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


                   PROTECTING AMERICANS AT RISK OF PFAS 
                        CONTAMINATION AND EXPOSURE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 15, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-35


      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
      
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
40-554 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                        

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
                                 
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California            Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                               Witnesses

Emily Marpe, Mother and Community Member, Petersburgh, New York..    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Jamie C. DeWitt, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of 
  Pharmacology and Toxicology, Brody School of Medicine at East 
  Carolina University............................................    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
Brian Steglitz, Manager, Water Treatment Services, City of Ann 
  Arbor..........................................................    30
    Prepared statement...........................................    32
G. Tracy Mehan III, Executive Director, Government Affairs, 
  American Water Works Association...............................    48
    Prepared statement...........................................    50
Jane C. Luxton, Partner, Co-chair of the Environmental and 
  Administrative Law Practice, Lewis Brisbois....................    59
    Prepared statement...........................................    61
Erik D. Olson, Health Program Director, Natural Resources Defense 
  Council........................................................    66
    Prepared statement...........................................    68

                           Submitted Material

H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019............................   112
H.R. 2377, Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act of 2019..........   114
H.R. 2533, Providing Financial Assistance for Safe Drinking Water 
  Act............................................................   116
H.R. 2566, the Safe Choice StandardAct...........................   120
H.R. 2570, the PFAS User Fee Act of 2019.........................   122
H.R. 2577, the Right-to-Know Act of 1986.........................   128
H.R. 2591, the PFAS Waste Incineration Ban Act of 2019...........   132
H.R. 2596, Protecting Communities from New PFAS Act..............   135
H.R. 2600, the Toxic PFAS Control Act............................   137
H.R. 2605, the PROTECT Act of 2019...............................   142
H.R. 2608, the PFAS Testing Act of 2019..........................   144
H.R. 2626, the PFAS Accountability Act of 2019...................   149
H.R. 2638, To direct the Administrator of the Environmental 
  Protection Agency to issue guidance on minimizing the use of 
  firefighting foam containing PFAS, and for other purposes......   157
Letter of May 15, 2019, from Diane VanDe Hei, Executive Officer, 
  Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, to Mr. Tonko, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   159
Letter of May 14, 2019, from Kristen L. Mello, Co-founder, 
  Westfield Residents Advocating for Themselves, to Mr. Tonko, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   163
Letter of May 12, 2019, from Dr. Masami Kawamura, Director, the 
  Informed-Public Project, Okinawa, Japan, to Mr. Tonko, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   165
Letter of May 15, 2019, from Neil L. Bradley, Executive Vice 
  President and Chief Policy Officer, Chamber of Commerce, to Mr. 
  Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko..................   170
Letter of May 14, 2019, from Robert J. Simon, Vice President, 
  Chemical Products and Technology, American Chemistry Council, 
  to Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. Tonko...........................   172
Fact sheet of April 10, 2019, Maximum levels of PFAS compounds, 
  Wisconsin, PFAS Community Campaign. Community Partners, et al., 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   174
Statement of April 2019, ``Joint Position Statement Supporting 
  Regulation of PFAS as a Class,'' Casa Maria Community, et al., 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   175
Statement of February 8, 2019, ``Joint Position Statement: PFAS 
  Treatment and Disposal Should Avoid Present and Future Toxic 
  Effect,'' by CSWAB, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko.............   176
Statement of a National PFAS Roadmap, by Dr. Matt Reeves, Western 
  Michigan University, submitted by Mr. Tonko....................   177

 
    PROTECTING AMERICANS AT RISK OF PFAS CONTAMINATION AND EXPOSURE

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m., in 
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Tonko 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Barragan, Blunt 
Rochester, Soto, Schakowsky, Matsui, McNerney, Lujan, Ruiz, 
Dingell, Kuster, Pallone (ex officio), Upton, Shimkus 
(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson, 
Long, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
    Staff present: Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; 
Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief 
Counsel; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, 
Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Mel 
Peffers, Environment Fellow; Teresa Williams, Energy Fellow; 
Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment and 
Climate Change; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Mary 
Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and 
Climate Change; Brannon Rains, Minority Staff Assistant; and 
Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, 
Environment and Climate Change.
    Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change will now come to order. I recognize myself for five 
minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Our legislative hearing this morning will examine solutions 
to reduce environmental and health risks from per- and 
polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS. This 
hearing builds on good work that began under the leadership of 
our Republican colleagues last year when they held a hearing to 
better understand these substances as well as EPA and DoD's 
response to the growing number of communities dealing with 
contaminations.
    At that hearing, we established that PFAS are a large class 
of chemicals numbering between 4 and 5 thousand, commonly used 
in firefighting foams, food packaging, nonstick cookware, and 
water-resistant fabrics. These chemicals are remarkably 
persistent in the environment and incredibly toxic and 
dangerous to human health, even in very small concentrations, 
equivalent to a few drops in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
    We are still learning the full extent of the dangers, but 
PFAS exposure has already been linked to kidney disease, 
thyroid dysfunction, and various forms of cancer. Other 
committees have held hearings on the risk and toxicity of PFAS 
chemicals, and it is clear that there is considerable interest 
from members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to 
determine how Congress should proceed in the face of this 
growing crisis.
    I know there are many members, including members of this 
committee, dealing with PFAS contamination back home. Over the 
past few years, I have had numerous opportunities to meet with 
families of Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh in Rensselaer County, 
New York, including Ms. Marpe who we will hear from this 
morning, and her daughter Gwen. And just last week, I visited 
the water system and other sites in Horsham, Pennsylvania, 
learning from and seeing the challenges they have faced 
firsthand.
    I know these communities, their local leaders, and their 
water systems are trying to do everything possible to protect 
their residents. These contaminations and the resulting harm to 
public health are not their fault and it is incumbent upon us 
to make sure that they have the resources, information and 
legal authorities to remediate contaminations to protective 
levels and to hold polluters accountable even when those 
polluters are a Federal entity.
    Today's hearing is the first that will examine concrete 
solutions being offered by our colleagues. We will consider 13 
bills that have been referred to the subcommittee. These bills 
address how we can reduce exposure, expedite cleanups, and 
dispose of these chemicals safely. While addressing PFAS in 
drinking water is a top priority of mine, today we will also 
hear that PFAS exposure concerns go beyond water. These bills 
range across multiple statutes including the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, Superfund, TSCA, and the Clean Air Act.
    Earlier this year, EPA released its PFAS action plan. I do 
not doubt that the motivations of the administration are good, 
but there can be no question that the response has been 
inadequate. First, EPA's plan is not comprehensive. The plan 
focuses primarily on two chemicals in a class of thousands, 
PFOA and PFOS. These are certainly the best known PFAS, but 
domestic manufacture of these two ceased years ago. Real and 
ongoing risks for future exposure will come as companies 
substitute them with other emerging and dangerous substances 
such as GenX.
    Second, EPA has given us little reason for confidence that 
they will act with the urgency that impacted communities now 
know is needed. EPA has not even committed to setting a 
national drinking water standard and even on the most 
aggressive timeline, regulatory action will take years. To be 
clear, this is as much a criticism of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act as that of this EPA.
    In the past 22 years, there has been just one contaminant 
determined to need a national standard. It has been years since 
that determination and we are still waiting for it to be 
finalized. It will likely take many years for PFOA and PFOS to 
have a finalized, enforceable, and protective standard should 
EPA determine that to be their course of action. We need to 
have a larger conversation about SDWA regulatory reform, but 
that issue cannot stop us from taking action on PFAS. SDWA's 
shortcomings are bigger than PFAS and PFAS issues are bigger 
than drinking water. We must consider what is needed to be done 
right now.
    This is just the beginning of this process. I welcome 
feedback from any stakeholder or member interested in these or 
other bills so that we can move forward in a way that best 
protects our communities from the damage these substances are 
causing. But one thing is clear. We cannot wait for EPA to act. 
Congress needs to be actively involved to ensure the protection 
of Americans' health. My hope is some combination of the bills 
considered today can enable us to make progress to reduce the 
risks of exposure, increase testing and monitoring, and require 
as well as provide resources to support remediation.
    I thank my colleagues for their work on this timely issue 
as well as our witnesses for sharing their insights and 
sometimes painful experiences. I look forward to working 
together to find potential agreement.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    Our legislative hearing this morning will examine solutions 
to reduce environmental and health risks from per- and 
polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS.
    This hearing builds on good work that began under the 
leadership of our Republican colleagues last year when they 
held a hearing to better understand these substances, as well 
as EPA and DoD's response to the growing number of communities 
dealing with contaminations.
    At that hearing, we established that PFAS are a large class 
of chemicals, numbering between 4 and 5 thousand, commonly used 
in firefighting foams, food packaging, nonstick cookware, and 
water-resistant fabrics.
    These chemicals are remarkably persistent in the 
environment and incredibly toxic and dangerous to human health 
even in very small concentrations--equivalent to a few drops in 
an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
    We are still learning the full extent of the dangers, but 
PFAS exposure has already been linked to kidney disease, 
thyroid dysfunction, and various forms of cancer.
    Other committees have held hearings on the risks and 
toxicity of PFAS chemicals.
    And it is clear that there is considerable interest from 
Members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to 
determine how Congress should proceed in the face of this 
growing crisis.
    I know there are many Members, including members of this 
committee, dealing with PFAS contamination back home.
    Over the past few years, I have had numerous opportunities 
to meet with families of Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh in 
Rensselaer County, New York, including Ms. Marpe, who we will 
hear from this morning, and her daughter Gwen.
    And just last week, I visited the water system and other 
sites in Horsham, Pennsylvania, learning from and seeing the 
challenges they have faced first-hand.
    I know these communities, their local leaders, and their 
water systems are trying to do everything possible to protect 
their residents.
    These contaminations and the resulting harm to public 
health are not their fault, and it is incumbent upon us to make 
sure they have the resources, information, and legal 
authorities to remediate contaminations to protective levels 
and to hold polluters accountable--even when those polluters 
are a Federal entity.
    Today's hearing is the first that will examine concrete 
solutions being offered by our colleagues. We will consider 13 
bills that have been referred to the Subcommittee. These bills 
address how we can reduce exposure, expedite cleanups, and 
dispose of these chemicals safely.
    While addressing PFAS in drinking water is a top priority 
of mine, today we will also hear that PFAS exposure concerns go 
beyond water. These bills range across multiple statutes, 
including the Safe Drinking Water Act, Superfund, TSCA, and the 
Clean Air Act.
    Earlier this year, EPA released its PFAS Action Plan. I do 
not doubt that the motivations of the Administration are good, 
but there can be no question that their response has been 
inadequate.
    First, EPA's plan is not comprehensive. The plan focuses 
primarily on two chemicals in a class of thousands: PFOA and 
PFOS. These are certainly the best known PFAS, but domestic 
manufacture of these two ceased years ago.
    Real and ongoing risks for future exposure will come as 
companies substitute them with other emerging and dangerous 
substances, such as GenX.
    Second, EPA has given us little reason for confidence that 
they will act with the urgency that impacted communities know 
is needed. EPA has not even committed to setting a national 
drinking water standard. And even on the most aggressive 
timeline, regulatory action will take years.
    To be clear, this is as much a criticism of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act than of this EPA. In the past 22 years, 
there has been just one contaminant determined to need a 
national standard. It has been years since that determination, 
and we are still waiting for it to be finalized.
    It will likely take many years for PFOA and PFOS to have a 
finalized enforceable and protective standard, should EPA 
determine that to be their course of action.
    We need to have a larger conversation about SDWA regulatory 
reform, but that issue cannot stop us from taking action on 
PFAS. SDWA's shortcomings are bigger than PFAS, and PFAS issues 
are bigger than drinking water.
    We must consider what is needed to be done right now.
    This is just the beginning of this process. I welcome 
feedback from any stakeholder or Member interested in these or 
other bills, so that we can move forward in a way that best 
protects our communities from the damage these substances are 
causing.
    But one thing is clear: we cannot wait for EPA to act.
    Congress needs to be actively involved to ensure the 
protection of Americans' health. My hope is some combination of 
the bills considered today can enable us to make progress to 
reduce the risks of exposure, increase testing and monitoring, 
and require, as well as provide resources to support, 
remediation.
    I thank my colleagues for their work on this timely issue, 
as well as our witnesses for sharing their insights, and 
sometimes painful experiences. I look forward to working 
together to find potential agreement.

    Mr. Tonko. With that, I will now recognize the ranking 
leader of our subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Shimkus. You can call me--Ranking Member Walden is not 
here, so you can call me Ranking Member Shimkus. I am good with 
that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we are meeting 
to learn more about the bills introduced in this Congress to 
tackle various forms of contamination linked to highly 
fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS, for short.
    Based on a cursory read of all the long titles of the bills 
introduced and referred to our committee this Congress, we are 
looking at a comprehensive set of proposals that range from 
instituting sweeping mandates in just about every law this 
subcommittee oversees, authorizing a significant amount of 
Federal money for PFAS-related actions on top of those programs 
currently operated by the Federal and State Governments, and 
creating labeling programs for consumer products that do not 
contain PFAS.
    If you are serious about these proposals becoming law, they 
need a full and fair airing with a complete legislative history 
and record. I hope you will at the very least commit to us 
today that you will bring EPA in as part of this hearing, but 
on another day for questioning on the technical aspects of 
these bills, before the committee schedules any markups on 
these bills, or they are considered on the House floor.
    Mr. Chairman, this is not a delay tactic. This is a plea to 
prevent major expensive mandates on states as well as 
unintended consequences on EPA's ongoing work both on PFAS and 
many other substances who would have to take a backseat to the 
mandates in these bills. In addition to our subcommittee's 
current lack of Agency input, I am concerned that almost one-
third of our subcommittee's members were not around last fall 
when this subcommittee held both a member briefing with EPA 
career staff and an oversight hearing about PFAS, ways the 
Federal Government was and could respond under existing laws, 
and ways to address contamination and appropriately communicate 
risk.
    That said, I am sympathetic to my colleagues whose 
communities want urgent action to address PFAS. I also, though 
am not a fan of rushing to install broad-based major changes to 
Federal law at a time when high levels of anxiety exceed what 
we know, this does not mean ``do nothing,'' rather, I believe 
we should not make shortcuts in the law while EPA is taking 
steps based upon solid scientific data to make regulatory 
decisions. Moreover, if the problem is urgent, the Federal 
Government has imminent hazard authority under many of the laws 
we will talk about today to go in and take immediate action.
    This view may not be popular with some of my colleagues, 
but I believe we cannot only support the use of good science or 
public input when it guarantees our preferred policy solutions. 
This was a major principle for me during enactment of the major 
reforms of the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is striking to 
me that we are disregarding both these tenets to regulate 
between 3 to 5 thousand substances by statutory fiat. Moreover, 
these bills do not give the Federal Government the ability to 
prioritize the risk of PFAS versus greater environmental and 
public health efforts or other currently ongoing work, meaning 
scarce resources would need to be moved to meet the mandates in 
this bill before us at the expense of other items.
    It may not sound like it, but I may be open to getting yes 
on some of these proposals, yet of the bills for which I have 
seen text and without getting technical feedback from the 
agency that needs to implement it, I have too many questions 
about the wholesale regulation of this large class of chemicals 
when there are only a handful of these chemicals that we know 
something about such as the ability to detect them in water or 
their causal effects on health.
    Further, states and the Federal Government including the 
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 
have been taking collaborative and independent action to drive 
down and properly communicate the risk, and the equipment to 
detect and treat all the substances is still evolving. 
Fundamentally, I just need more information about the impacts 
both positive and negative that these proposals could have to 
make sure they are tailored to address the established risk 
without establishing bad presence for regulatory efforts driven 
by fear rather than by data.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and hope 
that this will not be the last word on these bills in committee 
before they are considered.
    And let me just--that was the prepared statement. Let me 
just say this, Mr. Chairman. This is a whole class of chemicals 
that can range from 3 to 5 thousand chemicals. We did pass the 
Toxic Substance Control Act which was to address using real 
science and real data to make decisions on health-related 
chemicals. I think we have got to be very careful as with the 
hearing we last week of by legislative fiat banning things 
which we may or may not know are harmful.
    Now I don't question that there is probably some of the 
PFAS categories that are harmful. But to threaten the 3 to 5 
thousand list of those is not in line with the scientific 
approach that we agreed to under TSCA and I look forward to 
having EPA hopefully help us muddle through this. And this is 
not a no on these bills, and this is not a delay tactic. This 
is, just give me a little more time appeal. And with that I 
yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follow:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we are meeting 
to learn more about the bills introduced this Congress to 
tackle various forms of contamination linked to highly 
fluorinated chemicals--known as PFAS, for short.
    Based on a cursory read of the long titles of the bills 
both introduced and referred to our Committee this Congress, we 
are looking at a comprehensive set of proposals that range from 
instituting sweeping mandates in just about every law this 
subcommittee oversees, authorizing significant amounts of 
Federal money for PFAS related actions--on top of those 
programs currently operated by Federal and State Governments, 
and creating labeling programs for consumer products that do 
not contain PFAS.
    If you are serious about these proposals becoming law, they 
need a full and fair airing, with a complete legislative 
history and record. I hope you will, at the very least, commit 
to us today that you will bring in EPA as part of this hearing, 
but on another day, for questioning on the technical aspects of 
these bills before the Committee schedules any markups of these 
bills or they are considered on the House floor.
    Mr. Chairman, this is NOT a delay tactic; this is a plea to 
prevent major, expensive mandates on States as well as 
unintended consequences on EPA's ongoing work both on PFAS and 
many other substances that would have to take a back seat the 
mandates in these bills.
    In addition to our subcommittee's current lack of Agency 
input, I am concerned that almost one-third of our 
subcommittee's members were not around last fall when this 
Subcommittee held both a member briefing with EPA career staff 
and an oversight hearing about PFAS, ways the Federal 
Government was and could respond under existing laws, and ways 
to address contamination and appropriately communicate risk.
    That said, I am sympathetic to my colleagues whose 
communities want urgent action to address PFAS. I also, though, 
am not a fan of rushing to instill broad-based, major changes 
to Federal law at a time when high levels of anxiety exceed 
what we know. This does not mean ``do nothing." Rather, I 
believe we should not make shortcuts in the law while EPA is 
taking steps, based on solid scientific data to make regulatory 
decisions. Moreover, if the problem is urgent, the Federal 
Government has imminent hazard authority under many of the laws 
we will talk about today to go in and take immediate action.
    This view may not be popular with some of my colleagues, 
but I believe we cannot only support the use of good science or 
public input when it guarantees our preferred policy solutions. 
This was a major principle for me during enactment of the major 
reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is striking to 
me that we are disregarding both these tenets to regulate 
between 3,000 to 5,000 substances by statutory fiat. Moreover, 
these bills do not give the Federal Government the ability to 
prioritize the risk of PFAS versus greater environmental and 
public health efforts or other currently ongoing work--meaning 
scarce resources would need to be moved to meet the mandates in 
the bills before us at the expense of those other items.
    It may not sound like it, but I may be open to getting to 
``yes" on some of these proposals. Yet, of the bills for which 
I have seen text and without getting technical feedback from 
the Agency that needs to implement, I have too many questions 
about wholesale regulation of this large class of chemicals 
when there are only a handful of these chemicals that we know 
something about, such as the ability to detect them in water or 
their causal adverse health effects. Further, States and the 
Federal Government, including the EPA or the Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry, have been taking collaborative 
and independent action to drive down and properly communicate 
the risks, and the equipment to detect and treat all these 
substances is still evolving. Fundamentally, I just need more 
information about the impacts--both positive and negative--that 
these proposals could have, to make sure they are tailored to 
address established risks without establishing bad precedents 
for regulatory efforts driven by fear rather than data.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. And 
hope they will not be the last word on these bills in committee 
before they are considered.
    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full committee, for 
five minutes for his opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    PFAS contamination is a very serious issue affecting 
communities nationwide. These are persistent chemicals that 
spread throughout our water, air, and soil. They are toxic, 
with studies showing increased cancers, immune impacts, and 
effects on growth, development, and fertility. And these 
chemicals are everywhere in our environment, in our bodies, and 
with new affected communities being discovered all the time.
    Although chemical companies have known the hazards of these 
chemicals for many years, we are still realizing the scope of 
contamination and it is increasingly clear that we will need to 
attack PFAS contamination with every tool we have as quickly as 
we can. So I want to thank the many members in the House who 
have introduced legislation to address the PFAS problem, and I 
wanted to kind of go through that list.
    Representatives Dingell and Upton have worked together to 
introduce two important bills to address PFAS contamination 
through the Superfund program. Representatives Boyle and 
Fitzpatrick have a bill to set a binding, enforceable, and 
strong drinking water standard for all PFAS. Representative 
Soto has introduced a bill to provide industry with a voluntary 
PFAS-free label for cookware so consumers can take steps to 
protect themselves from exposure.
    Representative Delgado introduced a bill to require 
reporting of PFAS releases on the Toxic Release Inventory. TRI 
reporting provides an essential tool to communities impacted by 
environmental pollution and has a strong record of driving 
polluters to reduce their releases. Representative Khanna has 
introduced a bill to ban incineration of PFAS waste including 
firefighting foam. Incineration has been a serious concern for 
the local communities where it is happening.
    Representative Kuster introduced a bill to ban new PFAS 
chemicals under TSCA. There are already 4,700 PFAS chemicals in 
commerce and it is astonishing that we continue to approve more 
of these chemicals given what we know about them. Then we have 
Representative Dean who has a bill that comprehensively 
regulate PFAS under TSCA, including a phase-in ban of new and 
existing PFAS standards for safe disposal of PFAS and labeling 
for articles containing PFAS.
    Representative Sean Patrick Maloney has introduced a bill 
to address PFAS under TSCA, also using EPA's authorities under 
that law to require health effects testing and reporting on all 
PFAS chemicals. Representative Stevens has a bill to list all 
PFAS as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. His 
bill, or that bill was written in response to increasing 
evidence that air emissions of PFAS are dangerous and 
avoidable.
    Representative Fletcher has legislation requiring EPA to 
issue guidance for first responders to minimize the use of PFAS 
and also deals with firefighting foam and cuts the risks they 
face from that foam. We heard from the International 
Association of Firefighters in March about the fear among 
firefighters about how these chemicals are affecting their 
health, so we have to address those fears. And then we have 
Representative Rouda who introduced a bill to establish a trust 
fund financed by user fees from PFAS manufacturers, and these 
funds will help pay the ongoing operation and maintenance costs 
of drinking water utilities and water treatment works that are 
paying to clean up PFAS contamination.
    And finally, I introduced a bill, the Providing Financial 
Assistance for Safe Drinking Water Act, and my bill offers 
significant Federal investments to help water utilities pay the 
capital costs needed to adopt treatment techniques that can 
remove PFAS from drinking water. And these treatment techniques 
are very expensive and may be beyond what is affordable for 
many affected communities.
    Now I have mentioned or described 13 bills, obviously a 
very bipartisan effort. More are being introduced every day. 
And I think these bills are all important and they all address 
the different aspect of the PFAS problem. Many people think of 
PFAS as solely a drinking water issue, but all the PFAS in our 
drinking water came from industrial activity. They will keep 
showing up in our drinking water sources if we continue to 
produce and use thousands of different PFAS chemicals.
    So we need to stop PFAS pollution at the source, contain 
the pollution before it spreads further, and get it out of our 
air, soil, and drinking water. And we don't have a lot of time 
to waste, so I look forward to working together quickly to 
address PFAS contamination and implement some of the solutions 
we are going to hear about today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    PFAS contamination is a very serious issue, affecting 
communities nationwide. These are persistent chemicals that 
spread through our water, air, and soil. They are toxic--with 
studies showing increased cancers, immune impacts, and effects 
on growth, development, and fertility. And, these chemicals are 
everywhere--in our environment and in our bodies, with new 
affected communities being discovered all the time.
    Although chemical companies have known the hazards of these 
chemicals for many years, we are still realizing the scope of 
contamination. It is increasingly clear that we will need to 
attack PFAS contamination with every tool we have, as quickly 
as we can.
    I want to thank the many members in the House who have 
introduced legislation to address the PFAS problem.
    Representatives Dingell and Upton have worked together to 
introduce two important bills to address PFAS contamination 
through the Superfund program.
    Representatives Boyle and Fitzpatrick have a bill to set a 
binding, enforceable and strong drinking water standard for all 
PFAS.
    Representative Soto has introduced a bill to provide 
industry with a voluntary PFAS-free label for cookware, so 
consumers can take steps to protect themselves from exposure.
    Representative Delgado introduced a bill to require 
reporting of PFAS releases on the Toxics Release Inventory 
(TRI). TRI reporting provides an essential tool to communities 
impacted by environmental pollution, and it has a strong record 
of driving polluters to reduce their releases.
    Representative Khanna has introduced a bill to ban 
incineration of PFAS wastes, including fire-fighting foam. 
Incineration has been a serious concern for the local 
communities where it is happening.
    Representative Kuster introduced a bill to ban new PFAS 
chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act of TSCA. There 
are already around 47-hundred PFAS chemicals in commerce, and 
it is astonishing that we continue to approve more of these 
chemicals given what we now know about them.
    Representative Dean has a bill to comprehensively regulate 
PFAS under TSCA, including a phased-in ban of new and existing 
PFAS, standards for safe disposal of PFAS, and labeling for 
articles containing PFAS.
    Representative Sean Patrick Maloney has also introduced a 
bill to address PFAS under TSCA, using EPA's authorities under 
that law to require health effects testing and reporting on all 
PFAS chemicals.
    Representative Stevens has a bill to list all PFAS as 
hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This bill 
responds to increasing evidence that air emissions of PFAS are 
dangerous and avoidable.
    Representative Fletcher has legislation requiring EPA to 
issue guidance for first responders to minimize the use of PFAS 
firefighting foam and cut the risks they face from that foam. 
We heard from the International Association of Firefighters in 
March about the fear among firefighters about how these 
chemicals are affecting their health. We must address these 
fears.
    Representative Rouda introduced a bill to establish a trust 
fund, financed by user fees from PFAS manufacturers. These 
funds will help pay the ongoing operations and maintenance 
costs of drinking water utilities and water treatment works 
that are paying to clean up PFAS contamination.
    And finally, I introduced the Providing Financial 
Assistance for Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill offers 
significant Federal investment to help water utilities pay the 
capital costs needed to adopt treatment techniques that can 
remove PFAS from drinking water. These treatment techniques are 
very expensive and may be beyond what is affordable for many 
affected communities.
    I have described 13 bills, but there are more being 
introduced every day. These bills are all important, and all 
address a different aspect of the PFAS problem.
    Many people think of PFAS as solely a drinking water issue. 
But, all the PFAS in our drinking water came from industrial 
activity. They will keep showing up in our drinking water 
sources if we continue to produce and use thousands of 
different PFAS chemicals. We need to stop PFAS pollution at the 
source, contain the pollution before it spreads further, and 
get it out of our air, soil, and drinking water. We have no 
time to waste.
    I look forward to working together, quickly, to address 
PFAS contamination and implement some of the solutions we will 
hear about today.
    Thank you, I yield back.

    Mr. Pallone. Whatever time I have left I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Tonko. 
Today's hearing is obviously important as both have you, 
everybody, both sides has pointed out. But briefly, I would 
like to acknowledge that one of the witnesses is from my 
district and he serves on the front lines to provide clean 
drinking water to the residents of Ann Arbor, Michigan, but he 
is a national expert. Brian Steglitz is the manager for water 
treatment services for the City of Ann Arbor, and this year he 
marks his 22nd year of service. He helped EPA toward them and 
showed them the water treatment center with both Mr. Upton and 
I last summer.
    This committee can learn a great deal from his experience 
and all the good work that is being done at the local level, 
along with the challenges that we still face to safeguard the 
public from the PFAS chemicals. So thank you for being here and 
I look forward to hearing from all of you and asking more 
questions later. Yield back.
    Mr. Tonko.  The Congresswoman yields back. The Chairman 
yields back and--oh, OK. And we will now recognize Mr. Walden, 
the Republican leader of the full committee, for five minutes 
for his opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Walden. Go ahead and ad lib a minute, Mr. Chairman. I 
will get my breath. Thank you. I was down at the FCC hearing. 
So welcome, good morning.
    I know the experience of your constituency in Hoosick 
Falls, New York has driven your intense interest in preventing 
and addressing PFAS contamination. Not only have I heard from 
Republican members like Mr. Upton and Mr. Hudson about the 
anxiety that discoveries of PFAS contamination have caused 
their constituents in Michigan and in North Carolina, but I 
also know the Air National Guard at Kingsley Air Force Base in 
Klamath Falls that they have used this foam with PFAS to fight 
fires in the congressional district I represent in Oregon.
    So, this is a big issue we are all concerned about. In 
fact, a few of these chemicals are quite prevalent while some 
occur in just a few states. Complicating the issue is the 
limitation of what we know about the very broad class of 
chemicals and what we can do about it under existing law. So, 
we need to address the concerns about uncertainty that PFAS 
presents. The test for me in addressing PFAS contamination is 
not the number of bills we pass or the creative ways we try to 
shoehorn solutions into existing statutes; rather, it is 
whether the response we provide can be reasonable, reliable, 
and responsible remedial efforts that get help to people sooner 
rather than later and without detours to the courthouse.
    This is about public health and public safety. For this 
reason, I am not convinced the existing body of environmental 
law may be the best approach to the PFAS contamination 
conundrum and we should not be limited by that universe. We may 
need to think outside the box here. So, I think it makes sense 
to think about addressing this problem within these overarching 
principles.
    First, we need to contain the existing damage and fix the 
demonstrated problem before us. Second, in the process of doing 
that do no harm either to existing sites and communities nor 
exacerbate the existing problem with overreach. And last, we 
need to learn more about the toxicity of the larger class of 
chemicals, commit resources, and take future steps based on 
what we know, not just what we suspect.
    So, if I could give you a couple of examples. Where there 
is merit to the use of Superfund authority to make Federal 
funds available as well as compel reluctant parties such as the 
Department of Defense to clean up these sites, the idea of 
instantly making municipal governments and airports liable for 
every PFAS chemical through no fault of their own is 
concerning. I know some people want the EPA to publish a 
maximum containment level, or MCL, for all PFAS in drinking 
water; however, an MCL is not essential for a Superfund 
cleanup. The EPA has already adjusted downward its lifetime 
health advisory and EPA is working on making a legally 
defensible decision on the regulation PFOA and PFOS.
    I am concerned that short-circuiting the evidence-based, 
science-driven, risk-informed process could force the EPA to 
shortcut necessary elements to issuing a strong and legally 
sustainable regulation. I know right-to-know reporting of PFAS 
holdings is a priority for many and there are places where it 
makes sense. But the bill that was recently introduced would 
massively expand the number of chemicals that would need to be 
reported under the Toxic Release Inventory by as much as 5,000. 
It would also reduce by 90 percent the threshold at which a 
person would be required to report and apply these requirements 
to businesses with less than 10 people.
    Finally, if we are to assume the majority would like all 
these proposals enacted, the cumulative and aggregate effect of 
all these statutory requirements and regulations could have a 
stifling impact on EPA activities. States could face 
significant unfunded mandates while foisting obligations on 
private parties who are currently unaware of potential 
liability, like farmers using biosolids from wastewater 
treatment facilities to improve soil health. All this is likely 
to result in litigation to prevent or prolong the situation 
rather than move to promptly address contamination.
    So, I want to be part of the solution, preferably the one 
reported by this committee and I hope our friends on the other 
side of the aisle are serious, and I believe they are, and 
sincere in their willingness to work with us, which I think 
they are, because this is a big deal and we have got to get it 
right. As currently constituted, the language in the bills 
before us present an enormous sweeping response to the PFAS 
chemical class. It is important we take a close look to make 
sure the actions we take are justified by science.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having this hearing. I 
know we got notice of it Friday and our team were working 
through the weekend to look at all of these bills, but it is 
important to do. We want to move on this as well. With that, 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Mr. Chairman, thanks for recognizing me.
    I know the experience of your constituency in Hoosick 
Falls, NY has driven your intense interest in preventing and 
addressing PFAS contamination. Not only have I heard from 
Republican members, like Mr. Upton and Mr. Hudson, about the 
anxiety that discoveries of PFAS contamination have caused 
their constituents in Parchment, Michigan and within the Cape 
Fear River watershed of North Carolina; but I know that the Air 
National Guard at Kingsley Air Force Base in Klamath Falls have 
used foam with PFAS to fight fires in the congressional 
district I represent as well as two other sites in Oregon. In 
fact, a few of these chemicals are quite prevalent while some 
occur in just a few States.
    Complicating the issue is limitation of what we know about 
the very broad class of chemicals - and what we can do about it 
under existing law. We need to address the concerns about 
uncertainty that PFAS presents.
    The test for me in addressing PFAS contamination is not the 
number of bills we pass or the creative ways we try to shoe 
horn solutions into existing statutes. Rather, it is whether 
the response we provide can be a reasonable, reliable, and 
responsible remedial effort that gets help to people sooner 
rather than later - and without detours to the courthouse.
    For this reason, I am not convinced that the existing body 
of environmental law is the best way to approach the PFAS 
contamination conundrum and we should not be limited by that 
universe.
    I think it makes sense to think about addressing this 
problem within these overarching principles:
    First, we need to contain the existing damage and fix the 
demonstrated problem before us.
    Second, in the process of doing that, do no harm either to 
existing sites and communities, nor exacerbate the existing 
problem with overreach.
    Last, learn more about the toxicity of the larger class of 
chemicals commit resources and take future steps based on what 
we know, not just what we suspect.
    Let me give some examples.
    While there is merit to the use of Superfund authority to 
make federal funds available as well as compel reluctant 
parties, such as the Defense Department, to cleanup these 
sites; the idea of instantly making municipal governments and 
airports liable for every PFAS chemical, through no fault of 
their own, is concerning.
    I know some people want EPA to publish a maximum 
contaminant level (MCL) for all PFAS in drinking water. 
However, an MCL is not essential for a Superfund cleanup, EPA 
has already adjusted downward its lifetime health advisory, and 
EPA is working on making a legally defensible decision on 
regulation of PFOA and PFOS. I am concerned that short-
circuiting the evidence-based, science-driven, risk-informed 
process, will force EPA to short cut necessary elements to 
issuing a strong and legally sustainable regulation.
    I know Right to Know reporting of PFAS holdings is a 
priority for many and there are places where it makes sense, 
but the bill that was recently introduced would massively 
expand the number of chemicals that would need to be reported 
under the Toxic Release Inventory by as much as 5,000. It would 
also reduce by 90 percent the threshold at which a person would 
be required to report and apply these requirements to 
businesses with less than 10 people.
    Finally, if we are to assume the Majority would like all 
these proposals enacted, the cumulative and aggregate effect of 
all these statutory requirements and regulations will have a 
stifling impact on EPA activities. States would face 
significant unfunded mandates, while foisting obligations on 
private parties who are currently unaware of potential 
liability - like farmers using biosolids from wastewater 
treatment facility to improve soil health. All of this is 
likely to result in litigation to prevent or prolong the 
situation, rather than move to promptly address contamination.
    I want to be part of the solution--preferably the one 
reported by this Committee. I hope my Democrat colleagues are 
serious about a sincere effort to work with us to address our 
concerns about breadth and adverse consequences--if so, we can 
get there. As currently constituted, the language in the bills 
before us presents an enormous, sweeping response to the PFAS 
chemical class. It's important that we take a closer look to 
make sure the actions we take are justified by science.
    Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming the witnesses and I 
look forward to learning more in an effort to make our work 
more precise and effective, and EPA's response nimble, 
informed, and positive.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. I was about to 
recognize Representative Upton as you walked in the room, and 
so why don't we recognize you for 30 seconds?
    Mr. Upton. Well, I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, thank 
you for holding this hearing. I appreciate it. I intend to be 
here most of the morning and ask questions at my turn at the 
end as I am not a member of the subcommittee. I am glad that we 
are looking at a whole number of bipartisan bills. This is an 
issue that maybe Michigan knows better than anybody else just 
because we have done more discovery than anybody else, and that 
should then not be an excuse for the rest of us to be engaged 
on an issue that truly impacts the health and safety of every 
American.
    So, I want to thank both of you. And just to conclude, the 
work on TSCA, a bill that we moved with strong, unanimous 
support out of this committee, set the stage for where we are 
today. So again, your leadership there has brought us to where 
we are. We want to work with the administration and get it done 
and I look forward to continuing my questions at the end of the 
hearing. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, the gentleman yields back. The Chair would 
like to remind Members that pursuant to committee rules, all 
Members' written opening statements shall be made part of the 
record.
    With that we will proceed to introduce our witnesses for 
today's hearing. First, I will introduce Ms. Emily Marpe, 
mother and community member from Petersburgh, New York. Emily 
and I have had conversation in the past, and you have a painful 
story and we really appreciate you sharing with us this 
morning.
    Next, we have Dr. Jamie DeWitt, Associate Professor of the 
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at Brody School of 
Medicine at East Carolina University. Then we have Mr. Brian 
Steglitz, who received praise from Congresswoman Dingell, as 
manager in water treatment services at the City of Ann Arbor.
    Then, Mr. Tracy Mehan, Executive Director of Government 
Affairs at American Water Works Association. Then, Ms. Jane 
Luxton, Partner, Co-chair of the Environmental and 
Administrative Law Practice of Lewis Brisbois. Thank you. And, 
Mr. Erik Olson, Health Program Director with Natural Resources 
Defense Council.
    We thank each and every one of you for being here. Before 
we begin with your statements, I would like to explain our 
lighting system, which I believe we have up and running today. 
In front of you are a series of lights. The lights will 
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The 
light will turn yellow when you have 1-minute remaining. Please 
begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will 
turn red when your time expires.
    And at this point, the Chair will now recognize Ms. Emily 
Marpe for five minutes to provide her opening statement.

    STATEMENTS OF EMILY MARPE, MOTHER AND COMMUNITY MEMBER, 
    PETERSBURGH, NEW YORK; JAMIE C. DeWITT, Ph.D, ASSOCIATE 
  PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY, BRODY 
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY; BRIAN STEGLITZ, 
  MANAGER, WATER TREATMENT SERVICES, CITY OF ANN ARBOR; TRACY 
  MEHAN III, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AMERICAN 
 WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION; JANE C. LUXTON, PARTNER, CO-CHAIR OF 
   THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PRACTICE, LEWIS 
 BRISBOIS; AND ERIK D. OLSON, HEALTH PROGRAM DIRECTOR, NATURAL 
                   RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

                    STATEMENT OF EMILY MARPE

    Ms. Marpe. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today. My name is Emily Marpe and I am a 
mother of three. At the beginning of this I was only a mother 
of two. Now I have three. Oh, first up, that is different.
    OK, so first I want to start by thanking two men that 
started the journey for everyone involved, Mr. Rob Bilott and 
Michael Hickey, a resident of Hoosick Falls, for finding the 
contamination in our area. To those two gentlemen I am forever 
grateful and thankful. They saved my family. okay, so in 
February of 2016, I was informed by a letter in the mail that 
they wanted to do a study and test our water for PFOA. After 
the letter, I called, scheduled it. They came, they tested. Our 
private well tested at 2.1 parts per billion of PFOA.
    We called our house ``Cloud Nine,'' because throughout the 
buying process, like we came from a 2-bedroom trailer. At times 
there were seven of us crammed in the 2-bedroom trailer. I 
don't know if you have ever lived in one, but one bathroom--not 
fun. And then I worked so hard to become a first-time homebuyer 
at 29 and to give my children their first home. It was a 3-
bedroom ranch on spacious 2.38 acres, beautiful, private, 
secluded, everything we wanted after we had neighbors at our 
back door for 10 years. I mean, it was great.
    The day I received the results I was just told, ``Stop 
brushing your teeth immediately.'' That is what he said to me 
on the phone. It is just like a drop of water in an Olympic-
sized swimming pool. We then went on to get our blood tested. 
When I pulled in the driveway and got the results, I opened my 
son's first because he spent weekends with his father so I knew 
he was exposed the least. His blood level was 103 parts per 
billion.
    I then moved on to my 10-year-old daughter. She was 207 
parts per billion. That was a little tough to take, seeing the 
increase. I then opened my own. I was 322 parts per billion, 
and then Gwen's father was 418 parts per billion. He was 
comparable to a DuPont worker. And I would like to remind you, 
we only lived there for 4-1/2 years. It is still mind-blowing 
to this day.
    I lost myself. My kids lost their mom. I started missing 
games. I started missing concerts. I was consumed. I fell in 
the PFOA rabbit hole. I couldn't read enough. I couldn't 
research enough. I couldn't meet enough people. I couldn't--I 
brought my calendar from then to show you. Like this is pre-
PFOA, okay. This is after, like it consumed me, literally. 
Gwen, my daughter who is sitting behind me, I still hear it 
today because I still attend meetings and I still do things 
like this.
    They are my family. My job is to protect them. You know, we 
were living the American Dream; our bubble was popped in a 
horrible way. The safety and security of home fell from under 
our feet. I couldn't sleep at night. How do you open your 
window knowing that the stacks are blowing and your kids are 
out in the tent sleeping in your yard and it is falling on 
them, literally falling on them as they sleep? It is not a 
comfortable feeling.
    I ended up selling my home and that was a challenging 
experience in itself. And then 2-1/2 years after I stopped 
drinking the water, I became pregnant with my daughter Eliana. 
I can't express to you the fear of knowing the story of West 
Virginia and Parkersburg and all the towns in Ohio and West 
Virginia. At 20 weeks, most mothers are so excited to find out 
the sex of their child. I was just praying for two nostrils and 
her eyes to be okay. I didn't want her to have to suffer like 
others have. This is Ellie. She is 10 months now. She is 
beautiful.
    When you say there is not enough studies, I have been 
diagnosed with thyroid disease. My daughter Gwen now has a 
pediatric endocrinologist. We are suffering the health effects. 
They are already here and we are only six years later. I don't 
know what else to say, that I mean our lives should be more 
than profit. It is really mind-blowing that it is not.
    Congress needs to treat this as a crisis because it is a 
crisis. I mean all the mothers out there, I couldn't 
breastfeed. I couldn't do the most basic thing a mother does 
for my child because I knew that it would elevate Ellie's 
levels. She already got it from me. When she was seven weeks 
old, she tested at 75.9 parts per billion. She was higher than 
1,573 people out of 2,081 tested in the first round of blood 
testing in Hoosick Falls, New York.
    That is disgusting. Disgusting. At a minimum, Congress 
needs to force companies like Taconic Plastics to report their 
PFAS releases and to force our water utilities to tell us if 
our drinking water is polluted with PFAS chemicals. Most 
importantly, private wells, I mean these people are left 
hanging. My house was a half a mile from the plant. The 
municipal supply got tested before mine. That was a mile away. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Marpe follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Marpe.
    Next, we will move to Dr. DeWitt. You have five minutes to 
present your opening statement.

              STATEMENT OF JAMIE C. DeWITT, Ph.D.

    Dr. DeWitt. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, good morning and 
thank you for inviting me to speak with you about health 
effects of exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or 
PFAS, chemicals that are estimated to contaminate the drinking 
water of 19 million Americans. My name is Dr. Jamie DeWitt and 
I am an associate professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology at 
East Carolina University.
    I have been conducting research on health effects of PFAS 
since 2005 with a focus on the immune system. PFAS as you know 
are a class of nearly 5,000 closely related chemicals. They all 
contain a carbon-fluorine bond. This bond makes them highly 
stable, heat resistant, and versatile in manufacturing 
processes and consumer goods. This bond also makes PFAS 
extremely long-lived in the environment and in our bodies as 
they do not readily biodegrade.
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assesses the 
U.S. population's exposure to environmental chemicals in a 
cross-section of the population. They have reported that 98 
percent of Americans have at least one or more PFAS in their 
blood. Currently, my State of North Carolina is part of the 
PFAS crisis. To better understand PFAS contamination in our 
State and their health risks, I am part of this PFAS Testing 
Network. It is a collaborative partnership of seven different 
North Carolina-based universities using both Federal grants and 
a substantial State investment to focus our PFAS research 
efforts.
    The North Carolina Policy Collaboratory, which was created 
in 2016 by the North Carolina General Assembly to better 
utilize academic expertise across institutions of higher 
learning within our state, oversees the network. We can be a 
model for other states to understand PFAS. Our scientific 
understanding of health effects of PFAS is still growing. Of 
the 5,000 PFAS, two have been very well studied and a handful 
have limited data.
    That said, in the last couple of years there has been a 
concerted effort among researchers to expand our understanding 
of PFAS. A comprehensive evaluation of toxicological data for 
14 different PFAS compiled by the Agency for Toxic Substances 
and Disease Registry reported that people exposed to PFAS 
experience a variety of health effects. These associations 
include decreased antibody responses to vaccines, liver damage, 
changes in serum lipids and cholesterol, increased risk of 
thyroid disease, increased risk of asthma, increased risk of 
decreased fertility, decreases in birth weight, and increases 
in pregnancy-induced preeclampsia and hypertension. Some 
populations have also seen increases in the incidence of kidney 
and testicular cancer associated with exposure.
    These health effects indicate that developing organisms, 
the immune system, the endocrine system, and metabolic systems 
all are sensitive endpoints to PFAS exposure. These also 
indicate that PFAS have carcinogenic abilities. These adverse 
health effects also have been observed in experimental animals 
fed individual PFAS. Data from experimental animals is an 
important component of human health research. It is this 
combination of data from studies of exposed human populations, 
experimental animals, and molecular mechanisms that has 
broadened our understanding of how PFAS exposure leads to 
adverse health effects in humans.
    Prevention, including vaccines, is the first line of 
defense against diseases. We need vaccines to be effective. 
Exposure to PFOA and PFOS, two well-studied PFAS, reduces the 
immune system's ability to produce antibodies, making our 
vaccines less effective. PFAS-associated immune system effects 
observed in epidemiological studies of children and adults and 
in experimental animal studies of individual PFAS have 
supported a causal relationship. In 2016, the National 
Toxicology Program evaluated immune studies of PFOA and PFOS 
and concluded that they are presumed to be immune hazards to 
humans because they can suppress the ability of the immune 
system to make antibodies. There is also evidence that these 
chemicals can have effects on allergic responses, resistance to 
infectious disease, and autoimmune disease.
    It is time for Congress to act. Of the 5,000 known PFAS, 
the vast majority have no associated research data or standards 
for human biomonitoring. But it is not really feasible from a 
time or resource perspective to test our way out of this 
crisis. Employing a class approach for all PFAS will be 
protective for vulnerable subpopulations as well as the general 
public. It is not too late. Following the voluntary removal of 
PFOA and PFOS from our environment, levels of these PFAS have 
decreased in the environment and in our bodies. Since that 
time, however, replacement PFAS have increased in production. 
We need to learn more about these replacement compounds and ask 
ourselves, ``Are these essential for the public good?''
    Thank you for understanding the need for legislation that 
will diminish the number and amounts of PFAS contaminating our 
environment and our bodies.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. DeWitt follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. DeWitt. And we will now move to 
Mr. Brian Steglitz for five minutes, please.

                  STATEMENT OF BRIAN STEGLITZ

    Mr. Steglitz. Good morning, Chairman Tonko and Ranking 
Member Shimkus and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 
Thank you for conducting this hearing and for inviting me to 
testify today. Thanks also to Congressman Upton, Congressman 
Walberg, and Congresswoman Dingell from Michigan for your 
bipartisan commitment and support to address critical public 
health and drinking water issues facing our State and the 
nation. My name is Brian Steglitz and I am the manager for 
water treatment services for the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan.
    The city of Ann Arbor is in southeastern Michigan and our 
utility serves about 125,000 customers, except for about eight 
Saturdays in the fall when the city's pollution doubles. Yes, 
we are home to the University of Michigan Wolverines. In early 
2017, the city began investigating a new type of carbon and its 
filters to remove PFOS from its source waters. In 2018 and 
2019, the city invested approximately $850,000 in this new 
carbon, which is about 10 percent of our operating budget.
    PFOS, however, cannot be addressed with a single capital 
investment. We will need to increase the annual expensive 
carbon replacement by over a factor of two to achieve effective 
PFOS removal at our plant. While we have come up with a 
solution to ensure the city's drinking water is safe and public 
health is protected, removing these chemicals at the end of the 
pipe is not the most cost-effective approach. The best way to 
address these contaminants is at their source.
    Currently, utilities are in a situation where chemicals 
where chemicals of unknown risk are entering circulation, are 
not being monitored, are discharged from industrial sources and 
municipal wastewater treatment plants into watersheds and enter 
the source water for drinking water systems. It may not be 
until chemicals are already detected in drinking water that 
risk assessment and exposure evaluations are initiated. This is 
just too late. For those chemicals that are already in 
circulation and being actively used by industry, more effective 
controls are needed to ensure these chemicals are not allowed 
to enter our watersheds, as well as legislation that would 
require the polluter to cover the cost of abatement.
    As utilities develop solutions to address PFAS 
contaminants, many of these solutions may require significant 
capital investment. How is a utility to be sure that near-term 
investments are able to address long-term public health risks 
when much of the science and public health impacts has yet to 
be developed? While financial resources for utilities to 
address PFAS contamination sites are critical, resources to 
address research are equally important. Until the water 
community can understand the public health risks, it will not 
be able to ensure that appropriate resources are dedicated to 
addressing PFOS.
    There are many other significant needs that cannot be 
neglected as utilities stretch their resources to address PFAS, 
aging infrastructure, lead, algal toxins, to name a few, remain 
at the forefront of water quality issues facing drinking water 
systems. Federal Government leadership will be critical to 
putting the country on the right path to addressing PFAS 
contamination and exposure.
    The most common question we receive from customers is, ``Is 
our water safe to drink?'' Ann Arbor is no different than 
utilities all over the country who are facing this similar 
question. Historically, utilities would commonly answer this 
question with an emphatic, ``Yes, we comply with Safe Drinking 
Water Act requirements.'' Even though this is still true, 
because there are no regulatory limits for any PFAS, this 
response is no longer acceptable to our customers.
    While EPA considers future regulation, many states 
including Michigan are not willing to wait. Over the next few 
years there will likely be many different regulatory approaches 
taken across the United States. Why is this problematic? It is 
difficult to communicate to your customers in New Jersey or 
Minnesota or Vermont that has evaluated the risks to their 
residents differently and that one State places a lower value 
on protection of public health than another. Ann Arbor 
customers as well as many other communities around the United 
States will accept nothing less than the most stringent 
requirements.
    That is why we have taken the approach to select the most 
stringent PFAS limits that exist and use these as our own 
current water quality goals. One may think that we really 
didn't need to take such an aggressive approach, but customer 
confidence and trust is the foundation of a successful utility. 
We along with other utilities around the country will be asking 
much from our customers in the future as we seek rate support 
for much-needed investment. If we are unable to satisfy the 
water quality expectations of our customers, we will not be 
able to sustain the revenue support that we need to ensure that 
we can deliver safe water for the next generations in our 
communities. For these reasons, Federal leadership is critical.
    To recap, we need stronger control of the chemicals that 
enter circulation in the United States, source water protection 
to ensure contaminants do not enter watersheds, to hold 
polluters accountable for cleaning up contaminated sites, 
financial support for research and to implement new treatment 
technologies, and regulatory oversight that has been vetted by 
the best science. With these tools, utilities will be best 
positioned to address PFAS contamination and succeed in their 
common missions to protect public health. Thank you for your 
attention to support an issue.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Steglitz follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Steglitz. And now we recognize 
Mr. Tracy Mehan for five minutes, please.

                  STATEMENT OF TRACY MEHAN III

    Mr. Mehan. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 
Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee. My name is 
Tracy Mehan and I am executive director for Government Affairs 
for the American Water Works Association on whose behalf I am 
speaking today. I appreciate this opportunity as do our members 
to offer AWWA's perspectives on the many pressing issues 
surrounding PFAS.
    Let me--since this is Infrastructure Week, I do want to 
thank the committee for your work on reauthorizing the Safe 
Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund and doubling the 
authorized amount as well as putting WIFIA on a more permanent 
footing. These two programs are key in dealing what is 
paramount threat to public health that is aging and 
deteriorating infrastructure, so my members are most grateful 
for your work on that.
    AWWA's 50,000 members, including 4,000 utility members that 
are subsumed in that 50,000 figures, represent the full 
spectrum of utilities, small and large, rural and urban, 
municipal and investor-owned. So, in addition, I am speaking 
not just as AWWA person, but as a former State and Federal 
regulator and an adjunct professor of environmental law. Let me 
say first up that all our members are conscious, extremely 
conscious of the concerns and the fears and the aspirations of 
our members. We are customer-facing more now than ever. This is 
a post-Flint environment and it--believe me, public affairs 
risk communication are priorities for all of our members and 
good education as to what we know and what we don't know is 
first and foremost in all our members' minds.
    Drinking water utilities and State environmental agencies 
need to know where to focus monitoring resources to understand 
what risks may be in source waters and implement source water 
protection practices and engagement with these sources. That is 
a fundamental principle of what we do, as Brian mentioned. 
There are existing tools that EPA could be using to a greater 
degree to help address such concerns regarding PFAS, in 
particular as was noted, the Toxic Substance Control Act, or 
TSCA. Deploying these TSCA authorities in the service of safe 
drinking water is source water protection at the strategic 
level. Call it prevention, if you will, as Brian indicated.
    Utilizing its oversight authority over the work of Federal 
agencies, we urge Congress to ensure that EPA takes advantage 
of such existing authorities under TSCA to manage risk posed by 
PFAS compounds. Using such authority, we think the Agency needs 
to provide a report in one year and update it every two years, 
describing the location of current and past PFAS production, 
import processing, and use in the United States for individual 
PFAS compounds based on data collected through TSCA. It should 
also show appropriate actions taken or planned under TSCA to 
restrict production, use, and import of PFAS and support 
improved risk communications with the public.
    Also, report on actions taken by other Federal agencies and 
in particular the Department of Defense and Health and Human 
Services to address PFAS concerns. And, finally, report on 
statutory and non-statutory barriers encountered in gathering 
and distributing information on PFAS in order to inform risk 
management decisions by EPA, states, and local risk managers. 
EPA officials have promised to issue a proposed regulatory 
determination for PFAS and PFOA under the Safe Drinking Water 
processes this year. We urge Congress to support EPA's Office 
of Water, particularly on the appropriations side as it works 
through the rule determination process.
    With regard to the Federal drinking water standard process, 
we understand that the process can be frustratingly slow. 
However, a scientific risk-based and data-driven process that 
discerns what substances are to be regulated and at what levels 
is indeed going to take a significant amount of time and 
effort. We caution against setting a precedent of bypassing 
these established processes via legislative action. The nation 
tested this approach with the 1986 amendments to the Safe 
Drinking Water Act with untoward results and I was on the 
receiving end of that as a State official at the Missouri DNR 
at the time.
    That said, we are eager to follow the data on PFAS 
compounds wherever it may go in the investigative process so 
that we may know how best to protect public health. We will 
then prepare our members to comply with any new regulations and 
they will do so expeditiously.
    In our 2012 study, buried no longer, AWWA determined that 
the United States needs to spend about a trillion dollars over 
25 years to maintain, expand, and replace our current level of 
water, drinking water infrastructure, and that is just on the 
drinking water side of the house. Therefore, over time, 
regulatory actions need to be prudently implemented to avoid 
aggravating affordability issues for customers, particularly 
those with low incomes.
    We just came out with our rate survey for 2016 to 2018 and 
it showed that it was up 7.2 to 7.5 percent, twice the level of 
the CPI. So this is a risk-risk situation and we need to target 
real risk and get true reduction and pay attention to the cost 
side. Thank you very much for your time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mehan follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Mehan. And now we recognize Ms. 
Jane Luxton for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF JANE C. LUXTON

    Ms. Luxton. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee for inviting me to 
testify today on legislation that has been introduced to 
address PFAS contamination. My name is Jane Luxton. I am a 
partner in the Washington, DC office of the law firm Lewis 
Brisbois and co-chair of its Environmental and Administrative 
Law Practice. I was informed this morning by committee staff 
that a lawsuit was filed last night in which a firm client is 
named as the defendant. This is the first I have heard of this 
and I am not involved in that case. I am appearing today on my 
own behalf as an environmental and administrative law 
practitioner with decades of experience with environmental 
regulatory matters.
    Today, I would like to speak to the broader issue of the 
challenges surrounding the regulation of PFAS chemicals and 
address a few of the specific bills the committee is 
considering. There is no question this is a serious issue. We 
have heard testimony about the research that has been conducted 
on PFAS chemicals, and the fact is, most of it has been 
concentrated on PFOA and PFOS, but much less is known about the 
other PFAS compounds. These compounds vary in terms of specific 
chemical structure, chain length and composition, and these 
differences matter in terms of fate and degradation in the 
environment as well as toxicity, uptake, and retention in 
humans, plants, and animals.
    Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program 
testified before a Senate subcommittee last fall that ``We do 
not have strong data for which to base conclusions for the 
great majority of thousands of PFAS compounds and we have only 
limited findings that support particular adverse health 
effects.''
    A great deal of academic and governmental research is 
currently underway to determine the extent of causal links 
between exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and the many other PFAS 
compounds and specific health effects in humans. There is a 
solid consensus that more research is needed. There is also 
wide agreement that the Federal Government has an important 
role to play in regulating these chemicals and it is equally 
important that those regulations be based on up-to-date, 
credible scientific research, good data, and legally sound 
procedures.
    Imposing blanket regulations on thousands of PFAS 
chemicals, as some of the proposed legislation proposes to do 
when scientists agree we have, at best, limited information on 
most, risks losing focus on the highest priority concern. As 
the Centers for Disease Control stated in its most recent 
report, ``Finding a measurable amount of PFAS in blood does not 
imply the levels caused an adverse health effect,'' and ``Small 
amounts of PFAS may be of no health consequence,'' an 
indiscriminate approach would impose extraordinary costs on 
Federal agencies, States, and local Governments requiring funds 
they simply do not have, while diluting resources that should 
be targeted on the highest risk chemicals.
    Even chemicals of demonstrably significant concerns such as 
dioxin, PCBs, and PAHs have been found on examination to differ 
significantly in terms of potency among individuals' congeners 
or types of chemicals. The alternative of attempting to impose 
a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating PFAS chemicals poses 
a real risk of doing harm. Bills that direct agencies to issue 
specific Federal regulations can present other challenges.
    For example, agencies must adhere to the rulemaking 
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act which requires 
agencies to follow a series of steps providing for transparency 
and decision making, a defensible administrative record, 
analyses of the benefits and costs of the regulatory action, 
and the feasibility of alternatives and due process in the form 
of public notice and comment if a regulation is to withstand 
review by the courts. It does little good to issue a regulation 
if it is going to be struck down by the courts as inadequate 
under the law. It only leads to delay in the effectiveness of 
any regulatory initiative.
    EPA's action plan includes action under both CERCLA and the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA is taking steps to designate PFOA 
and PFOS as CERCLA-hazardous substances which would provide 
additional power to regulate responsible parties and require 
them to undertake and/or pay for the remediation. But expanding 
this approach to all PFAS compounds as H.R. 535 seeks to do, 
could lead to wholesale reopening of remediated sites 
potentially overwhelming the program and undermining progress 
on the highest risk targets.
    With respect to other bills, H.R. 2577 would amend the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 to 
require reporting on releases of PFAS through the Toxic Release 
Inventory. The PFAS of greatest concern of course are no longer 
being manufactured, so releases of these compounds from 
manufacturing is extremely unlikely.
    Requiring reporting on thousands of other compounds the 
toxicity of which is not established is of uncertain value. 
This proposed legislation would greatly expand reporting 
requirements at great cost.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Luxton follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Luxton. And we now move to Mr. 
Erik Olson for five minutes, please.

                   STATEMENT OF ERIK D. OLSON

    Mr. Olson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Shimkus. I am Erik Olson. I oversee the health team at Natural 
Resources Defense Council and I want to talk about PFAS because 
these chemicals are in pretty much every person in this room is 
carrying PFAS in your body. Many of those compounds have been 
tested and many have not been tested and we are actually all 
walking around as guinea pigs being exposed to these chemicals, 
carrying them in our bodies and in many cases, there are 
adverse health effects that we are very concerned about.
    I spent part of last night with about 30 individuals from 
across the country who have come to DC to talk about their 
experience with PFAS contamination. Much like Emily's story, we 
heard about people whose family members who had birth defects, 
people who are suffering from cancer of the testicles, cancer 
of the kidneys, other effects that really are of concern. These 
are real worries. And unfortunately, this class of chemicals 
shares three very consistent properties that are really 
worrisome.
    One is, they are very toxic at low doses. When we test them 
and we look at them, the more we learn, the more toxic we know 
they are. Secondly, they are extremely persistent. These are 
forever chemicals. The carbon-fluorine bond makes them that 
way. And we now know at least 600 sites across the country are 
contaminated and we haven't looked in most places. I can 
guarantee you that every congressional district has a PFAS 
contamination problem, it just may not have been discovered 
yet. And, thirdly, they are all very mobile. And the reason 
that is a problem is they get into drinking water. They get 
into soils. They get into people.
    The health effects we have heard about and they are in many 
cases heartbreaking, I want to talk about what we need to do 
about this problem. Unfortunately, we have got a class of 
chemicals as you have heard, 3 to 5 thousand of these, about 
4,700 according to many reports. We need to deal with this 
class. Think about how we could possibly regulate these one by 
one. If you have 4,700 chemicals and it takes EPA years to 
regulate a single chemical, how many millennia is it going to 
take to regulate thousands of chemicals? We have got to deal 
with this as a class. We know that they share common properties 
and we know that they are causing adverse effects in too many 
cases.
    So, first of all, we need to stop approving new uses of 
these chemicals and new PFAS chemicals. And there is a bill by 
Ms. Dean that would do that. We need to also phase out the 
existing products. Ms. Dean's bill would phase out existing 
products. Ms. Kuster's bill, actually, would address the new 
products and the new uses and we need to stop those.
    Secondly, we need to document and disclose the extent of 
the problem, so it is important to be monitoring groundwater 
and drinking water, figure out how widespread the problem is. 
There is legislation that would do that, have USGS do that. We 
think there is a need for new legislation not yet introduced 
that would force comprehensive monitoring of drinking water. We 
have seen it in Michigan, and when you test, when Michigan 
tested, they found sites all over the State with contamination. 
Most states have not done this. In fact, virtually no other 
State has done anything close to what Michigan has done.
    We need to also make sure that the manufacturers and 
processors disclose the use and also the discharges, releases 
of those chemicals. And we certainly have a bill from Antonio 
Delgado that would address that through the Toxic Release 
Inventory. We also need consumers to be informed so they can 
make intelligent choices. If you go into the grocery store or 
you go into Target, it would be good to know whether the 
products you are buying have PFAS on them.
    We would like a safer choice program that would deal with 
the full array of consumer products and disclose. We also think 
it is important to have cleanup authorities. One of the big 
issues here--and, Mrs. Dingell, thank you for introducing a 
bill with Mr. Upton that would address these issues under 
Superfund. It is very important to have class of PFAS 
controlled under CERCLA so that we can ensure cleanup. 
Polluters should be paying for the cleanup and we certainly 
support a user fee that would help ensure that some of those 
polluters are paying. We need regulation of the air emissions 
and the water emissions under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water 
Act.
    Sewage sludge contamination is a big problem. We talked 
last night to a farmer in Maine who had applied sewage sludge 
to his dairy area where his cattle were grazing, severe 
contamination of all of his cows. He has to throw away all his 
milk. He is going to have to basically get rid of his dairy 
cows because they are so contaminated. So we need to deal with 
all these sources and ultimately clean up the contamination 
that has already been caused. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Dingell [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony. We 
have concluded the witnesses' opening statements. We now will 
move to member questions. Each Member will have five minutes to 
ask questions of our witnesses, and I get to start by 
recognizing myself for five minutes.
    So, when I quickly acknowledged one of our witnesses 
earlier, I talked--and several of the witnesses mentioned how 
Michigan has been hard hit by PFAS. It is in our drinking 
water, groundwater, rivers, lakes, and ponds. It has 
contaminated fish and other wildlife. PFAS foam is still 
washing up and collecting across the State in places like the 
Huron River Watershed which goes throughout my district and 
your former military bases. We have even had to tell people, 
``Don't eat the foam.'' I know you would think you wouldn't 
have to tell people that but you do.
    This chemical is impacting both Democratic and Republican 
districts, and Fred Upton, Tim Walberg, and I are all very 
concerned in working together. So, as you say, Michigan is 
ground zero for PFAS sites, but it is because we are looking at 
it and addressing it which many other states are not. It is a 
growing threat nationwide. Comprehensive and bipartisan 
solutions exist today to deal with these toxic, manmade, 
forever chemicals. We are serious in a very bipartisan way 
about ridding these hazardous chemicals wherever they exist 
from our drinking water, firefighting foams, consumer products, 
food containers--that bill is coming--and the air we breathe. 
Each of these bills we are considering today, most with 
bipartisan support, are meaningful solutions. Congress must 
move forward and now.
    So, because we have got so many of you and I am going to 
personal privilege, Brian, these questions are going to be for 
you. I am going to begin with you. Can you explain the 
technologies you are employing as well as the costs you have 
experienced to remove PFAS from Ann Arbor's drinking water?
    Mr. Steglitz. We currently use carbon, granular activated 
carbon and concrete filters to remove the PFAS. As the water 
flows through the filter media the PFAS attaches to the carbon 
particles. When the filters are washed the PFAS stays attached, 
so the PFAS can only be removed through high temperature 
thermal treatment. And this is the way that PFAS can be 
destroyed, which is really important when we are looking for 
solutions to address PFAS contamination so we are not moving 
the PFAS from one source or media to another. It is important 
for these chemicals to be destroyed because if they are not, 
they can make it back into the environment.
    On the cost impact for our customers had been a three to 
four percent rate increase to deal with the one-time 
replacement of the carbon and approximately one percent per 
year after due to the increased frequency that we need to.
    Mrs. Dingell. Are there any innovative solutions to address 
PFAS contamination from a watershed approach that you are 
considering?
    Mr. Steglitz. It is more effective to remove these 
contaminants and chemicals at the source. The City has begun 
conversations with the State of Michigan and upstream sources 
to evaluate implementing more robust treatment for these 
chemicals and dealing with that in watershed as opposed to the 
end of the pipe. The reason why this is innovative is because 
right now industrial dischargers, municipal wastewater 
treatment plants, and drinking water treatment plants are all 
regulated in silos.
    So by looking at the PFAS contamination from the watershed 
approach, we can come up with more effective solutions to 
address the pollution at the place where it is most cost 
effectively removed.
    Mrs. Dingell. I am going to ask you two questions quickly 
because we are running out of time. I know that Ann Arbor 
residents, because I hear from them regularly like you do, are 
worried about the safety of their chemicals. And how are you 
communicating the risks and how does the Federal Government 
help you, and in the absence of Federal leadership what actions 
are the City of Ann Arbor and Michigan taking, and from a water 
utilities perspective how important is Federal leadership to 
effectively protect human health and the environment from PFAS?
    Mr. Steglitz. Well, we found that transparent and frequent 
communication was critical to maintaining support from our 
customers. By statute we are obligated to report on our water 
quality annually, but beginning this month in May, we decided 
to do monthly water quality reports that have a dashboard for 
our customers to illustrate current water quality, and a copy 
of our report is included with my written testimony. We have 
had a lot of good feedback from our customers on this approach 
and we have been posting all of our analytical results to our 
website which is qualitywatermatters.org.
    There is a lot of good information that ATSDR and EPA have 
on their websites about PFAS, but the real challenge that we 
are facing is how do you communicate about contaminants where 
the risk is unknown and the science is developing? And this is 
a place where more Federal leadership would be helpful to 
provide us the tools that we need to communicate around these 
difficult issues.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I am going to quickly move to Mr. 
Olson because we are running out of time. But, Mr. Olson, if 
PFAS chemicals were listed as a hazardous substance under the 
Superfund program, what would this mean for the 610 PFAS 
contamination sites identified across 43 states and our ability 
to clean up these harmful chemicals in the environment?
    Mr. Olson. Well, it would help to designate them under the 
Superfund law because it would give the muscular authority to 
the Federal Government and to states to try to force cleanup at 
a lot of these sites. They would have to prioritize the sites. 
They would have to evaluate how severe the contamination was 
and then construct some kind of program to make sure that they 
clean them up, which is really important.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I am out of time, so I will now 
yield to Mr. Shimkus for five minutes.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman. So many questions, 
so little time.
    So, I want to go to Mr. Mehan. Some of my colleagues have 
made the argument that we need to force EPA to regulate all 
PFAS, and we have already been talking about that. I mean we 
are talking 4 to 6 thousand chemicals--because EPA has an issue 
to regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act since 1996. Do 
you agree that EPA has been sitting on its regulatory hands for 
the past 22-plus years through multiple administrations when it 
comes to drinking water?
    Mr. Mehan. Thank you.
    Mr. Shimkus. And be quick, I have got a whole----
    Mr. Mehan. Yes. No, it is an urban legend. When I was at 
the Agency in 2001, we got out the Arsenic Rule. That was a 
long effort. It wasn't fast, but we got it out. There has been 
a Radionuclides Rule. There is a Filter Backwash Recycle Rule. 
There are two Disinfection Byproducts rules. There is an 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Long Term 1 and Long 
Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Groundwater Rule, 
Lead and Copper Rule has been revised, Revised Total Coliform 
Rule, we have 15 health advisories that while they are not 
MCLs, they have impacts. We are here today because of a health 
advisory on this issue.
    There have also been five information request rules that 
have put literally hundreds of millions of dollars of burden on 
utilities. I mean Brian could probably speak to this. And, in 
addition, we have to look at the overall regulatory effort that 
goes on with the Candidate Contaminant List and the Unregulated 
Contaminate Monitoring Rule by which the Agency under the law 
winnows and sifts what risks need to be regulated, and in that 
process they have identified 24 or so contaminants that should 
not be regulated, which is as important as identifying those 
that should.
    So we certainly don't feel like they have taken a vacation.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes, thank you. Let me cut you off there. And 
you mentioned lead and copper, which we think is coming 
relatively soon; perchlorate, probably another one that is 
going to be coming relatively soon.
    Mr. Mehan. I think that is more than probable, right, under 
a court order.
    Mr. Shimkus. Right. And so, I mean so here is the issue. We 
have a process. We have a system. So, if someone would litigate 
those rules, if they go through the process they would probably 
lose in court. If we supersede the system by doing a law 
without going through the regulatory process of testing, do we 
risk nothing happening on this?
    Mr. Mehan. Well, I take the Agency at their word. They are 
certainly looking at----
    Mr. Shimkus. No, I am just talking about if we go the whole 
class of chemicals without--we know that the most studied of 
these are PFOS and PFOA, right?
    Mr. Mehan. At this moment, yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. Right. And we have got 4 to 6 thousand 
chemicals. If we, by legislative fiat, ban 4 to 5 thousand 
chemicals without the due diligence of a scientific analysis, 
do we risk infinitum litigation and no action on this?
    Mr. Mehan. I don't want to pre-judge litigation, but you 
would probably see a lot of people concerned about precipitous 
action without a good risk assessment and benefit-cost 
analysis.
    Mr. Shimkus. Let me go to Ms. Luxton. I know there are 
concerns with GenX and about two dozen other PFAS chemicals. 
You have already heard the 4 thousand, 6 thousand other 
derivations of this. Are you aware of any class of chemicals 
that has been regulated so thoroughly without regard to actual 
supporting evidence of toxicity?
    Ms. Luxton. No, that has not been done. And as I mentioned 
in my testimony, dioxins, PCBs, PAHs, many other highly toxic 
substances have been on study discovered to have significant 
differences in toxicity and uptake and impacts on human health 
with respect to the specific compound. And it does matter which 
type of PFAS we are talking about.
    Mr. Shimkus. So, if we go down this course would this 
precedent bother you?
    Ms. Luxton. Yes, I think there would be litigation. There 
is no question. And to just sort of impose blanket bans is 
highly risky. It risks overcorrecting, if you want to put it 
that way, and changing, diluting the priorities that need to be 
focused on the highest risks.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and let me go to Mr. Steglitz, because I 
do believe that our water providers do the best they can to 
meet the standards. There is a lot of capital cost. If you were 
asked to regulate a chemical that was safe, would you want to 
do that? If you had to clean out a chemical from the water 
system that was safe and it cost a huge capital expense, would 
you say, ``I am going to do that?''
    Mr. Steglitz. We obviously have limited resources, so we 
would want to be focusing on the contaminants that have public 
health risk.
    Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you very much.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. The chairman now 
yields five minutes to Chairman Pallone.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say it 
just seems like everywhere we look for these toxic chemicals in 
water we find them. There is so much that needs to be done. But 
one of the things I always believed is that polluters are 
responsible for this contamination and they should be 
responsible primarily for the cleanup. And so I was pleased to 
see a strong action in my home State of New Jersey with this 
lawsuit filed just yesterday against the makers of PFAS 
firefighting foam.
    But I wanted to ask, you know, I mentioned 13 different 
bills. Let me just ask some questions about some of them. 
First, H.R. 2377, introduced by Representative Boyle, sets a 
deadline for EPA to set a national drinking water standard for 
total PFAS. Again, New Jersey has set a maximum contaminant 
level for some PFAS. That is the first in the country.
    But let me ask Mr. Olson, first. How would a national 
drinking water standard protect communities in states without 
standards and how could it drive up Superfund cleanups?
    Mr. Olson. Well, basically there is an urgent need for 
standards, enforceable standards for drinking water. We believe 
that the states are moving forward. You mentioned New Jersey. 
Several other states are moving forward, Michigan and others, 
with drinking water standards. The problem is that some states 
are not doing that.
    So, ideally, you would like strong, health protective 
national standards and Mr. Boyle's bill would require standards 
to be set for the class. Our main concern is that the 
underlying statute under the Safe Drinking Water Act when it 
was amended in 1996 makes it virtually impossible to set 
strong, good standards, or it makes it very challenging for EPA 
to move forward with new standards of unregulated contaminants.
    Mr. Pallone. And that is why we would need a legislation.
    Mr. Olson. That is right.
    Mr. Pallone. What about driving Superfund cleanups? How 
would that impact it?
    Mr. Olson. Well, Superfund cleanups, Superfund lists 
chemicals that have a maximum contaminant level. Those are 
considered what are called ``applicable, relevant, and 
appropriate regulations,'' or ARARs that would drive the 
cleanup.
    Mr. Pallone. OK.
    Mr. Steglitz, how could a national drinking water standard 
help affected water systems access State Revolving Loan funds 
to address PFAS contamination?
    Mr. Steglitz. Well, some states have requirements for 
regulatory compliance as a driver for receiving points as 
potential products are evaluated for competing resources, so it 
would help facilitate access to revolving loan funds in some 
states.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, there is a standard of course and only 
part of the solution, and whether or not a standard is in place 
drinking water utilities are moving forward with PFAS 
treatment. So again, Mr. Steglitz, what capital costs has your 
water system faced in addressing PFAS contamination?
    Mr. Steglitz. We spent just under a million dollars to 
replace some of our filter media, but we will also have an 
ongoing cost of approximately $350,000 a year to replace 
because it has a limited life expectancy when you are using the 
filter carbon for PFAS removal.
    Mr. Pallone. And what is the effect of this on your 
operations and maintenance costs?
    Mr. Steglitz. The capital investment was about a three to 
four percent increase in revenue that we required that we had 
to pass on to our customers and then the continuing operation 
and maintenance costs will be about one percent.
    Mr. Pallone. So, Mr. Mehan, can water utilities across the 
country absorb those kinds of costs without additional 
assistance? Are they going to be able to do that without 
additional assistance?
    Mr. Mehan. Well, one of our members, and Dr. DeWitt may be 
up on this, Cape Fear, North Carolina, which had the issue with 
Chemours and GenX, is actually spending $40 million, I think, 
for granular activated carbon. They are sucking it up. Their 
ratepayers are going to pick that up. And that was a pretty up-
to-speed system, if I can use that term.
    So, yes. Right now they will do what they have to do if 
there is public demand and political leadership demanding that 
it be treated. But again, there is no question that if you do 
5,000 chemicals under an MCL or a treatment standard, that is 
going to have unforeseen costs that are going to affect other 
investments whether it is lead service line replacement or 
dealing with microbial disinfection byproducts. We haven't 
talked about that. That is a big priority.
    Mr. Pallone. All right, let me just get in one more 
question to Mr. Olson about adoption of more effective drinking 
water treatment techniques and how it benefits public health. 
I'm sorry to cut you off, but just wanted to get one question--
--
    Mr. Olson. Well, I think it is important. And one issue 
with these technologies like granular activated carbon or 
reverse osmosis are two of the technologies, they are going to 
remove much of the class. Especially reverse osmosis, it is 
going to--if you regulate it as a class, it is going to take 
care of that entire class. So I think it is a little bit of a 
false argument to say that we can't regulate that whole class 
because the treatment technologies actually are going to remove 
a full array. So the GAC may or may not remove certain of them; 
in some cases you may need to go to a reverse osmosis.
    Mr. Pallone. And that obviously benefits public health.
    Mr. Olson. It has enormous public health benefits because 
people won't be exposed.
    Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman concludes, so we will now 
recognize Representative Rodgers for five minutes, please.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
represent Fairchild Air Force Base, which is the largest tanker 
base in America and the largest employer in Spokane County, 
which in recent years has been leading some discovery efforts 
in our community around the base to test for PFAS contamination 
in the water supply for the base as well as in the 
neighborhoods and community around the base.And this 
contamination has largely been pointed to the uses of 
firefighting foam through the years. We all agree that we need 
to better understand the issue and the impact PFAS is having on 
many of us.
    I would like just to--Mr. Mehan, I would like to ask about 
your current research efforts into PFAS and the family of 
chemicals. Your testimony notes that additional research is 
needed to develop analytical methods to quantify levels of PFAS 
compounds in environmental samples like water supplies. If 
science is currently unable to even detect the presence of some 
PFAS compounds in water supplies, how would a water system be 
able to determine whether the filters or any effort to treat 
for the compound has been effective?
    Mr. Mehan. Well, there are a few methods for some of the 
PFAS and more are being developed by EPA, but we don't really 
have it for wastewater and soil. So there is, you know, a vast 
frontier of research that is needed out there. I was happy to 
see EPA just let out 3.9 million on research projects.
    But when I think of the--I spent eight years in Michigan 
working on Great Lakes issues. When I think of the whole issue 
with chlorinated compounds and chlorine and organic chlorines, 
that was a 20-, 30-year effort, you know, and there are many, 
many chlorinated compounds. We got down to a list of 25 and we 
worked that hard and got maximum risk reduction for a 
reasonable investment.
    So I don't see--I, quite frankly, take issue with Erik on 
that we know what the benefits and the costs are, what 
technologies are available, what methods will tell us. Again, I 
will defer to Dr. DeWitt on the science. I am a recovering 
lawyer, not a scientist. But we are in unknown territory here.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Well, do you believe it would be 
wise for EPA to promulgate a drinking water regulation for this 
family of chemicals for human biomonitoring?
    Mr. Mehan. When you say a family, you mean the whole family 
of PFAS?
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Or this----
    Mr. Mehan. I don't know how they can do 5,000. Now there is 
some precedent, the disinfection byproducts I mentioned where 
they have a suite of MCLs and treatment standards dealing with 
a bundle of them, and that was done through a very 
collaborative Federal FACA, Federal advisory committee process. 
This one, I confess, I don't know how you, you know, unless you 
just acted without information, without a risk assessment, 
without benefit-costs, without knowing technology, how you do 
that whole family. It just defies my understanding anyway.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Steglitz, I wanted to ask you some about the Michigan 
example and just the work that was done at the State level and 
how that has supplemented or supplanted maybe what is going on 
at the Federal level either at EPA or DoD, and do you--how do 
you believe these State initiatives can work best with the 
Federal level?
    Mr. Steglitz. If I understand your question correctly, are 
you speaking about the testing that this State has done to 
identify sources?
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Has the State laid out some 
standards?
    Mr. Steglitz. So Michigan is in the process of establishing 
recommended MCLs for PFAS compounds. It is unclear how many. 
Dr. DeWitt is participating in that process, so by October of 
2019 Michigan is supposed to have recommendations to the 
Governor on MCLs and how these chemicals will be regulated.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK, so there is nothing currently at 
the State level. It is----
    Mr. Steglitz. Not currently.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK. How do you see that working with 
efforts at the Federal level? Are you working closely with EPA 
as you are working, moving forward?
    Mr. Steglitz. My understanding is that EPA Region 5 is 
engaged with the process. But Michigan is really taking this, 
the leadership, they are moving forward with this because 
they--of all of the testing and the analytical work that has 
been done in Michigan to identify sources of PFAS 
contamination, so really not waiting for EPA, moving forward on 
their own because of, really, the demand from the residents of 
Michigan.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK, OK. Thank you.
    I will yield the rest of my time, yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back. I will now 
recognize myself for five minutes.
    Identifying the different chemicals in this class and 
understanding the differences between them is challenging for 
us as lawmakers, but it is especially challenging for the 
affected communities, so I appreciate that the legislation 
before us today addresses these chemicals as a class. That 
approach ensures that we address all of the chemicals of 
concern and avoid dangerous substitutions. I believe the 
question of whether we treat PFAS as a class will be a central 
question as we move forward with legislation, so I would like 
to hear from the panel about this approach.
    Mr. Olson, do you think it is important to treat PFAS as a 
class for regulatory purposes?
    Mr. Olson. It is crucial to treat them as a class for 
several reasons. One is this carbon-fluorine bond that makes 
them all share a lot of similar properties. Secondly, the more 
we study any of these individual compounds, the more we find 
they are toxic at low doses. We have a big whack-a-mole problem 
where if we regulate PFOA and PFOS, there are a couple others, 
they just move to GenX and then we study GenX and they move to 
another, and we have 4,700 of these things and we will never 
finish regulating. And, finally, two major scientific 
statements by the Helsingor Statement and the Madrid Statement 
from 200 scientists say that we should regulate these as a 
class because of their similarities.
    Mr. Tonko. And so the challenges that you see with trying 
to regulate individual PFAS one by one pretty much gets 
addressed by the fact that you said they can be just 
transferred over?
    Mr. Olson. That is right. You can--that is the problem is 
that if you don't regulate them as a class, we simply have this 
whack-a-mole treadmill where never get around to really 
regulating things.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, we have bills before us that touch on 
multiple statutes, so I would like to make sure that I 
understand as we go forward. Do you think PFAS should be 
treated as a class when we are adopting treatment techniques to 
remove them from drinking water?
    Mr. Olson. Yes. And I think EPA could issue a treatment 
technique rule that would say use this technology, it will 
remove the full class. That would--rather than setting MCLs for 
4,000 or 600 or however many individual chemicals.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, what about when we are cleaning up 
Superfund sites?
    Mr. Olson. Again, I think EPA could move forward with some 
treatment requirements. They could have certain chemicals that 
are sentinel chemicals. If they are detected then start 
requiring treatment.
    Mr. Tonko. And what about when we are reporting releases 
under the Toxic Release Inventory, would identifying each 
individual PFAS release be challenging?
    Mr. Olson. Well, I think there will be some challenges. We 
would like to see perhaps identifying some chemicals that would 
have to explicitly be disclosed and then the full class, so 
that we have an idea of downstream sources if they know where 
it is coming from but you also have captured the full class.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And given what we know about the 
speed at which EPA is addressing chemicals since the Lautenberg 
Act, what about under TSCA whether we are requiring testing, 
banning new PFAS or comprehensively regulating all PFAS?
    Mr. Olson. We are very concerned about how slow that will 
be if Congress doesn't intervene. And it was this committee, 
actually, on PCBs, Mr. Dingell, who led the charge to ban PCBs 
as a class. I think, really, we need to go forward with a 
class-oriented approach under TSCA.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, any other examples of EPA doing that as a--
--
    Mr. Olson. There are many examples. Dioxins is another 
example and there are others where EPA has regulated classes.
    Mr. Tonko. Turning to Dr. DeWitt, I understand that PFAS 
share important chemical characteristics so I want to 
understand whether they share toxicological profiles. Do you 
agree that these chemicals should be treated as a class?
    Dr. DeWitt. I do agree. And I think that Mr. Olson has made 
some very important points about the carbon-fluorine bond which 
is what these compounds all have in common. This bond makes 
them impossible to degrade. This bond is very strong. So as far 
as we know, all PFAS are persistent. They are going to be in 
the environment. They can move into our bodies. Once they get 
into our bodies they can interact with various receptors. And 
as I mentioned, they can affect the immune system. They can 
induce cancer. They can affect the endocrine system. And they 
can affect lipid metabolism. These are common toxicities we 
observe.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. When this subcommittee held a hearing 
on PFAS in September, we heard testimony from a resident of 
North Carolina whose drinking water showed 26 different PFAS 
were present, many she could not even identify. So, Ms. Marpe, 
given how hard it can be for affected communities to identify 
the specific PFAS in their air and water, is it important to 
you that we take action to address all PFAS rather than just a 
select few?
    Ms. Marpe. It is extremely important. I mean when I was 
telling you my story, we were tested in our blood for six PFAS 
chemicals and we had five out of the six. So even though I told 
you about our PFOA blood levels, we have other chemicals. We 
have PHXpA, PhFPS. Like, they are there. PFNA. As a mom, like 
filter it, filter the water. I mean human health should come 
first. Nobody should have to experience what we have gone 
through.
    I mean the solutions are there, everybody just needs to 
come together and meet in the middle and find the common 
ground. It shouldn't be cost over human health. No family 
should go through what we went through. Nobody. My 
grandchildren are going to have these chemicals, okay. My 
grandchildren. My daughter is going to pass these chemicals to 
her children, okay, if she decides to have a child in the next 
five, six years. That is and through no fault of her own.
    From bathing. From having a glass of water. You know, I was 
strict. Believe it or not, I was really strict. No soda. Milk 
or water.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Now the chair recognizes Representative McKinley for five 
minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you, Ms. 
Marpe, for your reference back to Parkersburg and Vienna, West 
Virginia. That is my district and it was three years ago we 
spent a great deal of time trying to address this issue and 
figure out how we might be able to resolve it. And one of the 
resolutions there was the activated carbon filters, and that 
worked. But it opened up this whole education process and we 
learned three years ago, opened up more questions.
    And so I may be at odds with my party, but I am also, I am 
at odds with this whole issue trying to understand it as an 
engineer. I am one of just two licensed professional engineers 
in Congress. So because what I look on this, one thing we 
learned was 80 percent of our exposure to PFAS is 80 percent of 
is not water, it is from the food we eat. CDC came out with, 
their report said drinking water, ingesting food, from fish and 
shellfish, packaged food, packaged products, hand to mouth, 
primarily with carpeting. So you can get that from carpeting, 
the dust and the filter with that and just working in a plant. 
So we have got other than just water we should be addressing.
    OK, now with that, the Geneva--they just had a conference 
in Geneva two weeks ago. Because what I am concerned about is 
imports. We can take an action in America and deal with it, but 
until there is a global consciousness of this--and we are 
importing--we are still going to have this exposure to it. And 
what they did just two weeks ago in Geneva, they exempted all 
the products we are worried about. They exempted firefighting 
foam. They exempted implantable medical devices, fluorinated 
polymers--that is our Teflon. They exempted plastic accessories 
for car interior parts and they exempted manufacturing electric 
wires.
    I am just saying, folks, we can chase this rabbit about 
water, but there are a lot more problems associated. We are not 
going to be addressing that especially because we are part of a 
global community and we are going to be importing things that 
come in that are going to be contaminated and continue to do 
this. So I am concerned about how we are going to protect 
ourselves from being exposed in the future in other than water.
    So, Mr. Mehan, can you explain or give me a little bit of 
guidance here on how we might address this if, globally, there 
is not a ban on Teflon?
    Mr. Mehan. Well, I think you raise a very good point. And I 
must say, I think the general view that the committee has taken 
and I think Erik's written comments, this is a multimedia 
problem. It is a multidimensional problem. A global 
comprehensive approach makes sense. I mean looking at 
Superfund, TSCA, as I mentioned in my remarks, and, you know, 
we will look at MCLs and things like that through the process 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. So yes, we certainly view 
ourselves as at the receiving end of this problem as utilities 
and certainly our customers feel the same way. So yes, I think 
everything should be on the table and looked at in terms of 
what makes sense and is reasonable in terms of reducing risk 
across the whole spectrum.
    Mr. McKinley. They even went to China and the European 
Union have asked for exemptions to the whole ban. So I am just 
curious, as long as we are going to be importing products 
coming in, especially food products from the European Union, 
and carpeting, because that is where our toddlers, that is 
where they are going to get exposed to it, I think we have--
let's--we need to slow this train down just a little bit, do a 
better analysis of how we might approach this globally and push 
back.
    But apparently, we lost the fight at Stockholm and Geneva 
and we are allowing these products to be manufactured and 
shipped to us. Yes, maybe we can't make it, but other people 
can and they come in, and our children, your children, your 
grandchildren are going to be exposed to something not because 
of an American manufacturer, but because of a European Union 
manufacturer or a Chinese manufacturer.
    I think we better--you explain. Is there a way we can 
approach this from a global perspective?
     Mr. Mehan. Well, you are getting into issues of 
international environmental law and trade policy and I 
certainly am not an expert in that. I know you hear a lot of 
talk from Europeans about the cautionary principle and reverse 
burden and then they make exceptions. They don't have a tort 
law regime like we do.
    So I think we need to keep our wits about us and do what it 
takes to protect our environment, our public health, and our 
people. And I think you are on to something there, looking at 
the international dimension of the problem.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 
five minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. I thank the chair and the ranking member and 
I thank the witnesses this morning. I am sure this can be a 
difficult hearing for you. But there is common ground to move 
forward on the legislation, so I want to move to the issue of 
air emissions of PFAS. We know PFAS are being released into the 
air during manufacturing processes and during, and some of 
those products during their disposal. We also know that PFAS 
dust is an issue when contaminated sites are cleaned up.
    Last September we heard from a resident of North Carolina 
who testified that her community was finding PFAS in rainwater 
80 miles away from the factory that was producing the 
chemicals. Last month, I questioned the EPA Administrator 
Wheeler about funding that research and ensuing we address PFAS 
air emissions. Administrator Wheeler did not want to commit on 
those emissions.
    Dr. DeWitt, what are the risks presented by air emissions 
of PFAS?
    Dr. DeWitt. I think you have hit upon a point where we 
really do need some additional information. But I think if we 
look at how these compounds move around in the environment and 
if we look at people's exposure levels to compounds that 
shouldn't be in the environment, then we can start to make some 
guesses about how these compounds impact us when we take them 
up either through the skin or through inhalation. For example, 
in Parkersburg, West Virginia, the boundary of PFOA has not 
been discovered from this point source into water, so we know 
that these compounds can move very far away from points of 
origin. They can even move in from other countries.
    We do have some very proactive organizations within our 
country and within the European Union working to reduce these 
compounds at the source. There are manufacturers within the 
U.S. and IKEA in Europe are working very hard to do source 
reduction which will help to reduce all sources of PFAS 
exposure through their own incentives to help consumers make 
appropriate choices.
    Mr. McNerney. And, Ms. Marpe, for a community like yours, 
you are doing everything you can to get PFAS out of the 
drinking water. How does PFAS in air pollution complicate that?
    Ms. Marpe. Air pollution is one of the reasons I moved and 
I sold my house to get away from the smokestacks. I mean it is 
so ambiguous and it is everywhere. So I find it very hard to 
believe that I will be able to protect my children unless they 
are on filtered water and that is why we chose to move to 
Hoosick Falls.
    A lot of people asked me, ``Why did you pick there? Why 
would you go somewhere where the problem was worse?'' Well, 
first of all, my house in Petersburgh was worse than the whole 
village's supply, but I went there because I didn't have to 
have the polluter coming into my space and violating my home. I 
mean that is the main reason I moved. Our safety and security, 
I was literally tied to the polluter. Every three months they 
had to come into my home, sample my water, you know, to protect 
my kids from the water is essential.
    Mr. McNerney. So, I mean you have tools for protecting you 
from the water, but the air, you basically had to sell your 
house.
    Ms. Marpe. It is everywhere. What are we going to do? We 
can't filter our entire earth. I mean you have it in polar 
bears.
    Mr. McNerney. Yes.
    Ms. Marpe. It is in their blood. The national average is 
two. You probably have two parts per billion in your blood.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Ms. Marpe. You are welcome.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, there are strong arguments in favor of 
H.R. 2605 introduced by Representative Stevens to list PFAS as 
a hazardous air pollution under the Clean Air Act.
    Mr. Olson, how would adding PFAS to the hazardous air 
pollution list help communities, public health, and the 
environment?
    Mr. Olson. Well, it is crucial to address all the media 
that we are exposed to. You just heard a personal story from 
Emily about being exposed. There are a lot of people that are 
downwind of facilities that are releasing PFAS that have no 
idea they are being exposed. We really do need to list PFAS as 
hazardous air pollutants so that we can ensure that there will 
be controls.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, the Clean Air Act has 187 hazardous air 
pollutants on its list, 17 in the list are in the group of 
chemicals like mercury compounds and polycyclic organic matter. 
Why should PFAS be included as a group on the HAP list?
    Mr. Olson. Well, I think for exactly the reason we have 
just heard, that they are very toxic at very low doses. They 
are extremely persistent. They are forever chemicals and they 
are quite mobile. They move well beyond where that stack is 
emitting it. They are going to move downwind for many miles, so 
we really need from a public health standpoint to ensure that 
people are protected from those emissions.
    And think about the incinerators as well that are not 
really regulated. If they are incinerating this waste at low 
temperatures that stuff is just going up in the air and we are 
moving it from one media to another one, so we need hazardous 
air pollutant rules for them.
    Mr. McNerney. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. We now move to those 
who have waived on to the subcommittee. We appreciate your 
interest. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, 
Mr. Upton, for five minutes.
    Mr. Upton. Well, thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I really 
appreciate being allowed to sit on this subcommittee that I am 
not normally a member of, and I appreciate your leadership and 
Mr. Shimkus's and the hardworking staff as well.
    So, 10 months ago, the city of Parchment in my district 
awoke to a startling new reality. They found extremely high 
levels of PFOA and PFOS not only at a capped landfill, but the 
chemicals were also discovered in their drinking water at 
levels many times above EPA's lifetime health advisory. And 
while Parchment was the first community to have its water test 
results come in that high, it was not the only place where PFOS 
chemicals were found in the drinking water in Michigan, as we 
have learned. And literally every community regardless of size 
in terms of their municipal water supply was tested across the 
State at the governor's orders and to try and assure that the 
water quality was safe in their proper areas.
    But some of the smartest minds working on PFAS 
contamination are in Michigan not because of what is in the 
water, but because of our water. And I am fortunate that one of 
the premier scientists on PFAS, Dr. Matt Reeves, is based in my 
district at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo and we 
have the easy access to his work. He recently published a white 
paper outlining a national road map for addressing PFAS and I 
want to submit not his report, but rather his findings as part 
of the record. The white paper itself calls for the development 
of a research consortium with the express purpose of addressing 
many of the critical research areas using best science 
practices, state-of-the-art technology, and high-impact 
dissemination of research findings and challenges.
    Now I also know that our committee, full committee, is 
going to be one of those that it is going to be relied upon for 
developing infrastructure legislation likely to move, I think, 
in the next couple of months. And I would like to think that 
perhaps one of those provisions, part of that package would 
include some of these bills that we are working on that were 
addressed, and I intend to co-sponsor a number of them as we 
work on this issue to try and get an answer for our citizens 
that really do understand where we are and want some action 
taken.
    Ms. Luxton, I introduced a bill this last week, H.R. 2626, 
bipartisan legislation that will give EPA a year to decide 
whether to list well-characterized PFAS as a hazardous 
substance under CERCLA Section 102(a). What are your thoughts 
about qualifying PFAS substances within the term ``well-
characterized'' for EPA to prioritize which contaminants should 
be reviewed for their potential to present a substantial 
danger?
    Ms. Luxton. Thank you. That, I think, is a constructive 
suggestion. The one area of risk I would suggest is that it is 
a new term not defined, so as someone who has seen a fair 
amount of administrative law litigation, I would recommend 
providing a definition or some criteria so that it is clear 
what that term means and avoids delays that could be caused by 
ambiguities in wording and subsequent litigation.
    But the idea of trying to focus on those that are well-
characterized or about which enough is known to make a judgment 
on toxicity and other factors is really a very constructive 
idea and allows for prioritization of resources which, I think, 
is a very important outcome in which legislation is adopted.
    Mr. Upton. Thank you. And as you know as we have struggled 
with PFAS contamination cleanups including State standards that 
a number of States may pursue, including Michigan, do you think 
cooperative agreements between the Federal and State 
Governments provide a reasonable path forward to achieve 
protective cleanups that meet the guidelines of both 
governmental entities?
    Ms. Luxton. Yes. I absolutely think that is another 
constructive approach as are these consortia that we have been 
hearing about today among academics and to share the resources. 
There is so much ground to cover that any ways we can support 
to cooperate on Federal and State capabilities and share 
resources as well as the academic knowledge we are learning in 
this frontier, as one of the witnesses said, is very important.
    Mr. Upton. Just in closing, because my time has expired and 
I just, I know a number of us have met with EPA over the last 
number of weeks and months. They need to be, part of this 
process as well. They need to be, and I believe that they are 
brought in. We need to continue to make sure that it is 
bipartisan and work with our committee to get some legislative 
action. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and thank you 
again.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. And we will visit 
your request to enter the information into the record.
    Mr. Upton. Yes, I am going to introduce the findings, not 
the white paper.
    Mr. Tonko. And we will do that at the end of the hearing, 
so.
    Mr. Upton. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. So we thank you again. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentle lady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for five 
minutes, please.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    So we have heard calls from industry to wait to act on 
PFASs, to let TSCA, the TSCA process take its course and let 
EPA set reference doses for each PFAS chemical one by one. But 
even when we first passed TSCA back in 1976, Congress 
recognized that the statute might not work for some classes of 
chemicals and that is why PCBs were dealt with comprehensively, 
quickly, and as a class through a separate TSCA subsection. It 
was John Dingell's wisdom that led to the adoption of the PCB 
subsection and it stands now as one of the only actions EPA was 
able to take under the original TSCA. So, I welcome H.R. 2600 
introduced by Representative Dean which takes the same approach 
for PFAS chemicals.
    I wanted to ask Dr. DeWitt, do PFASs present some of the 
same concerns as PCBs in terms of how long they remain in the 
environment and some of the risks that they pose? And let me 
just go on and say, do you think additional PFASs as well can 
be handled in that same way as that PCBs were?
    Dr. DeWitt. Yes, I do think that PFAS can be handled 
similarly to PCBs. I would also like to point out that PFAS are 
in a sense very different from PCBs. PCBs like to be in fat. 
They like to be in sediment. They don't move around and 
eventually they do break down. PFAS are happy being in water. 
They are happy being in soil. They are happy being in fat. And 
they are very mobile and they don't break down.
    It is estimated that DDT, an organochlorine pesticide, 
takes about 30 years to break down into more toxic compounds. 
We don't know yet if PFAS will take longer than that, but we 
suspect that they will. So they are different from PCBs in that 
they are----
    Ms. Schakowsky. And worse.
    Dr. DeWitt. And worse. And the suite of effects that they 
produce seems to be broader than the suite of effects produced 
by PCBs.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So what do you think of then of the 
assertion drawing from our experience addressing PCBs? You 
think we should handle it the same way, I take it?
    Dr. DeWitt. I think it would be a very wise move to deal 
with a class of compounds that is persistent, bioaccumulative, 
and toxic and mobile.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Olson, you noted in your testimony that 
we can still detect PCBs in the environment despite the strong 
statutory language adopted in 1976. Why is that?
    Mr. Olson. Well, they are extremely persistent like PFAS, 
so they last in the environment a long time as Dr. DeWitt just 
mentioned. And we are very concerned that they are much more 
mobile than PCBs, it appears, and these are these forever 
chemicals and they are toxic at extremely low doses, just a 
terrible combination.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    Mr. Steglitz, are PCBs still a challenge for water systems 
like yours?
    Mr. Steglitz. That hasn't been something that we have had 
to deal with in our watershed.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    It has been more than 40 years since Congress added PCBs, 
but we are still cleaning them up. It seems likely that if we 
take action today to regulate PFAS we will be cleaning them up 
for generations. So again, Mr. Olson, given that it seems to me 
like we should get started right away, do you agree?
    Mr. Olson. I would agree. I think we need to get started 
right away. We are now, everyone in this room, guinea pigs. We 
are carrying these chemicals around in our bodies and we didn't 
agree to carry them around in our bodies, yet we are being 
exposed to them every day. Our kids are being exposed to them. 
Our grandchildren will be exposed to them. We need to get 
started now on doing something.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Regardless, will they be there hanging 
around for a while?
    Mr. Olson. They will be around for decades.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to echo 
some of the concerns that my colleagues have already expressed 
today. These are really important issues, very important 
issues, and we need to continue to work hard to make sure we 
are doing everything we can do to address PFAS concerns 
correctly and appropriately. Many states are dealing with 
contamination issues. I know my home State of Ohio is. And we 
need to ensure our States and regulating community are 
receiving the scientific support and signals from the Federal 
Government. That is why I am concerned that the EPA is not in 
the room today to provide the necessary technical and 
scientific insight on the bills that we are discussing, 
especially as some of these bills were just recently 
introduced.
    So let me focus on some of the bills dealing with TSCA, and 
Ms. Luxton, I would appreciate your thoughts on these. H.R. 
2608 requires EPA to compel by order comprehensive new lines of 
testing on all PFAS substances. It also waives requirements on 
the EPA to create a statement of need for the tests or to rely 
on lesser test methods to rule out the need to show toxicity.
    With so many chemicals under the PFAS umbrella, about 5,000 
or so, is there concern that the EPA could unintentionally 
focus its time and effort on low-risk chemicals instead of 
prioritizing high-risk chemicals?
    Ms. Luxton. Yes, I think that is a very good question and a 
very real risk. EPA has identified in its priority list of top 
concerns that it wants to spend its greatest attention, three 
of the five include addressing existing Superfund sites and 
trying to accelerate the cleanups of those Superfund sites. We 
are talking now about expanding that set of sites and then 
fulfilling its requirements under TSCA, under the most recent 
amendments, to go through those chemicals that have already 
been identified as of high toxicity.
    So again, the third is reducing nonattainment areas for air 
pollution, existing air pollution. These are other priorities 
that already exist for EPA to fulfill. Adding to those 
indiscriminately, that is to say without looking at this in a 
priority risk way, it risks overwhelming the system and 
suppressing or reducing the ability to deal with a collection 
of risks that affect the American population in many ways.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. All right, another bill on new chemicals, 
H.R. 2596, would prevent any new chemicals that are PFAS from 
being commercially manufactured, imported, or processed. Do you 
think it would be a bit more reasonable for the EPA to use a 
tiered approach that would limit the amount of data that is 
required to collect if there isn't a toxicity problem evident 
with one of the PFAS chemicals?
    Ms. Luxton. Yes, I think tiering is a very good approach. 
Looking at the types of PFAS chemicals, trying to group them in 
terms of toxicity, the short chain/long chain issue, there are 
differences among these compounds that really can make a 
difference in terms of toxicity, uptake, and health effects.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Ms. Luxton, you mentioned that legislation 
that mandates action by a Federal department or agency like the 
bills we have before us today can have blind spots to the 
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. In looking at 
these bills as it relates to administrative procedure, the 
Administrative Procedure Act, do you think items like notice 
and comment are in danger of being minimized or ignored?
    Ms. Luxton. Yes. Whenever there are bills that try to 
expedite rulemaking and cut corners, those procedures that were 
adopted and are well embedded in the law create litigation 
opportunities which can have the effect of delaying the 
effectiveness of new legislation all by itself because it is 
tied up in the courts for years.
    Mr. Johnson. You may have just answered this but let me 
clarify. Would you be concerned that short-circuiting these 
requirements make the objectives of these bills subject to 
successful judicial challenge?
    Ms. Luxton. Yes, we have seen that happen.
    Mr. Johnson. And what happens when regulations are 
litigated over process considerations?
    Ms. Luxton. Delay. And if the rule is invalidated the 
Agency has to start all over from scratch and put together a 
new rule that can stand up in court.
    Mr. Johnson. Wasted time, right?
    Ms. Luxton. Wasted time.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, for five 
minutes, please.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. When I had first heard of 
the chemicals related to PFAS and PFOS, much like many in the 
public it was through tragedy because these are chemicals that 
many of us in the public were unaware of. And in this case, it 
was our firefighter training school in Ocala, Florida where we 
had a cancer cluster happen and it is to such an extent that 
the VP of the National Firefighters Union, his brother was one 
of those victims.
    So I think as we are talking about all the technicalities 
today, we need to really consider how this is affecting the 
American public on a broader scale than things like rulemaking 
and whether Congress should act. You know, a congressional law 
is absolutely, under separation of powers, takes precedence 
over any rulemaking of an agency. It is clear from everything 
we are hearing today that we need to attack the PFAS 
contamination from every angle and we should be working to stop 
the flow of chemicals into our environment and into our bodies.
    But government action can be slow. Hearing from my 
constituents, they want us to act. Mr. Olson, what are some of 
the everyday products people might use that would contain PFAS?
    Mr. Olson. Thank you for the question, Mr. Soto, and thank 
you for your bill that would address at least the cookware 
issue. There are innumerable products that contain PFAS. They 
range from the carpeting that our children may be crawling on 
or walking on. They include a wide array of clothing. They 
include textiles. They are sprayed on some of the furniture 
that we use. They are used in just a wide array of consumer 
products. And we would like to actually see your terrific bill 
that would include an EPA program to make sure that consumers 
can make an intelligent choice even expanded to other consumer 
products.
    Mr. Soto. How would they be able to make informed choices 
right now with regard to PFAS exposure?
    Mr. Olson. Basically they can't. If you go into a local 
store you will see cookware, for example, often labeled PFOA-
free. Well, that doesn't tell you anything of value because 
they may have just switched over to a different PFAS. So it is 
very misleading to consumers in some cases if they are 
continuing to use toxic PFAS and just labeling it PFOA-free.
    Mr. Soto. So, let's say we implement the Safer Choice 
program through the legislation that we introduced. How would 
that influence companies as far as new products they put out on 
the market?
    Mr. Olson. Well, I think what we have seen in other cases 
is when consumers know they can make a choice, if I go in and I 
have my choice between a PFAS-free cookware or carpet or couch 
and I can buy one that doesn't have that versus one that does, 
I am going to make the choice. And right now, consumers don't 
have that information.
    Mr. Soto. We heard a lot of testimony today about 
addressing all PFAS and not just focusing on PFOA and PFOS. 
Would the label requirement under our bill have the same value 
if it only covered PFOA or PFOS?
    Mr. Olson. No, for exactly the reasons we were just talking 
about because we know that even some folks are now labeling 
them as PFOA-free or PFOS-free; we need to deal with the whole 
class.
    Mr. Soto. Ms. Marpe, I was really obviously taken aback by 
your personal story and what you and your family went through. 
On behalf of moms across America, what would be the cost of 
inaction if we do nothing here?
    Ms. Marpe. The cost of inaction has already been 
extraordinary. I mean I talked to Tobyn McNaughton from 
Michigan about her son Jack, you know, he tested over 400 parts 
per billion in his blood, the highest child I know of. That is 
such a tough question because it is everywhere. Like as much as 
I wanted to protect my family, I still know. I know where it 
is, like I have educated myself. I have killed myself to 
educate myself. You know, New York State did not educate me.
    Mr. Soto. And do you think there is a lot of families still 
living unaware of this danger?
    Ms. Marpe. Absolutely. You have to remember, Petersburgh--
well, you wouldn't have to remember because you don't know. But 
Petersburgh----
    Mr. Soto. Our chairman would know.
    Ms. Marpe. Yes. The town of Petersburgh only has 76 wells 
on the municipal supply, 76 wells. So, like before, you had to 
have a population above 10,000, okay, now it is 3,500. OK, that 
still doesn't save the little towns of Petersburgh. And these 
companies set up shop in rural communities where they fly under 
the radar. I mean you can't see it. You can't smell it. You 
can't taste it. You have no idea it is there until somebody 
tells you.
    If Michael Hickey never tested the water, we still wouldn't 
know. He took his own money, his own personal money to test the 
water because his father died of kidney cancer. He was smart 
enough to think, hey, can Teflon cause cancer? His father 
worked for the plant in Hoosick Falls for 32 years. He came 
home, his home was literally 800 feet from the plant, 800 feet. 
The man showered in it, cooked in it, drank it, I mean and he 
is gone. He died shortly after retirement.
    You can't make this up. I mean it has already taken 
decades. You are like 50, 60 years too late. This should have 
been stopped in the '50s when it was created. It is a manmade 
chemical. It doesn't belong in me. It doesn't belong in my 
children. It doesn't belong in you. It is there. Go test 
yourself, feel free. It is like 500 bucks.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. We now recognize the 
gentleman from the State of New Mexico, Mr. Lujan, for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to 
Ranking Member Shimkus as well for allowing me to join this 
hearing. And, Ms. Marpe, thank you for your testimony and your 
responses as well. Thank you to each of the witnesses for 
sharing your expertise as well with the urgency of having to 
respond to this environmental and health crisis that we are 
facing across the country. We are just now beginning to see all 
of the dimensions of this crisis.
    And, Mr. Olson, in your testimony you made clear that these 
are forever chemicals that don't break down. They can enter our 
food and water and systems in many different ways. Ms. Marpe, 
you just reminded us of that.
    In my district, the Department of Defense's use of the 
PFAS-laden firefighting foams has polluted the groundwater 
needed by adjacent dairy farmers to grow their crops and water 
their cows. The Department of Defense refuses to clean up the 
groundwater. Think about what I just said. The Department of 
Defense refuses to clean up this groundwater, even though they 
fully acknowledge that their actions created this pollution. It 
is why many pieces of this legislation are required. Along with 
Senator Udall, I recently introduced the Prompt and Fast Action 
to Stop Damages Act of 2019 to force the Department of Defense 
to do what is right, to do what they should have been doing all 
along in cleaning up the mess they created, make the impacted 
dairy farmers whole.
    Mr. Olson, I appreciate your discussion and support of my 
legislation in your written testimony. Can you elaborate on why 
it is critical for the Department of Defense to clean up all 
sources of PFAS contamination?
    Mr. Olson. Well, I think a lot of us learned in 
kindergarten that if you make a mess you clean it up.
    Mr. Lujan. Robert Fulghum is one of my favorite authors.
    Mr. Olson. Exactly. And unfortunately, it seems maybe 
Department of Defense didn't learn that in kindergarten and a 
lot of polluters did not. It is very important for those that 
have created a mess and created risks and poisoned their 
community to be responsible for cleaning up, and that is why it 
is important to hold those polluters accountable whether they 
are Federal agencies or they are private companies.
    Mr. Lujan. So I want to ask you another question that 
points to several pieces of legislation that have been 
authored. Should the Department of Defense be required to clean 
up water sources used to produce our food and milk just like 
they are required to clean up our drinking water?
    Mr. Olson. They absolutely should. In fact, last night I 
met one of your constituents, a farmer whose milk is 
contaminated. He is having to destroy his milk every day. He is 
probably going to have to destroy his dairy cows and they 
aren't going to be able to be sold as food because they are so 
contaminated. So we definitely need to make sure we are 
protecting agricultural uses of that water as well.
    Mr. Lujan. And rather than acquiring that farm, purchasing 
those dairy cattle, and cleaning up their mess, the Department 
of Defense is paying to buy the milk. Millions of dollars, I 
mean like it doesn't make any sense when it is less expensive 
to fix the problem to clean up their own mess. But again, that 
is why if the Department of Defense is saying that they don't 
have the authority, which I disagree with, this legislation 
that is before this subcommittee, four other committees of 
jurisdiction, will require them to do this. And I appreciate 
your testimony, Mr. Olson.
    Just in closing, I want to emphasize that the emotional and 
financial hardships, much of which that has been shared today, 
other testimony that has been shared through conversations from 
constituents that have traveled from across America to be here 
in Washington, DC this week, I want to encourage our members to 
make sure that they are having town halls in these communities. 
That they are making themselves available; that they are 
listening to the constituents so that way we can share those 
stories and show the urgency of needing to act across America. 
That includes the farming community in Curry County, a 
community that I am honored to represent.
    Since the Department of Defense is neglecting its 
responsibility to clean up the groundwater, the burden has 
fallen entirely on the dairy farmers. They are having to put in 
their own filters, put in their own work, plan for their own 
futures. The Department of Defense needs to do the right thing 
here. Farms have either stopped producing milk because they 
don't have access to clean water or at their own expense 
installed filtration systems costing hundreds of thousands of 
dollars.
    Mr. Chairman, they should be reimbursed for that by the 
Department of Defense. They are doing their work for them. 
While the farming community's very way of life is being 
threatened, the Department of Defense is just standing there 
doing nothing. These farmers are running out of time and it is 
up to Congress to act, and for the sake of the farmers in my 
district and the families across the country we need to act now 
and act quickly.
    And I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
indulgence and thank them for letting me sit in at this 
important committee hearing today.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back and the Chair now 
recognizes the gentle lady from the State of California, Ms. 
Matsui, for five minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 
the witnesses for being here today. We have seen that many 
private companies are moving away from PFOA and PFOS for 
shorter chain substitutes. While I think we can all agree that 
this is a good step and of acknowledging that the known risks 
that PFOA and PFOS pose, I am concerned that the amount of 
research and information on some of these substitutes.
    For example, over the past couple of years we have been 
hearing numerous reports of high levels of the chemical GenX 
being used by companies like Chemours. However, EPA issued a 
draft toxicity review last fall of two chemicals, GenX and a 
related compound PFBS that demonstrated even very low doses 
could still present serious health risks such as issues of 
prenatal development and immune system, liver, kidney, or 
thyroid complications.
    Dr. DeWitt, I think you are acutely aware of the issue 
which has been a particular problem in your State of North 
Carolina. At this point, what do we know about the health risks 
of some of these short and intermediate chain substitutes?
    Dr. DeWitt. They are just as persistent as the long chain 
compounds. They are able to move from the environment into 
bodies just like the long chain compounds and once in their 
bodies they are able to interact with molecules in our bodies 
to produce toxicity. You mentioned immunotoxicity which we see 
with GenX. We still see increases in liver weight and increases 
in liver enzymes which are a sign of toxicity, so we see many 
of the same types of effects as the long chains.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Mr. Olson, in your view do we have enough 
information about the risks posed by PFOS, PFAS as a class to 
begin taking action now?
    Mr. Olson. Absolutely we do, and if we don't regulate them 
as a class, we are going to be on this treadmill of trying to 
regulate one at a time and we will never get off of it.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. All of us are aware here that PFAS is known 
as forever chemicals because they don't readily or easily 
decompose or degrade. Forever in our environment and forever in 
our bodies and that is really a troubling thought.
    Dr. DeWitt, I would like to ask you for more information 
about the health risks for vulnerable populations like pregnant 
women and children. What do we know about how PFAS impacts, how 
it impacts a developing infant or child?
    Dr. DeWitt. Infants, developing organisms, and children 
consume a higher amount of water per body weight than adults, 
so their relative exposure is greater. They also have 
relatively poorly developed systems for metabolizing, even 
though these aren't metabolized, and excreting compounds, so 
their body burden remains a little bit higher so these 
compounds stay in their bodies a little bit longer. And because 
many of their other systems aren't fully developed, they are 
more sensitive to the effects of these compounds.
    We also know that these compounds can be excreted in breast 
milk, so they are getting exposures through breast milk. And if 
they are from families that live in contaminated communities 
who choose not to breast feed, they will get exposed through 
their contaminated drinking water and other items in the home 
that may contain PFAS.
    Ms. Matsui. OK, so based upon what you know about the 
health effects of these chemicals, do you think it is 
appropriate to treat them as a class?
    Dr. DeWitt. I agree that is appropriate. I think it is a 
wise decision.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. These chemicals are dangerous and 
extraordinarily persistent and what we are dealing with is for 
generations and we have to make a difference. Do you perceive 
an additional risk due to the fact that DOD is only looking at 
these two specific chemicals rather than the entire class of 
PFAS chemicals?
    Dr. DeWitt. I think that looking at the chemicals as a 
class is an important consideration because they have all been 
designed to have similar functionality so their physical 
chemical properties are very similar. The carbon-fluorine bond 
does not break down, and as you mentioned they are forever in 
our environments and forever in our bodies.
    Ms. Matsui. Well, I do hope we take some action right now 
and I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the very patient gentle lady from New Hampshire, 
Representative Kuster. You are recognized for five minutes, 
please.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Chairman Tonko. And I want 
to thank you and Ranking Member Shimkus for allowing me to sit 
in on this hearing. This is not my normal subcommittee, but it 
is an important issue not only in my district but across the 
country.
    I want to first take a moment to thank Emily for being with 
us as a mother and a she-bear. I know how this feels and but I 
can't even begin to imagine the fear that you felt and I am 
glad you were able to take the steps to sell your home, because 
there are from families all across this country that can't 
move. They don't have that opportunity. They can't find someone 
to buy the home that they have invested in.
    And in my district, we are going through this in a small 
town called Litchfield, New Hampshire. Contamination from the 
Saint-Gobain's plastic company was found in water testing 
coming through the air, getting into the soil. Fortunately, we 
were able to, because of advocates like yourself, the people 
living in this community brought it to our attention, brought 
it to their board of selectmen. We were able to bring the 
company in and we were able to get the attention of the EPA. 
And the State of New Hampshire and Saint-Gobain reached a 
monumental agreement that required the manufacturer to run 
clean water to all of the affected homes. Some of these homes 
have been hooked up to a neighboring city of Manchester to get 
water to the door.
    But I am concerned as the parents are about children 
playing in the yard, about what is coming through the air, 
about what is affecting them. In a neighboring town also in my 
district, Amherst, New Hampshire, 2016, New Hampshire 
Department of Environmental Services tested 11 wells within a 
one-mile radius of the former location of Textiles Coated 
International and again found very high levels.
    So this is something that we are dealing with in New 
Hampshire and I just want to really acknowledge your courage 
because we need to put a face on this. I have studied way back 
to the first Earth Day. I can remember picking up trash and 
studying environmental studies in college and just putting a 
face on this and being able to tell the story is important.
    I am just going to turn briefly to my bill, H.R. 2596, 
Protecting Communities from New PFAS Act, which would halt new 
PFAS chemicals including, as my colleague mentioned, the short 
chain PFAS from being approved through the EPA's pre-
manufacture notice system. And I want to ask Mr. Steglitz, from 
your testimony you talked about ``The best way to address these 
contaminants is at the source,'' do we need to halt the 
approval of new PFAS chemicals from entering the commercial 
supply chain?
    Mr. Steglitz. And absolutely, if we can figure out what the 
health impacts are before they enter circulation then that will 
be the best practice, because addressing it at the end of the 
pipe is clearly not the most, not in the most effective way to 
address this.
    Ms. Kuster. Right. You have talked about the expense to the 
taxpayers and I think we need to go upstream, if you will, in 
the chain from that.
    Mr. Olson, your testimony also highlighted the importance 
of ``turning off the tap,'' for the approval of new PFAS and 
new uses for existing PFAS. While we know that tackling this 
problem will take a multifaceted, comprehensive approach, we 
have heard so many good ideas in this hearing, how important is 
it to stop new PFAS chemicals from entering the supply chain?
    Mr. Olson. It is absolutely critical. We have already got 
4,700 of these things or more and adding new ones as I say in 
my testimony it is sort of like Will Rogers said, ``If you find 
yourself in a hole, stop digging,'' and we are still digging. 
We are still approving new uses. We are still approving new 
PFAS chemicals and we need to stop and take a step back and we 
are pleased that your bill would do that.
    Ms. Kuster. And what steps do you think that Congress can 
take to put an end to new PFAS chemicals from being introduced?
    Mr. Olson. Well, I think this requirement of having EPA 
halt the new approvals, and there is a companion bill also that 
would phase out the existing uses, we think that is important. 
And Mr. McKinley was asking about imports. So, it is also 
important that if you act under TSCA, you can also ban the 
imports of these products which is very important as well, 
because right now PFOA and PFOS even are allowed to be 
manufactured overseas and we can get products coming into the 
U.S. with them.
    Ms. Kuster. Well, I hope that we will continue to work in a 
bipartisan way.
    And, Attorney Luxton, you used the phrase, ``our highest 
priority concern.'' I can say for myself as a legislator and a 
mother that my highest priority concern is the health and well-
being of my constituents.
    And again, thank you, Emily, for bringing your story 
forward. With that I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back, and again, thank 
you for your patience, Representative Kuster.
    And I do thank each and every witness that appeared today. 
It is so important that we review these issues with every bit 
of information.
    I remind members that pursuant to committee rules they have 
10 business days by which to submit additional questions for 
the record to be answered by our witnesses. I ask each witness 
to respond, please, promptly to any such questions that you may 
receive.
    We have had requests, several requests for documents to be 
entered into the record. They include a letter from the 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; a letter from 
Westfield Residents Advocating for Themselves, round to the 
acronym of REST; a letter from the Informed-Public Project; a 
letter from the United States Chamber of Commerce; a letter 
from the American Chemistry Council;a fact sheet issued by the 
PFAS Community Campaign; research findings from Dr. Matt Reeves 
of Western Michigan University; and then written testimony from 
both Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick and Dan Kildee. So I 
would request unanimous consent to enter the following into the 
record.
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
will not object. I want to--hopefully we are going to be 
careful on receiving testimony from people we didn't ask to 
testify. Both Fitzpatrick and Kildee are great friends of ours, 
they do have relevant legislation. I am not objecting to the 
submission, but I want us to be careful about a precedent we 
may set and we will get all these testimonies on people who may 
not be as actively involved in bills in the future. So with 
that I will not object, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, so the following will be introduced into the 
record.
    Mr. Tonko. And then at this time I indicate that the 
subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                                 [all]