    [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]