Mr. Hudson, that a similar situation exists in
his state and I appreciate his efforts to help North
Carolinians.
The goal of this hearing is three-fold.
First: the hearing should help increase our understanding
about what the government knows--or doesn't--and establish what
the public should know about the risks, how confident they
should be in that information, and the best ways to prevent
unhealthy exposures to these chemicals;
Second: it should explore what can be done right now to
address contamination by these substances based on what we
know, starting with the practical steps that may be taken to
reduce risks from contamination; and
Third, it should help develop an outline for a more
sustained strategy to fill important information gaps,
identifying any longer-term challenges, and setting realistic
expectations for results based on a science and risk-informed
decision-making.
I would like to thank Chairman Shimkus for assembling these
two informative panels of witnesses. They have important
knowledge on not only the complicated nature of PFAS
contaminated sites and the state of the science on these
contaminants, but also on the policy.
I know EPA announced a more comprehensive PFAS plan this
past May and has been traveling the country to hear from people
impacted by PFAS contamination. We look forward to hearing
where EPA ranks PFAS exposure in terms of the other
environmental and public threats it is facing, how the federal
government plans to try to tackle the issues associated with
these PFAS chemicals, including around Defense Department
sites, and to learning about the technical and economic
barriers that states and communities face in dealing with this
contamination.
I want to thank our witnesses for agreeing to be with us
today. We welcome your insights on both the science and the
policy of this complicated issue. I look forward to our
testimony and learning from your experience and persepectives.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for this time. I yield back
the remainder of my time.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
particularly thank you too, Mr. Chairman Shimkus, not only for
this hearing this morning, but also for your great work in the
last Congress to pass TSCA legislation, something that passed
this committee when I was chairman, on a unanimous vote thanks
to your leadership, and really provided the EPA the authority
to begin to look at all these somewhat unregulated chemicals
for the first time in 40 years. And had that not happened we
probably wouldn't be here today. So that work really paid off.
Let me just share with you a couple things at what happened
when I went back to Michigan beginning the August break. I
literally was just off the plane on my way home when I got a
call from my state senator, Margaret O'Brien, and she said,
Fred, I have really bad news. We just got the results from a
small city in my district, Parchment, and they are 20 times the
standard for PFAS and we are assembling a meeting yet tonight,
we want you to come.
And so I went to the other end of my district, it was not a
problem, and we spent about 5 or 6 hours there that night. We
had a conference call with the state with every player of any
importance to figure out what we should do. And we praised the
media, because this particular town doesn't have the system on
their cells even though earlier in the week here in Washington
we got a weather alert that everyone's cell phone buzzed, take
cover, flooding, et cetera, we didn't have that ability to do
that in Parchment.
But we knew at 1,400 parts per trillion, 20 times the
standard that they should not be using that water right away.
People were ready to go door-to-door to tell folks in this
small community don't put the water out for your pet, don't use
it for infant formula, don't make it for coffee in the
morning--just disconnect your icemaker, no water for cooking,
and thanks to the media, particularly Channel 3 and Channel 8,
they came out with radio stations and the word was out right
away to stop.
And for a month we literally were giving bottled water to
everyone in those two communities, City of Parchment and Cooper
Township. That water just got turned on last week and when they
were able to connect with the City of Kalamazoo to hook up. But
you still have a good number of private wells and others that
are in trouble because that level is too high.
So as the Governor said, this is a textbook case of what
ought to happen, getting the word out, trying to figure out
what is the next step, but immediately take care of the
residents that were there. So I want to praise so many people
on the ground.
I know that we have a good panel, a couple panels here
ahead of us. I look forward to the questions. But, Mr.
Chairman, I appreciate you taking this hearing up literally the
first week that we are back so that we can better understand
this and help other communities that yes will be on the same
path as Parchment and Cooper Township in the future. I yield
back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
Pallone, for 5 minutes.
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. We will
hear today from some of those communities and I urge my
colleagues to listen closely to the firsthand accounts of the
harm these chemicals can cause.
These health issues include multiple types of cancers,
impaired childhood development, reproductive issues, hormone
disruption, increased cholesterol levels, and immune system
issues. And Americans across this country are being injured
right now by these chemicals and it seems that more affected
communities are being discovered all the time.
This hearing is a good start but the communities affected
by PFAS contamination need more than just a hearing. They need
real solutions and real action from the EPA and the DOD. The
impacted states need more than just summits and enforceable
advisories. We need a binding, enforceable, and strong drinking
water standard.
Democrats on this committee have been pushing to set a
deadline to promulgate a strong drinking water PFAS standard
for several years and recently we have heard calls for
alternative approaches to address these chemicals from
communities and experts who don't believe EPA's regulatory
process under the Safe Drinking Water Act will actually work,
and it isn't hard to see why.
In 2016, the EPA released a health advisory for two
chemicals in this category at 70 parts per trillion. We know
this level is too high to protect public health. States have
known it for years and have set their own standards much lower,
yet millions of Americans currently receive water that exceeds
even this weak standard and the problem is spreading.
The more water systems we test for PFAS, the more
contamination we find. Earlier this year, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry drafted a report identifying
hazardous effects well below the EPA health advisory standard.
Instead of acting on this information to protect the public
health, the EPA and the White House worked to block publication
of the report.
And the Trump administration feared the potential public
relations nightmare more than public health nightmare facing
many communities today, so this is yet another outrageous
example of the Trump administration ignoring the health needs
of the American people. And we have seen these delay tactics
before, particularly with another drinking water contaminant
spread by the Department of Defense, namely perchlorate.
Next month will mark a decade since EPA determined that a
drinking water standard for perchlorate was needed and we still
have yet to see a proposed rule. So some may say that these
troubling actions show that the Safe Drinking Water Act won't
work, but I think Congress can make it work. Congress should
play a central role in setting the timeline for developing the
PFAS drinking water standard and ensuring that the standard is
truly protective of public health. And I hope this hearing is a
sign that committee Republicans are finally beginning to share
this view.
Additional actions under other environmental laws may be
needed to fully address this contamination and support these
communities, so I hope this subcommittee can work together
quickly to address PFAS contamination and implement some of the
solutions that we will hear about today.
And I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the
gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
Chairman--well, I meant Ranking Member, but thank you, Chairman
Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko, for holding this important
hearing today to discuss and highlight the growing presence of
harmful perfluorinated chemicals being discovered across the
country.
There is an old saying that says nothing lasts forever.
Unfortunately, nothing that is except for fluorinated chemicals
which were designed to stand the test of time. These chemicals,
their dangers already having been laid out by my colleagues,
can be found all around us, and in recent years we have seen
more and more cases of confirmed contamination sites in the
environment and drinking water sources, especially across
Michigan.
And like my colleague, Mr. Upton, we too found very
dangerous levels in fish in the Huron River and have had the
same crisis during the month of August. As we continue to test
for PFAS I fear that this is only the beginning, the trend is
going to continue. PFAS are man-made and will require a man/
woman-made solution from all of us working together, every
Federal agency, every state and local official and Congress
needs to immediately take this issue seriously.
I look forward to working with everyone on this committee
and my colleague, Mr. Upton, and I, who will be shortly
introducing legislation. Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time and the
chair thanks the individuals.
We want to thank all our witnesses for being here today and
taking the time to testify before this subcommittee. Today's
witnesses have the opportunity to give opening statements
followed by a round of questions from members. Our first
witness panel for today's hearing includes Dr. Peter Grevatt,
Director, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and Ms. Maureen Sullivan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment, U.S.
Department of Defense.
We appreciate you being here today. We will begin the panel
with Dr. Grevatt and you are now recognized for 5 minutes for
your opening statement. Thanks for being back and joining us.
STATEMENTS OF PETER GREVATT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GROUNDWATER
AND DRINKING WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND
MAUREEN SULLIVAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
STATEMENT OF PETER GREVATT
Mr. Grevatt. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. I am Peter Grevatt,
Director of the Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I also serve as chair of
EPA's cross-agency efforts to address per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, or PFAS. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
Protecting America's drinking water is one of EPA's top
priorities and I am here today to share with you the actions
the Agency is taking to address PFAS. PFAS are a group of man-
made chemicals that have been in use since the 1940s and PFAS
are or have been found in a wide array of consumer products and
as an ingredient in firefighting foam.
PFAS manufacturing and processing facilities, airports, and
military installations are some of the contributors of PFAS
releases into the air, soil, and water. Because of their
widespread use, most people have been exposed to PFAS and there
is evidence that exposure to certain PFAS may lead to adverse
health effects. EPA has taken steps under its various statutory
authorities to understand and address these chemicals. For
example, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Agency has
issued various significant new use rules for certain PFAS
chemicals to guard against their reintroduction into new use or
new use with prior EPA review.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which my office
oversees, EPA has also monitored for six PFAS to understand the
nationwide occurrence of these chemicals in our drinking water
systems and in 2016, EPA issued drinking water lifetime health
advisories for two well-known PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS, of
70 parts per trillion.
EPA is also working to move research forward on PFAS to
better understand their health impacts, options for treatment,
and how information on better known PFAS compounds can be
applied to inform our knowledge of other PFAS. To build on
these actions, EPA hosted a PFAS National Leadership Summit in
May of 2018. The summit provided an opportunity for
participants to share information on ongoing efforts, to
identify specific near-term actions, and to address risk
communication challenges.
At the event, EPA committed to work on four significant
actions: First, to initiate the steps to evaluate the need for
a maximum contaminant level for PFOA and PFOS; second, to begin
the necessary steps to consider designating PFOA and PFOS as
hazardous substances; third, to develop groundwater cleanup
recommendation for PFOA and PFOS at contaminated sites; and
lastly, to develop draft toxicity values for the PFAS compounds
GenX and PFBS.
EPA also continues to provide support to states, tribes,
and communities who are addressing PFAS issues. As EPA takes
these actions, the Agency is also committed to working with our
Federal partners including the Department of Defense and the
Department of Health and Human Services. We look forward to
continuing our interagency dialogue and collaboration.
Additionally, EPA recognizes the need to hear from
citizens. Since June, EPA has traveled to five states across
the country to hear directly from impacted communities and
these experiences have been invaluable and community feedback
will now shape how we move forward. EPA will consider
information from the National Leadership Summit, the community
engagements, and the public docket to develop a PFAS Management
Plan.
Protecting public health is EPA's top priority. Acting
Administrator Wheeler has expressed his continued commitment to
considering actions on PFAS so that EPA can lead efforts that
meet the needs of impacted communities.
Once again Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss PFAS. I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grevatt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
We next turn to Ms. Maureen Sullivan. Your full statement
is in the record. You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MAUREEN SULLIVAN
Ms. Sullivan. Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, 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. That is a
mouthful.
I want to thank Congress for your strong support for the
Department of Defense, our national security priorities, and
for funding that we need to protect our nation. Ensuring the
health and safety of our service members, the families living
on our installations, and the surrounding communities is one of
our top priorities.
I want to thank this committee for the opportunity to
discuss the establishment of a national approach to per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS. We believe DOD has been
leading the way to address these substances. One commercial
product that contains PFOS is aqueous film-forming foam, or
AFFF. This highly effective firefighting foam has been used by
the Department of Defense, commercial airports, local fire
departments, and the oil and gas industry. However, it only
accounted for approximately 3 to 5 percent of the PFOS
production in calendar year 2000.
And the Department of Defense is just one of the many users
of the foam. DOD has committed substantial resources in the
last 2 years and taken significant actions to respond to the
concerns from PFOS and PFOA. When EPA issued the lifetime
health advisory for PFOS and PFOA in 2016, the Department
quickly acted to voluntarily test our 524 drinking water
systems that serve approximately two million people on our
installations worldwide. Twenty four of these systems tested
above EPA's LHA level.
Although it is only an advisory, DOD followed EPA's
recommendations to include providing bottled water or
additional water treatment at those locations. CERCLA provides
consistent approach across the Nation for cleanup. The Defense
Environmental Restoration Program statute provides authorities
to DOD to perform and fund actions and requires they be carried
out in accordance with CERCLA.
The first step is to identify the source of known or
suspected releases. The Department of Defense has identified
401 active and Base Realignment and Closure installations with
at least one area where there is a known or suspected release
of PFOS or PFOA. The Military Departments then determined
whether there was exposure through drinking water and, if so,
the priority is to cut off human exposure where drinking water
exceeds EPA's lifetime health advisory. Once the exposure
pathway is broken, the Military Departments prioritize the
sites for further action using the longstanding CERCLA risk-
based process, worst first.
These known and suspected PFOS and PFOA release areas are
in various stages of assessment, investigation, and cleanup. To
prevent further releases to groundwater, DOD issued a policy in
January of 2016 requiring the Military Departments to prevent
uncontrolled, land-based AFFF releases during maintenance,
testing, and training activities. The policy also requires the
Military Departments to remove and properly dispose of supplies
of AFFF containing PFOS other than for shipboard use.
Currently, no fluorine-free version of AFFF meets the
military's stringent performance requirements to extinguish
petroleum fires. From fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2019, we
solicited research products to identify and test the
performance of fluorine-free AFFF. These efforts support DoD's
commitment to finding an AFFF alternative that meets critical
mission requirements while protecting human health and the
environment and will represent at least $10 million in research
and development funding.
In summary, DOD is taking actions to reduce the risks. We
are committed to mitigating PFOS and PFOA releases to the
environment that are a direct result of DOD activities. We are
making significant investments in a fluorine-free AFFF. These
combined efforts reinforce DOD's commitment to meeting critical
mission requirements while protecting human health and the
environment. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sullivan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. The chair thanks the gentlelady.
We now conclude with the opening statements from our panel
and we would like to recognize members for their round of
questions. And we would like to start by recognizing myself for
5 minutes, and this is to Dr. Grevatt.
A little over a year ago, our committee unanimously
reported a bill to reauthorize and modernize the Safe Drinking
Water Act to help water systems comply with federal mandates
and keep their water safe. The centerpiece of that bill was a
5-year, $8 billion reauthorization of the Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan Fund. We are quite proud of that bill and I want
to explore how that bill can help with PFAS contamination.
Can Drinking Water State Revolving Funds themselves be used
for infrastructure upgrades needed for things like treatment,
well upgrades, or distribution upgrades to help address levels
of PFAS?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus. Yes. Yes,
certainly that fund can be used for those purposes.
Mr. Shimkus. Would this include filtration, disinfection
and disinfectant facilities, and project planning and design
activities?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. The fund can be used for those
purposes as well.
Mr. Shimkus. What about Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
set-asides? May these be used by a state to provide technical
assistance to support PFAS related work?
Mr. Grevatt. Certainly the set-asides can be used for those
purposes and are used quite broadly across the country to
support these efforts.
Mr. Shimkus. Would this apply to contamination and
treatment problems, outreach, and training on new issues for
water system workers' scoping studies for treatment purposes?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. All those things would be covered by
the Drinking Water SRF as eligible activities.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. We have several viewpoints on what
government should do to address PFAS contamination. What
specific actions under existing statutory authority can Federal
Government take to address PFAS?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, Chairman. So there are many actions
across the broad authorities that we have at EPA currently that
we are using right now to address PFAS and those include
actions under the Safe Drinking Water Act. For example, the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule effort that a number of
the members have cited under SDWA focused on PFAS. The last
round we have the opportunity to develop drinking water health
advisories which we did for PFAS compounds and we also have the
opportunity as a number of the members have noted to develop
maximum contaminant levels. That particular action is one that
we are looking at very carefully as we speak. We have used
steps under TSCA to address PFAS compounds including under TSCA
Section 5. We have also used our authorities under CERCLA to
address PFAS compounds at contaminated sites. So there are many
opportunities that exist today to address these issues.
Mr. Shimkus. Which of these actions has EPA or others in
the Federal Government not used and why?
Mr. Grevatt. So likely the two most significant that folks
may be thinking about are the development of an MCL and also
the listing of PFAS compounds as hazardous substances under
CERCLA. And both those actions that EPA committed in its
National Leadership Summit to explore very carefully and we are
involved in that process right now as we speak.
They are both potentially very important in terms of the
requirements that would be put on community water systems
across the country on an MCL and also the hazardous substance
listing would provide EPA with the opportunity to both order
cleanup actions and recover costs that EPA may expend in
cleanup actions. So they are both very important steps. There
are many different ways to achieve the hazardous substance
listing not only through CERCLA but through a number of the
other statutes that currently are in place that EPA is
responsible for fulfilling.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Ms. Sullivan, your testimony notes that DOD is taking
response actions in accordance with CERCLA or Superfund law.
Does DOD agree that cleanup of PFAS contamination is governed
under CERCLA?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes, sir. Following the longstanding process
that EPA has established under CERCLA it is considered a tier 3
value. The reference dose behind the lifetime health advisory
can be used and is being used to determine the risk associated
with sites.
Mr. Shimkus. I will end my questions and yield back my time
and turn to the ranking member, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, Dr. Grevatt, thank you for your testimony. You
described a number of actions EPA committed to doing earlier
this year. I would ask here, what steps must be taken before
EPA can make a determination about PFOA and PFOS as a hazardous
substance under Section 102 of CERCLA and what is the timeline
for that decision?
Mr. Grevatt. Right. Thank you very much, Ranking Member
Tonko. I appreciate the question and as I note it is a very
important issue. And so there are a number of ways that EPA can
achieve this hazardous substance listing through CERCLA as you
noted, but also through TSCA, through the Clean Water Act,
through the Clean Air Act, so there are a number of different
ways to achieve a hazardous substance listing.
And EPA is currently looking at the various authorities
including RCRA that allow us to list these as hazardous
substances thinking carefully about the different steps that
would be involved under each of those statutory authorities and
weighing which ones are going to make the most sense in this
case. Ultimately, the administrator will be making the decision
both as to whether he wants to proceed with the hazardous
substance listing and then under which statutory authority to
address that.
Mr. Tonko. And again what would the timeline for the
decision be?
Mr. Grevatt. So EPA is going to be developing a National
Management Plan for PFAS compounds. That was one of the
commitments at the National Leadership Summit and our goal is
to have that National Management Plan completed by the end of
this calendar year. So we are working diligently on that right
now, we expect that National Management Plan will include this
consideration of the hazardous substance list.
Mr. Tonko. So that is in less than 4 months.
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. If this determination is made, how will it help
states and localities address contamination issues and hold
responsible parties accountable for remediation?
Mr. Grevatt. Right, thank you. So the critical issue that
the hazardous substance listing will allow under CERCLA is for
EPA to order cleanup actions and if EPA has to expend funds
from the Superfund for the purpose of cleaning up sites EPA
will be able to recover costs that are expended. So this will
give very important tools for states and local communities to
address these PFAS challenges at contaminated sites.
Mr. Tonko. Right. And what is the timeline for that
decision?
Mr. Grevatt. Right. So as I noted, we expect that this
issue will be addressed in the National Management Plan and our
goal is to have that completed by the end of this calendar
year.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And if you listen to today's second panel, I
am certain you will hear from states' public health advocates
and concerned citizens that there is a widespread problem that
needs a national framework and federal funding to support
state, local, and individual responses. At this point there can
be no doubt about the severity of the problem. You cannot hold
a national summit and a public meeting tour without
acknowledging this.
So the gravity of the situation should be apparent by
today's hearing, we are not holding hearings on other CCL or
contaminants. So with all that in mind, will EPA commit to
including PFOA and PFOS as part of Regulatory Determination 4?
Mr. Grevatt. So a couple of important points on your
question and thank you, Ranking Member Tonko, for that
question. So the Regulatory Determination Number 4 is, the
schedule for that is 2021 when that is due. EPA is currently
looking at this issue of the Regulatory Determination for PFOA
and PFOS as we speak. We expect that decision will be made long
before 2021 and we will be addressing this issue as well in the
context of the National Management Plan that will be completed
by the end of this year.
Mr. Tonko. So can we commit to that then or, obviously
there is a sense of urgency here.
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, absolutely. So we certainly can commit to
look carefully at this issue in terms of how the agency will
approach the Regulatory Determination. I don't have an answer
yet as to whether and how EPA will include PFOA and PFOS in the
Regulatory Determination. That is an issue that as the Safe
Drinking Water Act states is in the sole judgment of the
administrator, and Acting Administrator Wheeler is looking at
this issue right now as we speak.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Well, we have seen some walking away from
commitments to the environment. So if you are going to make
this extensive effort to explore potential regulatory actions,
in the end EPA must be willing to say one way or another if
these contaminants need a national standard. There can be no
more kicking the can down the road, so I would hope that we
would get that sort of commitment.
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. With that Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the vice chairman of this subcommittee, Mr.
McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly we have
had, in West Virginia we have had some exposure to the PFOA and
PFOS. We went through it a couple of years ago and we saw the
concerns that people had, the population in one of the
communities. Vienna, West Virginia wound up, with about 10,000
people it cost them $6 million to address this problem and
annually now it is going to be about a $200,000 cost that they
are going to have to incur.
We all want clean water. I am a hundred percent behind that
on this, where we need to go on this. I am just, I am a little
bit curious. Often we have an independent verification and
validation process in software. Are we going to have anyone
review the--as we drop down from, remember, it went from 400
down to 70, now we may be talking about going down to 10. That
is all wonderful. Is there going to be another validation of
that to see that as we keep ratcheting down, will there be an
independent verification, a second opinion so to speak that
that is the right thing to do?
Mr. Grevatt. Without question, Congressman, if we were to
make a change from the current drinking water health advisory
of 70 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS combined, we would
subject that, the scientific basis for that to independent peer
review before we were to take such an action.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I think that is going to be
overall well, because I am concerned we had 63 sites around the
country 2 years ago. This was a very interesting report. Did
you help author that 2 years ago?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. McKinley. About 103 pages long, as an engineer it was
enjoyable reading but it also told how the points we have to
raise on these matters. So now we had 63 communities that are
affected with this back then. If we were to go down to 10, 15
do you have any idea how many communities across the country
could be impacted with that?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, sir. It is difficult to conjecture
on the exact number. What I can say is in terms of UCMR process
that that process covered, it was a census of all the large
drinking water systems, larger than 10,000 people served, and a
representative sample of systems smaller than 10,000. As you
noted, we found 63 of those systems had levels above the
drinking water health advisory of PFOA and PFOS of 70 parts per
trillion. That sample covered 80 percent of the United States
population that is served by community water systems and so we
consider it a very comprehensive effort.
Mr. McKinley. Well, what kind of numbers are we talking?
Could we have if we were to drop to 10, which again in an ideal
world that would be wonderful. As an engineer, all of us want
to have the purest water we can. But to get down to 10, is that
going to affect perhaps 300 communities, 3,000 communities to
get down to 10?
Mr. Grevatt. I think it is very difficult to guess. What we
can say for certain is it will be more than 63 and we know as a
result of----
Mr. McKinley. So as a result I know the timeframe on this
is that we, at least in West Virginia we had a company that was
on the hook to pay for this, but there are going to be some
communities that the companies are long gone and how are they
going to do this, so I don't know whether from the military or
the communities.
We have trouble right now with brownfield sites that we
have 480,000 brownfield or contaminated sites across America
but we only clean up about a thousand or less during a years'
time. I want to see this thing done, but I have got to find out
how to push the urgency that this is our number one priority in
addressing water on that.
Would you say that of all--I want to, careful now on this.
Of all the water contaminants that we face--bleach, salts,
nitrates--is PFOA, is that the number one contaminant?
Mr. Grevatt. I think it is very important to look at this--
--
Mr. McKinley. Is it the number one? Is that the one,
because we can chase a lot of rabbits here. I want to make sure
that we are chasing the right rabbit, the one that is causing
the greatest harm to the American public I want to see us focus
on that. Not one that just pops up over here and that--I won't
give you an analogy. Is this the number one health risk in
water today in America, PFOA?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, Congressman. In communities where
PFAS compounds have impacted drinking water supplies they are
presenting significant challenges. Nationally, I would say no,
this is not the number one challenge that we face. I think
there are important issues around the basics of water
treatment, especially around areas, things like disinfection
and disinfectant byproducts in systems. It is very important to
make sure that we also focus holistically on the full spectrum
of challenges that face our nation's drinking water systems.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee,
Congressman Pallone, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My home State of New Jersey has been studying PFAS
contamination in drinking water since 2006, following reports
of contamination from a DuPont facility, and monitoring by the
State and by EPA has shown widespread contamination across New
Jersey. In 2017, New Jersey set an MCL for PFOA at 14 parts per
trillion and another MCL for PFNA at 13 parts per trillion.
And those standards were a triumph for science and
advocates in New Jersey who worked for years to overcome
political opposition and this standard has been important to
communities across the State and ensures that drinking water is
being treated to remove those chemicals. But I have heard
serious concerns that the Department of Defense is not cleaning
up contaminated sites in New Jersey to that state standard.
So, Ms. Sullivan, the Department of Defense has conducted
testing at and around some military facilities in New Jersey.
According to the presentation you made to Congress in March,
drinking water contamination has been found around Naval
Weapons Station Earle, which is in my district, and Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst.
Groundwater contamination has also been found around the
former Naval Air Warfare Center in Trenton with levels as high
as 22,800 parts per trillion detected. According to your March
report, the contamination at former Naval Air Warfare Center in
Trenton will be handled through a continued Superfund process.
So my questions are, will that cleanup in Trenton meet the
New Jersey standards of 14 and 13 parts per trillion and will
you commit to me that DOD will meet those standards for
cleanups in my state?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I
appreciate that you have read our detailed report from earlier
this year. The Department of Defense as we are required to by
CERCLA in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program statute
is following the CERCLA process. And as part of that process
the state levels are rolled in through the risk assessment
process.
So as we go through our analysis following the structure of
it, these state standards will in fact be rolled in as a
consideration as an appropriate and relevant regulation. At the
end of that risk assessment process there will be a
determination of unacceptable risk that will be reviewed not
only by us, but by the state, your state environmental agency
and the Environmental Protection Agency to determine what the
end remedy solution will be.
Mr. Pallone. But my concern, as you can imagine, is that
because I am very familiar with the Superfund process is
oftentimes DOD or even EPA do not necessarily recommend a more
strict standard. They look at it as a factor and you are saying
they will, which I appreciate, but they may not adopt the
standard.
They may not insist on that as the remediation alternative
that they pick. And the fact that DOD is not bound by these
state drinking water standards, to me, shows how important a
national drinking water standard is because it may very well be
that those state standards are not met. Obviously I would urge
you to meet them, but you are not going to guarantee that they
would be because you are just saying it will be considered.
Ms. Sullivan. Yes, sir. They will be considered as part of
the CERCLA process which we are bound to.
Mr. Pallone. Yes. Well, I think that is unfortunate. I
think you should be bound by them, and even if you are not that
you should adopt them. But I appreciate your candor.
Now, Ms. Sullivan, what chemicals is the Department of
Defense using in place of PFOA and other PFAS? Has the
Department conducted studies of those chemicals to establish
their safety?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you again, sir, for that question. We
are in the process of investing a significant amount of
research and development to first demonstrate the commercially
available substances to see--that are PFOA-free--if they meet
our strict standards in order to fight fires. We are also
investing research and development dollars to sponsor
development of a fluorine-free foam that also meets.
And as I stated, while we continue to do that we are
working with the current manufacturers to fully understand how
much PFOA is in the products that they are providing to us and
controlling the releases of those.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I am just going to run out of time.
I just was going to ask you if you could provide the committee,
through the chairman, with any and all studies that the
Department of Defense has regarding the safety of these
substitute chemicals if you would.
Ms. Sullivan. Certainly we can.
Mr. Pallone. And, Mr. Chairman, I know my time is running
out, but I know you were so much involved with TSCA and I just
wanted to say that the concern over substitutes is not limited
to PFAS and was central to our efforts to reform TSCA as you
know. And unfortunately EPA's implementation of TSCA has fallen
short of our hopes and so I was hoping that we have an
opportunity for a hearing on TSCA implementation. I will make
that request again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. I would thank the chairman. I think that is
going to be doable. We will try to figure out a time. I think
both sides are kind of frustrated with the process and my
frustration is a surprise in some of the areas and I think it
has been flipped on both issues. So I think we will do our best
to try to find some time to do that. As one of our signature
legislative accomplishments, we would hate to see it bogged
down in implementation.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. Having that the gentleman returns his time,
the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio if he is
ready, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this very important hearing. You know, many people
throughout the country are very familiar with the issues we are
discussing today. And along the Ohio River, along with other
states along the river we are no exception to that. It is vital
that we continue to develop a complete understanding of how
chemicals in high concentrations like PFOA impact populations
and how best to take any actions necessary.
I know many studies including some prominent ones within
Ohio such as the University of Cincinnati have been conducted
on this issue and I hope to see those studies continue. I also
know that the EPA is working on these issues as Dr. Grevatt has
indicated in his testimony.
So, Dr. Grevatt, you have worked with Ohio on many
occasions on water contamination issues and we appreciate that.
How can Ohio continue to best engage with the EPA on these
issues?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, Congressman, and appreciate your
noting my work with Director Butler and others from Ohio EPA,
my home State, so I have a great connection with folks there.
We are working very closely with all the states on the
activities that we have underway. We will continue to stay very
close to the State of Ohio and other states on issues like the
development of toxicity factors for PFBS and GenX on these
questions about development of the decision on a hazardous
substance listing and potentially on an MCL, so as well as the
groundwater cleanup goals. These are all issues that we are
working very closely with the State of Ohio and other states
on. We will commit to continuing that connection with the
states.
Mr. Johnson. OK. And are you working with them on any of
the DOD facilities as well?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Mr. Grevatt. So yes, as Ohio and other states request
support from EPA we are for certain going to be there to assist
them with these challenges.
Mr. Johnson. OK. I understand the local government advisory
committee is soliciting input. How can people along the river
along my district best engage in this process and what can
Congress do to help?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you very much. So one of the things that
citizens across the U.S. can do right now is we have opened the
docket in addition to the community engagement sessions which I
referred to that we have had now in five different states. We
opened the docket so anyone in the U.S. who wants to submit
their perspectives to us can do so right now. That way we have
about 80,000 comments that we have received thus far.
We will hold that docket open until right about the end of
this month. And then if there are specific issues that you have
that you would like to follow up on, we would be happy to
circle back with you and your staff to discuss those.
Mr. Johnson. OK, thank you.
Ms. Sullivan, same question for you. We have a significant
Defense Department footprint in Ohio--Wright-Patterson,
Mansfield, Youngstown Air Reserve Base, et cetera. Is there
anything that we can do to more closely engage with the DOD on
some of these issues?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Congressman. I know that Wright-
Patterson has, well, Wright-Patterson has a restoration
advisory board which is community based so to try and engage
the local community and be transparent in what is going on, on
the base, and I encourage the local communities to engage in
that. The Air Force has been very transparent in their process
having established websites and public meetings and I encourage
the community to get engaged in those processes.
Mr. Johnson. And, Ms. Sullivan, your written testimony
discusses the remediation of PFOS and PFOA and you note that
DOD is addressing known or suspected releases of these
chemicals to determine whether there is exposure through
drinking water. Is DOD only looking at drinking water exposure
and what about releases to soil sediment and groundwater?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to
answer that question. The exposure through drinking water was
our first priority so we wanted to make sure that we fully
understand if anybody, humans were being exposed and to cut
that off. Then we are going through the standard process to
look at all of the potential exposure pathways including soil
and groundwater. But we are taking a more deliberative approach
because our first priority was to cut off human exposure.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Just real quickly back to you, Dr.
Grevatt. You mentioned EPA is working on response actions with
other agencies such as HHS. Can you explain your work
partnership with HHS including what agencies at HHS and what
collaboration has occurred and what we can expect moving
forward?
Mr. Grevatt. For certain. Thank you, Congressman. So as I
noted we are working very closely with HHS on a number of the
actions which we identified. Those include the development of
the toxicity values of PFBS and GenX. We are working, really,
with all the different parts of HHS including the assistant
secretary's office, Assistant Secretary for Health, right down
through FDA, NIEHS, ATSDR, CDC, every part of HHS has been
involved to participate in this effort. And we will continue to
work side by side with them on these issues.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you both for your testimony.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, you and the ranking
member, for holding this hearing. Per or polyfluoroalkyl
substances, or PFAS, has been around for many years and has
found a wide variety of uses in consumer products from our
cookware to stain repellents to fire retardants. Due to the
widespread use, most people have some exposure to PFAS. While
scientific data shows minimal amounts of exposure do not pose
substantial risk, higher levels of exposure could lead to a
wide array of adverse health effects. I would like to thank our
witnesses for being here today to testify and look forward to
your opinion.
Dr. Grevatt, in 2016, EPA revised its nonbinding lifetime
health advisory level for PFAS down from 400 parts per trillion
to 70 parts per trillion. What was the impact of this decision?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, Congressman, a very important step
in terms of having a final lifetime health advisory. We
provided this to the states and members of the public in terms
of not only the value of the health advisory but steps that
communities could take to address concerns with PFAS. And this
health advisory came out as we were completing the UCMR
process, the national monitoring study that I mentioned, and so
together they were able to help to identify communities that
may have concerns related to PFAS in their drinking water
supply. So it was a very important step.
Mr. Green. What does it take to go from a nonbinding to
binding?
Mr. Grevatt. That would be, and as you noted, sir, the
drinking water health advisories are really guidance values.
They are not requirements. It would take us a national drinking
water regulation, an MCL for PFAS compounds to create a binding
requirement in terms of meeting those levels.
Mr. Green. Well, I have a very urban district in Houston, a
chemical industry, refinery industry, but in Texas like Ohio we
have a number of military bases. In fact, Fort Hood is probably
the biggest base in the world. We have air bases. Has there
been a partnership with the bases in Texas as you said that in
Ohio?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. We are working closely with DOD on
these issues all across the country. And perhaps Ms. Sullivan
would like to respond.
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, sir. The bases in Texas are
subject to the same processes that we have established across
the Nation. They had to go and look where they had known and
suspected releases and if there were any they had to determine
if there was exposure through drinking water and address that.
I can provide you detailed information if you would like on the
bases in Texas.
Mr. Green. I would appreciate that so I can share it with
my other colleagues in Texas. Does EPA currently have the
technical expertise to set MCL that protects public health?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. I believe we do.
Mr. Green. How do you reconcile that the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry released a draft study of the
public health risk of PFAS that showed maximum safe levels of
chemicals are seven to ten times less than the health advisory
set by EPA? Is EPA ignoring this mission or how do you
reconcile that between the Disease Registry?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, Congressman. So I would say a
couple of things about that. The first is that the purpose of
the document that ATSDR developed is different from our
drinking water health advisory. They used these toxicity
profiles as screening values for sites and then also they chose
to view the science somewhat differently than we did. We are
working very closely with them on these issues to make sure
that we are sharing the best information we have as we go
forward.
Mr. Green. Well, obviously there is some concern because,
we know what happened in Flint, which was not that issue, but
what former Chairman Upton talked about in his area and again
in an industrial area we could have the same thing.
Given the action that is seen at the state level to set
maximum containment levels, or MCL, what is EPA's expected
timeline for setting federal MCL for PFAS under the Safe
Drinking Water Act?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, Congressman. So this is one of the
key actions that we identified earlier this year that we were
going to be exploring throughout the year. We expect this to be
included in the National Management Plan and we hope to have
that completed by the end of this calendar year.
Mr. Green. OK. Well, I would hope EPA would quickly move
and address the issue in a competent manner relying on the
solid peer reviews data and allowing public input throughout
the process. And like I said, I don't think any member on the
dais would not be willing to partner in our communities if that
was the issue.
I will yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back the time. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, who with
my apologies for skipping you, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Flores. That is OK. You just let the other gentleman
from Texas ask my question. But I would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Dr. Grevatt, a couple of questions for you really quickly.
Continuing Mr. Green's line of questioning, did the EPA learn
anything from the ATSDR report that was dramatically different
from what it had developed internally with respect to maximum
levels?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, Congressman. So as I noted, we have
worked closely with ATSDR on the communication of their report
and in the development of their report. We provided comments to
them and have worked throughout this process. I think one of
the things that we have learned and perhaps these reports
reinforce is the importance of focusing on risk communication
with the public so we don't lead people to a place where they
are confused about what do these different values mean.
And as I noted, they have different purposes, the toxicity
profile from our health advisory, but that has been a really
important message. Also throughout the national engagement that
we have done risk communication is something we need to
continue to focus and try and advance.
Mr. Flores. Let's go ahead and move to the communications
question. Mr. Upton brought this up during his opening
testimony. Would you say that the current communication efforts
with respect to PFAS are effective?
Mr. Grevatt. I think, sir, that we always can improve and
we need to focus on continuing to improve on our risk
communication and this is a top priority for Acting
Administrator Wheeler.
Mr. Flores. So what improvements would be needed? What are
your initial thoughts as far as improvements that could be put
in place?
Mr. Grevatt. I think it is important for us to continue to
work toward characterizing the context for these values, what
they mean, what does 70 parts per trillion mean and what are
the implications for a community that may have a level above 70
parts per trillion. I think it is natural that folks will
become very concerned when they see levels approaching that.
And we think it is important to focus on PFAS. We think it is
important to focus at the local level on awareness of these
compounds and taking steps to address them. But we want to try
to continue to share this information in a way that doesn't
create a great deal of anxiety and fear on the part of the
public. I think that is a place where we can make further
progress.
Mr. Flores. Let's drill into the 70 parts per trillion
metric for a minute. Does today's technology readily measure
concentrations of this contaminant at that level?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Flores. It does, OK. Thank you. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Hudson [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. The
chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chair. While I appreciate
that the EPA is hearing from the public and engaging with
communities impacted by PFAS, recent actions by the EPA have
undermined public confidence and my confidence in the Agency's
ability to address human health risks posed by these toxic
chemicals.
In April of this year, the EPA proposed a rulemaking
titled, ``Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.''
Now, this was modeled after the secret science legislation
drafted by the House Republicans. The proposal could require
the EPA to ignore important scientific studies of human health
effects because the data included private medical information.
Dr. Grevatt, was the Office of Water consulted before the
rulemaking was proposed?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, Congressman. This rulemaking is an
Agency rulemaking and so all parts of the Agency are engaged on
this. It is being led from the Office of Research and
Development but we are connected in this effort.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Did your office assess how the proposal
would impact your ability to address PFAS contaminations?
Mr. Grevatt. Sir, while the proposal has received many,
many comments as I think you are aware and the Agency is in the
process of considering the comments as they move towards
development of a final rule, and I think it is difficult to
conjecture at this stage what those impacts might be.
Mr. McNerney. Well, in June of this year I joined Ranking
Member Pallone and Ranking Member Tonko in sending a letter to
the Agency requesting additional information on the issue, 2
months later the Agency responded to me personally. I would
like to submit my letter and the Agency's response to the
committee for the record.
Mr. Hudson. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Grevatt, are you aware of this
letter?
Mr. Grevatt. I am aware that we have received the letter. I
personally have not been engaged specifically on this issue in
the response to that letter.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, the letter requests that the EPA
provide us with copies of all comments or feedback from the EPA
staff on the Agency's proposed Strengthening Transparency in
Regulatory Science rulemaking, including but not limited to
members from the rulemaking's Action Development Working Group.
There were other requests as well as this.
This information is important so that we can better
understanding what, if any, concerns were raised on how the
proposed regulation would impact its ability to address human
health risks associated with PFAS. Again it took the Agency 2
months to respond, but they haven't, the Agency hasn't produced
the documents that were requested in the letter.
Would you commit to providing those documents for the
record?
Mr. Grevatt. Sir, I will certainly commit to working with
our congressional staff to follow up with you and your office
to make sure that we are having the conversations that you are
wanting to have on this.
Mr. McNerney. OK. I did mention earlier that the public has
lost confidence. What do you think that you personally can do
to help restore that confidence?
Mr. Grevatt. Sir, I appreciate your question and I would
turn back on this PFAS issue to the national engagement that we
are involved in. And through this process I personally have had
the opportunity to meet with hundreds of impacted citizens
across multiple states. I have heard statements from over 120
individuals talking about their challenges and we are taking
this back and folding this into the National Management Plan.
I think it is very important for the public to be able to
see how their comments to us are reflected and the steps we are
taking and that is really what we are committed to here through
this national engagement. I think it has been a very important
step, a very valuable step for us as we are addressing this
issue.
Mr. McNerney. Do you agree with the provision that would
exclude information because it is from private medical
information?
Mr. Grevatt. So this issue is under careful consideration
by the Agency and we are thinking through the public comments
that we have received on the transparency rule and that process
continues.
Mr. McNerney. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman yields back. At this time the
chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes for questioning.
Dr. Grevatt, Administrator Pruitt has been here a number of
times and I have questioned him each time about this PFAS
issue, about GenX in particular and the need to develop a
comprehensive plan for containment and removal. The Agency
responded in April to a letter I followed up with on that,
those two testimonies, saying that a key priority for the EPA
is to further the understanding of human health impacts of PFAS
to support states and local communities.
The EPA is currently developing a human health toxicity
information for GenX that will provide a scientific basis for
states and communities to set that will refine public health
goals. So I want to ask you a few questions about that and we
only have 5 minutes so I would just ask you to be as concise as
you can. Could you provide a timeline for when the toxicity
value for GenX will be released?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. We are very close to this now. We
expect in the coming weeks to have that available, in draft,
for public review and comment.
Mr. Hudson. OK, thank you for that. Once this toxicity
value of GenX is released, can you commit to releasing a public
health advisory specifically for GenX?
Mr. Grevatt. So thank you, Congressman. We will work
closely with the states to determine what will be most helpful
to them. And, for example, on GenX specifically with regard to
North Carolina, we are working side by side with them and want
to make sure that we are providing them the support they need.
And, sir, I might just add that we appreciate your
invitation to come to Fayetteville. We appreciate your
participation in that event and that in particular along with
the others we found to be tremendously valuable. So thank you
very much for your leadership on that.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. I would just stress that I think the
public health advisory is really the next step in the process
once we get those toxicity numbers to really help the state
understand what we need to do going forward. So I appreciate
you working so closely with the state.
Based on my past discussions with EPA officials, I
understand EPA is working very closely with the state and I get
that feedback from the state. Are you aware of any outstanding
questions or information that EPA still owes the state of North
Carolina?
Mr. Grevatt. I think there are ongoing conversations with
the State of North Carolina addressing all kinds of issues
including stack testing at the Chemours facility, sampling the
Cape Fear watershed and so I think those discussions are
ongoing. So I am reluctant to say there is nothing outstanding
because there is a lot that is going on and we will remain
committed to supporting the state throughout this process.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate that. Now my understanding is
there are over 20 other chemicals besides GenX who were found
in the Cape Fear Basin. Is that part of this ongoing discussion
is looking at those chemicals as well?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hudson. Can we expect to have those results this month
as well in the draft form or is that going to be later?
Mr. Grevatt. So those results if you could, I want to make
sure I understand specifically your question. So we are going
to have the GenX toxicity assessment in the coming weeks
available and then we will have the National Management Plan.
Our goal is to have that completed by the end of the calendar
year. That will be a comprehensive view across EPA's actions in
conjunction with the State to address these issues.
Mr. Hudson. Great. Again I appreciate you accepting our
invitation to come to Fayetteville for the community
engagement, but I understand you are doing those around the
country in other communities. Can you provide us just a few
brief takeaways from our community engagement summit?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. Thank you. So as I mentioned, in the
case of Fayetteville I heard from over 50 citizens about the
concerns they face and the concerns are very significant and
they range from concerns about protecting families, their
children, to economic impacts of the decisions.
We heard from folks in Wilmington as well who came up and
talked about the economic impact on the very important work
that the drinking water utility is doing to put in drinking
water treatment and concerns about they are going to pay for
these actions. And so extensive concerns addressed and we will
remain committed to working closely with the community in
Fayetteville, the State of North Carolina, community of
Wilmington, on addressing those issues going forward.
Mr. Hudson. We appreciate that very much. Is there any
information you learned that you think helped move you forward
in terms of examining the chemical?
Mr. Grevatt. I think again reiterating the point on risk
communication in the case of North Carolina because they
themselves have been working towards a health value on GenX. We
heard from them very clearly how important it is to be closely
coordinated and we are working side by side with them in every
step of this process.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate that. One other issue I am trying
to wrap my brain around maybe you can help me with is, in your
opinion, what is the lowest allowable and scientifically
reliable level at which PFAS can be detected and monitored?
Mr. Grevatt. Right. So in terms of the reliable level where
it can be detected, I think we are down into the single digits
of parts per trillion that can be monitored. And in part that
is a result of the national study that we did to build lab
capacity across the country, so this continues to advance. But
I think we are in the single digits of parts per trillion for
these compounds.
Mr. Hudson. Great, thank you for that and my time is
expired. At this time I will recognize the gentlelady from
Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you can tell
that Republicans and Democrats are pretty unified here on the
concern about the PFAS chemicals.
And I want to build, the Flint water crisis is something
that every member on this dais has in their head and every
American across the country is worried about. And PFAS in
Michigan is scaring people more than the Flint water did, but I
also think that it is across the country as you have heard from
my colleagues here.
I have several points I want to make, but I will build
right on the last questions first. And I am very glad that you
went to Fayetteville. North Carolina wanted to see you, but so
did Michigan and Michigan had originally been scheduled to be
one of those community forums. People wanted you from one side
of the State to the other and you didn't come. Why did you
cancel Michigan and could we get you to still come?
Mr. Grevatt. Right. So we have been working very closely
with Michigan and all the States in determining the locations
for these events, and if in fact Michigan now wants us to do an
event in the sState we will be glad to talk with you and talk
with them about how we might do some kind of an event.
Mrs. Dingell. This is a formal invitation on behalf of a
whole lot of people. I know Fred joins me on the other side,
don't you, Fred?
Mr. Upton. Unanimous, yes.
Mrs. Dingell. So you have an Upton Walberg Dingell
invitation for a community forum in Michigan and we take that
you have accepted it. And I think our czarina would support it
too.
Mr. Grevatt. So we will be very glad to follow up with all
of you and your staffs about this as well as with the State.
And as I mentioned, we have been working closely with Michigan
and if they in fact now have decided they want us to come then
we will be glad to come.
Mrs. Dingell. I know a lot of people have. I was asked by
many people to raise that.
I want to go back again, and I know we all keep asking the
same question. But I think what has really got everybody
worried is we need to change the national standard for what is
a safe level and you are telling us that you are going to, I
think you are telling us. You are not saying you are going to
determine whether we need it. I hope that you are saying that
we do need to revise the standard.
You are going to put out a National Management Plan by the
end of the year. What is going to be in that plan? Are you
going to give us what the new standard should be and how long
is that going to take? How do we create that sense of urgency
that cuts through bureaucracy and keeps Americans safe drinking
their water?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you very much for those questions. So a
couple of things I want to respond with, first, to be clear, we
have a guidance value now not a regulatory standard and one of
the key items we are committed to at EPA by the end of the year
in the Management Plan is to consider whether we should be
developing an MCL for PFOA and PFOS or other compounds. So we
are still engaged in that process.
If we were to, in the context of a drinking water health
advisory, think about lowering that level, we would subject
that to scientific peer review before we took that kind of a
step. So we are working through these issues now. We expect
these to be addressed in the National Management Plan and our
goal is to have that done by the end of the calendar year.
Mrs. Dingell. So I am going to push on that a little. So
are you telling us you are still--I think that all of us on
this dais have seen enough in scientific studies that we have
got a problem. I think the children in Flint that got poisoned
wish somebody had cared enough. So are we talking about another
2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-year bureaucracy or are we looking at
something that is really going to get at this quickly to keep
the American people drinking safe water?
Mr. Grevatt. I thank you. And making sure Americans'
drinking water is safe is a top priority for EPA and we will
continue to focus on this issue.
You asked about the National Management Plan. This will be
a comprehensive view not only in the drinking water area, but
across all of our statutory authorities about steps that we can
take now to make sure that we are protecting Americans in their
communities. And so that will be the focus of the National
Management Plan and the goal is as I noted to have that done by
the end of the calendar year.
Mrs. Dingell. I have more questions for you but I don't
want Ms. Sullivan to feel lonely. So we have got five sites in
Michigan that are sites that have been contaminated because of
military presence. What is DOD doing to help us clean up in
Michigan?
Ms. Sullivan. Well, thank you, ma'am, for asking. At all of
those sites we have gone out and identified where we have known
and suspected releases. We have tested many drinking water
sources. Every drinking water source that has tested above the
EPA's advisory level----
Mrs. Dingell. Five of them.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. We have worked with the
communities to provide those citizens, because some of them are
private wells as you can appreciate, alternative drinking water
sources. It is up to them which of these options are available.
Then we are embarking on the entire CERCLA process to really
fully analyze the situation. What are the sources, what are the
pathways, and working with the State and EPA on what the remedy
solution would be in strong partnership.
Mrs. Dingell. Obviously there are a lot more questions but
I am out of time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Just for our information we have Navy bases, Air Force
bases, Coast Guard bases, and Army posts. So just in
definitionary terms as an Army guy we have posts. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
panel for being here. It was good to have Administrator Wheeler
in Michigan in my district on the banks of Lake Erie and other
places and it was good to be able to talk to him about this
PFAS/PFOS issue and to understand very clearly that it is being
taken seriously and that there is, and I want to follow up on
my friend and colleague from Michigan as well. It is good to
know that you are willing to come, but it is also good to know
that you remain in contact with our state as well on this issue
on a regular basis.
Mr. Grevatt, you mentioned you are working with States like
Michigan and North Carolina. What do you think are the things
of greatest value that you could offer them at this time?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you very much, Congressman. So a number
of the things that the States have communicated to us that they
really need help on include assistance with risk communication
in talking to the impacted public in their States about these
issues, support with analytical methods, development of
additional tools to sample for these compounds in the
environment, the toxicity values are also important, and then
consideration of treatment techniques that are available. And,
in fact, all of those things are things that we are currently
working on with the states to support them in addressing these
challenges.
And so we are staying very close to the states and focused
on what tools we can provide to help them to address these
challenges and how do we best address these challenges and how
do we best support local communities.
Mr. Walberg. With these challenges if the states struggle
in some of these areas like Michigan, North Carolina, other
States, if they struggle where do they struggle the most?
Mr. Grevatt. I think there have been challenges certainly
around technical questions, around sampling and analysis of
compounds. Those are issues that we have talked about
extensively with Ms. Grether in the State of Michigan. With
questions around characterizing levels of these compounds in
the environment and how to do so, those are issues that we
worked on very closely with the State of North Carolina.
And toxicity as well, there are questions around the broad
set of compounds, PFAS compounds, where we talk a lot about
PFOA and PFOS, but there are many other compounds that we need
to stay focused on. And I think those are issues that have been
a concern to States as well.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Section 1453 and 1454 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act create a framework for States to do source water
planning and voluntary response efforts. H.R. 3387, the
Drinking Water System Improvement Act, the bill our committee,
thankfully, unanimously supported, would allow new and updated
States' source water plans to qualify for assistance. Would
these source water plans permit States to address PFAS
contamination?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. I think they would help to address
PFAS contamination. And it has been very important the work
that Ms. Sullivan has talked about at DOD. We see that many of
the instances of drinking water contamination are related to
known sources. Those might be DOD facilities, but there are
certainly many others as Ms. Sullivan indicated. And I think
the source water protection focus can really help local
communities to understand their vulnerabilities for PFAS and
other compounds.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Would these plans and responses also be
eligible from the resources of a State SRF under Section
1452(k)?
Mr. Grevatt. And certainly in particular through the set-
asides and the technical assistance these are activities that
can be covered in that area, yes.
Mr. Walberg. In your response to the chairman you mentioned
that DWSRF funding could be used for PFAS. Could it be used for
other emerging contaminants as well?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walberg. Do you know how many States are already doing
this?
Mr. Grevatt. I think a number of States are providing
support to drinking water systems in their State, particularly
through the set-asides, the technical assistance and I think
that is going to continue to be a focus. But there are broad
opportunities through the drinking water SRF to support both
infrastructure investments and also to support technical
assistance and operator certification and strengthening in
terms of the capacity of drinking water systems. So there are
broad eligibilities that are provided through that tool.
Mr. Walberg. OK, thank you and I appreciate your responses.
I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
witnesses for being here. I had two questions, one for Mr.
Grevatt. Dr. Grevatt, studies tracking PFOS in marine organisms
and ocean waters, PFOS was added to the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2009, and we are not party to
that Convention but is EPA doing anything to monitor coastal
waters for these compounds and are you working with other
countries to control the spread of these contaminants?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you. So EPA is engaged as I noted in the
broad characterization of drinking water supplies. We also have
ongoing monitoring activities in watersheds. As I mentioned,
the Cape Fear watershed has been an important area of work. And
so I think as we get into estuarine environments, those are
areas where we are thinking about the presence of these
compounds. I think our primary initial focus has been around
issues that immediately affect public health in making sure
that we are addressing the needs of communities.
Mr. Peters. OK. I would love to be updated on any activity
on that.
Mr. Grevatt. We would be glad to follow up with you on
that.
Mr. Peters. Thank you.
And, Ms. Sullivan, I had a question about firefighting
foams. You noted that it was a small part of the problem in
terms of overall volume, but it looks to me like the military
specs require fluorine compounds and I wanted to know how you
see progress in moving away from that and does that requirement
interfere with your work in dealing with the toxicity of these
particular chemicals?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for that question. The current
military specification requires a certain performance as well
as a makeup and part of that is driven by the need to be able
to fight fires associated with aircraft quickly and
efficiently. It is managed by the Department of the Navy
because it is highly important that when we have shipboard
fires that we have the ability to fight those fires very
rapidly. We are working carefully with the current suppliers to
determine what levels are in those compounds, the current
formulations.
In terms of research that we are investing in on a
fluorine-free, it is basic research at this time, bench scale
research. But we are committed to continuing that research to
ultimately, hopefully, produce a product that does in fact meet
our critical mission needs and is in fact fluorine-free.
Mr. Peters. Good. I think that will be helpful throughout
the economy and in a number of applications as well. So thank
you very much for being here, and I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the birthday boy, Dr. Carter, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Sullivan----
Mr. Shimkus. You are very red.
Mr. Carter. Yes, I am. I am. Sorry, I got my notes mixed up
here.
Ms. Sullivan, you mentioned in your testimony about the
actions that the Department of Defense is taking not only in
providing the clean drinking water, but also in the remediation
efforts. And I was just wondering, I am interested in learning
more about how you actually go about notifying the individuals
on these installations and what the communication structure
looks like.
Ms. Sullivan. Well, first of all, happy birthday, sir.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Ms. Sullivan. Each of the military installations this is
voluntary on their part. We encourage military installations
and the communities to establish what we call restoration
advisory boards and these boards are populated by local
citizens who want to learn about the cleanup going on on those
bases. It is voluntary on their part, but we support then and
fund that activities.
As far as on our bases, we have sophisticated notification
systems for the populations present on the installations to
make sure the information gets out and in full consistency with
the Safe Drinking Water Act where we are in fact the purveyor.
We do the routine monitoring and issue the consumer confidence
reports on top of routine correspondence with the citizens on
the base.
Mr. Carter. So you are providing them with bottled water;
is that right?
Ms. Sullivan. It depends on the situation, sir, and what
their choices are. In some cases we may hook them up to an
alternative water supply or if in some cases they want bottled
water, or we may install some sort of granulated activated
carbon solution. It depends on the circumstance.
Mr. Carter. But whichever way you do it, you do it until
the remediation is completed.
Ms. Sullivan. Correct.
Mr. Carter. OK, good. What types of sites? Is there a
particular type of site that you see the most contamination on?
Ms. Sullivan. It is interesting it is a range of sites. A
lot of it is associated with as you can understand firefighting
activities, training mostly. The newer sites for us that we
have to go and explore are crash sites. So usually with the
firefighting sites there has been some other chemical or
compound that has been used, so we have already done a certain
amount of investigation. However, the crash sites are now newer
that it is a challenge for us to go out and identify where
those sites were and understand the circumstances around them.
Mr. Carter. Good, thank you very much.
Dr. Grevatt, you mention in your testimony that there were
four significant actions that you were considering when you
were making these recommendations for PFOS and for the
contaminated areas. Can you explain those four to me very
quickly?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, certainly. So the first is to explore the
development of a national primary drinking water regulation for
PFOA and PFOS. There are important considerations that we have
to work through. That is ongoing right now. The second is
exploring the listing of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances
under CERCLA. There are many statutory mechanisms for achieving
that goal that is very important in terms of our ability to
order cleanup actions and to recover costs that EPA may expend
for those actions. The third is development of groundwater
cleanup goals under our waste cleanup programs for these
substances, very important in terms of addressing contaminated
sites. And then the final one is developing toxicity values for
two additional PFAS substances, those are GenX and PFBS. And we
are hoping to have those draft values available for public
review and comment in the coming weeks.
Mr. Carter. Do you have a timeline on all four of these or
on the different steps?
Mr. Grevatt. Right. So as I noted, the toxicity values is
probably the closest to being completed and we are looking
toward the coming weeks to have those completed. The
groundwater cleanup recommendations are currently undergoing
interagency review so that process is actively underway. The
last two will be addressed in the National Management Plan
which our goal is to have the completed by the end of the
calendar year in terms of identifying the path forward on these
important actions.
Mr. Carter. Great. Well, thank you both in your work on
this, very challenging.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
Seeing no further members of the subcommittee, the chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, a couple of
things. First of all, I just want to say that I believe the
Environmental Protection Agency is a vital agency to protect
the health and well-being of the American people and I want to
thank you for your dedicated service.
Second, we have an issue in Vermont with PFOA so I want to
talk a little bit about that and then ask whether you can help.
But in 2014, PFOA was discovered in Hoosick Falls, which is
just across the border, and in the town of Bennington on the
Vermont side there was a Teflon plant, Saint-Gobain, and it
turns out that hundreds of private drinking wells in Bennington
are contaminated and we are trying to work through that to
provide for the health and safety of the residents there.
But in June 2017 I wrote to then EPA Administrator Pruitt
with a couple of direct requests and all as a result of what
was happening in Vermont. One was that the EPA establish a
national primary drinking water regulation for PFOA; two, that
PFOA and PFOS be listed as hazardous substances under CERCLA;
and three, that we take action under the Toxic Substances
Control Act to review and regulate PFCs and I continue to
request that those steps be taken.
And, in addition, I believe and many in Vermont believe
that there are several additional steps that the EPA must take
on this front: One, establish toxicity profiles for the entire
class of PFAS compounds; two, establish a reliable testing
methodology for PFAS contamination that is present in sources
other than water. For instance, how do we test milk produced
from a cow drinking contaminated water or maple syrup from a
tree drawing on contaminated water?
Three, establish a maximum contaminant level as a backstop
while providing resources to states that wish to adopt a more
stringent standard; four, develop reliable and sufficient
testing laboratories to identify contamination; and five,
develop a national listing of products that contain PFAS.
So the questions, Mr. Grevatt, I will ask you, can EPA
commit to establishing toxicity profiles for the entire class
of PFAS compounds?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, sir. That is a very important
question. As you know, it is a broad set of compounds, actually
in total many thousand compounds. And through our Office of
Research and Development we are looking not only at how to
develop toxicity values for individual compounds like PFBS and
GenX, but how to start to look at the broader suite of
compounds and look at them holistically. That is still a
research area. It is going to take some time for that work to
advance, but that is a focus area for us and we are working
with other parts of the Federal Government on those questions
as well.
Mr. Welch. Can you keep us posted on that?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. We would be glad to do so.
Mr. Welch. The clock is ticking on that.
Two other questions, as I mentioned we currently lack a
publicly available list of products that contain PFAS and
related chemicals. We would like the EPA to compile that list.
If you can't, what resources would the EPA need and what
barriers are preventing you from doing that?
And, finally, is the EPA currently investigating ways in
which to test for contamination of non-water products like the
milk example, the maple syrup example I just mentioned?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes. Let me take the last question first, and
absolutely yes, we are doing that. One of our commitments is to
develop additional analytical methods for a media other than
drinking water understanding how important that is in your
state. And I had the opportunity to visit your great State just
last week with the Environmental Council of the States meeting
there and talk about these issues there. And our TSCA program
is working right now comprehensively to get a broader view of
the presence of PFAS compounds in different products. So that
is an issue we will continue to work on and we will be glad to
circle back with you and talk about that further.
Mr. Welch. All right. Well, I would like to have you stay
in touch with us as progress is being made.
Mr. Grevatt. We would be glad to do so, sir.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the former chairman of the full committee, Fred
Upton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I
appreciate this hearing and I have got a lot of questions. I
want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we
explore this situation for sure.
But, Dr. Grevatt, I am going to start with you. As you
know, the Safe Drinking Water Act that passed out of this
committee was very bipartisan. We learned a lot of lessons from
Flint. One of the lessons that we learned ended up in
legislation that President Obama signed that killed the Upton
bill which requires that the EPA when they know about
situations of contamination that they are required within 24
hours to inform the Governor, develop to work with the State on
a plan to implement that.
So my first question when I learned about Parchment,
Michigan was is the EPA involved and the answer was yes. So I
am very grateful for that and I brought that to the attention
of the Acting Administrator Wheeler when I talked to him about
it on the phone within a couple of days.
I am glad to hear about the National Management Plan coming
to Michigan. It is something that we want in Michigan and I
know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will very
much encourage that to happen and I would urge that as part of
that visit that you come to Parchment as well where we have had
a lot of different meetings.
In mid-July, before we learned about Parchment, I would
note that Congresswoman Dingell, Kildee, and myself and other
members of the Michigan delegation urged the EPA to review the
toxicology profile and if, in fact, it needed to be adjusted
below 70 parts per trillion that they do so in an expedited
process. Quick question, is that happening? What can we do to
expedite that process? What is the timing of that?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you, Congressman. So we continue to look
very carefully at all of the scientific information that is
coming forward related to PFOA and PFOS. That is the focus of
the drinking water health advisory and we will continue to
consider that information going forward as we explore whether
those values need to be changed.
At this time EPA does not have plans to change the drinking
water health advisory, lifetime health advisory for PFOA and
PFOS, but we will continue to watch the literature and stay
focused on this.
Mr. Upton. I know that there is legislation that I am a
cosponsor of that is going to encourage EPA to look at that to
see what happens as that moves.
Ms. Sullivan, your role is very important here, appreciate
you being here. I have to say that I was very troubled reading
your testimony last night in that on page 3 you indicate that
you will share information, the Department of Defense will
share information in an open and transparent manner.
As you know, I wrote a letter back on August 1st relating
to the National Guard Base in Battle Creek. Testing data had
been taken 3 months prior to that, so 4 months now, and MDEQ,
Department of Environmental Quality in Michigan, had
independently found that there were perhaps as much as 21,000
parts per trillion at that site.
In addition, our Governor Snyder sent a letter regarding
Wurtsmith and I think Selfridge as well, which I will put into
the record. Again prior to August 1st, there was a public
meeting held on July 30th. Yesterday, last night, I received a
draft report of which I will put this page into the record. I
will note that it is a draft, but on page ES-4 they tested 14
different sites at Battle Creek. Nine of the sites were over a
thousand parts per trillion. Four of the sites, one was 3,800
parts per trillion; 4,300 parts per trillion; 25,000 parts per
trillion; and 53,000 parts per trillion.
So I would say as a non-engineer, I think Mr. McKinley
would acknowledge that there is little doubt that it came from
that site. So the questions are where is it moving? There are
rivers that are close by. I don't think that there has been a
real identification of private wells that are close by, but
what is the impact on those? What is the impact on the
community itself?
But how is that full and transparent when it is now 4
months after the testing? As we saw in Parchment, it was 4 days
after the testing that we made it public.
Ms. Sullivan. Sir, thank you for the question. I am not
familiar with the specifics in Battle Creek. I actually lived
there for a period of time so I am familiar with the area, but
I will have to get with the Department of the Army and get the
specifics.
Mr. Upton. Well, did they share this with you before today?
Ms. Sullivan. No, they have not. But I will----
Mr. Upton. I mean this was literally dropped off at my
office late yesterday afternoon as I understand it. I didn't
see it until this morning.
Ms. Sullivan. I have not seen it, sir. But I will get with
the Army and we will get the answers for you.
Mr. Upton. I look forward to that because I agree that that
information ought to be in an open and transparent manner as
you indicated in your testimony, and it is not when it is 4
months late, let alone, how do we deal with this in the long-
term way for those individuals that are certainly impacted? Not
only the servicemen and women, but also the folks that are
living close let alone those that are along the Kalamazoo
River.
Ms. Sullivan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. It is an Air
National Guard Base so not an Army's.
Ms. Sullivan. I apologize, sir. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. Not an Army post.
Ms. Sullivan. I always think of Fort Custer. I am sorry.
Mr. Shimkus. All right. The chair now recognizes the
gentleman from California, Congressman Cardenas, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much. I may be on the other
side of the country from my colleague, Ms. Dingell, next to me,
but we share many of the same concerns, water and the effects
of chemicals. And our water systems in California and Los
Angeles are in some cases very dire so the EPA's activity and
determination is very critical to every American all across the
country.
I note that Mr. Pruitt may be gone, but I wonder if the
disinterest that I felt from him and his when he was there in
human and environmental health still remains. Hopefully the
commitment has changed. I didn't have much confidence in him
and his ability to make sure that what is important to the EPA
and to American citizens is consistent.
Dangerous chemicals are contaminating our drinking water
and we have known about it for years. We also know the
extremely harmful effects that chemicals have on people,
especially our children and seniors. Even this EPA has
determined that chemicals like perchlorate and PFAS are
dangerous to human health at levels found in our drinking
water.
Perchlorate, for example, disrupts the normal function of
the thyroid, which is necessary for regulation of the heart
rate and blood pressure. For babies, thyroid health is crucial
for the development of the central nervous system. Yet, EPA has
not established a national drinking water standard for
perchlorate despite established research and proven science.
Dr. Grevatt, can you tell the committee what the mission of
the EPA is?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir, protecting human health and the
environment.
Mr. Cardenas. I love the fact that it is human health and
the environment in that order. And I don't personally believe
that there should ever be a disconnect between those two. I
think we can do justice by minding both and doing what is right
in both instances. So it is not, there is nothing in the EPA
that says the EPA's mission is to protect industry or make
compliance easier for industry, does it?
Mr. Grevatt. Sir, the focus is on protecting human health
and the environment and working broadly across the country to
achieve that goal.
Mr. Cardenas. OK, good. And being the largest economy in
the world I understand, and being a former businessman myself I
understand how important it is that we try to strike that
balance of responsibility and regulation and laws, et cetera,
so that we can have a healthy environment, healthy human
beings, and also have the healthiest economy in the world. So I
appreciate your clarity on that.
Dr. Grevatt, when did EPA determine that a drinking water
standard for perchlorate would meaningfully reduce risk for
customers of public drinking water systems?
Mr. Grevatt. This was a number of years ago in 2012.
Mr. Cardenas. 2012. So why was that determination made or
where did that come from?
Mr. Grevatt. Sir, that was made following the key factors
under the Safe Drinking Water Act that this is a compound that
was determined to present a threat to the health of persons,
that it occurred at a level and frequency in the Nation's
drinking water supplies, and that in the sole judgment of the
Administrator that a national primary drinking water regulation
was necessary to protect public health.
Mr. Cardenas. Do we have a national standard today?
Mr. Grevatt. We do not yet. We are engaged in that process
of developing the proposed rule.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. You are engaged in that and what is your
hope timeline wise? I know you don't have a crystal ball, but I
am sure there are a lot of moving parts and there is a lot to
be done before we set that or excuse me, you set that. So what
do you think?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. We are under consent decree for this
process right now and we have interacted with the court to
request a bit more time to address the latest science that came
in through our process and so we are hoping to have a proposed
rule available in the coming months.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Oh, so a bit more time, you are talking
about your hope is in the coming months.
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cardenas. Not in the coming years.
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cardenas. That is awesome. This administration has been
asking courts on various issues for more time, more time, more
time, so I am glad to your response and hopefully you will meet
your expectation and ours as well.
How long has the EPA known about the risks of PFAS in
drinking water?
Mr. Grevatt. So we have known about the potential risks of
PFAS in drinking water for a number of years and that is why we
engaged with the manufacturers in the phase-out of these
compounds over the last decade or so. And so that phase-out has
been achieved, we followed that up with significant new use
rules under TSCA to make sure that we weren't relying on the
voluntary agreement, but we actually had the ability to require
notification of EPA before these compounds would be
reintroduced.
So it has been a number of years that we have been actively
engaged in this. And then I think you are aware that we
completed this national drinking water survey of the presence
of PFAS compounds in the Nation's drinking water supplies over
the last several years as well.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate it. And I
yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
Just a side note, you want to know that Dr. Grevatt's
professional educational background as a toxicologist; is that
correct?
Mr. Grevatt. That is correct.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the very
patient Congressman Sarbanes from Maryland.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here.
As you know, in 2018, ATSDR had prepared this study which
showed the safe level of PFAS may be closer to 7 parts per
trillion not 70. And at that time, officials at EPA and the DOD
contacted the White House to express concerns about that report
being released and what the public relation fallout might be
and there are some emails related to that that were released in
response to a FOIA request from the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
I wanted to ask a couple of questions about that because to
be candid I have grown increasingly concerned about lack of
transparency within the Trump administration and its various
agencies. So this goes to that concern.
So, Ms. Sullivan, in these emails that were released
pursuant to the FOIA request somebody wrote, We, EPA and DOD,
cannot seem to get ATSDR to realize the potential public
relations nightmare this is going to be. At the time those
emails were sent, were you aware of any DOD officials who
shared those concerns?
Ms. Sullivan. Sir, I am so glad you asked that question.
When this process was going on my communications with the
Office of Management and Budget were solely to ask when it was
going to happen and what the communication plans would be. I
did not provide any assessment of whether that was good or bad,
it was simply asking when would it be released and what would
the risk communication----
Mr. Sarbanes. So I appreciate that but were you aware of
any DOD officials who were sharing the concerns expressed in
that email?
Ms. Sullivan. No, I was the voice, sir.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. And I take it then you were not aware of
efforts by DOD officials to impede the release of the report?
Ms. Sullivan. No, I was not aware of any efforts.
Mr. Sarbanes. Were you aware of any, or are you of any
internal DOD review or response that relates to the matters
discussed in the email?
Ms. Sullivan. We have reviewed the draft document and
submitted comments to the ATSDR and will respect the process
that ATSDR goes through to develop the final document. I want
to emphasize that we, and Dr. Grevatt has mentioned this
before, we believe it should be peer-reviewed based on sound
science, developed in a transparent manner, and we support the
outcome of that.
Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I appreciate it and I just worry that
concerns about public relations can lean on the scale in a way
that could undermine the scientific conclusions and judgments
and assessments that are being made.
Dr. Grevatt, we have seen some lack of transparency issues
at the EPA as well. Under the previous administrator, Scott
Pruitt, there were secret calendars hiding meetings with
industry leaders, there was an undermining of career employees
and scientific advisors. I know you are a career employee. I
wonder if you have experienced any pressure from political
folks at EPA or other administration officials to make
decisions on a basis other than a scientific basis.
Mr. Grevatt. I personally have not.
Mr. Sarbanes. And are you or were you aware of the emails I
just referenced at the time that they occurred?
Mr. Grevatt. At the time I wasn't aware of the specific
emails, but I was aware as Ms. Sullivan indicated of the strong
interest in making sure that we had a coordinated
communications effort across the federal government on these
issues.
Mr. Sarbanes. And I guess that is the concern, because you
could dress up what might be a reflex to stop the release of
something or slow it down significantly, notwithstanding the
scientific basis for getting it released. That could be dressed
up as just wanting to get all the ducks in a row and so forth
and that is a fine line. And I am concerned based on some of
the exchange of those emails that it may have tipped into a
place where concern about PR, the public revelation of these
new standards might have taken over the scientific judgment
that should have been in place.
So I will continue to bring some interest and attention to
this, but I thank you for your testimony. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
Seeing no further members wishing to ask questions, I want
to thank the first panel for their time, their due diligence,
and their answering of the questions. I think you can get an
impression that this subcommittee and this committee they are
pretty smart folks up here and have done their homework.
I can't even pronounce some of these chemicals, but at
least I think it was a good hearing on this and we look forward
to addressing things again. So with that thank you very much
and we will sit the second panel down.
[Recess.]
Mr. Shimkus. We want to thank our witnesses for being here
today and take the time to testify before the subcommittee. The
second panel consists of the following members: Ms. Lisa
Daniels, Director of Bureau of Safe Drinking Water,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on behalf
of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators; Mr.
Sandeep Burman, Manager of Site Remediation and Redevelopment,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on behalf of the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Officials, both
organizations I have worked with closely; Ms. Carol Isaacs,
Director of Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, the czarina as
was referred to earlier; and think soon to join us, Ms. Emily
Donovan, Co-founder of Clean Cape Fear; and Mr. Erik Olson,
Senior Director of Health and Food, Healthy People & Thriving
Communities Program with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
We appreciate you all being here today. We will begin the
panel with Ms. Daniels, and you are now recognized for 5
minutes to give your opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF LISA DANIELS,, BUREAU OF SAFE DRINKING WATER,
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; SANDEEP
BURMAN, MANAGER, SITE REMEDIATION AND REDEVELOPMENT, MINNESOTA
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY; CAROL ISAACS, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN PFAS
ACTION RESPONSE TEAM, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RICK SNYDER;
EMILY DONOVAN, CO-FOUNDER, CLEAN CAPE FEAR; AND, ERIK OLSON,
SENIOR DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND FOOD, HEALTHY PEOPLE & THRIVING
COMMUNITIES PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF LISA DANIELS
Ms. Daniels. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to talk about PFAS in drinking water. My name is
Lisa Daniels and I am the President of the Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators, whose members include 50 state
drinking water programs, five territorial programs, the
District of Columbia, and the Navajo Nation. Our members have
primacy for implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act and they
are on the front lines every day providing technical
assistance, support, and oversight to our public water systems
which is critical to protecting public health.
So my other full-time job, I am also the director of the
Bureau of Safe Drinking Water within the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection.
Today I would like to discuss ASDWA's concerns about PFAS
and then really delve into three key recommendations we would
like to make. PFAS compounds of course have been a growing
concern for the drinking water community for more than a
decade. To date, PFAS has been found in groundwater in at least
38 states, and I think that is an important number to remember,
38 states.
The solubility, mobility, and bioaccumulative properties of
PFAS continue to heighten concerns about the potential adverse
health effects and there are many unanswered questions. For
example, where are these compounds being manufactured and used
in commerce, what are there toxicity levels, how are they
impacting the environment and public health, and these are just
to name a few.
In 2016, EPA finalized the lifetime health advisories for
two of the most common PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS. In June
of 2018, as folks have remarked, ATSDR released a draft tox
profile that proposed minimal risk levels and they proposed it
at different levels than the EPA's health advisory number. The
lack of a Federal standard and, really, this inconsistent
health risk number have really led to increased public concern
and driven some states to establish their own PFAS action
levels. However, there are also other states that cannot take
any independent action because they are prevented from being
any more stringent than EPA.
With all of this together it is really no wonder that the
average American is left questioning whether their drinking
water is safe. In my own State of Pennsylvania, our
Environmental Cleanup Program is conducting site investigations
at about 11 sites across the State. The investigations that we
are doing are where there are levels above EPA's health
advisory of 70, because we are fortunate that we can recognize
health advisory levels in Pennsylvania and we do have authority
to look at unregulated contaminants at those levels.
However, certainly the adequacy of our actions are being
called into question because of differing numbers that we see
coming out from ATSDR and potentially some other States. We do
recognize the science is still evolving PFAS and risk to human
health. There is a whole host of analytical and technology
challenges and data gaps surrounding this issue. And, really,
what folks need are more robust information on health effects,
analytical methods, and treatment efficacy.
So clearly more work is needed, more research and data are
needed to really help support a consensus-based standard and
tox values. ASDWA partnered with several organizations
including ECOS, Aqua, and EPA to help chart a path forward for
States and Federal agencies. We have provided extensive written
comments and recommendations to EPA and other Federal agencies
on two different occasions. The first one was back in January
of this year, and then a second set of comments was submitted
in July. Essentially we are asking these folks to work together
to help solve this issue. Anybody that is interested in seeing
the comments that we wrote, all of that information is on our
website as well as information that we continue to gather and
pull together based on other States.
ASDWA absolutely supports the commitments the EPA made
during the National Leadership Summit and we think that is a
solid step forward but more work is needed. In terms of ASDWA
recommendations, states' water systems and the public need
national leadership now to address this issue. And for us, the
question is not whether to regulate but when and how, but make
sure it is done using sound science.
The three key areas we would like to suggest: We believe
PFAS must be addressed at the national level using a holistic
approach and we ask Congress to direct all the Federal agencies
to develop a unified message for risk.
Number two, we ask Congress to provide additional funding
to EPA and the States to deal with this issue. Currently we do
think folks are diverting money away from the core program in
order to address this issue which is causing problems there.
Third, Congress should recommend EPA to expand and
coordinate across all of the programs and media. And with that
we look forward to continuing to work with you to solve this
issue. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Daniels follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Burman for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SANDEEP BURMAN
Mr. Burman. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak at today's hearing. My name is Sandeep
Burman and I am the Manager of Site Remediation and
Redevelopment for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I am
also a member of the board of directors of ASTSWMO. While
Minnesota is a member of ASTSWMO, I am here today speaking on
behalf of the Association.
As you know, ASTSWMO is an association representing the
waste management and cleanup programs of the 50 States, five
territories, and the District of Columbia. As you know and as
you heard from prior testimony today, per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, PFAS, have emerged as one of the most complex and
challenging environmental and public health issues to have
confronted the country in recent times. Many of ASTSWMO's
member States are reporting widespread impact and risks from
PFAS. Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont are a
few States who have provided summaries that are included in
ASTSWMO's written testimony, but many States have similar
stories to share.
As States conduct additional sampling and response to the
continually evolving understanding of PFAS and associated
risks, it is expected that more releases and impacts will be
discovered from both historical and current sources. The
problem is therefore likely going to assume even greater
magnitude and even more serious implications for public health
and the environment.
The current absence of established Federal regulatory
standards for these compounds is creating uncertainty as public
drinking water systems, wastewater treatment systems,
regulatory agencies, responsible parties, and communities are
attempting to address risks to public health and the
environment. There is an urgent need for federal standards
including reference doses, drinking water standards, surface
water standards, and remediation standards that can be used to
reliably address ongoing public health concerns.
A comprehensive system of national standards will provide a
level of certainty and consistency for environmental
permitting, compliance, and cleanups. For instance, when it
comes to drinking water, PFOS and PFOA are the only two
chemicals from the PFAS family that currently have a federal
guidance value. These were issued in 2016 by the EPA in the
form of a non-enforceable lifetime health advisory of 70 parts
per trillion.
However, many states that are investigating PFAS impacts in
drinking water cannot limit their efforts to just PFOS and
PFOA. This is because they are detecting a mix of PFAS in the
groundwater and drinking water. As a result, some States have
had to develop their own standards and guidance for the various
PFAS that have been detected in their drinking water and
groundwater while other States have adopted the EPA lifetime
health advisories for PFOA and PFOS.
However, there are differences between the various State
standards and many of the State standards for PFOS and PFOA
differ from the EPA advisory values for those two chemicals. As
you can imagine, this causes questions and confusion for the
public as well as for regulated parties and regulators
themselves.
National groundwater standards are therefore urgently
needed for the PFAS family to promote consistent and
comprehensive cleanups across the country. This will assist
States that do not currently have promulgated standards as well
as those that may lack the resources to ever have their own
standards. At the same time there will be the need to recognize
the PFAS standards that are promulgated by States especially if
they are lower than the corresponding Federal ones.
States are also unclear on how responsible parties can be
requires to remediate PFAS contamination. Therefore, a national
regulatory framework not just guidance or recommendations is
needed for the cleanup of PFAS in groundwater and drinking
water.
In May of 2018, EPA hosted a National Leadership Summit in
Washington, D.C. to take action on PFAS. EPA announced several
significant actions the Agency would take on PFAS primarily
focused on PFOS and PFOA. ASTSWMO acknowledges these EPA
proposed actions have been important first steps and
appreciates the collaborative efforts EPA has made since the
summit on these actions.
However, ASTSWMO is still recommending to EPA that in
addition to the action plan outlined at the summit, EPA should
closely examine an approach that will treat the multiple PFAS
as a class or a mixture of chemicals for the purpose of
designating them as CERCLA hazardous substances or RCRA
hazardous waste. This will ensure that there is clear
regulatory authority to require responsible parties to
investigate an immediate contamination from the multiple PFAS
that are already being discovered as contaminates of concern
across sites around the country beyond just PFOS and PFOA.
There is also a clear need to coordinate efforts at the
national level on all scientific and policy issues pertaining
to PFAS. ASTSWMO has taken and will continue to take many steps
to assist with this national collaboration. With that I thank
you again on behalf of ASTSWMO for this opportunity to offer
testimony and I will be happy to take any questions later.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Carol Isaacs, the director of
Michigan's PFAS Action Response Team. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF CAROL ISAACS
Ms. Isaacs. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chairman
Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko, other members. I also want to
recognize our Congressman Upton and Walberg and Congresswoman
Dingell from Michigan and recognize them for their steadfast
bipartisan focus on this issue. Michigan appreciates that.
My name is Carol Isaacs. I am the director of the Michigan
PFAS Action Response Team, better known as MPART. I represent a
single State, Michigan, this morning, but our experience is
national and all States are experiencing some or all of what we
are experiencing. Michigan is one of a growing number of states
throughout the country dealing with a suite of chemicals
collectively called PFAS.
To address this public health threat, on November the 13th,
2017, Governor Rick Snyder issued an executive directive
forming MPART. This unique structure integrates ten State
department agencies' departments work effectively to enhance
cooperation and coordination among local, State, and Federal
agencies. And all of those, all of those are our partners. The
Response Team has been instrumental in creating investigation
and response protocols to identify and protect regions of the
state with known or possible PFAS contamination, threatens the
drinking water of our residents.
The many proactive steps MPART has taken since the
formation in November of '17 include the following: We
established a new cleanup criteria of groundwater within a few
weeks of the establishment of MPART. I have been present for 9
months in my State in this capacity.
MPART has identified 35 PFAS States, which include public
water supplies and military bases and industrial sites and
landfills. We have done more than 6,000 tests and overseen the
delivery of alternate water to more than 1,600 households and
overseen the installation of much larger than 700, it is 1,200
filtration systems for homes.
We have met with 200 wastewater treatment personnel in our
landfill industry working cooperatively with them on this
issue. MPART has created an independent science board advisory
panel to provide information to us and we will expect results
before the end of the year. We have engaged 70 external State
and national groups on PFAS and continue to meet with our local
residents and local communities. We will meet two to three
times a month in some community from Michigan.
Our legislature appropriated an additional 23 million at
the end of '17 to allow us to do our proactive investigation on
PFAS. We are characterized by searching for this contamination.
Importantly, MPART has undertaken the most comprehensive state
drinking water survey in the nation. It far exceeds the survey
of large cities over 10,000. It includes all public water
systems that serve more than 25 people and that includes our
mobile home parks, so it is really, really extensive. We will
have that completed before the year is out.
The wisdom of a comprehensive survey of drinking water is
important because this survey has resulted in covering the
drinking water for the vast majority of our residents. Through
this survey we were able to find and mitigate high levels of
PFAS exposure in our drinking water with one of our
communities, Parchment. You heard about Parchment a little bit
earlier. Those levels were 20 times higher than the EPA
advisory level.
In a matter of hours, the State was able to have a very
effective response. We worked diligently with our Federal and
local partners. In that short period of time we were able to
alert the community from our testing results, pay for bottled
water to be distributed, and assist in helping to provide a new
water source from a nearby community.
We want to focus on our proactive and aggressive approach
from PFAS that resulted in preserving the public health of more
than 3,000 of the people in this city. We also thank this
community for their cooperation and willingness to respond to
this situation in such a unified manner. It was really a very
wonderful effort and worked very well. We continue in this
community to test their private wells now that we are aware
that they have some contamination.
I am going to close by indicating why this is a national
issue. We looked to EPA for guidance for all the reasons you
have already heard. We need that guidance because DOD follows
that. We also need a uniform understanding of the relationship
of these chemicals. When it comes to health care and cleanup
standards, we need a cooperation between ATSDR and EPA and we
need to look to the FAA to work with us because they work with
the DOD. When we have regulation from these entities then the
State matches the military and the airports and we are all
doing the same thing, the most effective thing.
In closing, USDA is needed for our food chain analysis. And
we are going to say that clean water is essential to all
Americans and we appreciate everything that Congress is doing
for us at this point and we wish to have you consider in your
budget priorities the funding necessary to do this. This is a
national issue. The States can't do it all. We need our Federal
partners. We need our Congress. We need you to help us put this
all together so that we can rapidly address this for the public
health of the people in Michigan and across the country. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Isaacs follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Emily Donovan, co-founder of
Clean Cape Fear. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF EMILY DONOVAN
Ms. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee for elevating the issue of PFAS water
contamination to the highest level possible. My name is Emily
Donovan and I wear multiple hats. I am a Youth Director at a
Presbyterian Church on Wrightsville Beach. I am a wife and a
mother raising 9-year-old twins, and I am also co-founder of
Clean Cape Fear.
We are a water advocacy group that formed after learning
DuPont Chemours was dumping large quantities of highly toxic
PFAS into our primary source of drinking water, the Cape Fear
River. Today I would like to speak to you as a mother who has
spent the last 15 months getting a crash course in
biochemistry.
Imagine waking up to headlines that the same company who
spent a historic $670 million to settle over 3,500 lawsuits in
another State for poisoning their drinking water was doing the
exact same thing to yours. That is exactly what DuPont's
spinoff Chemours did with GenX, their C8 replacement for making
Teflon, and GenX was only 12 percent of the total PFAS found in
our finished tap water. I am largely here today because of a
handful of dedicated scientists from North Carolina who
stumbled upon something in the Cape Fear River at alarmingly
high quantities and decided to investigate it.
Due to their tireless research, we know now at least 25
different PFAS have been discovered in our finished tap water
and in private wells around DuPont Chemours' facility in
Fayetteville. We learned early on through court documents that
DuPont Chemours has mastered the art of deception and I believe
this chronic polluter has no problem exposing millions of
citizens to these toxic chemicals.
It has been a year since we learned about GenX and we still
know nothing about the majority of chemicals in our finished
water. Not a single health official, scientist, or policymaker
can tell me if the 16 mystery PFAS I found in the tap water at
my children's public school are safe to drink. There are no
recommended dose levels. There are no toxic mixture studies to
guide me on how these chemicals interact with each other or
could potentially harm my children as they grow up.
It sickens me to think that I may have harmed my children
by simply raising them to drink the tap water. I will forever
wonder if that choice will one day cause them major medical
harm. I now send my children to school with water bottles
filled with reverse osmosis water because it seems to be the
only reliable filtration method to remove these toxins and our
RO filters are incredibly expensive. I pray daily it is enough
to keep them hydrated the whole day. I worry constantly about
the children drinking from the school tap water because their
parents are either unaware or can't afford to access properly
filtered water.
It is not just parents who are worried about their
children. We as adults are also worried about our own health.
These toxic chemicals do not act equally in our bodies. Some
people may never develop serious health problems while others
aren't so lucky. Our State's leading PFAS toxicological
researcher publicly stated the true impacts of GenX may take
years to become known because cancer takes its time to reveal
itself in humans.
I am here to testify that Wilmington and Fayetteville area
residents are already showing signs of obscure and rare
cancers, immune disorders, and diseases in populations far too
young to pass off as normal. How many of your friends are
battling cancer?
I am 41 and my friend Sarah is battling stage 3 colon
cancer. My friend Tom has terminal brain and bone cancer. My
friend Kara, an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, has stage 3
breast cancer and had her gallbladder stop working. My friend
Margaret has a rare bone cancer and my friend Robert has
leukemia and bladder cancer. And my own husband had a benign
brain tumor and almost lost his eyesight. I am frightened. We
already know testicular cancer is on the rise in our region. We
know thyroid cancers are nearly double the State and national
averages in Brunswick and Pender and New Hanover Counties.
We need you to act swiftly now. We want a nationwide PFAS
human exposure study that includes all known PFAS, not just the
already well documented PFOA and PFOS. We need to move beyond
GenX, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS and regulate all PFAS as a class of
highly toxic chemicals, because I know and you know that you
don't have time or money to individually regulate the estimated
10,000 PFAS in our water today or in use today.
We need to get these nasty toxins out of our drinking water
now so no one else suffers the way we are in North Carolina.
Look to the Madrid Statement for guidance that debunks the
long-chain myth. Require all chemical makers provide standards
for all PFAS produced including byproducts. Make the EPA begin
rodent toxicology studies on all these chemicals. Mandate that
public utilities nationwide conduct mandatory, comprehensive
PFAS testing with the method detection limits set at 1 because
the American people deserve to know every drop of these nasty
chemicals that are in their drinking water.
Congress should deny all Federal contracts including
defense contracts to chronic PFAS polluters like DuPont and
Chemours. If they can't play by the rules, they don't deserve a
single Federal taxpayer dollar. Set parameters for an adequate
period of time and require these chronic polluters pay for
remediation and cleanup. And we demand the maximum contaminant
level for all PFAS be set to 1 part per trillion in light of
the recent CDC study citing again the Madrid Statement.
Thank you so much for your time. It has been an honor to
testify before your committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Donovan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. We are happy to have you.
Last is Mr. Eric Olson, senior director of Health and Food,
Healthy People & Thriving Communities Program from the Natural
Resources Defense Council. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIC OLSON
Mr. Olson. Thank you Mr. Shimkus and thank you Ranking
Member Tonko and members of the committee. You just heard about
the real-world impacts of these chemicals in our water supplies
across the country. In fact, probably every person in this
room, every member of this committee has these chemicals in
their body. Over 98 percent of the public has these chemicals
in their body. I view these as the new PCBs.
Members may remember many years ago that it took an act of
Congress, literally, to ban PCBs. We are very concerned that
this is a very broad class of thousands of chemicals that have
not, frankly, been meaningfully regulated. We have a little bit
of action on a couple of them, but the vast majority there has
been virtually nothing done at the Federal level in most
States.
I also want to say that we know that there are six million
people from a Harvard study that are drinking two of the PFASs
in their water at levels above EPA's action level. Six million
people. When those numbers come down as a previous questioner
suggested, there are going to be a lot more people that are
shown to have excessive levels of these chemicals in their
water supplies. It is going to happen, I guarantee you, in
every single State, probably in most congressional districts.
As we get the new data coming in we are going to see this
across the country. These impacts we heard about a variety of
them. They include cancers of the kidney, cancer of the
testicles, other adverse effects including immune system
impacts, impacts on the thyroid, impacts on fetal development.
And I just want to share a story that I--I just got a phone
call yesterday from a citizen who is in Cape Fear, very similar
to the story that you just heard, and she had actually lost her
baby. She found out afterwards that she had been drinking
excessive levels of these chemicals in her water. She was a
marathon runner. She routinely drank a lot of the water.
She wants to know, what are the impacts of the people in
her community? What does she tell her kids? What does she tell
the rest of the community? There are 11,000 people in her
organization and I know Ms. Donovan's group has a lot of
members really trying to fix this problem. It is across the
country. We need action. And I ask that a letter that has about
50 groups signed on to it asking for action be entered into the
record which addresses some of the needs.
There are obviously concerns about setting an EPA drinking
water standard. We would like to see EPA move forward.
Unfortunately the Agency has known about this problem for more
than a decade and hasn't even made a determination that a
standard is necessary. And I didn't hear EPA commit to making a
determination in the earlier testimony today.
I don't think we got a commitment from the Agency to even
determine that a standard needs to be made. And as we heard
earlier, even where EPA makes such a determination which they
did for perchlorate, the only chemical in 22 years under the
Safe Drinking Water Act 1996 amendments that EPA made a
determination, EPA still a decade later has not even proposed a
standard.
In addition, obviously in addition to a standard, we need
States to be taking action because EPA isn't going to be doing
anything very quickly. States need to be stepping into the
void. Some States are doing it, New Jersey, Vermont, New York,
California, other states are looking at action. We need to stop
the further contamination.
We need to have cleanup standards. We need to have a phase-
out of the uses that are causing all this contamination. We
need polluter pays requirements so that the polluters are
paying to clean up, not citizens who have contaminated drinking
water. Why should they have to pay for the cleanup? It really
ought to be the polluters paying for it. We need an authority
for citizen action, for medical monitoring and enforced
cleanup.
We also need, clearly, action on food uses of these
chemicals. Your pizza boxes, a lot of your other food packaging
contains these chemicals in them. You are being exposed through
your food and we need to take action to address those. And, in
addition, we clearly need EPA to take action under the Clean
Water Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act to address new
uses and new PFASs.
And, finally, we certainly need action under the Safe
Drinking Water Act to ensure that we have more funding through
the State Revolving Fund and through a cleanup fund to start
cleaning these problems up before they just causing nationwide
disaster from the public health perspective. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. The chair thanks the gentleman. And now I will
recognize myself for the opening of the round of questions and
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I want to go to Ms. Daniels. Your testimony calls for ``a
holistic national approach keying off a unified message.'' Why
don't you think that the Federal Government is doing that right
now and are there technical barriers to it being done that way?
Ms. Daniels. So yes, thank you for that question. So I
think the Federal Government is doing a better job of it now
but I would argue that I don't think there was much of that
going on for the last 10 years. So I think possibly since
signaling through the summit, action moving forward, I think
they have been doing a better job.
But, for example, I still see the silo effect that we have
between EPA and ATSDR. So why do we have two different agencies
doing essentially the same amount of work or the same type of
work which is risk assessment work, why aren't those two
agencies working together on that very important topic?
And I think when I see things that EPA is doing, I think
they are probably doing a better job talking to their
counterparts in wastewater and in drinking water, but I haven't
seen FDA necessarily pull to the table. So I think that is a
partner that has sort of been missing at least from my
perspective. So I think they are doing a better job since May
that I don't think that was happening much before that.
And I think so there has been a lot of conversation about
the UCMR rule, to me if a chemical reaches the level where it
is going to be part of the UCMR rule, way back in those phases
folks should already be looking at how to reach out to the
other groups that have a part in this. So why didn't we have
standards from wastewater and waste back then, because it is
natural for states to want to try to find where those things
are coming from and we still don't have standards in those
areas.
Mr. Shimkus. So just for correction, I use the word
technical for a reason, but you explained more administration
and legal hurdles. Just leadership, I am a big leadership guy
and someone has to be in charge and someone has to keep people,
so that is really your response is more legal and
administrative.
Ms. Daniels. Well, there are some technical challenges too.
So in drinking water we can take action with an MCL. We can
take action with a HAL. In Pennsylvania, our wastewater folks
are having a challenge addressing PFAS and discharges because
some of them can represent, recognize a HAL but others need an
MCL or a water quality standard in order to take action. And in
our waste program we have the luxury that they can recognize a
HAL as well but not all states can do that.
So there are different trigger levels for these different
agencies in terms of when they have authority to take an action
and that is where we have some inconsistency.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me go to Mr. Burman. What technical or
economic barriers do States face with respect to responding to
PFAS contamination?
Mr. Burman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the States from
the cleanup perspective, the biggest challenge, really, is the
uncertainty about which of these compounds do we really go
after. They do not occur as just PFOS and PFOA in isolation. It
is a mixture and States are rapidly finding more and more of
these.
The question is, in the absence of established and formal
health standards, which ones should the State focus on, how do
you sample for them, and how do you clean them up. So there is
a lot of uncertainty about the nature and occurrence,
standards, and just the basic fundamental nuts and bolts of how
do you sample for them, how do you detect them, and what
technologies can really get them out of water and soil.
Mr. Shimkus. So what are States and territories doing to
address the uncertainties that you just mentioned?
Mr. Burman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that question. And as
in my previous testimony, what is happening is States are
driven by what they are finding and they are evolving their own
risk assessments and they are coming up with, in some cases,
promulgated standards and in some cases values for additional
PFAS.
A lot of States now, I shouldn't say a lot, but a handful
of States have another six to eight PFAS that commonly have
standards now and States are finding another dozen or two dozen
commonly in soil and water. So that has been the biggest, the
ability to detect these contaminants and to find them has
outstripped our ability to actually offer health advice to
people. So that is the biggest conundrum that States have that
they have sort of created for themselves by the drivers that
they have to go out and find these because we know they occur.
States are also trying to do the best they can with
remediation technologies. It is a lot of, frankly, old school
technologies that are coming back. It is your basic excavation
and putting them in landfill, capping them, incinerating them,
and for groundwater, really, activated carbon, solid old and
tried technology. These are all that is really available to the
States.
But there are efforts to try and find some more cost-
effective methods that are happening at the States, again
driven by the need that they have.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you much. I am going to end there in
lieu of time, but it was just a point that I was going to
follow up with Ms. Isaacs is that I am wondering with the czar
aspect, czarina aspect, do you have--I am not going to give you
time to answer because of my limited time, but is that working
better than, because you have got all the agencies of Michigan
together and you are like, I can tell, the marching them in a
certain direction.
So we will talk later or we will add that to a question for
the record. I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member, Mr.
Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our
witnesses for what are very powerful testimonies that you
shared, so much appreciated.
A lot of discussion with the previous panel about
designating a hazardous substance with the PFOAs and PFOS. What
in your determination, and I will address this to Ms. Daniels,
Mr. Burman, and Ms. Isaacs because of your relationship with
the respective States, what would the impact on States be if
EPA were to determine PFOA or PFOS as a hazardous substance
under CERCLA?
And I heard some of Mr. Burman's comments about that but in
a more direct way what would States be enabled to do?
Mr. Burman. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. For States that would
probably be the single biggest impact because it would bring
the full weight and power and formality of CERCLA to bear on
this contaminant. We have heard Ms. Sullivan talk about DOD
using the CERCLA process. We commend yDoD in doing that but it
is essentially almost a voluntary process and very few
responsible parties are voluntarily going to choose to apply a
CERCLA-like process to this contaminant. So having CERCLA
formally being introduced to the playing field would take care
of that. It would provide a consistent framework that has been
perfected for almost 40 years.
Now having said that, this subcommittee has held hearings
on modernizing Superfund and there is always room for
improvement, but the baseline that CERCLA would provide would
enormously contribute to stripping of the lot of the
uncertainty both in terms of the technical aspects and the
policy aspects that currently states face.
Mr. Tonko. Anyone else want to add to that?
Ms. Isaacs. Yes. Michigan, in full partnership with EPA, it
would provide an additional tool that we could use together in
looking at holding responsible parties responsible. We
currently are working with the EPA on enforcement actions. If
we had this new tool it would be more effective, I think, and
might not need to go to court often if we have established
processes that everyone knows about.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Tonko, may I speak to that just briefly?
Quickly, without having these chemicals listed under Superfund,
CERCLA, there is a real problem that an obstreperous defendant
will simply refuse to clean up. And, just listing two of them
may help at some sites, but as you just heard there are
actually dozens of these showing up. So there needs to be a
broader designation that would cover a broader array of PFASs.
Mr. Tonko. And, Ms. Daniels, quickly, if you could just
share a little more.
Ms. Daniels. Sure. So in Pennsylvania we can use a health
advisory for our cleanup folks to take action, but I think in
other States that determination would be very helpful. The only
other thing I wanted to mention is we don't always find a
responsible party for all of these sites. We have two right now
working in Pennsylvania that we have no idea where it is coming
from. So right now the cost of that cleanup is certainly being
borne by the state, so just keep that in mind.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Ms. Donovan, if I could go to you, I know we spent a
lot of time focusing on PFOA and PFOS. Those are the
contaminants that I am most familiar with in my home State of
New York. But we know that there are thousands of similar and
toxic variants like GenX. How important is it for EPA to
evaluate and provide meaningful risk information to take
regulatory action on PFAS more broadly?
Ms. Donovan. Well, I think North Carolina is the perfect
example where there is nothing. There is still no information.
There is no risk assessment for GenX. And GenX again was just
12 percent of the total of PFAS that were detected. Right now,
North Carolina is looking at, I believe DEQ said 25 different
PFAS.
These chemicals are also byproducts as well and I think
that is important to understand. When we don't have any
information, we don't know how to assess them and address them
so they don't get talked about. And I think that has been a big
letdown to the community and to the American people is that we
know they are there, the scientists can see them. But the
scientists don't have test standards for them so the scientists
can't come back to public officials and tell them accurately
this is how much is in the water.
And then EPA with test standards could begin rodent
toxicology studies and give us those risk assessments on the
PFAS that we are looking for. So I think it is really important
for us to consider requesting that the EPA begin doing rodent
studies on all of the PFAS, but they can't do it until they get
test standards. And those test standards come from the
manufacturers because they know exactly what they are making.
They know what chemical byproducts are coming out too.
So if we had all of that information and could start the
process there that would have really helped North Carolina move
along a lot further than we are right now, because we have
wasted a lot of time.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. With that I yield back. I have
exhausted my time so.
Mr. Hudson [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. At this time
the chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes for a question.
I would like to first again to thank Ms. Donovan for being
here, very compelling testimony. Appreciate you sharing your
personal story and the story of our neighbors.
And, Ms. Isaacs, I was encouraged reading your testimony
and hearing from you today. I think one of the underscores I
would like to make is the bipartisanship that we have seen in
Michigan that I believe we see in North Carolina that I think
is very important here. This is not a Republican or Democrat
issue. It needs to be bipartisan. We need a bipartisan approach
and that is something that in North Carolina we have certainly
tried to do.
You state that your State is one of many that has adopted
guidelines or guidance values or standards for PFOS and PFOA
chemicals based on the EPA's toxicity value and the EPA-issued
2016 health advisory level. Was there any information that was
missing from the toxicity value for health advisory level that
hindered your ability to develop your own standards in
Michigan?
Ms. Isaacs. We developed our standard at the beginning of
2018. We did not receive, we requested as everyone else did,
information from ATSDR. The 852-page report did come out and
that is another source of information that informs us. When you
are a State and you are looking to set a standard of course you
are having your own scientists review the information. You are
looking at the toxicology report from ATSDR. You are looking at
the lifetime health advisory. You are putting it all together
and you are trying to determine the most protective standard
for your people.
We know it has changed. We know it changed in '09, we know
it changed in '16, and now we have new information. So this
evolving contaminant and the research evolves, clearly we would
like more research. And we are actively engaged at looking at
the correct standard for Michigan. So did we need more
information? We did, and we did get more information and we
think still yet there is more to come.
And we realize that there are many analytes, but I think we
are focused on the ones that would produce the most risk to our
public health, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. Ms. Daniels and Mr. Burman----
Ms. Donovan. I am sorry, can I interject?
Mr. Hudson. Briefly, a little bit of time here.
Ms. Donovan. OK. I think there is a misconception and if
you look at the statement you will see that we have no idea
what is considered high risk and not at risk. Short-chain, I
think EPA is working under the assumption that short-chain
chemicals, PFAS, are not as toxic as long-chain. However, you
have to use more short-chain.
So we have no idea at higher levels, higher quantities,
they are still acting the same way in the body it just takes
more of them and we are finding more of them in our water in
North Carolina. So I don't think we can decide to catalog that
a couple are more toxic than others, we simply don't know.
There is zero scientific information to prove that some are
less toxic than others at the moment. Thank you.
Mr. Hudson. OK, appreciate that. Ms. Daniels and Mr.
Burman, you are both responsible for cleanup and remediation of
these chemicals and I appreciate your testimony. Based on your
experiences, once the toxicity value is released does that give
States enough information to develop a cleanup plan?
Ms. Daniels. So I can tell you in Pennsylvania we need a
health advisory level, so we need that number and we need EPA
to establish that number for us to be able to take action. A
tox value doesn't give us what we need from our legal
authority.
Mr. Hudson. Mr. Burman?
Mr. Burman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I can tell you is
from the perspective of the States it varies. Some States have
robust public health agencies who can take that tox value and
come up with a state number for it, but then the problem even
for those States is in the absence of that being a federal
number can they really apply it.
A lot of States simply do not have the resources to take
the EPA baseline information and create their own values so
they are reliant entirely on a federal value.
Mr. Hudson. Got you, I appreciate that.
Ms. Daniels, during the first panel today, Dr. Grevatt from
EPA mentioned the states could use their SRFs if they choose to
address PFAS contamination. Do you know how many States already
do this?
Ms. Daniels. So, thank you for the question. Absolutely
States can use it, but there is tremendous, I guess, work that
needs to be done in lots of different areas. So you are also
competing with projects for lead, projects for aging
infrastructure. I think folks will be moving forward with new
treatment for hazards. There is a whole list of things that
that money needs to address.
So yes, PFAS is just one more of those things that could be
used for projects. In Pennsylvania we have one application in-
house right now for somebody that wants to install treatment
for PFAS.
Mr. Hudson. But you are not for sure how many other States
are actually----
Ms. Daniels. No, but we would be glad to do a survey and
get back to you on that one.
Mr. Hudson. That would be great.
Ms. Daniels. Absolutely.
Mr. Hudson. If you could report that back for the record I
think that would be important for us to know. I really
appreciate that.
As my time has expired, I will now recognize the gentlelady
from Michigan, Ms. Dingell, for 5 minutes for her questions.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot of
questions so I am going to ask you to be concise. As we have
discussed, Michigan has 35 sites that have already been
identified. I know that you are really leading the effort with
the State of Michigan as one of the States that is doing more
than anybody does but we need to be doing a lot more.
In your testimony you state that Michigan supports
establishing a national standard for PFAS. Briefly, can you
state the benefits of setting that standard and is there a
specific standard that the State of Michigan would like to see
set for PFAS chemicals and do you think that where the national
standard is now is where it should be?
Ms. Isaacs. I think that I have seen the movement by EPA to
change this. If we look into '09 it was 400 and 200. We look in
'16 it came down to 70 parts per trillion combined for those
two long-chain PFAS. And again we see now ATSDR having a new
focus on research that now brings children into this issue and
we are looking at the effect on children. Minimally, we need to
take into consideration a standard that addresses children.
So yes, we have asked EPA to set that standard and more
than that we have asked them to work with ATSDR so that we can
coordinate the health assessment along with EPA's enforceable
cleanup standards for the States.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I want to go to the most recent,
Parchment, in Fred's district, or Mr. Upton's district, and the
Huron Valley watershed. One of my concerns is that there have
been three announcements now in the last 6 weeks about not
eating fish and it has gradually gone down river to Lake Erie.
But my understanding is that the first fish was actually caught
in May of 2017, put in a freezer and was not tested until very
recently and so it was 16, 18 months later that the do not eat
fish announcement was put out.
Why did that happen, do you have the resources you need,
and how do we make sure that we are responding in a more timely
way?
Ms. Isaacs. Thank you so much for that question. Let me say
that as we moved as rapidly as humanly possible to do and
search out sites of contamination in Michigan we started to
look at doing surface water testing in our rivers that to
inform us if we have sites of contamination bleeding into the
river. And when we look at fish testing, we added PFAS to our
testing a few years ago. We have been testing fish since 1970.
I actually called the lab director at the Health Department
and asked him about the issue that you just asked me about and
he said it is not unusual that we take fish and freeze them.
And he also said we have done more than 700 samples this year.
They are moving incredibly rapidly. They have been given money
from the legislature to expand their ability to test and they
are searching diligently for staff to be able to handle more
testing of water, fish, deer.
And as we have looked at these industrial pretreatment
processes in our water treatment plants and our disposal plants
that affect our waters, we use those areas of investigation to
go back, look at make sure we tested the fish, make sure we
know where the contamination is coming from. And I will address
Huron if you want.
Mrs. Dingell. Well, I think you will acknowledge that one
took too long and you are trying to make it quicker. I only
have a minute and I have so many questions, but I think it is
really important that people know it did take that long and you
are trying to cut that time now.
Ms. Isaacs. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Dingell. Is Michigan testing for what we have been
talking about today, the GenX?
Ms. Isaacs. We are not testing for GenX. There is very
little known.
Mrs. Dingell. Why?
Ms. Isaacs. We are using two testing methodologies, 537 and
an analyte test and that brings us to 24 different chemicals
that we are searching for. You heard that we have a suite of
about 3,000-plus and those two water tests are the acknowledged
tests, 537 requested and required by the EPA. And the
additional test that we run with more analytes, we run because
we get more PFOS.
Mrs. Dingell. I am out of time. I yield back no time.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentlelady. I just want to
recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to start off by adding my welcome to Ms.
Isaacs, who is the director of Michigan PFAS Action Response
Team. And possibly as our chairman had indicated, the czar
setting that has taken a more comprehensive look at what is
going on, certainly not with perfection but moving that
direction as much as possible, I am glad that you are here to
talk about the issues facing Michigan and the comprehensive
response Michigan is putting forward.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take the opportunity to
thank you and this committee for placing a priority on the
issue by holding this hearing today. Safe drinking water should
never be a worry for any person. I am glad this committee takes
this issue seriously, as has real live people here too that
have had to address it in their families and communities also.
Unfortunately, Michigan is no stranger to a water crisis.
The current PFAS situation impacting Michiganders is one that
most certainly should be taken very seriously and be handled
with all hands on the deck approach. I want you to know, Ms.
Isaacs that I will continue to work with you and the State of
Michigan and my colleagues to tackle this issue in any way
possible. Safe drinking water is critical and the current PFAS
issue facing Michigan ought to wake us up across the Nation and
still further.
Let me ask this question, Ms. Isaacs. Can you explain how
the State of Michigan is addressing and approaching the current
issue in Michigan and specifically what do you consider to be
the most important features of the way our State is addressing
this situation including maybe talking about the so-called czar
status approach.
Ms. Isaacs. Yes. The structure of combining ten state
departments, you know this from your own Federal level of
government that bringing those departments together is
sometimes different, sometimes difficult, different cultures.
When you bring them together under an umbrella it is placed out
of the Governor's Office and you have this intense
communication. It makes everything quicker, everybody
understands the issue.
Ten state departments that talk multiple times a week is a
structure that is so unique that we have been able to
accomplish amazing things in 9 months. And what characterizes
this as different isn't just the organizational structure put
in place by Governor Snyder. That is unique and effective, but
when we strategize to look at everything at once.
If you are looking at landfills and you are looking at
wastewater treatment plants and you are doing surface water
testing and you are testing every single public water supply in
addition to private wells, and we have almost a million of
those, you are so comprehensively reviewing your entire State
knowing what your situation is, mitigating against the public
health risk, and then addressing the remediation of how we
actually fix this.
It is characterized by being a comprehensive, very quick
heavy lift of what is the situation in our State, again cannot
be done without the support of our legislature and our
Congress. I am grateful for all of the work that all of you
have done.
Mr. Walberg. Almost a Marshall Plan approach, isn't it? Not
reinventing the wheel but all working toward the same outcome
and hitting all the bases. Is it replicable in other States?
Ms. Isaacs. It is. It is. And our Governor wants us to do
protocols, best practice, and he wants us to share that with
the rest of the nation. And we would like to help any other
State. We will provide any information. And we are working with
our sister states and they are all doing good work.
Mr. Walberg. Have you had any issue in coordinating a
response with the EPA? What might that be if there were?
Ms. Isaacs. We engaged in this in full partnership with
ATSDR and with EPA. We maintain that. We continue that. And we
do appreciate that partnership because they are very much
needed. Again national issue, states can't do it alone and they
certainly can't control everything so we need our Federal
partners.
Mr. Walberg. But they are coordinating with you well?
Ms. Isaacs. Yes.
Mr. Walberg. How would you characterize your cooperation
with affected communities? What can we learn?
Ms. Isaacs. I would assume you mean our cooperation in
communication. Part of what makes this effort successful is the
transparency and the intense communication. We will communicate
with any community that is really being tested. We want them to
understand what this means. We want to address their concerns
because they have them and they are really legitimate. We will
do two to three community meetings. They will range from 15
people, I think the largest one we have had is 1,200 people. We
will stay and we will answer individual questions and we will
allow people to come to the microphone for as long as they
want. We think that is absolutely essential.
I want to say that Michigan has always wanted the EPA to
come in and we want them to hear what we have been hearing from
our communities. We want them to hear the process of what the
people think. So I am not involved in that negotiation, I am
understanding that it is logistical and that is still certainly
going forward. So Michigan has always wanted EPA to come in and
we look forward to that.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time is expired. I want to
recognize the other gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again I appreciate
all the witnesses here on the panel as well as obviously the
first panel. And I particularly want to thank my Michigan
colleagues here, Debbie Dingell and Tim Walberg, Chairman
Shimkus and Walden for allowing this hearing to go forward. You
can tell that there is quite a bit of interest to try and fix
this problem not only in Michigan but around the country.
And I guess as I reflect back on the last 5 or 6 weeks
there was a term that our local sheriff used, Rick Fuller, that
this is Team Kalamazoo. We got a problem and we have got to
deal with it and let's take all the barriers down, partisan
barriers, governmental barriers and let's work together.
And as Governor Snyder said when he has been there on a
couple of occasions--remember, this is a very small town,
Parchment--this is a textbook example of about how we ought to
work together. And as I talked to many of the residents
delivering the water as they came to not only the high school
but the church, people appreciated that. I didn't see a single
disgruntled person. They recognize that there was an issue, on
the short term we are going to roll up our sleeves and deal
with it.
And we have got a long-term problem as well, but again I am
convinced that we are going to work on this as well. And
frankly that was a big lesson that we learned from Flint. A
finger could have and was pointed at all units of government
and it was Dan Kildee, the congressman from there, myself,
Debbie Dingell, Tim Walberg, and others, our senators that
worked together to change the standard that forced EPA to
acknowledge that they have got to be involved from the get-go
from day one, and again that was my first question when we
learned about Parchment.
Votes are starting here on the House floor.
A question I guess that I have for you, Ms. Isaacs, and
again thanks for your work. You have been there a good number
of times over the last couple of weeks. We have chatted on the
phone. We have met in my office. You helped as we talked about
my letter that we had sent back on August 1st. We want to help
the citizens everywhere where this can be identified.
And how frustrating was it for you to sit in the first row
knowing that now we have these draft numbers, this draft report
indicating that the numbers could be as high as 53,000 per
trillion versus the 70 in terms of the standard? What do we
have to do, where is Michigan on this standard at 70, and do
you support EPA reviewing it to come down perhaps using the
evidence there? How do you deal with an issue like this in
terms of the State?
And I guess my last part of my question is I just want to
announce to folks that I have been working with staff and with
again my able colleagues, Dingell and Walberg, to introduce
legislation that I hope to be able to introduce next week to
include Federal facilities dealing with PFAS so that everybody
is on the same page.
I have talked to the chairman, Mr. Walden. I would like to
see this legislation move in this Congress to get to the
President's desk. Again I think we could see some strong
bipartisan support to certainly move it out of this committee
and onto the floor and talk to the leadership. So look for that
as a long-term issue.
But back to my question before my time expires. How
frustrating is it to you to see these results that we frankly
feared? We suspected when the numbers didn't come out right
away that we suspected that they may be way above the 70 parts
per trillion. What is the State's response to this?
Ms. Isaacs. Well, we would characterize our response to
that is that we are very disappointed in the pace of the DOD
and bases to respond to testing. I know they have been asked
and that was the right thing that they were asked by the DOD to
test, but the response rate is slow. And that means to me, if I
don't have results on a base then I am going to initiate
testing around the base because I don't want to risk and wait
for results, and I have done that multiple times already.
What I mean as testing, I am looking at exposure in private
drinking wells and I wish that the pace was faster. I know they
are obligated to use CERCLA, but there are no timeframes for
those eight steps and you can remain in the investigation stage
of CERCLA for a very long time. And so I would encourage them
as I do, I do encourage them personally on the phone, we really
need your results. I often hear that the bureaucracy is large
and it takes a long time to get things through the system. I
actually understand that. They don't have an MPART process.
And so we are still in partnership because we need to be.
We need to get the bases unified in the State to understand
where water flows, geology, output. Those results help us
determine if we need to test a river, we need to test for
public health issues. So it is important to us that we get the
results in a timely manner.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired. There are
votes on the floor. I would like to turn to the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very quick
because I know we also have markups sometime scheduled at 1:00.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, then just don't ask any questions and we
can move forward.
Mr. Green. Well, Mr. Olson, in your testimony you state
that data shows that PFAS chemicals can have adverse health
effects at low per trillion levels. At what level specifically
is there evidence of health effects and how does that compare
to the EPA's nonbinding 70 parts per trillion level?
Mr. Olson. Briefly, I was relying primarily on the ATSDR
report, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, which would suggest that levels down in the single
digit parts per trillion can have adverse effects. And I think
the more we learn, the more we are finding that these effects
occur at very vanishingly low levels.
Mr. Green. I think we have some commitment from some
legislation, but should the Safe Drinking Water Act be amended
to require the EPA to act within a certain timeframe? In fact,
I will ask everybody on the panel. Just say yes or no.
Mr. Olson. Yes. And we would like to see the standard
setting strengthened so that it can be done quickly rather than
take 10 years.
Mr. Green. Yes.
Ms. Donovan. Yes, agree.
Ms. Isaacs. Yes, agree.
Mr. Burman. Yes.
Ms. Daniels. Yes, and it has to be less than 10 years. So I
agree with that.
Mr. Green. OK. Ms. Donovan, could you tell me how the
residual PFAS contamination has affected your community?
Ms. Donovan. It has left us with uncertainty and distrust.
The issue that is happening in North Carolina is it has been
very difficult to get the States to rein in the Chemours. They
have spilled many times and we have issued notice of violations
many times. If there had been stronger guidelines from the
Federal level I think we would have been able to act quicker
and we could have had swifter justice.
I think we also in our situation have no information
whatsoever. Everything that we are dealing with are chemicals
that the Federal Government has not given any guidance on. So
we are going it alone and we are figuring it out on our own and
it has been incredibly time consuming in a State that is
actually incredibly divided politically which has also mired us
in some of this issue.
So I am really grateful that you are taking the bipartisan
approach and I would love for our state legislatures to follow
suit.
Mr. Green. Thank you. Well, I am from Texas and I
understand. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
Seeing no other members present, we would like to thank our
second panel. We know this is a challenging issue but we are
trying to figure it out as much as many of us are.
Before I conclude I would like and ask unanimous consent to
submit the following documents for the record: A letter from
the National Groundwater Association; a letter from Culligan
International Company; a letter from several groups including
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families; a letter from Purolite; a
letter from the Water Quality Association.
I also have a letter from a guy named Fred Upton from
Michigan; another letter from, well, by numerous members to the
Acting Administrator of the EPA Mr. Wheeler from Kildee, Boyle,
Dingell, Lawrence, Upton, Bergman, and Fitzpatrick; a letter
from the State of Michigan Executive Office to the Acting
Administrator of the EPA from the Governor of Michigan; and
finally, also from the Governor of Michigan to, it looks like
the Secretary of Defense from the Governor of Michigan.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rush, Bobby L. | R000515 | 7921 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | IL | 115 | 1003 |
| Upton, Fred | U000031 | 7991 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MI | 115 | 1177 |
| DeGette, Diana | D000197 | 7859 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CO | 115 | 1479 |
| Shimkus, John | S000364 | 7939 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IL | 115 | 1527 |
| Schakowsky, Janice D. | S001145 | 7929 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | IL | 115 | 1588 |
| Walden, Greg | W000791 | 8115 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | OR | 115 | 1596 |
| Blackburn, Marsha | B001243 | 8154 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TN | 115 | 1748 |
| Burgess, Michael C. | B001248 | 8182 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 1751 |
| McMorris Rodgers, Cathy | M001159 | 8209 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | WA | 115 | 1809 |
| Matsui, Doris O. | M001163 | 7810 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 1814 |
| McNerney, Jerry | M001166 | 7816 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 1832 |
| Bilirakis, Gus M. | B001257 | 7881 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | FL | 115 | 1838 |
| Castor, Kathy | C001066 | 7883 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | FL | 115 | 1839 |
| Loebsack, David | L000565 | 7915 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | IA | 115 | 1846 |
| Sarbanes, John P. | S001168 | 7978 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MD | 115 | 1854 |
| Walberg, Tim | W000798 | 7992 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MI | 115 | 1855 |
| Clarke, Yvette D. | C001067 | 8072 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 115 | 1864 |
| Welch, Peter | W000800 | 8204 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | VT | 115 | 1879 |
| Latta, Robert E. | L000566 | 8095 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | OH | 115 | 1885 |
| Scalise, Steve | S001176 | 7959 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | LA | 115 | 1892 |
| Guthrie, Brett | G000558 | 7954 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | KY | 115 | 1922 |
| Harper, Gregg | H001045 | 8021 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MS | 115 | 1933 |
| Lance, Leonard | L000567 | 8049 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NJ | 115 | 1936 |
| Lujan, Ben Ray | L000570 | 8058 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NM | 115 | 1939 |
| Tonko, Paul | T000469 | 8082 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 115 | 1942 |
| Schrader, Kurt | S001180 | 8118 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | OR | 115 | 1950 |
| Olson, Pete | O000168 | 8178 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 1955 |
| Kinzinger, Adam | K000378 | 7931 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IL | 115 | 2014 |
| Bucshon, Larry | B001275 | 7947 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IN | 115 | 2018 |
| Long, Billy | L000576 | 8015 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MO | 115 | 2033 |
| Johnson, Bill | J000292 | 8096 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | OH | 115 | 2046 |
| Duncan, Jeff | D000615 | 8143 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | SC | 115 | 2057 |
| Flores, Bill | F000461 | 8173 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 2065 |
| McKinley, David B. | M001180 | 8222 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | WV | 115 | 2074 |
| Cardenas, Tony | C001097 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 2107 | |
| Ruiz, Raul | R000599 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 2109 | |
| Peters, Scott H. | P000608 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 2113 | |
| Brooks, Susan W. | B001284 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IN | 115 | 2129 | |
| Hudson, Richard | H001067 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NC | 115 | 2140 | |
| Cramer, Kevin | C001096 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | ND | 115 | 2144 | |
| Collins, Chris | C001092 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NY | 115 | 2151 | |
| Mullin, Markwayne | M001190 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | OK | 115 | 2156 | |
| Walters, Mimi | W000820 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 2232 | |
| Dingell, Debbie | D000624 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MI | 115 | 2251 | |
| Costello, Ryan A. | C001106 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | PA | 115 | 2266 | |
| Doyle, Michael F. | D000482 | 8132 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | PA | 115 | 316 |
| Engel, Eliot L. | E000179 | 8078 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 115 | 344 |
| Eshoo, Anna G. | E000215 | 7819 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 355 |
| Green, Gene | G000410 | 8185 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 462 |
| Barton, Joe | B000213 | 8162 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 62 |
| Pallone, Frank, Jr. | P000034 | 8048 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NJ | 115 | 887 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.