[Senate Hearing 116-35]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-35
EXAMINING LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS
THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS)
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 22, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-935 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JONI ERNST, Iowa TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 22, 2019
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 2
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 179
WITNESSES
White, Kimberly Wise, Ph.D., Senior Director, Chemical Products
and Technology, American Chemistry Council..................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 14
Senator Carper........................................... 17
Senator Capito........................................... 20
Daniels, Lisa, Past President, Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators, and Director, Bureau of Safe Drinking
Water, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection..... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 41
Senator Carper........................................... 43
Senator Capito........................................... 48
Faber, Scott, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs,
Environmental Working Group.................................... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 68
Senator Carper........................................... 68
Senator Capito........................................... 71
Senator Sanders.......................................... 71
Mehan, G. Tracy III, Executive Director, American Water Works
Association.................................................... 75
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 91
Senator Carper........................................... 95
Senator Capito........................................... 100
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Text of legislation submitted for the record:
S. 638, To require the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, and for other purposes............................... 180
S. 950, To require the Director of the United States
Geological Survey to perform a nationwide survey of
perfluorinated compounds, and for other purposes........... 182
S. _, To improve and coordinate interagency Federal actions
and provide assistance to States for responding to public
health challenges posed by emerging contaminants, and for
other purposes............................................. 189
S. _, To encourage Federal agencies to expeditiously enter
into or amend cooperative agreements with States for
removal and remedial actions to address PFAS contamination
in drinking, surface, and ground water and land surface and
subsurface strata, and for other purposes.................. 207
S. _, To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to set
maximum contaminant levels for certain chemicals, and for
other purposes............................................. 215
S. _, To include certain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances in the toxics release inventory, and for other
purposes................................................... 218
EXAMINING LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PER-AND
POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS)
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:47 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Boozman, Braun,
Ernst, Cardin, Markey, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, and Van Hollen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order.
Today we are going to continue the Committee's work
examining the risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, or PFAS. PFAS are a large class of chemicals known
for their resistance to oil and water. Since the 1940s, PFAS
has been used in a broad array of industrial, commercial, and
consumer applications, including non-stick cookware, waterproof
clothing, stain resistant fabrics, food packaging, and
firefighting foams. Scientists have found that these chemicals
break down very slowly, if at all, in the natural environment.
They have also found that some accumulate in the human body.
These chemicals travel through water, air, and soil. Humans
ingest them, inhale them, and absorb them through their skin.
It is estimated that 90 percent of Americans have detectable
concentrations of PFAS in their blood.
Some of these chemicals are associated with a number of
negative health effects. To date, scientists have detected
pollution from these chemicals all over the world and in nearly
every State. It appears to be concentrated in communities
located near or downstream from military bases, airports,
firefighting facilities, and chemical manufacturing and
processing facilities.
In March, this Committee heard from four witnesses
representing the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of
Defense in order to learn what steps the executive branch is
taking to addresses the risks associated with PFAS. Today we
are going to examine six bipartisan bills which have been
introduced to address these risks. They include S. 638,
introduced by Ranking Member Carper and Senator Capito; S. 950,
introduced by Senators Stabenow and Rounds; S. 1251, introduced
by Senators Shaheen and Portman; S. 1372, introduced by
Senators Stabenow and Rubio; S. 1473, introduced by Senators
Gillibrand and Capito; and S. 1507, introduced by Senators
Capito and Gillibrand.
Addressing this pollution is a priority of this Committee.
That is why we included provisions to help public water systems
address emerging contaminants, including PFAS, in America's
Water Infrastructure Act. It is also why I intend to negotiate
and report a bipartisan legislative package addressing PFAS
pollution this Congress.
I can't support some of these bills as currently written.
For example, I am concerned about sidestepping the rulemaking
process used to assess the risks associated with chemical
compounds under our Nation's bedrock environmental laws.
Congress established these rulemaking processes decades ago. It
believed that Federal agencies are better positioned to
evaluate the science behind the regulation of chemicals.
In addition, I question whether we should treat all PFAS as
if they posed the same level of risk to human health and the
environment. These chemical substances vary widely. While much
more research is needed, the risks these chemicals pose does
seem to vary as well. Some of these compounds are used in
medical devices, like pacemakers. Others are used as inhalers.
It is critical that we acknowledge the differences among these
chemicals.
I also have concerns about Congress imposing Superfund
liability on parties that use these substances in good faith.
For example, our Nation's airports, refineries, and others used
firefighting foam containing PFAS in order to protect their
workers and the public at large. Others, like metal finishers,
used these chemicals as a means to successfully reduce air
emission and workers' exposure to cancer causing heavy metals.
All these entities were either following regulations or the
industry's best practices. Still others, like wastewater
treatment facilities and landfills, are often unknowing
recipients of PFAS.
Congress has a critical role to play in ensuring that the
Federal Government responds to the risks associated with these
chemicals in a timely manner. Today's hearing is an important
step in identifying how we should proceed on this issue.
I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us; nice to see
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing, and
for the collaborative way in which you and your staff have
approached our Committee's work on addressing a lot of issues,
but particularly the contamination from per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAS. Thank God
for acronyms. I have never been a fan of acronyms, Mr.
Chairman, but on this subject, I am definitely one.
I suspect that just about every member of our Committee has
heard from their constituents with concerns about PFAS
contamination in their respective States. PFAS can be found
nearly everywhere, from non-stock cookware to microwave popcorn
bags to cleaning products and stain-resistant fabrics to
firefighting foam used at military bases and airports across
the country.
Forty-six years ago this spring, Mr. Chairman, I was a
young naval flight officer stationed at Moffatt Field Naval Air
Station. We operated P-3s out of there, out of Hunt for Red
October, and did a lot of missions off the coast of Vietnam and
Cambodia during the Vietnam war.
But in April 1973, I was driving into work one morning,
didn't have to fly right away. I was a couple miles out from
Moffatt Field, where we shared a base with NASA. They had some
big planes there, and we had our Navy P-3s, which are not small
planes, by any stretch of the imagination.
But as I drove to work on a sunny April morning, I could
see from a distance, several miles away, a large black plume of
smoke arising from the air station while I was some distance
away. A large NASA Convair jet had been cleared to land on the
same runway and at the same time as a Navy P-3 aircraft.
Literally, the larger plane squashed the smaller plane.
It took over an hour for firefighters to control the blaze.
Later that day we would learn that 16 people had died, I think
the entire crew of the NASA Convair and all but one crew member
on the P-3. I understand that the use of the chemicals that
were used that day, fighting that fire, trying to save lives,
has supported our military readiness and saved lives. But the
cruel irony is that when PFAS ends up in a glass on a kitchen
table or in this glass of water those same chemicals can
endanger lives, not save them.
Our colleagues in the industry often remind Congress that
PFAS chemicals are used in everything from medical devices to
solar panels. I think I can speak for just about everyone when
I say that is not a really good point. We want PFAS chemicals
to stay in the solar panels and not in our drinking water. That
is really why we are here today.
These highly persistent and ubiquitous chemicals are
threatening the drinking water of millions of people in our
country, and I am sure, outside of our country, too. In the
southwestern corner of Delaware, for example, the people in the
small town of Blades, right outside the slightly larger town of
Seaford, were told last year or maybe 2 years ago to stop
drinking the water there because PFAS chemicals were found to
be present at nearly twice the Federal health advisory level.
Just up the road at the Dover Air Force Base, roughly 50 miles
away, more than half the groundwater wells tested there show
dangerously, dangerously high levels of PFAS and PFOA.
I have a map here, a map of our country. This recently
released map shows that more than 600 locations in 43 States
are contaminated. Those are just the known locations. My hope
is that the witnesses, all of you before us today, will work
constructively with our Committee as we seek to forge a
consensus approach to addressing this complex problem. My hope
is that we all leave here today in strong agreement that
Congress must take action sooner, rather than later, because
this is an issue that deserves a sense of urgency.
One might think that the extent of this problem would lead
the Environmental Protection Agency to respond with a sense of
urgency. But sadly, that has not been the case, at least not
yet. First, EPA's 2019 PFAS action plan largely includes
commitments to consider, to consider whether to regulate PFAS
contamination, steps that Scott Pruitt--and that is almost a
year earlier, second Administrator--really, really refused to
commit to setting a drinking water standard for PFAS until
public and congressional outcry forced him to reverse course
before he was confirmed. Finally, EPA weakened its draft
guidance for cleaning up contaminated PFAS sites following
pressure from the Defense Department.
So it is no surprise that many States are taking matters
into their own hands and setting their own drinking water and
cleanup standards. Neither is it a surprise that many elected
officials have concluded that Federal legislation is needed to
more urgently and decisively address this challenge.
Six pieces of bipartisan legislation that seek to do just
that are the subject of today's hearing. Among other things,
these bills seek to designate PFAS as a hazardous substance
under the Superfund law, to compel EPA to establish a safe
drinking water standard for PFAS within 2 years, inform the
public when the PFAS chemicals are being released into the
environment, as well as create faster cleanups and more
interagency coordination and research and monitoring
technologies.
While some of the bills before our Committee today propose
to regulate every single PFAS chemical, and there are a lot of
them, as you know, others have concluded that all of these
chemicals do not pose the same safety and risks, a point raised
by the Chairman in his statement. People have raised some
implementation concerns about immediately regulating every
single PFAS chemical at once.
One approach to addressing this concern lies in the PFAS
Release Disclosure Act, authored by Senator Capito, on which my
staff and I were proud to work and co-sponsor, along with
Senator Gillibrand. That bill, our bill, would immediately add
about 200 to the 602 PFAS chemicals currently in commerce to
the Toxics Release Inventory, so that the public would be
informed when those chemicals are released into our
environment.
This bill does so by acknowledging the EPA's authority
under the Toxic Substances Control Act to find that these
specific PFAS chemicals do pose a risk. Thus, there is no need
to do more research or spend more time before adding these
chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory.
The bill also ensures that in the future, whenever EPA
finds that additional PFAS chemicals pose a risk, these
chemicals will also be included in the Toxics Release
Inventory. I am especially interested in our witnesses' views
on this particular approach.
In the Navy, where I spent 23 years of my life, actually 27
years of my life, but when faced with an especially challenging
mission, we would call for all hands on deck, even if we were
not on a ship, we would call for all hands on deck. Today, we
need a different kind of all hands on deck. But we do need one,
nonetheless. When our Committee, this Committee, overhauled
TSCA a couple of years ago, we did so with a partnership that
included all of us, EPA, industry, and many environmental and
public health organizations. We need those same partners to
pull together again now in order to support our Committee's
work to expeditiously develop legislation and improve
legislation already introduced to address the PFAS
contamination problems that we face in communities as we saw
from this map across the country. A growing number of Americans
are counting on that, to do just that, and we can't let them
down.
So Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for this important
hearing. I will be here for part of it, but I have to slip over
to another meeting at the White House on infrastructure. I will
download with you later, maybe after lunch.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much; thanks, Senator
Carper.
We do have a wonderful group of witnesses today. We are
going to hear from them now. We are joined by Dr. Kimberly Wise
White, who is a Senior Director in the Chemical Products and
Technology Division at the American Chemistry Council.
Thank you for being with us.
We also have with us Lisa Daniels, who is the Past
President of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, and is currently the Director of the Bureau of
Safe Drinking Water at the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection. We have Scott Faber, who is Senior
Vice President of Government Affairs at the Environmental
Working Group. And finally, G. Tracy Mehan, who is the
Executive Director of Government Affairs at the American Water
Works Association.
Welcome to all of you. I want to remind you that your full
written testimony will be made part of the official hearing
record today. So please try to keep your statements to 5
minutes, so that we will have time for questions. I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
With that, we can start with Ms. White.
STATEMENT OF KIMBERLY WISE WHITE, PH.D., SENIOR DIRECTOR,
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL
Ms. White. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, and members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Kimberly
Wise White, and I am a toxicologist with the American Chemistry
Council.
My work has focused mainly on supporting scientific
research and chemical risk assessment practices focused
primarily on up to date scientific knowledge and the most
relevant scientific approaches.
I appreciate this opportunity to provide a scientist's
perspective on several of the legislative proposals before the
Committee today. Addressing concerns regarding potential public
health risks of PFAS and ensuring safe access to drinking water
for all Americans is critically important. ACC shares this
Committee's commitment to identifying ways to address and where
warranted, mitigating the risk, of PFAS chemistries. The
chemical industry supports a comprehensive approach to managing
these substances, including specific measures to prioritize,
evaluate, regulate, innovate, and monitor PFAS chemistries.
Having science at the forefront of regulatory approaches allows
for the most relevant data on hazard and exposure, validated
methodologies, and relevant, issue specific expertise to
underpin decisions.
Let me take this opportunity to highlight four points which
illustrate the important role science has in any chemical
management strategy. First, today's PFAS chemistries play an
essential role in modern life. PFAS is a term that describes a
wide and diverse variety of substances in a broad range of
applications that provide strength, durability, stability, and
resilience. For example, today's PFAS are used in medical
devices, the development of semiconductors, and applications in
energy and fuel efficiency. Taking an overly broad approach to
addressing PFAS chemistries that lacks a scientific foundation
will make it difficult to implement effective regulatory
policies.
Second, application and adherence to the administrative
process is critical for PFAS chemical management. The
Administrative Procedures Act governs the process by which
Federal agencies develop and issue regulations. Circumventing
the regulatory process by developing legislation that does not
provide for public input and does not allow those Federal
agencies to utilize their specific expertise undermines the
process and may lead to regulatory decisions that lack a sound
basis and which do not focus on the priority issues.
Third, science based approaches should be the foundation of
any legislation and regulation. A robust body of science
demonstrates the vast differences among individual PFAS, and
peer reviewed data shows that fluoropolymers, for example, and
several other PFAS chemistries do not present a risk to human
health or the environment. Given this information, it is not
appropriate to treat all PFAS chemistries the same. This
includes when establishing drinking water levels, cleanup
levels of lifetime safe exposure limits.
To be scientifically credible, proposed legislation seeking
to develop maximum contaminant levels for drinking water should
be consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Similarly,
scientifically credible and meaningful cleanup levels should
use directly relevant scientific information to determine if it
warranted designation as a hazardous substance or the
establishment of cleanup levels. Most importantly, the
leadership of Federal agencies with a primary mission to
protect human health and the environment is critically
important to any successful implementation of a regulatory
approach.
Finally, a single class approach to evaluating PFAS is not
scientifically justified. As I have mentioned, no two PFAS
substances have the same hazard or environmental profile. This
is critically important in evaluating specific chemical
information.
Last week, the National Academies evaluated the same
question of whether a single class approach could be applied to
evaluating another set of chemistries, and they concluded that
it was not scientifically appropriate. Instead, the National
Academies suggested the identification of subclasses using
chemical structure, chemical physical properties, toxicological
information, and bioactivity to make determinations. ACC
believes that a similar approach could be taken for addressing
PFAS.
In summary, ensuring that up to date, high quality data,
and science based approaches underlie regulatory decisionmaking
is critical to protecting human health and the environment.
This can be achieved by recognizing that a one size fits all
approach is not appropriate. Understanding and prioritizing
PFAS chemistries will be critical to this Committee's effort to
maximize Federal resources and focus on priority issues. This
also allows technologies that are not a threat to human health
or the environment to continue to achieve their intended
purpose, which is advancing innovation.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony, and I
look forward to addressing your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Dr. White. We
appreciate your testimony.
Now, Ms. Daniels.
STATEMENT OF LISA DANIELS, PAST PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF STATE
DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS, AND DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SAFE
DRINKING WATER, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Ms. Daniels. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
Member Carper, and members of the Committee. Thank you for
inviting me to speak today.
My name is Lisa Daniels. I am the Past President of the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, whose
members include the 50 State drinking water programs, five
territorial programs, the District of Columbia and the Navajo
Nation. ASDWA members have primary oversight responsibility for
implementing the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Our members
and their staff provide technical assistance, support, and
oversight of drinking water systems which is critical to
ensuring safe drinking water.
I am also the Director of the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
within the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
Today, I will discuss ASDWA's perspective on gaps in
existing Federal laws and regulations and how the proposed
legislation and strengthened Federal actions can more
effectively address PFAS.
PFAS had been a growing concern for the drinking water
community for more than a decade. The solubility, mobility, and
bioaccumulative properties of PFAS continue to heighten
concerns about potential adverse health effects. States, water
systems, and the public need national leadership to address
this growing public health problem.
ASDWA believes the question is not whether to regulate
PFAS, but how and when, using sound science. ASDWA's key issues
include the following. No. 1, coordinated Federal leadership is
needed to effectively address PFAS. States are at different
stages in their knowledge and implementation of PFAS measures.
While some States have the authority and the technical and
financial resources to develop their own standards, many do
not. EPA's PFAS action plan is a step in the right direction,
but without firm timelines and commitment, many are looking to
States to take the lead on PFAS.
In my own State of Pennsylvania, we have announced steps to
move forward with setting an MCL. To support this effort, we
are coordinating statewide sampling to generate occurrence
data, we are contracting for additional toxicology services,
and we are gearing up to be able to analyze for PFAS in our
State lab. It is important to know that this will be the first
time that Pennsylvania has set its own MCL, and these actions
have been and will continue to be a challenge due to limited
resources. We estimate that at least $1.5 million annually will
be needed for us to be able to move forward and set this
proposed rulemaking.
Twelve other States have taken some action to set the State
standards or advisory levels, which has led to a patchwork of
regulations which pose significant challenges in terms of risk
communication and certainly a burden on these States in terms
of resources.
No. 2, ASDWA believes that PFAS must be addressed using a
multi-media and cross-statutory approach. To fully address
PFAS, actions under CERCLA, TSCA, the Clean Water Act, and the
Safe Drinking Water Act should be evaluated and strengthened
where needed to remediate legacy PFAS and reduce or eliminate
the introduction of these chemicals into the environment, and
most importantly, make the manufacturers responsible for those
costs. ASDWA also advocates for regulation as a class or
classes, rather than one contaminant compound by compound
basis.
No. 3, ASDWA supports the development of a national
priority framework and research agenda for PFAS and other
emerging contaminants. Additional occurrence data is needed to
quantify the extent of PFAS in water. Increased availability of
toxicity and human health data is also necessary to support
policy decisions. Other related needs include a total organic
fluorine method for screening purposes, additional PFAS
analytical methods for other matrices like wastewater and soil.
Increased lab capacity is a real concern across the State, and
treatment efficacy, design and construction standards for
treatment.
No. 4, additional funding for EPA, the States, and water
suppliers is essential. At present, State primacy agencies are
diverting resources from core drinking water programs,
including inspections and plan reviews, to address PFAS.
Without additional funding, both the core program and the work
to address PFAS will suffer. Increased funding is needed for
EPA to support the development of treatment technologies,
laboratory methods, and really help with lab capacity issues.
Certainly, alternate funding sources are going to be needed
for our public water systems to deal with treatment costs when
a responsible party cannot be identified. We will not be able
to identify a responsible party in all cases. And SRF programs,
although they can provide loans, do not have the subsidy to
address the big issue of PFAS and continue to deal with other
important issues, like lead, for example.
So in conclusion, ASDWA applauds Congress for moving the
ball forward and introducing several bills in both the House
and Senate that gives us a much broader perspective on PFAS.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Daniels follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much for your testimony, Ms.
Daniels.
Mr. Faber.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT FABER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP
Mr. Faber. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, and Ranking Member
Carper.
Last week, Ken Cook, the President of EWG, and I had the
opportunity to spend a day on Capitol Hill with Sue Bailey, who
is a resident of Parkersburg, West Virginia, who was exposed to
PFOA in the 1960s while she was pregnant, and with her son,
Bucky Bailey. While we were meeting with Senator Carper,
Senator Carper asked Sue, how would you address, how would you
tackle the PFAS problem.
Senator Carper, you remember what Sue said. She said, how
do you eat an elephant? And of course, the answer is one bite
at a time.
I think this hearing really reflects the spirit of Sue
Bailey, that while we won't solve all of the challenges facing
the PFAS contamination crisis by passing these six bills, these
six bills will tell us much more about the extent of PFAS
contamination. They will tell us much more about the sources of
PFAS contamination. And they will begin to start the cleanup
process and cleanup a mess that, frankly, has taken three
generations to create.
As you have heard, nearly all of us are contaminated with
these forever chemicals. We are exposed to dozens of PFAS every
day through our food, water, dust, clothing, carpets, even
through our cosmetics. And exposure to even very low doses of
PFAS are associated with very serious health risks. While the
health effects of PFOA and PFAS are well understood, due in
large part to what happened in Parkersburg, West Virginia,
there is growing evidence that replacement chemicals, like GenX
and PFBS and many others pose many of the same risks.
So clearly, it is time to act. But as Senator Carper said,
EPA's proposed action plan really fails to treat this
contamination crisis like a crisis, or as Senator Capito said
at your hearing in March, EPA is not acting like this is
personal. And for people like Sue Bailey or Bucky Bailey or
people who live near F.E. Warren Airbase or Dover Airbase, this
is very personal. And that is why today's hearing is so
important.
Bills like S. 950, the PFAS Detection Act, will help us
better understand just how extensive the PFAS crisis is. In
addition, requiring water utilities to monitor for all
detectable PFAS in the next unregulated contaminant monitoring
rule is equally important. Bills like S. 1507, the PFAS
Disclosure Act, will add hundreds of PFAS to the Toxics Release
Inventory, which is an important first step that will tell us
much more about where PFAS pollution is coming from.
Bills like S. 638 and S. 1372 will help us accelerate PFAS
cleanup efforts, and in particular, S. 638, the PFAS Action
Act, will kick start the PFAS cleanup process, and S. 1372, the
PFAS Accountability Act, will ensure that Federal agencies,
including the Department of Defense, take responsibility for
their legacy pollution.
S. 1473, the Protecting Drinking Water from PFAS Act, will
require EPA to finally set a drinking water standard for water
utilities. As you have heard, States are leading the way,
setting tough science based PFAS drinking water standards. EPA
standards should build on the progress being made in States
like New Jersey and Pennsylvania. But you shouldn't have to
live in New Jersey or Pennsylvania to have clean water.
So as Sue would say, we have to eat this elephant one bite
at a time. But there are some other steps that Congress should
also take to ensure that we don't make the PFAS problem worse.
First, we should address ongoing releases of PFAS into the air
and water. Second, we should ensure that sewage sludge
contaminated with PFAS is not being spread on our farm fields.
And third, we should ensure that PFAS wastes are being properly
disposed.
Last year, Congress took steps to reduce the use of
fluorinated foams at civilian airports. The bills that are the
subject of today's hearing, and the other steps I have just
mentioned would help build on that progress.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faber follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your testimony,
Mr. Faber. We're very grateful.
Mr. Mehan.
STATEMENT OF G. TRACY MEHAN III, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Mehan. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso,
Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. My name is
Tracy Mehan, I am Executive Director of Government Affairs for
the American Water Works Association, or AWWA, on whose behalf
I am speaking today. I appreciate this opportunity to offer
AWWA's perspectives on the many pressing issues surrounding
PFAS.
Let me first of all say that this is a congenial
environment for me. This Committee had confirmed my nomination
as Assistant Administrator for Water back in 2001, so this is a
congenial environment.
I also want to thank the Committee, the entire Committee,
for their support in reauthorizing the Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan Fund, as well as doubling the authorized amount
for that fund, as well as putting RIFIA, the new Federal credit
program for water infrastructure, on a permanent footing. We
are most grateful for that support for what is maybe the
greatest single threat to the public health of the United
States and the drinking water sector.
AWWA's 50,000 members represent the full spectrum of water
utilities, small and large, rural and urban, municipal and
investor owned. I speak not only from the perspective of AWWA,
but as a former State and Federal regulator, an adjunct
professor of environmental law and a cancer survivor. Our
members are really the most customers facing of anyone dealing
with this issue day and deal every day with their customers in
hopefully an honest, truthful, and straightforward way as to
what we know and what we don't know about the various risks
facing our drinking water systems.
Drinking water utilities and State environmental agencies
need to know where to focus monitoring resources to understand
what risks may be in source waters. This is a key part of what
we call source water protection. There are existing tools that
EPA could be using to a greater degree to help address such
concerns regarding PFAS. In particular, as mentioned by Lisa,
the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, deploying these
authorities in the service of safe drinking water is source
water protection at the most strategic level.
Working with EPA's technical staff, which we heartily
encourage, we agree that we need an all hands on deck approach,
and TSCA is probably one of the biggest hands to use. We urge
Congress to ensure that EPA takes advantage of such existing
authorities under TSCA to manage risks posed by PFAS compounds.
Using this authority, the agency needs to provide a report in
one year and update it every 2 years, describing the location
of current and past PFAS production, import, processing, and
use in the United States for individual PFAS compounds, based
on the data collected through TSCA. We have tried to get some
of this information, and it is not that easy, although we
believe it is there. Appropriate actions should also be planned
or taken under TSCA to restrict production, use and import of
PFAS and support improved risk communications with the public.
Actions taken by other Federal agencies, in particularly the
Departments of Defense and Human Health Services to address
PFAS concerns should also be reported upon.
Finally, 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, should be included.
EPA officials promised to issue a proposed regulatory
determination of PFAS and PFOA under the Safe Drinking Water
Act processes this year. We urge Congress to support EPA's
Office of Water, particularly in appropriations, as it works
through the rule determination process.
With regard to Federal drinking water standards setting
process, we understand that it is 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
resources. We caution against setting a precedent by bypassing
these established processes via legislative action. The Nation
tested that approach with the 1986 amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act with untoward results. There is an appendix
to my written testimony which sets out some of the concerns and
problems that relate with that. I would be happy to discuss
that.
That said, we are eager to follow the data on PFAS wherever
it goes, and we will work with our members to comply with
whatever regulations are forthcoming. Believe me, the biggest
concern we face is the trillion dollar need to replace and
expand our water infrastructure. Water rates are going up at
maybe 3 percent higher than the CPI. We have additional costs
now with lead service line replacements. So we need to make
smart decisions so we do not mis-deploy resources going after
less risky challenges than the ones we already know.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mehan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Thanks to the entire Committee.
We are going to now proceed with some questions.
I would like to start, Dr. White, visiting with you about,
as EPA has said, it has initiated the regulatory development
process for listing two specific PFAS substances, PFAS and
PFOA, as hazardous substances under the Superfund law.
Does the American Chemistry Council support EPA's ongoing
process of what they are talking about doing in this matter?
Ms. White. Thank you, again, Senator Barrasso, for your
question. ACC does support EPA's activities to review and
determine whether or not PFAS and PFOA should be designated as
hazardous substances under the CERCLA Act. Again, as a
scientist, it has to be a science based process, that outlines
and follows the science and the data that we would need to
determine whether or not they actually would comply with that.
So as long as it is a science based process, ACC absolutely
supports EPA's review and would like to see that expedited, so
we can make a determination.
Senator Barrasso. So if enacted, several of the bills,
again for you, Dr. White, several of the bills that we are
considering today would regulate all PFAS substances in the
same manner. Would you help us understand some of the principal
differences between chemicals within this class?
Ms. White. Absolutely. As I mentioned from the very
beginning of my testimony, all PFAS are different. They don't
have the same hazard profile or environmental profile. For
example, fluoropolymers are very large molecules that are
usually not bioavailable and not water soluble. So again, you
would not find them in drinking water, for example, and you
would not see them having increased toxicity.
So you can't treat all of these PFAS chemistries the same.
That is why you can't have a one size fits all approach. You
really have to look at the scientific data that is relevant for
each one of those chemistries, determine whether or not there
is a potential human health risk, and then take action if there
is.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Ms. Daniels, if I could turn to you. In some communities,
PFAS is just one of the many known drinking water contaminants.
Help us understand how the risks associated with PFAS compare
to the risks associated with other drinking water contaminants.
And you know what they are, we can go through them, lead,
disinfection byproducts, legionella, a number of different
things out there.
Ms. Daniels. Sure, thank you for your question. Absolutely,
there are other high priority contaminants out there that water
systems and States are dealing with. In a lot of those cases,
the risk is known. We know a lot about those chemicals.
Legionella and other pathogens, microbial pathogens, have
always been a big part of protection efforts, because you have
acute health effects associated with those chemicals.
Legionella has been a challenge for us, and one of the
concerns is if you are tracking water borne disease outbreaks
through the CDC reporting, legionella has actually increased
550 percent since 2000 in terms of the number of outbreaks. So
it is something we are very concerned about.
It is one of the reasons, in our testimony, that we talk
about the fact that working on PFAS is taking work away from
our core programs, which concerns us a little bit. Lead
continues to be a major issue for States. I think we are doing
what we can to really focus on lead in schools and lead in day
care facilities as we await EPA to come out with their long-
term revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule.
So having said that, PFAS is important to States; it is
important to water systems. The challenge with PFAS, it is
everywhere. It is everywhere. It is everywhere. I don't know
that I have quite seen a contaminant like that, where you have
to be so concerned when you are taking a sample, about cross-
contamination. If you have deodorant on, if you have put
lotions on that day, you have the potential to cross-
contaminate that sample.
So when I think about PFAS, there absolutely has to be
focus on an incremental reduction of getting those chemicals
out of commerce because we can't just solve this as a drinking
water issue.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mehan, if I could just visit with you. In your
testimony, you discuss the process to establish a national
drinking water standard. You state caution against setting a
precedent of bypassing these established precedents via
legislative action. You say the Nation tested that approach in
the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act with
untoward results.
Could you explain what happened following those amendments
in 1986 for some of us who weren't there at the time?
Mr. Mehan. Right. At the time, I was running the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources which had delegated primacy for
the drinking water program. Under the 1986 amendments,
essentially, EPA was mandated to put out 25 new MCLs every 3
years, I believe it was. So we were at the receiving end of
this process. Staff couldn't quite explain to me what the risks
were that were being addressed, but nonetheless, we had to go
to our legislature, beg, borrow, and persuade to get a fee in
place. Of course, the utilities didn't like that; the customers
didn't like it. Nobody liked it, but we had to do it. Of
course, then, there was just the rulemaking process and the
cost.
So it was kind of a mess. There is also the question of
misdirection of resources, what are the opportunity costs of
this approach as opposed to dealing with real risks like lead,
disinfection byproducts, et cetera, are the basic
infrastructure of the utilities themselves.
In the appendix I have, I have a quote from June Swallow of
the Rhode Island Department of Health, Lisa's predecessor at
ASDWA, who basically excoriates the 1986 amendments and said
instead, new regulated contaminants would be selected based on
whether their health risk occurrence and comparative risk from
other exposure pathways warrant regulation. There is also
quotes from Bob Perciasepe, who you all know, who was running
the Maryland agency at the same time I was running the Missouri
agency. While he was at EPA, pretty much expanded on that
criticism, in terms really of relative or comparative risk type
of analysis.
So that was my lived experience with it, and I think it was
shared by others who were in the trenches at that time.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
commend, not just our panelists, but I want to commend our
staffs. Sometimes we have before us witnesses that are majority
witnesses, minority witnesses. You are all consensus picks, and
I think early wisely chosen. So thank you for taking the time
and preparing for this and for responding to our questions.
I think, Mr. Mehan, you indicated you had been in this room
before. I suspect others have, too. But for those who are here
on a return visit, welcome home.
Mr. Mehan. Thank you.
Senator Carper. It is good to see you all.
I am not a big one for yes or no questions, but I am going
to do a few of those today. And I am going to do it by asking
you to raise your hands if you disagree with a particular
statement. I will go slowly and ask you to work with me on this
if you will. We will see how it goes.
Please raise your hand if you disagree, if you disagree
that some PFAS chemicals have been shown to be harmful to human
health. Please raise your hand if you disagree that some PFAS
chemicals have been shown to be harmful to human health.
I see no hands. Thank you.
Second question. Please raise your hand if you disagree, if
you disagree, that there should be a Federal drinking water
standard to regulate the harmful PFAS chemicals that are also
found in drinking water. I will say it again. Please raise your
hand if you disagree that there should be a Federal drinking
water standard to regulate the harmful PFAS chemicals that are
also found in drinking water. Please raise your hand if you
disagree.
We have one who disagrees. Dr. White, thank you.
Mr. Mehan. I would demure to the question, Senator, in that
we do not support nor oppose. We commit to the process of
making a regulatory determination of whether an MCL is needed.
Senator Carper. OK.
Mr. Mehan. Primarily for looking at the two prime suspects.
Ms. White. I would also agree with what Tracy said, that
you really have to make sure that you are following the
regulatory process and using the science as the basis for
making that determination.
Senator Carper. OK, thanks.
You have an opportunity to raise your hand if you wish.
Please raise your hand if you disagree that the public should
be made aware of releases of harmful PFAS chemicals into the
environment. Please raise your hand if you disagree that the
public should be made aware of releases of harmful PFAS
chemicals into the environment.
I see no hands. On the second question, we had two who
spoke. I didn't see too many hands. But I had a couple people
who spoke, and that was fine.
A fourth question would be, please raise your hand if you
disagree that EPA should have the authority under the Superfund
law to require responsible parties to pay for the cleanup of
harmful PFAS chemicals, or to clean up itself in cases where no
responsible party can be found. I will say that one again.
Again, please raise your hand if you disagree that EPA should
have the authority under the Superfund law----
Mr. Mehan. Again, Senator, it is not a question of being
for or against. We understand the utility of a hazardous waste
designation.
However, you have received a letter from actually several
of our sister associations, AMWA, NACWA, and WIF, and one of
the issues is the impact on biosolids application, on pre-
treatment, on the wastewater side of the house. As I recall,
the exact position of NACWA and WIF was that a hazardous waste
designation under CERCLA would be appropriate as long as there
is an exemption for water and wastewater utilities.
Senator Carper. Fair enough.
Mr. Mehan. Thank you.
Senator Carper. I saw no other hands. I would like to go
on.
Very briefly, Dr. White.
Ms. White. I feel I should jump in here, just following
onto what Tracy said. You really do have to follow what the
CERCLA requirements are. So as long as those are followed, then
yes. But it has to be based off the science, as outlined in
CERCLA.
Senator Carper. Fine. And finally, I tell you what. I am
not going to ask this next raise your hand question, but I am
going to go to something further. I know that there is more to
providing input on legislation than just raising your hands. I
appreciate that. Thank you for doing that for us. But to that
end, I just want to ask each of you, just very succinctly, tell
us what your top priority for PFAS legislation is. Just very
succinctly, what would be your top priority for PFAS
legislation?
Dr. White.
Ms. White. My top priority is that it is science based, and
based off the most relevant and best available science for
those individual chemistries to make decisions.
Senator Carper. You are on message, which is a good thing.
Ms. Daniels.
Ms. Daniels. I would like to see additional legislation
where it is needed to really enhance what can be done under
TSCA. EPA talks about TSCA being the gatekeeper. Right now, I
think the gate is wide open, and I am not even sure where the
key is. So I think if we can take a look at the authorities
under TSCA and see if anything else can be done to get some of
that up front work first done, before these chemicals are
already out in the environment and potentially in drinking
water.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Mr. Scott Faber.
Mr. Faber. We think that we really need to kickstart the
cleanup process, especially where communities are wrestling
with very seriously contaminated drinking water supplies. And
we also need to make sure that Federal facilities, especially
DOD, take responsibility for their legacy pollution, so that
the PFAS Action Act and the PFAS Accountability Act, we just
want to assure that DOD does live up to its responsibilities
would be our top priorities.
Senator Carper. Just very briefly and succinctly, Mr.
Mehan, the same question. Your top priority for PFAS
legislation.
Mr. Mehan. Reflecting both my written and oral comments, we
need to get TSCA in the game more vigorously, and also respect
the processes in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Senator Carper. All right, great. Thank you all very, very
much.
I am going to slip out here and go solve the infrastructure
problems of our Nation while the rest of you deal with an
equally important issue of the PFAS and PFOA.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank all of you
for being here today. Thank you for today's hearing to examine
the challenges associated with PFAS contamination across the
country.
Unfortunately, these issues are all too familiar to West
Virginia. We have had our communities at either end of our
States that have faced the challenges Mr. Faber just talked
about, responsibility to Federal facilities. So given the
volume of testimony provided to the Committee for the hearing
record, this issue is clearly one of national interest and
significance.
With my constituents in mind, I have engaged in several
pieces of legislation meant to address this program, working in
collaborative and bipartisan fashion, both with Ranking Member
Carper and also with Senator Gillibrand. Indeed, we rotated
sponsoring, co-sponsoring, each other's legislation.
But the bill that I have led, which is the S. 1507, PFAS
Release Disclosure Act, would set up a process for EPA to add
various PFAS to the toxic release, the TRI, Toxics Release
Inventory, subject to the completion of review. I want to get
to that issue, because I think it requires determinations to be
grounded in science. You have talked about science, and backed
by regulatory review processes that involve notice and comment.
The bill does not include the entire class of the known 6,000
PFAS compounds.
So getting to my question, Dr. White, I just laid out the
thinking of the sponsors, and of our disclosure act and how we
designed a regulatory on ramp for inclusion of PFAS into the
Toxics Release Inventory. Is it fair to ACC's members are
familiar with the requirements of the TRI and associated
filings?
Ms. White. Yes. ACC members are familiar with the TRI
findings and how things should be listed. As you have
highlighted in your bill, we would be supportive of reviewing
the TRI requirements. So there are specific criteria that get
chemicals listed on the TRI that determine whether or not there
was actually an adverse health effect associated with those
chemistries before they are listed.
So as a scientist, you would have to support that science
review of the specific TRI criteria to determine whether or not
the specific PFAS that you have identified here in the bill
actually warrant listing under TRI.
Senator Capito. Obviously, by my support of the three
bills, I feel just--of my awareness of what has happened in my
particular State, I would say obviously that is why I am
sponsoring this legislation, because I feel it does need to be
included in the TRI.
But let me talk about some of the misinformation out there
on this bill. It is onerous, and it would apply to actors like
Mom and Pop gas stations, and it would feed all kinds of civil
lawsuits and short circuit the EPA regulatory process.
Mr. Faber, do you feel that S. 1507 prevents these sorts of
outcomes with its structure of regulatory approach? Do you have
an opinion on that?
Mr. Faber. Only industrial dischargers in certain
categories would be subject to your bill, Senator.
Senator Capito. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Daniels or Mr. Mehan, do you have anything to add on
that point? The accountability measures inherent on the TRI
will help limit or prevent emissions, hopefully relieving the
remediation burdens on communities and water systems. So do you
have anything to add on that point, since your stakeholders
will have to deal with the contamination once it is in the
water?
Ms. Daniels. Yes, thank you. I think it is absolutely
necessary that we get more information out to both the public
and the States in terms of where these chemicals are. I know as
a State, we filed multiple FOIA requests in preparation for our
sampling plan, because we wanted to know where the highest risk
was. Nobody could tell us where these chemicals were being
used. So right now, there is a lack of information.
Mr. Mehan. Senator, AWWA hasn't normally taken positions on
TRI issues. But speaking personally, TRI is the premier
information based environmental program. I think it is a
useful, hygienic way to encourage people to pursue pollution
prevention, toxic use reduction through a relatively light
handed approach.
The only critique that I think has some merit about TRI is
that all those listed are really risk based. I think, to the
extent again, if you are talking PFAS as a category, we would
caution against that approach. But to the extent you are
picking a subset of high risk compounds, that might be worth a
conversation.
Senator Capito. Our staffs, both Republican and Democrat,
have worked with ACC's members and AWG to try to arrive at a
solution here on S. 1507. So I would ask both you, Dr. White,
Mr. Faber, if you would continue to work with us in a
collaborative way so that we can find a sweet spot here in
something that is very troubling.
Ms. White. Thank you.
Mr. Faber. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Capito. Thank you. I will just say this in my final
10 seconds. We can sit up here and talk about CERCLA and TRI
and PFAS and PFOA, and honestly, if my constituents are home or
listening, they have no idea what I am talking about. What we
are simply talking about is making sure that our drinking water
is as safe as it can possibly be for us now and for future
generations. Because a lot of these substances stay in your
water forever or for what forever would be. Very long pieces of
time.
So I think it is in all of our best interests to talk as
simply as we can about the goals that we have in terms of
cleaning up our drinking water, remediating the problems,
facing the problems, and being honest about it and transparent,
helping small water systems when and how they need it to meet
these difficult challenges. Because we know that is going to be
an issue.
So I am pledging to you to work with my partners here to
find a way to find these answers, to make sure that our next
generation does not wake up someday and find out that they have
had a negative impact to something that we were talking about,
CERCLA and TSCA and all these other things, and not quite
getting to the real answers. That is my hope with being so
active on these bills.
I thank you all for listening.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Capito.
According to my records of arrival first, I think Senator
Markey was here earlier and has come back.
Senator Markey. Much appreciated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PFAS used in firefighting foams poses a particular danger
to both civilian and military firefighters. The use of these
foams during training and emergency response is a major source
of PFAS contamination of groundwater on military bases and near
civilian training facilities.
In my home State of Massachusetts, high levels of PFAS have
been found near Fort Devens, Barnes Air National Guard Base,
Joint Base Cape Cod, and the Barnstable County Firefighter
Training Academy. Our firefighters and military personnel
willfully put themselves in harm's way to keep their neighbors
and country safe. We should be all we can to keep them safe in
return.
Mr. Faber, civilian airports can now use non-PFAS foams to
fight fires, but our military members and many firefighters,
civilian, remain at risk. What other steps should be taken to
limit the use of PFAS containing firefighting foams as well as
better understand their risks?
Mr. Faber. Thank you, Senator. Firefighters do face unique
risks from PFAS because PFAS is in the foams, as well as in the
turnout gear that they wear to fight fires. While we do not
know all the ways that firefighters are likely to get certain
cancers, more than the rest of the population, we do suspect
that PFAS is one of them.
One of the things that Congress should do is do more to
test the blood of firefighters for PFAS and legislation has
been proposed, the Protecting Military Firefighters from PFAS
Act. That would also build on a study that was include in the
NDAA last year, but did not include firefighters, and should
have. So there are opportunities to better understand how PFAS
are impacting firefighters.
More broadly, we need to really accelerate efforts to
reduce the use of fluorinated foams wherever possible,
beginning with ending the use of fluorinated foams in training
exercises, whether that is in civilian airports, training
academies, and other situations.
Senator Markey. Great. In response to my questioning during
the Committee's previous PFAS hearing, Deputy Assistant
Secretary Sullivan said that the Department of Defense would
``meet any properly promulgated standard that is issued by the
State, and roll it into our cleanup program.''
Mr. Faber, of the five States that have issued or proposed
stricter regulations on PFAS contamination in water, would you
consider these ``properly promulgated''?
Mr. Faber. Yes, Senator. There is guidance on when a
regulation, in this case, has been properly promulgated. It has
to be legally enforceable; it has to be generally applied. Many
States have already promulgated rules to restrict or reduce the
presence of PFAS. Many other States are doing so. In certain
situations, the Department of Defense should be deferring to
those State standards when cleaning up these contaminated
sites.
Senator Markey. And the PFAS Accountability would require
cooperation between DOD and States on cleanup efforts.
As part of their jobs, non-military firefighters are
exposed to PFAS in multiple ways, including in their suits.
This is an occupational hazard, and I believe we should be
tracking this civilian worker exposure and addressing it,
similar to what the military is doing for their firefighters.
Mr. Faber, do you agree that we should be studying
occupational PFAS related hazards that might be affecting our
community firefighters?
Mr. Faber. Absolutely. We should expand the NIOSH study
that is currently underway to add firefighters to better
understand the impacts that PFAS foams and turnout gear are
having on firefighters.
Senator Markey. Disgracefully, they have been exempted from
previous studies and are not getting the same blood tests that
military firefighters are getting. That must change.
Mr. Faber, would designating harmful PFAS as hazardous
chemicals under the Superfund law help communities near
military bases that are struggling with contamination?
Mr. Faber. Yes, Senator. Designating PFAS as a hazardous
substance under CERCLA would really kickstart the remediation
process, so that communities that are located near air bases,
other Federal facilities, would be ensured that there would be
an effort underway, either between DOD or in the case of NASA,
or other Federal facilities, an effort between EPA and the
Federal facility to clean up the mess and make sure that
responsible parties pay their fair share.
Senator Markey. So States are being forced to step up to
protect the health of their residents, as the EPA continues to
slow walk a national plan of action. The least the Department
of Defense could do is meet or exceed States standards.
Instead, the Defense Department is denying and dodging, at the
expense of our military members' and their families' health.
Meanwhile, we still don't have the full answers for our
firefighters in every community in the United States in terms
of the protections they will be given.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Faber.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you to the panel for being here.
I want to add a thank you to somebody who is not here,
which is my home State paper, the Providence Journal, which has
done an amazing job of covering the threats of climate change
along our coasts. They have done repeated front page, above the
fold articles about the risks Rhode Island's coastline is
facing and how we are having to prepare.
In that spirit, they have also done a terrific job on PFAS
contamination in one of our municipalities, in Burrillville,
which is facing water contamination. I would like to ask
permission to put their article on Burrillville's contamination
into the record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, done some very good work in
this Committee in bipartisan fashion. We have done good work on
TSCA, which ended up passing in very significant bipartisan
fashion. Regrettably, we saw the Trump EPA make a hash of that
bipartisan effort. Then in bipartisan fashion, we corrected it.
I actually introduced a Trump nominee for the Toxic Chemicals
Section at EPA to put us back on bipartisan course.
I think it is a real concern when a divided Senate comes
together in bipartisan fashion on an issue like this and then
finds that the agency has gone off on a partisan tear. We are
supposed to be the political ones, not the agency. We saw it
recently with the NRC. This Committee, myself, Senator Crapo,
the Chairman, and others have done terrific work passing
bipartisan nuclear innovation bills.
What happens? The NRC, on a partisan basis, goes out,
outside of the record of the rules proceeding that they are
operating under, and unilaterally, the Republican appointees
only decide something that nobody asked for in the public
record, which is that nuclear facilities shouldn't be required
to prepare for flood risk. I don't know how you could have a
dumber decision. And the fact that they would do that on a
partisan basis, with such a good record of bipartisanship here
on the Committee, is very frustrating.
I think where this Committee has stood together on a
bipartisan basis, agencies need to take the message and work as
if they were bipartisan, too, and not inject a lot of nonsense,
polluter driven partisanship into the agency's decision. For
Pete's sake, if we can get over it, you ought to be able to get
over it out there in the agencies.
So this is a real frustration to me. Ms. White, the
American Chemistry Council worked well with us on TSCA. I think
that helped the signals about the early enforcement and was
part of the solution that I brought Alex Dunn in, who I think
is a good Administrator. I hope that you are leaning in as a
council to try to solve this problem in that same bipartisan
spirit on which we all worked together on the underlying TSCA
bill and on correcting the initial enforcement.
Ms. White. Thank you, again, Senator Whitehouse. As you
mentioned, and to me, as a toxicologist and a scientist, ACC is
absolutely willing to be a constructive partner in this
process, and making sure that science kind of underlies this
process as we evaluate how to mitigate and manage any
associated risks with PFAS chemistries.
Senator Whitehouse. Good. Because bipartisanship is a
terrible thing to waste.
Ms. White. I agree.
Senator Whitehouse. It takes all the fun out of working in
a bipartisan fashion if what happens is, we get kneecapped by
partisanship in an administrative agency, after we have avoided
partisanship here in the most partisan of branches of
Government.
Ms. Daniels, we are likely to be taking up an
infrastructure bill of some kind. Who knows? The President
topped Speaker Pelosi's trillion dollars and said $2 trillion.
So who knows what is it going to be?
His budget person, Mr. Mulvaney, promptly came out and
undercut the President, so we don't really quite know how that
is all going to turn out. But there is a real likelihood, I
think, of there being an infrastructure bill. Our side
certainly wants one, and I think there has been considerable
support on this Committee on a bipartisan basis for our share
of a strong bipartisan bill. I thank the Chairman for that.
What would you like to see in an infrastructure bill that
would help your constituency deal with this contamination
problem?
Ms. Daniels. Thank you for the question. Yes, we certainly
are supportive of an infrastructure bill for all of the other
things that water suppliers need. Pittsburgh, a town in
Pennsylvania, is certainly one of those examples of what
happens when you have deferred maintenance. That is a concern
for us.
Specifically for PFAS, I do think we need to look at
alternate funding sources. Because I do believe the incredible
costs, so just to put GAC on one well, for example, could be
anywhere from $500,000 up to $1 million. When you are talking
about other advanced technologies for the shorter chain
chemicals, like GenX, you are talking tens of millions of
dollars.
We are going to have to think long and hard about alternate
funding sources for these systems. Because there are already a
lot of great needs within the SRF program itself to deal with
lead and some of the other problems that we have been talking
about here.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Chairman, I would just please urge
that you all get back to us over whatever period of time is
appropriate, even outside the scope of this hearing, to share
with the Chairman and the members of this Committee what some
of your ideas might be for an infrastructure bill, so that we
have a chance to look at them and digest them, and if things
start to move in a serious way, that they get every fair
consideration which they deserve. OK? Thanks.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Before turning to Senator Van Hollen, I would point out
that the six bills posted for the hearing today were all
bipartisan bills.
Senator Whitehouse. Great. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank all of you for your testimony here today.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling a hearing on the
subject. I think all of us are concerned about PFAS
contamination in our States.
In Maryland, we have five identified PFAS sites, Andrews
Air Base, Fort Meade, Tipton Airfield, former David Taylor
Research Center, now called Bayhead Road, Aberdeen Proving
Ground and something called Chesapeake Bay Detachment. So we
have five sites. We do have a good, cooperative group working
between the Defense Department, EPA, and the State, Maryland
Department of the Environment. That is the good news.
But the Maryland Department of the Environment did indicate
that they could use additional help and support. So when we
contacted them about Senator Carper's bill, they were
supportive. And I am a co-sponsor of that bill to designate
PFAS as a CERCLA hazardous substance.
That of course makes Federal agencies, in the case where it
is Federal agencies having PFAS, liable for the cleanup. I
think that is important, because that now puts it not just as a
voluntary effort, but a legal effort. Now, of course, the
funding issue is real.
To all of you, when the Federal Government becomes liable
for cleanup, I assume that means they have to find the money
within their budgets. Is that the case?
Mr. Faber. That is right, Senator. In the case of Wallops,
for example, if NASA were to be found responsible for the PFAS
pollution that were on base or off base, they would have to
find the resources to help finance the cleanup. They could also
see contribution from some of the other responsible parties, in
this case, foam manufacturers or chemical companies. But
ultimately it would be NASA dollars, not Superfund dollars,
that would pay for the cleanup.
Senator Van Hollen. You anticipated my question, because
Wallops is another facility where we have a PFAS issue. I
listed five that are in the State of Maryland. PFAS is, of
course, in Virginia, but very close to Maryland. We have
workers from both States there trying to make sure that that is
a safe facility.
So under that scenario, NASA would be primarily responsible
for the cleanup.
Mr. Faber. For Fort Meade, for the parts of Fort Meade that
are still under DOD control, it would be DOD's responsibility.
Senator Van Hollen. Now, in your experience, are those
funds that come out of the--are there legal liability funds
that are appropriate, or have they been separately appropriated
in the past?
Mr. Faber. In the case of DOD, DOD does have, under the
Superfund Amendments of 1986, a program, the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program, that has helped finance some
of that remediation. So they have funding that is annually
appropriated to help clean up contaminated sites, munitions,
burn pits and so on. Not nearly enough money has been
appropriated. And as we have heard earlier, DOD has been
reluctant to take on responsibility for PFAS contamination that
started on, especially airbases, and now contaminating nearby
communities, near Dover or F.E. Warren or other airbases in
Maryland.
One challenge is, when States are in control of the cleanup
under CERCLA, there is no provision in CERCLA that requires DOD
and States to enter into cooperative agreements than then force
DOD to meet certain deadlines and fulfill their
responsibilities. S. 1372, the PFAS Accountability Act, would
ensure that in those circumstances, that DOD has to meet a
properly promulgated State standard, as long as it meets
certain criteria.
So one missing piece in the world of CERCLA is this
requirement that DOD or NASA or other Federal facilities do
have to meet these State standards when States are the lead
agency in charge. That does happen under CERCLA.
Senator Van Hollen. I am glad you raised that. In Maryland,
for example, under the Maryland Controlled Hazardous Substance
Act, Maryland has become the lead agency for CERCLA designated
hazardous waste. So you are saying that the other legislation
would be required to make sure that the State of Maryland is
not on the hook to pay the bill?
Mr. Faber. If the State--and in the case of Wallops, NASA--
were not able to reach a cooperative agreement, then there
would be a duty on NASA to alert you, Congress, so that you
could get involved and ensure that DOD or NASA or whatever
Federal agency created the pollution problem was living up to
their responsibilities.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
I just also, Mr. Chairman, want to associate myself with
Senator Markey's comments regarding addressing the occupational
hazards to firefighters and others. Thank you.
Thank you all.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
Before we adjourn, I would like to note that we have
received a number of written statements from parties who would
be impacted by the legislation before us. These include
communities polluted with PFAS substances, as well as airports,
rural drinking water providers, paper producers, metal
finishers, refineries and others. I ask unanimous consent to
enter these written statements into the record.
Without objection, it is done.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Now I would like to thank all of you for
being here today. Some members of the Committee may have
written questions that they will give to you. So the hearing
record will remain open for 2 weeks. But I just want to thank
all of you for your time and your testimony and sharing your
wisdom with us today.
Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[A prepared statement submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bernard Sanders,
U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont
Since early 2016, when perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a
type of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), was found
in hundreds of private wells and one municipal water system in
southwestern Vermont, I have worked to ensure the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) takes this threat seriously. The
groundwater contamination in Vermont is the product of past
industrial manufacturing in the area. PFAS--a toxic chemical
that can cause cancer, thyroid disease, obesity, and immune
problems--is very dangerous to human health in extremely low
concentrations.
Vermont has led the Nation in its response to PFAS
contamination, passing a law requiring one of the strongest
drinking water standards in the country for five PFAS
compounds. The law requires water system managers to test for
the five compounds by the end of this year. If levels above the
standard are found, water utilities will have to treat water to
lower levels and provide residents with clean drinking water
until the public supply is safe.
Meanwhile, Andrew Wheeler's EPA has proposed a very weak
``action plan'' that does not come close to protecting public
health and a clean environment. That is what happens when the
EPA acts on behalf of corporate polluters instead of protecting
public health and a clean environment. Communities all across
the country, particularly communities of color, find themselves
time and time again fighting for the basic right to clean air
and clean water. If Administrator Wheeler is successful, we
will continue to see this same type of groundwater
contamination in communities all across the country. That is
unjust, and that has got to change.
In the richest country in the history of the world, it is
not a radical idea to demand that when people turn on their
taps, the water they drink is safe and clean, not filthy and
poisonous. In February, I was proud to introduce the WATER Act
to deliver water justice to millions of people who lack access
to clean and safe drinking water and create up to a million
jobs in the process.
My bill would help communities struggling with PFAS
contamination by extending the State Revolving Loan Fund to
cover PFAS contamination. My bill would provide support to
update treatment systems or find alternative water supplies
when community water systems or household water wells have PFAS
contamination.
If President Trump was serious about addressing our
crumbling infrastructure, which he is not, he would tell Mitch
McConnell to bring this bill up for a vote and get Republican
Senators to vote for it. Most Americans agree that everyone has
a right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, but this
EPA apparently disagrees. We have got to stand up and demand
environmental policies that protect all of us, not just the
profits of chemical corporations.
If we are serious about modernizing our aging water
infrastructure in Vermont and across the country, we must make
a significant and prolonged investment on the Federal level.
Instead of cutting rural water funding like the Trump
administration has proposed, we should dramatically increase
support for these types of critically important projects.
[Text of legislation submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]