[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
                           FOREVER CHEMICALS:
                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
                    FOR ADDRESSING THE PFAS PROBLEM

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

                                     

                             JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
                SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 7, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-41

                               __________

                                     

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
 

                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                      
                                     
                                     
                                     

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
       
       
       
       
                         ______                       


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
46-186PDF           WASHINGTON : 2022       
       
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                      Subcommittee on Environment

              HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma,
DAN KILDEE, Michigan                   Ranking Member
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
                                 ------                                

                Subcommittee on Research and Technology

                HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida, 
PAUL TONKO, New York                     Ranking Member
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         VACANCY
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                            December 7, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman, 
  Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     9
    Written Statement............................................    10

Statement by Representative Stephanie I. Bice, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    12
    Written Statement............................................    13

Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman, 
  Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    14
    Written Statement............................................    15

Statement by Representative Michael Waltz, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    16
    Written Statement............................................    17

Written statement by Representative Bill Posey, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..    18

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    19

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Elsie Sunderland, Gordan McKay Professor of Environmental 
  Chemistry, Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and 
  Applied Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
    Oral Statement...............................................    21
    Written Statement............................................    23

Ms. Abigail Hendershott, Executive Director, Michigan PFAS Action 
  Response Team (MPART)
    Oral Statement...............................................    28
    Written Statement............................................    30

Ms. Amy Dindal, Director of Environmental Research and 
  Development, Battelle Memorial Institute
    Oral Statement...............................................    38
    Written Statement............................................    40

Dr. Peter Jaffe, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental 
  Engineering, Princeton University
    Oral Statement...............................................    49
    Written Statement............................................    51

Discussion.......................................................    65

              Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Elsie Sunderland, Gordan McKay Professor of Environmental 
  Chemistry, Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and 
  Applied Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health....    88

Ms. Abigail Hendershott, Executive Director, Michigan PFAS Action 
  Response Team (MPART)..........................................    96

Ms. Amy Dindal, Director of Environmental Research and 
  Development, Battelle Memorial Institute.......................   101

Dr. Peter Jaffe, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental 
  Engineering, Princeton University..............................   106


                           FOREVER CHEMICALS:

                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

                    FOR ADDRESSING THE PFAS PROBLEM

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
                       Subcommittee on Environment,
                        joint with the Subcommittee
                        on Research and Technology,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., 
via Zoom, Hon. Mikie Sherrill [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee 
on Environment] presiding.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Sherrill. That sounds great. This hearing will 
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare a recess at any time. Pursuant to House Resolution 
Eight, today the Committee is meeting virtually. I want to 
announce a couple of reminders to the Members about the conduct 
of this remote hearing. First, Members should keep their video 
feed on as long as they are present in the hearing. Members are 
responsible for their own microphones. Please also keep your 
microphones muted, unless you are speaking. Finally, if Members 
have documents they wish to submit for the record, please e-
mail them to the Committee Clerk, whose e-mail address was 
circulated prior to the hearing.
    So good morning, and welcome to today's joint hearing of 
the Environment and Research and Technology Subcommittees on 
PFAS research and development (R&D). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl 
substances, or PFAS, are a class of human-made chemicals. 
They're used in many industrial and everyday consumer products 
such as firefighting foam, food packaging, nonstick cookware, 
carpets, and even dental floss. PFAS are known as forever 
chemicals due to their widespread use, persistence in the 
environment, and strong molecular structure that makes them 
nearly impossible to break down. Despite being in use since the 
1940's, PFAS are considered contaminants of emerging concern as 
we continue to understand the negative human health and 
ecological impacts of these substances. There's growing 
consensus that PFAS are linked to negative health consequences 
including, but not limited to, cancer, infertility, liver and 
kidney disease, hormone disruption, and damage to the immune 
system, especially in children.
    As a former Navy pilot, I have spent countless days on 
military bases. Unbeknownst to me and my fellow servicemembers, 
I was in frequent contact with PFAS. Firefighting foam used on 
military bases, also known as Aqueous Film Forming Foaming or 
AFFF, contains PFAS. AFFF has caused PFAS contamination at 
levels deemed unsafe by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention). That's why I helped secure funding in the 
National Defense Authorization Act to help cleanup our military 
installations, including the Picatinny Arsenal in north Jersey. 
The extensive use of PFAS has led to most, if not all, 
Americans to have these forever chemicals in their body to some 
degree. This is something I'm seeing across my district, from 
North Haledon to Verona to Stanhope, and everywhere in between. 
In fact, this issue is so critical in my district that one of 
my ten community project submissions was for PFAS remediation 
in Hopatcong.
    While this issue is extensive in all communities across the 
country, it has disproportionate impacts on small communities 
who have trouble bearing the expense of remediation. It's 
concerning how little we know about these harmful chemicals 
and, even further, how limited our understanding is about what 
we still need to learn. I am proud to say that New Jersey is 
the first in the Nation to set PFAS drinking water standards, 
but we've only just begun to scratch the surface. 
Unfortunately, actions we are taking in New Jersey to reduce 
our exposure to PFAS through drinking water are expensive for 
our municipalities.
    I'm proud that the bipartisan infrastructure law is making 
real investments to fund lead pipe remediation and removal of 
PFAS contaminants from water systems, ensuring we have safe 
drinking water, but without doing so on the backs of taxpayers 
in New Jersey and across the country. This is a great start. 
But given the scale of this issue, and the cost to our 
communities, it's clear we need to do more to support our 
municipalcities fighting these harmful chemicals, so we must 
support R&D to make remediation easier and less expensive. If 
we don't, the costs to our communities' health will continue to 
compound, and that's unacceptable.
    There are many outstanding questions related to PFAS fate 
and transport, toxicity, exposure pathways, treatment and 
destruction, remediation, and essential use. We know PFAS are 
dangerous and harmful, but we don't know exactly how many PFAS 
chemicals there are, but they're in the thousands. In many 
cases we don't have the ability to detect PFAS that are present 
or measure their concentration. Questions also remain about 
global production volumes of PFAS, where PFAS are used, and 
PFAS hotspots. To answer these questions, we must support an 
interdisciplinary, collaborative, and integrated approach. It's 
critical to develop partnerships between State and local 
entities, academia, nongovernmental stakeholders, and the 
Federal Government.
    Due to the cross-cutting nature of PFAS, numerous Federal 
agencies are essential to addressing the problem. The National 
Institutes of Health's (NIH's) National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), DOD (Department of 
Defense), NIST (National Institute of Standards and 
Technology), NSF (National Science Foundation), NOAA (National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), FAA (Federal Aviation 
Administration), and of course EPA (Environmental Protection 
Agency) are all essential to conducting and funding research 
efforts for PFAS. This is an even more timely hearing for the 
Committee, as the EPA has just released their PFAS Strategic 
Roadmap, a comprehensive strategy to combat the persistent 
challenges of PFAS. I'm particularly pleased to see the EPA 
prioritizing investments in research, development, and 
innovation to strengthen our understanding of PFAS and 
accelerate remediation efforts. Additionally, the roadmap's 
emphasis on protections for disadvantaged communities that have 
been disproportionately impacted by PFAS is key as we strive to 
address environmental justice (EJ) concerns.
    There's significant ongoing PFAS research and development 
activities, and even more in the pipeline. That's why I am 
pleased to welcome our esteemed panel of PFAS experts, who are 
well-versed on the current state of research and development. I 
look forward to hearing their testimony to better understand 
the gaps in our scientific understanding, and also to identify 
future research needs. I'm also eager to hear their 
recommendations for how this Committee can help facilitate 
research and development collaborations between Federal and 
non-Federal entities and identify opportunities for interagency 
coordination at the Federal level.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Sherrill follows:]

    Good morning and welcome to today's joint hearing of the 
Environment and Research and Technology Subcommittees on PFAS 
research and development.
    Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS are a class of 
human-made chemicals. They're used in many industrial and 
everyday consumer products such as firefighting foam, food 
packaging, nonstick cookware, carpets, and even dental floss.
    PFAS are known as ``forever chemicals'' due to their 
widespread use, persistence in the environment, and strong 
molecular structure that makes them nearly impossible to break 
down. Despite being in use since the 1940's, PFAS are 
considered contaminants of emerging concern, as we continue to 
understand the negative human health and ecological impacts of 
these substances. There is growing consensus that PFAS are 
linked to negative health consequences including but not 
limited to, cancer, infertility, liver and kidney disease, 
hormone disruption, and damage to the immune system especially 
in children.
    As a former Navy pilot, I have spent countless days on 
military bases. Unbeknownst to me and my fellow servicemembers, 
I was in frequent contact with PFAS. Firefighting foam used on 
military bases, also known as Aqueous Film Forming Foaming or 
``AFFF'', contains PFAS. AFFF has caused PFAS contamination at 
levels deemed unsafe by the CDC. That is why I helped secure 
funding in the National Defense Authorization Act to help clean 
up our military installations, including the Picatinny Arsenal 
in north Jersey.
    The extensive use of PFAS has led to most, if not all, 
Americans to have these forever chemicals in their body to some 
degree. This is something I'm seeing across my district, from 
North Haledon to Verona to Stanhope--and everywhere in between. 
In fact, this issue is so critical in my district, that one of 
my ten community project submissions was for PFAS remediation 
in Hopatcong.
    While this issue is extensive in all communities across the 
country, it has disproportionate impacts on small communities 
who have trouble bearing the expense of remediation. It is 
concerning how little we know about these harmful chemicals 
and, even further, our limited understanding about what we 
still need to learn.
    I am proud of my home state of New Jersey for being the 
first in the nation to set PFAS drinking water standards. But 
we have only just begun to scratch the surface. Unfortunately, 
actions we are taking in New Jersey to reduce our exposure to 
PFAS through drinking water are expensive for our 
municipalities. I'm proud that the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law is making real investments to fund lead pipe remediation 
and removal of PFAS contaminants from water systems, ensuring 
we have safe drinking water but without doing so on the backs 
of taxpayers in New Jersey and across the country. This is a 
great start.
    But given the scale of this issue, and the cost to our 
communities, it's clear we need to do more to support our 
municipalities fighting these harmful chemicals. So, we must 
support R&D to make remediation easier and less expensive. If 
we don't, the costs to our communities' health will continue to 
compound, and that is unacceptable.
    There are many outstanding questions related to PFAS fate 
and transport, toxicity, exposure pathways, treatment and 
destruction, remediation, and essential use. We know PFAS are 
dangerous and harmful, but we don't know exactly how many PFAS 
chemicals there are--but they're in the thousands. In many 
cases, we don't have the ability to detect PFAS that are 
present or measure their concentration. Questions also remain 
about global production volumes of PFAS, where PFAS are used, 
and PFAS hotspots.
    To answer these questions, we must support an 
interdisciplinary, collaborative, and integrated approach. It 
is critical to develop partnerships between state and local 
entities, academia, non-governmental stakeholders, and the 
Federal government.
    Due to the cross-cutting nature of PFAS, numerous Federal 
agencies are essential to addressing the problem. The National 
Institutes of Health's National Institute of Environmental 
Health Sciences (NIEHS), DoD, NIST, NSF, NOAA, FAA, and of 
course EPA-all are essential to conducting and funding research 
efforts for PFAS.
    This is an even more timely hearing for the Committee as 
the EPA has just released their PFAS Strategic Roadmap, a 
comprehensive strategy to combat the persistent challenges of 
PFAS.
    I am particularly pleased to see the EPA prioritizing 
investments in research, development, and innovation to 
strengthen our understanding of PFAS and accelerate remediation 
efforts. Additionally, the Roadmap's emphasis on protections 
for disadvantaged communities that have been disproportionately 
impacted by PFAS is key as we strive to address environmental 
justice concerns.
    There is significant ongoing PFAS research and development 
activities, and even more in the pipeline. That is why I am 
pleased to welcome our esteemed panel of PFAS experts who are 
well-versed on the current state of research and development. I 
look forward to hearing their testimony to better understand 
the gaps in our scientific understanding of PFAS and to also 
identify future research needs.
    I am also eager to hear their recommendations for how this 
Committee can help facilitate research and development 
collaborations between Federal and non-Federal entities and 
identify opportunities for interagency coordination at the 
Federal level.

    Chairwoman Sherrill. With that, I will turn it over, and so 
the Chair now recognizes Environment Subcommittee Ranking 
Member Bice for an opening statement.
    Mrs. Bice. Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, 
and Chairwoman Stevens, for holding this joint Subcommittee 
hearing today, and thank you to our witnesses for taking the 
time to testify before us. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, 
known as PFAS, are a large and diverse family of synthetic 
chemicals. It is not just one product, or one strand, that we 
can say is good or bad. Each individual chemistry in the family 
of PFAS has its own unique properties and uses. In fact, 
according to the EPA there are approximately 650 PFAS currently 
manufactured or used in the U.S. Many of these chemistries are 
essential to products driving our lives in the 21st century. 
Cell phones, tablets, computers, things we use every day, 
components of clean energy sources like solar and wind, modern 
medical devices that keep us healthy, sophisticated aircraft 
the U.S. military uses to keep us safe. In each of these, PFAS 
is the common denominator that makes them possible to produce.
    But because of the strength and durability PFAS provides, 
these chemicals have a strong molecular bond that is not easily 
broken down or destroyed. That is why you will hear PFAS 
referred to as forever chemicals. As you might imagine, a 
chemical that is the backbone of Aqueous Film Forming Foam, 
which is a highly effective--highly effective at putting out 
the most difficult to suppress fires, is purposefully designed 
to withstand the most extreme conditions that would destroy 
most other products. That presents us with the main problem 
associated with PFAS, removing what is already out there. 
Because PFAS has been used in industry and consumer products 
since the 1940's, we know that exposure has already happened, 
and we face the problem of legacy contamination in water, soil, 
air, and food.
    To overcome this challenge, I am looking forward to hearing 
from one of our witnesses, Ms. Amy Dindal from Battelle 
Memorial Institute, on her research regarding PFAS 
identification and destruction in the environment. Ms.--as Ms. 
Dindal will further explain, Battelle's development of PFAS 
Annihilator technology has destroyed 99.9 percent of PFOA and 
PFAS in water. This type of scalable technology provides proof 
that economically feasible, safe, complete, and reliable 
destruction of PFAS is within our grasp, thus solving the most 
fundamental issues that come with using these chemicals.
    As we look to the future, it is important to remember not 
to villainize the entire category of chemicals. The hazard and 
risk profiles of various PFAS are immensely different. A broad 
categorical ban on PFAS would be detrimental to our 
manufacturing sector, and actually put lives at risk by 
reducing safety. Using certain PFAS in controlled, responsible 
manner is safe and effective. Understanding the distinct 
properties of each of these chemicals will allow us to continue 
the important uses and benefits of PFAS technologies.
    At the end of the day, removing harmful PFAS from 
production, and cleaning up legacy contaminations to protect 
human health is a bipartisan issue. In 2019 the Trump 
Administration's EPA issued the PFAS Action Plan, which was the 
agency's first national research, management, and risk 
communication plan to address the challenges of PFAS. I was 
pleased to see this October that a Biden Administration--the 
Biden Administration's EPA released a PFAS Strategic Roadmap 
which builds on the Action Plan. In today's political 
environment, everything tends to be polarized, but when it 
comes to the common good of protecting human health, not every 
precious action has to be repealed or replaced. We can, and 
should, build off of productive work, no matter the political 
party. It is my hope that moving forward bipartisan efforts 
continue, and the same science-based decisionmaking, and 
weighted benefits, are considered with any proposed regulation.
    I want to again thank the witnesses for testifying before 
the Committee today, and I look forward to engaging in the 
discussion. I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Bice follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill and Chairwoman Stevens, for 
holding this joint subcommittee hearing today. And thank you to 
our witnesses for taking the time to testify before us.
    Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, known as PFAS, are a 
large and diverse family of synthetic chemicals. It's not just 
one product or one strand that we can say is good or bad. Each 
individual chemistry in the family of PFAS has its own unique 
properties and uses.
    In fact, according to the EPA, there are approximately 650 
PFAS currently manufactured or used in the United States. Many 
of these chemistries are essential to products driving our 
lives in the 21st century.
    The cellphones, tablets, and computers we use every day; 
components of clean energy sources like solar and wind; modern 
medical devices that keep us healthy; sophisticated aircraft 
the U.S. military uses to keep us safe. In each of these, PFAS 
is the common denominator that makes them possible to produce.
    But because of the strength and durability PFAS provides, 
these chemicals have a strong molecular bond that is not easily 
broken down or destroyed. That is why you will hear PFAS 
referred to as ``forever chemicals.'' As you might imagine, a 
chemical that is the backbone of aqueous film-forming foam, 
which is highly effective at putting out the most difficult to 
suppress fires, is purposely designed to withstand the most 
extreme conditions that would destroy most other products.
    That presents us with the main problem associated with 
PFAS: removing what is already out there. Because PFAS has been 
used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s, we know 
that exposure has already happened and we face the problem of 
legacy contaminations in water, soil, air, and food.
    To overcome this challenge, I look forward to hearing from 
one of our witnesses, Ms. Amy Dindal from Battelle Memorial 
Institute, on her research regarding PFAS identification and 
destruction in the environment.
    As Ms. Dindal will further explain, Battelle's development 
of PFAS Annihilator technology has destroyed 99.9% of PFOA and 
PFOS in water. This type of scalable technology should give us 
all comfort that economically feasible, safe, complete, and 
reliable destruction of PFAS is within our grasp, thus solving 
the most fundamental issue that comes with using these 
chemicals.
    As we look to the future, it's important we remember not to 
villainize this entire category of chemicals. The hazard and 
risk profiles of various PFAS are immensely different. A broad, 
categorical ban on PFAS would be detrimental to our 
manufacturing sector and actually put lives at risk by reducing 
safety.
    Using certain PFAS in a controlled, responsible manner is 
safe and effective. Understanding the distinct properties of 
each of these chemicals will allow us to continue the important 
uses and benefits of PFAS technologies.
    At the end of the day, removing harmful PFAS from 
production and cleaning up legacy contaminations to protect 
human health is a bipartisan issue.
    In 2019, the Trump Administration's EPA issued the PFAS 
Action Plan, which was the agency's first national research, 
management, and risk communication plan to address a challenge 
like PFAS. I was pleased to see this October that the Biden 
Administration's EPA released a PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which 
builds off the Action Plan.
    In today's political environment, everything tends to be 
polarized, but when it comes to the common good of protecting 
human health, not every previous action has to be repealed and 
replaced. We can and should build off productive work, no 
matter the political party.
    It is my hope that moving forward, bipartisan efforts 
continue and the same science- based decision making and weight 
of benefits are considered with any proposed regulation.
    I want to again thank all of our witnesses for testifying 
before the Committee today and I look forward to an engaging 
discussion. I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes 
Ms. Stevens, Chairwoman of the Research and Technology 
Subcommittee, for an opening statement.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill. It is a 
huge honor to be co-chairing today's hearing, particularly from 
your Chairmanship on the Science Committee, Subcommittee on 
Environment, on PFAS. And thank you to our panelists for 
joining us. I am particularly excited and honored to welcome 
Ms. Abigail Hendershott, a fellow Michigander, and the 
Executive Director of the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, 
MPART.
    PFAS has been a topic of profound relevance for us in 
Michigan. In fact, it has just been a rallying call, given the 
number of sites that we have. And, as has been discussed, PFAS 
is--PFAS are a group of human-made chemicals that have been 
manufactured since the 1940's, and can be found in a wide range 
of both consumer and industrial products. There's growing 
evidence that these chemicals are linked to adverse health 
outcomes including liver damage, thyroid disease, an increased 
risk of cancer, and reduced antibody response, particularly in 
children. Research has also shown that there are numerous 
pathways through which humans can be exposed to these 
chemicals. Unfortunately, PFAS is extremely resistant to 
degradation in the environment, and, as has been discussed, 
this is why PFAS is known as forever chemicals, and exposure to 
these chemicals continues to harm the health and wellbeing of 
families across America.
    Again, my home State of Michigan has the most PFAS 
identified contaminated sites in the country, thus making it 
the State's biggest environmental crisis in half a century. 
That is our State's biggest environmental crisis in half a 
century. Just this weekend I was at the holiday parades, 
talking to municipal leaders who were saying up north I can't 
even drink the water, I can't fish in the water at my up north 
cabin. This is such a risk aversion for us in our State. That 
is why we have Ms. Hendershott in the role that she is in, but 
this is also why we must rely on Federal responses for how 
we're going to tackle PFAS, and PFAS cleanup, and obviously 
prevention.
    So we can recognize here, and--particularly the Science 
Committee, that the scientific knowledge is certainly still 
developing, and, almost to our chagrin as we learn more about 
the serious health effects in humans and in animals, but the 
more we find out, the worse the picture appears. Last month, 
just last month, the EPA sounded the alarm bell and asked its 
Science Advisory Board to review new analyses and data that 
suggest that two chemicals which have been found in many 
drinking water and surface waters in Michigan and around the 
country are far more toxic than previously thought. So while 
officials in Michigan have taken steps to address this issue, 
this crisis, there's more that can be done. Our efforts have to 
be strengthened by congressional action. We must recognize--you 
know, and I'm proud to co-sponsor Congresswoman Debbie 
Dingell's PFAS Action Act, an expansive bill to regulate, 
cleanup PFAS contamination. This bill also includes my PROTECT 
Act, which directs the EPA to add PFAS chemicals to the list of 
hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. It's a 
bipartisan bill, that's absolutely our spirit here today, and 
it's awaiting action in the Senate.
    So while we still have more to learn about the extent of 
PFAS contamination and the health risks associated with 
prolonged exposure, we need to acknowledge PFAS as an 
environmental hazard and conduct much-needed research so that 
we fully understand the danger, as well as the efforts to clean 
up. The National Science Foundation--and certainly this is 
going to be a whole of government approach, and this is why 
it's very unique to have the Science Committee delving in in 
the way that we are. The National Science Foundation supports 
fundamental research through multiple directorates to better 
understand PFAS, including the fate and transport of PFAS in 
environmental systems, and the effects of PFAS contamination on 
communities. NSF-supported research also focuses on developing 
technologies to effectively degrade, destroy, or permanently 
sequester PFAS in the environment. The technologies are so 
essential here to this cleanup. We are very thrilled to be 
delving into this today in our hearing. And additionally, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, works to 
create reference materials and data resources that can be used 
by government, academic, and industrial labs to increase 
confidence in PFAS measurements, and the critical work of 
chemical structures of PFAS.
    So those are just two agencies that serve as examples. And, 
with that, I'm slightly over time, Madam Chair, so I'll yield 
back. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Stevens follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, it is great to be chairing 
this hearing with you this morning. And welcome to all of our 
witnesses. Thank you for joining us to share your expertise on 
a very important issue, I'm looking forward to your testimony. 
I'm particularly excited to welcome our witness, Abigail 
Hendershott, a fellow Michigander, and the Executive Director 
of the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, MPART.
    PFAS are a group of human-made chemicals that have been 
manufactured since the 1940's and can be found in a wide range 
of both consumer and industrial products. There is growing 
evidence that these chemicals are linked to adverse health 
outcomes including liver damage, thyroid disease, an increased 
risk of cancer, and reduced antibody response, especially in 
children. Research has also shown that there are numerous 
pathways through which humans can be exposed to these 
chemicals. Unfortunately, PFAS is extremely resistant to 
degradation in the environment--that is why they are known as 
``forever chemicals.''
    Exposure to PFAS chemicals continues to harm the health and 
wellbeing of families across America. My home state of Michigan 
has the most PFAS-contaminated sites in the country thus making 
it the state's biggest environmental crisis in half a century.
    Although scientific knowledge regarding PFAS is still 
developing, PFAS are linked to serious adverse health effects 
in humans and animals. And the more we find out, the worse the 
picture appears. Last month, the EPA sounded the alarm bell and 
asked its Science Advisory Board (SAB) to review new analyses 
and data that suggest the two chemicals--which have been found 
in many drinking water and surface waters in Michigan and 
around the country--are far more toxic than previously thought. 
While officials in Michigan have taken steps to address this 
crisis, there is so much more to be done at every level of 
government.
    Our efforts in Michigan need to be strengthened by 
congressional action. In order to adequately address this 
threat, we need the federal government to step it up. That is 
why I was proud to cosponsor Representative Dingell's PFAS 
Action Act, an expansive bill to regulate, cleanup PFAS 
contamination. This bill included my own PROTECT Act, which 
directs the EPA to add PFAS chemicals to the list of hazardous 
air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This bipartisan bill 
passed the House, but is still awaiting action in the Senate.
    While we still have a lot to learn about the extent of PFAS 
contamination and the health risks associated with prolonged 
exposure. We need to acknowledge PFAS as an environmental 
hazard and conduct much-needed research so that we fully 
understand the danger that contamination poses for Americans 
across the country. Given the widespread applications of PFAS, 
a whole-of-government approach is required to research and 
address these chemicals. Agencies in the Science Committee's 
jurisdiction have a critical role to play in this effort.
    The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports fundamental 
research through multiple directorates to better understand 
PFAS, including the fate and transport of PFAS in environmental 
systems, and the effects of PFAS contamination on communities. 
NSF-supported research also focuses on developing technologies 
to effectively degrade, destroy, or permanently sequester PFAS 
in the environment. Additionally, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) works to create reference 
materials and data resources that can be used by government, 
academic, and industrial labs to increase confidence in PFAS 
measurements, critical work given the wide range of chemical 
structures of PFAS and the limited availability of chemical 
standards for these measurements.
    These are just two of the many federal agencies who are 
conducting excellent research to address the PFAS problem. I'm 
encouraged by the work and coordination that is taking place 
but there is still much we do not know and much more we must do 
to address this crisis in our communities. I look forward to 
hearing from our witnesses on the gaps in the federal approach 
and how we can best leverage the work done by Federal agencies 
and their partners.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Chairwoman Sherrill. Well, thank you so much. And now the 
Chair recognizes the Research and Technology Subcommittee 
Ranking Member Waltz for an opening statement.
    Mr. Waltz. OK, good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman 
Sherrill, Chairwoman Stevens. Thanks for holding this joint 
Subcommittee--and certainly appreciate our witnesses, and their 
participation. And, you know, as a number of folks have said, 
and I think always worth repeating, that PFAS makes possible 
many of the products that power our everyday lives. Batteries, 
solar panels, alternative energy sources, PPE (personal 
protective equipment) firefighting foams for first responders, 
pipeline safety, and it's also critical to our military and 
aerospace operations, again, as others have noted.
    However, it does--what makes these chemicals so reliable is 
also what makes them long lasting when out and sitting in our 
environment. And obviously--which we're going to hear from our 
witnesses today, that that can be hazardous to human health, 
particularly when they pollute the water supply. Scientific 
research is determining that not all PFAS chemicals entail the 
same risks, and I believe the signals that more research is 
needed to better understand the individual properties and 
characteristics of PFAS, and increase research, can help us 
determine how to best remove legacy PFAS that are harmful to 
human health and the environment. And additional research can 
also lead to alternatives that retain the most valuable 
properties of PFAS, so much more targeted solutions are out 
there. They do require additional research to fully understand 
and implement.
    There are multiple R&D efforts, Chairman Steven mentioned 
a--Stevens mentioned a number of them, across Federal science 
agencies to advance PFAS innovations. But despite these 
efforts, critical knowledge gaps still remain regarding our 
ability to detect it, to understand its effects, to identify 
viable alternative options, and a coordinated Federal effort, 
in partnership with the private industry, I certainly believe, 
is needed to help close these gaps.
    One of the concerns about PFAS that hits close to home for 
me, as a combat veteran, is hearing of elevated levels in PFAS 
in groundwater on our military bases, and the health risk this 
poses for our military members and their families. And while 
high concentrations are mostly due to the use of Aqueous Film 
Forming Foam concentrates, and I won't say that three times 
quickly, but--to put out fires quickly and effectively, 
replacing this foam with a reliable non-PFAS alternative has 
proven incredibly difficult. So that's why I'm also eager to 
hear from our witness Ms. Amy Dindal from Battelle Memorial 
Institute on her work to create a product that can destroy the 
vast majority of PFAS in water in a scalable, and very 
importantly, a cost-effective manner. Advances--advancements 
such as this gives us more tools in the toolbox to be able to 
combat toxic chemicals in our environment, and, obviously, to 
improve public health.
    I also look forward to hearing about the work and research 
our other witnesses are conducting. I'm particularly interested 
in hearing what they believe the greatest research questions on 
this topic are, and what steps we should be doing--we should be 
taking to answer them, and how this Committee can help. Thank 
you again to our witnesses for being here today. I look forward 
to your testimony. Before I yield back, I request unanimous 
consent to submit a statement and questions from Representative 
Posey into the record. I assume I can get unanimous consent?
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Waltz follows:]

    Good morning and thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill and 
Chairwoman Stevens for holding today's joint subcommittee 
hearing. And thank you to our witnesses for your participation 
here today.
    PFAS is the acronym for a large and diverse group of 
manufactured chemicals used in industry and consumer products, 
and valued for their strength, durability, and resilience to 
heat, stains, water, and grease.
    PFAS make possible many of the products that power our 
everyday lives: from lithium batteries and solar panels for 
alternative energy sources, to PPE and firefighting foams used 
by first responders, to pipeline operations safety equipment 
and fuel system seals.
    Additionally, PFAS are critical to military and aerospace 
operations. Heat and chemical resistant PFAS are used in safety 
equipment to protect our military in extreme environments and 
against chemical warfare. Insulating, chemical and weather 
resistant PFAS are used in hydraulic fluids for aircraft 
control systems, fluid seals, and aircraft communications and 
navigations systems.
    However, what makes these chemicals so reliable is also 
what makes them long-lasting in our environment. That can be 
hazardous to human health, particularly when they pollute water 
supplies.
    Science is determining that not all PFAS chemicals entail 
the same risks. I believe this signals that more research is 
needed to better understand the individual properties and 
characteristics of PFAS. Increased research can help us 
determine how to best remove legacy PFAS that are harmful to 
human health and the environment. Additional research can also 
lead to alternatives that retain the most valuable properties 
of PFAS. Solutions are out there, but they require research to 
fully understand and implement.
    There are multiple R&D efforts across federal science 
agencies to advance PFAS innovations. Despite these efforts, 
critical knowledge gaps still remain regarding our ability to 
detect PFAS, understand their effects, and identify viable 
alternative options. A coordinated federal effort, in 
partnership with the private industry, is needed to help us 
close these gaps.
    A concern about PFAS that hits close to home for me as a 
combat veteran is hearing of elevated levels of PFAS in 
groundwater on military bases and the health risk this poses to 
our military members and their families. PFAS have been an 
issue in my home state of Florida, including the district to my 
south represented by our colleague on the Science Committee, 
Mr. Posey.
    While the high concentrations are mostly due to the use of 
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Concentrates to put out fires quickly 
and effectively, replacing this foam with a reliable non-PFAS 
alternative has proven incredibly difficult.
    That is why I'm eager to hear from our witness, Ms. Amy 
Dindal from Battelle Memorial Institute, on her work to create 
a product that can destroy the vast majority of PFAS in water 
in a scalable and cost-effective manner. Advancements such as 
these give us more tools in the toolbox to be able to combat 
toxic chemicals in our environment and improve public health.
    I also look forward to hearing about the work and research 
our other witnesses are conducting. I'm particularly interested 
in hearing what they believe the greatest research questions on 
this topic are and what steps we should be taking to answer 
them.
    Thank you again to our witnesses for being here today and I 
look forward to your testimony. Before I yield back, I request 
Unanimous Consent to submit a statement and questions from 
Representative Posey into the record.
    Thank you and I yield back.

    Mr. Waltz. Before I yield back, I request unanimous consent 
to submit a statement and questions from Representative Posey 
into the record. I assume I can get unanimous consent?
    Ms. Stevens. So moved, so moved.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Sorry, I was having trouble with my 
unmute button. Yes, without objection.
    Mr. Waltz. Great. Thank you. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Posey follows:]

    PFAS are dubbed the ``forever chemicals'' because they have 
shown resistance to degradation in the natural environment. 
They are a national concern and pose threats to human health 
and safety.
    This is particularly true in my Spacecoast Florida 
district. To free Spacecoast communities from the legacy of 
PFAS, I've been fighting for legislation to address these 
forever chemicals. In this Congress, I am an original co-
sponsor of H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021 which passed 
the House on July 21st. In a major step to remedy PFAS 
contamination, the bill directs the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) to designate the PFAS perfluorooctanoic acid 
(PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous 
substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, thereby requiring 
remediation of releases of those PFAS into the environment. 
Within five years, the EPA must determine whether the remaining 
PFAS should be designated as hazardous substances.
    I've also worked with my colleagues to further address the 
legacy of PFAS in other ways. I co-led a major amendment to the 
National Defense Authorization Act adopted by the House. This 
amendment closes a loophole that currently allows manufacturers 
to underreport their PFAS discharges into the air and water, 
requires the EPA to establish a national drinking water 
standard for two specific PFAS--PFOA and PFOS--within two 
years, expands the temporary moratorium on the unsafe burning 
of PFAS-based firefighting foam by the Pentagon, ensures the 
EPA uses the most health- protective definition of PFAS for 
reporting and regulatory matters, and directs the Secretary of 
Defense to provide Defense Department medical providers with 
mandatory training with respect to the potential health effects 
of PFAS. I recently led a letter from twelve House Members to 
Senate leadership asking that they include the House amendment 
in the Senate NDAA and the conference bill.
    With Representative Slotkin, I introduced H.R. 4975, the 
PFAS Free Military Purchasing Act. This bill prohibits DOD from 
procuring or purchasing specified items containing PFAS. DOD 
may not authorize the sale of any specified item containing 
PFAS on DOD property, such as commissaries or online exchange 
shops.
    We owe our military members and their families, and the 
communities that host them on bases along the Spacecoast and 
throughout the country, protection and remediation of the 
effects of these harmful forever chemicals. I am committed to 
DOD and others fully addressing and cleaning up these 
substances and removing the harm they cause from the lives of 
all our people.
    I look forward to hearing the testimony from our panel of 
scientists. If we can work to close gaps in our national 
research strategy on PFAS, then we can contribute to advancing 
the day that we provide complete, effective, and timely 
treatment and remediation of these ``forever chemicals.''
    Questions:
    1). What are the most critical research needs that will 
help advance the treatment and remediation of PFAS 
contamination at DOD facilities like Patrick Air Force Base in 
my district?
    2). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has played a pivotal 
role in water resources research throughout their history. Can 
you please tell the committee what you know about USGS efforts 
to study PFAS presence and transport in surface and ground 
waters and what more we might ask them to do to contribute to 
closing gaps in PFAS R&D?
    3). Some of the testimony provided today suggests that 
recent scientific research may offer some hope for developing 
successful biodegradation strategies for treating and 
remediating PFAS contamination. Can each of you please evaluate 
this possibility and comment on whether Congress should work 
toward providing a priority and more resources for such 
research?
    4). Please provide a brief description of a science-based 
strategy for remediating PFAS at DOD facilities like Patrick 
Air Force Base. In your statement, please include a short-term 
response to expedite near term remediation based on available 
technologies and a longer-term strategy that will depend on 
improved techniques that are developed by the scientific 
community. In short, how should remediation best proceed in the 
short and long-term and provide for expedited treatment and 
remediation?

    Chairwoman Sherrill. Great. And the Chair now recognizes 
the Full Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Lucas, for an opening 
statement. Is Mr. Lucas on? I don't think he's on yet. OK. If 
there are any Members who wish to submit additional opening 
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 
point.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill and Chairwoman Stevens for 
having this important hearing on PFAS research and development.
    As my colleagues mentioned, these chemicals are widely-used 
and dangerous for our health.
    Nearly half a million Texans live within three miles of 
sites where groundwater has been contaminated by PFAS. Many of 
these sites are former and active military bases near Dallas, 
Austin, and San Antonio. Firefighting foam containing PFAS has 
been in use on military bases since the 1970s. This has led to 
PFAS contamination at much higher levels than what the CDC 
deems safe. For decades, residents near thousands of military 
bases around the country haveunknowingly showered, cooked with, 
and drunk contaminated water.
    The alarming reality is that virtually all Americans have 
been exposed to PFAS. Research shows many pathways for human 
exposure to these chemicals, including contaminated drinking 
water, soil, air, and food.
    Contamination by PFAS is also an environmental justice 
issue. Many known and likely sources of PFAS contamination are 
located near low-income communities and communities of color.
    These include military bases, airports, industrial 
facilities, and waste management and disposal sites.
    Congress has done significant work to regulate PFAS in 
recent years. However, the Federal government must do more to 
address this pervasive problem. And we need a whole-of-
government approach. Federal civilian science agencies play a 
critical role in researching and better understanding these 
chemicals. In addition to the DOD, agencies under the 
jurisdiction of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 
such as the EPA, NSF, NIST and others, play important roles in 
addressing PFAS. I'm encouraged by the Biden-Harris 
Administration's commitment toward protecting the public from 
these harmful chemicals.
    Given the pervasive nature of PFAS, R&D efforts and 
solutions must include coordination across different sectors 
and groups. We need robust participation from Federal, state, 
local, and Tribal agencies, research institutions, academia, 
non-profits, industry, and manufacturers.
    As we work to regulate, remediate, and mitigate PFAS, it is 
critical that these decisions are informed by science. Risk 
management decisions must be based on the best science to 
ensure they are effective and safeguard public health. There is 
much more to be understood about PFAS. Many outstanding 
questions remain about their sources, exposure, fate and 
transport, human and environmental effects, and treatment 
technologies. I look forward to hearing from our expert panel 
of witnesses today who will provide a broad set of perspectives 
on this issue.
    I'm confident in the progress we can make with a science-
based, whole-of-government approach. I look forward to working 
with our Federal agencies and their partners. We must come 
together with every tool we have to achieve a safer future for 
all Americans.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Chairwoman Sherrill. At this time I'd like to introduce our 
witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Elsie Sunderland. Dr. 
Sunderland is the Gordan McKay Professor of Environmental 
Chemistry at Harvard University. Dr. Sunderland's research aims 
to better understand how chemicals released by human activity 
interact with natural ecosystems and affect living systems. 
Prior to joining the faculty at Harvard she spent five years at 
the Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Sunderland is also 
Research Group Leader at the Center for Sources, Transport, 
Exposure, and Effects of PFAS, STEEP, a partnership between the 
University of Rhode Island and Harvard. As a part of STEEP, Dr. 
Sunderland works to develop statistical methods for better 
identifying sources of PFAS contamination in drinking water, 
and fish, and how geochemical factors affect the transport of 
PFASs away from contaminated sites.
    And then at this time I'd like to give the opportunity for 
Ms. Stevens, Chairwoman of the Research and Technology 
Subcommittee, to introduce her fellow Michigander, Ms. 
Hendershott. I yield to Chairwoman Stevens.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Sherrill, and, 
yes, as a proud Michigander, I'm honored to introduce our next 
witness, Ms. Abigail Hendershott, the Executive Director of the 
Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, or MPART. Michigan is a--
unfortunately, but we are a national leader in responding to 
PFAS contamination. Through MPART's work, Michigan has adopted 
enforceable PFAS standards for drinking water and groundwater, 
in addition to water quality standards for two of the most 
common PFAS chemicals.
    Ms. Hendershott has 30 years of experience with the 
Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, 
otherwise known as EGLE, and has focused on PFAS response 
activity since 2017. She's led the team responsible for 
Michigan's PFAS contamination response to date, and we're so 
lucky to have her today testifying, and I--not only do I want 
to thank her, but I also want to thank her for testifying 
during MPART's third annual PFAS Summit. So we're looking 
forward to hearing about her work and research to investigate 
PFAS contamination in Michigan, and how to apply these lessons 
learned on the Federal level. Thanks.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens. Our 
next witness is Ms. Amy Dindal. Ms. Dindal is currently the 
Director of Environmental Research at the Battelle Memorial 
Institute, and leads Battelle's PFAS Program. Prior to joining 
in 2002, Ms. Dindal was a research assistant with Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory for ten years.
    And our final witness is Dr. Peter Jaffe. Dr. Jaffee is a 
Professor at the Department of Civil and Environmental 
Engineering at Princeton University. Dr. Jaffe's research 
interests relate to the physical, chemical, and biological 
processes that govern the transport and transformation of 
pollutants in the environment, and their application for the 
remediation of contaminated systems. Dr. Jaffe's research has 
demonstrated a biological pathway of PFAS degradation by an 
organism found in New Jersey soil, and his group is working on 
developing methods for bioremediation schemes for PFAS removal.
    As our witnesses should know, you will have five minutes 
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be 
included in the record for the hearing. When you've completed 
your spoken testimony, we'll begin with questions. Each Member 
will have five minutes to question the witnesses. And we'll 
start with Dr. Sunderland.

               TESTIMONY OF DR. ELSIE SUNDERLAND,

                     GORDAN McKAY PROFESSOR

                  OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY,

                 HARVARD JOHN A. PAULSON SCHOOL

              OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCES,

           HARVARD T.H. CHAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

    Dr. Sunderland. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, and 
Chairwoman Stevens, for the invitation to speak with you all 
today. It's a pleasure to go through some information on the 
diverse chemical family known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl 
substances, or PFAS. So as you've heard already, until the 
1940's or 1950's, the only source of organoflourine compounds 
were a few rare plant species that produced them as natural 
poisons. Since the 1950's, these chemicals have been widely 
used in modern commerce for their ability to repel both oil and 
water. Today we find them in diverse consumer products, such as 
food packaging, dental floss, carpet, furniture coatings, 
clothing, outdoor gear, and cosmetics.
    Airports and military bases across the country have been 
contaminated by use of a product that we've all heard 
pronounced this morning, Aqueous Film Forming Foams, or AFFF, 
for firefighting and fire training activities. CDC data show 
that 98 to 99 percent of Americans have detectable levels of at 
least one PFAS in their blood. A recent peer reviewed study by 
the Environmental Working Group estimated that 18 to 80 million 
Americans have concentrations of PFAS in their drinking water 
that exceed 10 nanograms per liter. So, for reference, this is 
in the same range as where many of the States are setting 
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water today.
    Exposures to PFAS have been associated with many negative 
health effects on humans. I think the former director of NIEHS, 
Dr. Linda Birnbaum, summarized it best when she opened a 
scientific meeting on PFAS a couple years ago, when she said, 
``If you are a public health researcher, these are the 
chemicals for you, because PFAS have now been associated with 
an adverse impact on every major organ system in the human 
body.'' Ongoing support for NIH and CDC/ATSDR (Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry) research is essential for 
fully understanding the health effects associated with PFAS. We 
now have two major tasks. The first one is to remediate 
contaminated sites across the country to address the legacy 
pollution issue. And the second, in my opinion, is to control 
ongoing production and use of these compounds in our products 
by deciding where uses of PFAS are essential, and where they 
could be replaced by better, less toxic alternatives.
    Next to contaminated communities, drinking water is known 
to be the predominant exposure source. However, we have only 
anecdotal understanding of PFAS exposure sources for the U.S. 
general population, despite their presence in all of us. 
Exposure research falls outside of the mandate of most ongoing 
research programs. Typically this would fall within the mandate 
of EPA, but both their internal and extramural research has 
been substantially underfunded over the past decade. In Europe, 
dietary intake has been established as the predominant exposure 
source for the general population. There PFAS have been 
frequently detected in seafood, milk, various meats, processed 
foods, particularly those that use food packaging containing 
PFAS.
    The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) recently undertook a 
total diet survey, but the number of samples and detection 
limits for their analyses were insufficient to characterize the 
food supply and risks to the population. In States such as 
Maine and Michigan, high levels of PFAS have been detected on 
farmlands due to application of biosolids mixed with industrial 
sludge. These PFAS spread from the soils to hay and corn, then 
cows, then the farmers who drink the milk from their own 
animals. In one tragic case in Maine, a farmer and his wife had 
to close a dairy farm that had been in their family for more 
than 100 years.
    Another major challenge for PFAS research is that 
limitations in current analytical methods mean we are 
systematically underestimating exposures to these compounds. 
The chemical family, as you've heard, consists of thousands of 
compounds, and industry is continuously introducing new ones 
into our product stream. Standard methods endorsed by EPA and 
NIST currently do not detect most of the compounds found in 
products and the environment.
    As a final note, the DOD currently supports the largest 
portfolio of PFAS research among the Federal agencies, however, 
DOD also caused PFAS contamination through use of firefighting 
foams at military sites across the country, which sets up a 
potential conflict of interest. And so, while this research 
program is commendable, it is essential that the other Federal 
agencies develop comparable research portfolios to fill the 
gaps above. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Sunderland follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
      
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. Next, Ms. Hendershott, the 
floor is yours.

             TESTIMONY OF MS. ABIGAIL HENDERSHOTT,

               EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN PFAS

                  ACTION RESPONSE TEAM (MPART)

    Ms. Hendershott. Thank you. Just a second here. There we 
go. So thank you, Chairwomen Sherrill and Stevens, and to the 
Committees for inviting Michigan to provide testimony regarding 
the ongoing work of our Michigan PFAS Action Response Team to 
address PFAS issues. My name is Abigail Hendershott, and I am 
the Executive Director of the Michigan PFAS Action Response 
Team, or MPART, as we call ourselves, and I'm pleased to share 
with you the Michigan perspective on research needs, 
opportunities to collaborate, and the need for new PFAS 
treatment technologies.
    In 2017 MPART was established as a first of its kind 
statewide coordinating body tasked with identifying and 
addressing PFAS contamination through the coordinated 
activities of seven different State agencies. Governor Whitmer 
has been a leader on PFAS, establishing MPART as an enduring 
body, and asking MPART to establish State drinking water 
standards. The focus on coordination and collaboration have 
allowed Michigan to effectively leverage the actions of all the 
agencies to swiftly identify and respond to PFAS in our 
communities. Today MPART is recognized as a national leader, 
and a model for other States to follow. While there are 
numerous research and development areas where Federal funding 
and studies would be helpful, I want to focus on a few examples 
where States could use Federal support, research on PFAS in the 
food supply, development of less toxic AFFF, improved PFAS 
remediation and treatment technologies, and continued research 
on PFAS toxicology.
    So research on PFAS in the food supply. First, there is a 
need for additional studies of PFAS in the food supply. 
Michigan has a rich history of manufacturing and farming, and 
when those two exist together, there's a concern about the 
potential for PFAS to enter the food supply. Additionally, to 
support our strong and--hunting and fishing communities, and to 
inform public decision about fish consumption, Michigan has 
been strategically sampling fish from around our State. That is 
why we need our Federal partners to support research to 
understand potential health risks posed by PFAS in food to 
develop better understandings of how PFAS enters and affects 
the food supply, and to provide science-based guidance to food 
producers and consumers. More specifically, research and 
further evaluation of PFAS impacts to the food chain cycle 
through bioaccumulation and biomagnification is needed.
    Development of less toxic AFFF. Second, the use of PFAS-
containing firefighting foam, also known as Aqueous Film 
Forming Foam, or AFFF, results in the dispersal of PFAS into 
the air, surface waters, soil, and eventually groundwater. In 
Michigan we have collected over 51,000 gallons of AFFF from 
fire departments around the State to proactively keep PFAS-
containing AFFF out of our environment. As long as the 
military, airport, and civilian fire departments use PFAS-
containing AFFF, these negative consequences will continue to 
impact the surrounding communities, particularly in areas where 
residents rely on groundwater as their source of drinking 
water. Continued Federal support is critical to ensure that the 
next generation of AFFF products are less toxic to the 
environment, and also meet the appropriate performance 
standards needed by our firefighters.
    Improved PFAS remediation and treatment technologies. As 
Michigan tackles the job of identifying sites of PFAS 
contamination, the even larger challenge of controlling, 
remediating, or otherwise reducing the spread of PFAS remains. 
In Michigan, historic use of PFAS, and use of AFFF over a large 
area, such as military, industrial, and airport properties, has 
resulted in large areas of land and groundwater in need of 
remediation. For example, one former automotive manufacturing 
site can yield millions of gallons of PFAS contaminated water, 
hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of PFAS contaminated soil 
that needs to be contained, or otherwise remediated at just one 
site alone. Over the past 4 years we have identified 194 PFAS 
sites, consisting of airport, industrial, landfill, plating, 
tannery, and military facilities. Additional cost-effective 
ways for in situ remediation of large quantities of soil and 
groundwater is needed to be identified to get to faster and 
more efficient cleanups.
    Continued research to understand PFAS toxicology. It's well 
established that the exposure to PFAS is associated with 
adverse health impacts. In order to protect our citizens, 
Michigan has established water quality standards, State 
drinking water standards, and groundwater cleanup criteria for 
PFAS. We're exploring the potential for soil cleanup standards 
too, however, we really need better predictive models for PFAS 
behavior. This will enable better decisionmaking to protect 
groundwater, especially in areas where residents rely on the 
resource for their drinking water.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss Michigan's 
needs for PFAS research, and I welcome hearing from the other 
witnesses today, and look forward to answering your questions. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hendershott follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. Next is Ms. Dindal. I'm 
having trouble hearing you.
    Ms. Dindal. Is that better?
    Chairwoman Sherrill. That's great. Thank you.
    Ms. Dindal. OK. I had a double mute. I apologize for that.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thanks.

                  TESTIMONY OF MS. AMY DINDAL,

               DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

          AND DEVELOPMENT, BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE

    Ms. Dindal. Good morning, everyone. Chairwoman Sherrill, 
Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member Bice, and Ranking Member 
Waltz, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the 
Subcommittee on Environment and the Subcommittee on Research 
and Technology. My name is Amy Dindal, and I am the Director of 
Environmental Research and Development at Battelle. Established 
more than 90 years ago through an Ohio charitable trust, 
Battelle is the world's largest independent nonprofit research 
and development organization. Our mission is to translate 
scientific discovery and technology advances into societal 
benefits. Tackling the current and future technology and 
research challenges of PFAS is true to our mission, and the DNA 
of Battelle. We are closely aligned with EPA's directive in its 
PFAS Strategic Roadmap to invest in research, development, and 
innovation that incorporate the best available science, and I'm 
proud to share with you today the advancements that we have 
made.
    Our awareness of PFAS began more than a decade ago, when we 
were supporting a site investigation at a Navy site in 
Pennsylvania. There was a mysterious foam coming out of an air 
stripper at the site. We sent the foam to our laboratory in 
Massachusetts, where it was identified as containing PFOA and 
PFOS. It was then that we began tracking the suite of 
chemicals. In 2019 we made a corporate commitment through a 
multi-million investment to develop new technology around PFAS. 
We looked to DOD's critical needs outlined in a September 2017 
DOD workshop to frame where we would invest in new technology 
for PFAS. In my written testimony, I have provided a summary of 
the technologies that we have developed to measure, sample, 
model, track, treat, and destroy PFAS. Each technology has a 
role in supporting current and future site investigation and 
remediation needs at both government and commercial sites.
    One of Battelle's most significant investments is the 
development of a PFAS destruction technology. Our 
transformational innovation is powered by supercritical water 
oxidation, or SCWO. In December 2020 the EPA issued interim 
guidance on suggested technologies for PFAS management. 
Supercritical water oxidation was highlighted as one of the 
promising destruction solutions. SCWO is not a new technology, 
as it's been used since the 1980's to address difficult to 
treat compounds. What is new is the application and 
optimization of the technology for PFAS. We call our technology 
PFAS Annihilator, as it destroys PFAS in contaminated water to 
non-detect levels in seconds, leaving inert salts, carbon 
dioxide, and PFAS-free water behind.
    If there is one thing you remember from my testimony today, 
it is that Battelle is ready to scale and deploy PFAS 
Annihilator. We have been testing the technology in the 
laboratory for more than 2 years. We have high confidence in 
the technology's ability to destroy PFAS, as we have been 
simulating field deployments with waste samples from sites 
around the country. We are preparing for a January field 
deployment of our mobile SCWO system, capable of treating up to 
500 gallons per day. We are also constructing a second mobile 
unit that will be able to treat up to 5,000 gallons per day.
    Because we are a nonprofit, Battelle is able to 
collaboratively work with EPA on this important research. EPA 
just published a journal publication demonstrating the efficacy 
of SCWO for treating PFAS and AFFF. We have proposed and 
received contracts for demonstration projects to DOD's SERDP 
(Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program) and 
ESTCP (Environmental Security Technology Certification Program) 
programs with EPA as a co-principal investigator. This enables 
EPA to actively contribute to the research and demonstration 
needs, as well as stay current on technology improvements and 
progress.
    We would like to propose three additional opportunities to 
support the development of PFAS technologies. First, increase 
the number of opportunities for pilot-scale field 
demonstrations of innovative technologies. Second, utilize 
available advanced analytical techniques to increase known 
information early in the site investigation process. And third, 
leverage Federal and private sector partnerships and 
collaboration to drive forward solutions. Battelle's 
development of advanced technologies to monitor, sample, and 
destroy PFAS is indicative of the progress that can be made 
with focused commitment. We are ready to scale and deploy PFAS 
Annihilator.
    Addressing PFAS in our environment is not easy, but with 
more opportunities to test promising technologies in a real-
world environment, an openness to utilizing new approaches, and 
enhancing collaboration opportunities, it can and will be done. 
It is an honor to provide my testimony, and I'm happy to take 
any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Dindal follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much. And last, but not 
least, Dr. Jaffe.

            TESTIMONY OF DR. PETER JAFFE, PROFESSOR,

       DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,

                      PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Jaffe. Thank you. Chairs Sherrill and Stevens, Ranking 
Members Bice and Waltz, and Committee Members, thank you for 
inviting me today. It's an honor to appear before you. I'm the 
William Knapp Class of '47 Professor of Civil Engineering at 
Princeton University, and a member of Princeton's Andlinger 
Center for Energy and Environment, and the High Meadows 
Environmental Institute. The views expressed in this testimony 
are my own.
    Unique challenges presented by PFAS include that there are 
over 4,700 PFAS compounds that have been synthesized, and the 
number is growing. PFAS have a wide range of molecular 
structures, varying carbon chain length, different functional 
groups such as acids, alcohols, sulfonates, and different ionic 
forms or charges. They can be amphoteric, with hydrophilic ends 
and hydrophobic tails, like soap molecules, all of which 
affects their transport in the environment. Hydrogen from their 
carbon skeleton may be either fully substituted with fluorine, 
perfluorinated, or partially substituted polyfluorinated 
compounds, which greatly affects their stability. This large 
variability in molecular structures and properties contrasts, 
for example, with other contaminants of major environmental and 
health concerns, such as polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, for 
which about 130 individual PCBs have been used in commercial 
products, and all of them are characterized by having a very 
low water solubility and relatively similar transport 
properties.
    The key points I'd like to make today include that the 
large number of PFAS, and their wide range of properties, 
provide a unique challenge for conducting research on PFAS and 
regulating them, hence there's a need of moving toward 
identifying molecular properties that affect their toxicity, 
fate and transport in an environment, and potential treatment 
method, versus studying or regulating them individually. 
Analyzing PFAS is challenging and costly. There's a need to, 
one, develop new methods that are less costly, two, account for 
this cost in PFAS-related research, and/or three, establish 
facilities to analyze samples from federally funded research. 
DOE, with their Environmental Molecular Biology Laboratory at 
PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory), and a range of 
user facilities at various National Labs, may provide a model 
for such PFAS-dedicated analytical facilities.
    All key PFAS sources need to be identified and 
characterized. This is needed to obtain a complete 
understanding of where they enter different environmental 
compartments, and where mitigation is needed, and/or most 
effective. A generalized understanding of biotic and abiotic 
reactions that can either partially transform PFAS, or degrade 
them completely, is needed for fate and transport assessment, 
and for development of PFAS treatment technologies. The 
mechanisms and limitations of biological transformations of 
PFAS is needed to be better understood. They should be 
environment specific, considering their chemical properties, 
and focus on the full range of redox conditions, ranging from 
aerobic to anaerobic. The microorganisms or microbial 
communities capable of transforming PFAS need to be identified 
and characterized. Knowing what genes are linked to the 
degradation or transformation of individual PFAS, or group of 
PFAS, and what conditions are needed for their expression, 
would allow to predict what PFAS transformations may take place 
in specific environmental settings where the presence of such 
genes has been detected.
    In addition to DOD's AFFF contaminated sites, access to 
other PFAS contaminated sites is needed to validate laboratory 
results, transport models, and to test site remediation 
schemes. Many such sites are privately owned. Agencies such as 
EPA could catalog sites based on their prevailing PFAS through 
chemistry and accessibility or ownership. And finally, central 
data bases on what is known about these sites, including 
results of completed research or remediation projects, will be 
extremely valuable for researchers to model--for model testing, 
validation, or identification of new research directions.
    Thank you for inviting me, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Jaffe follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much. At this point we'll 
begin our first round of questions. I now recognize myself for 
five minutes.
    Currently there are no federally enforceable standards for 
PFAS. This can often lead to confusion for municipalities, with 
some States setting more stringent standards for PFAS in 
drinking water. Dr. Jaffe, how could addressing gaps in PFAS 
science better inform the standards, and can you detail the 
state of the science for current PFAS standards at the State 
level?
    Dr. Jaffe. Standards are set by the prevalence of PFAS and 
their health effects, a combination of both. And New Jersey, 
for example, has added perfluorononanoic acid that is being 
regulated because it is more prevalent in New Jersey than other 
places. So, I'm not a toxicologist, but I think what we need to 
have a combination of what is the health impact of specific 
PFAS, and how prevalent they are to come up with specific 
standards.
    Right now EPA is focusing mostly on PFOA and PFOS, which 
have been manufactured specifically by manufacturers, and less 
of an emphasis is on PFAS that are out in nature. Many of the 
polyfluorinated compounds in, let's say AFFF, can be 
transformed to perfluoro alkyl acids. They are not necessarily 
PFOS. They can be perfluoro hexanoic acid, and we don't fully 
understand the toxicity of all of them. So I think there is a 
need to understand structurally what PFAS should be regulated, 
instead of just looking at individual PFAS in a family, one by 
one.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much. And, Ms. 
Hendershott, would uniform PFAS standards be helpful to States 
that are working to address contamination, and what is the role 
of Federal agencies like the EPA in this work?
    Ms. Hendershott. Absolutely. So uniform standards would 
definitely help our entire country. Michigan has had to come up 
with our own standards for water quality values for surface 
water, drinking water standard, and groundwater cleanup 
criterias, and having uniform settings across our country would 
certainly make a better consistent message, make us all work 
toward a collaboration, and really coalesce the science around 
all of our uniform angle of drinking water protection. So I 
think that's the first thing that's absolutely necessary.
    The role of EPA, then, is obviously, you know, having that 
national standard, having EPA take that lead for development of 
a State--or a national drinking water standard through the MCLs 
for the Safe Drinking Water Act is absolutely essential, and I 
encourage--I'm very thrilled that they're taking those first 
steps, and will be making efforts to have MCLs in place within 
the next 18 months, because that's absolutely necessary for all 
of our Nation's public water supplies, to have safe drinking 
water standards.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And for all the witness--
witnesses, what is the importance of Federal research and 
development activities in developing uniform science-based PFAS 
standards across the country?
    Dr. Sunderland. I can comment on that quickly. So I think 
uniform standards are very helpful for avoiding confusion among 
the public. I guess one challenge for developing these uniform 
standards, and one thing that we see leading to the diversity 
of drinking water standards right now is the fact that 
different agencies are picking different health outcomes to 
develop these risk-based limits, so agreeing on which health 
effect, and perhaps focusing on the most sensitive health 
effects for protecting the most vulnerable populations, such as 
children, is very important, and with these compounds, the most 
sensitive health endpoint that we see does relate to immune 
function in children. A number of European regulatory agencies 
are using that immune outcome to develop more uniform and 
consistent guidelines, and I would encourage the agencies to 
think about using that in the development of more uniform 
guidelines.
    And the second point Dr. Jaffe touched on already, which 
is, you know, how many compounds are we regulating when we 
develop these standards? So it's difficult to have a uniform 
standard if there are different numbers of PFAS compounds or 
different types of compounds, being considered in the 
regulation. And one point that I think perhaps hasn't become 
clear yet is that--and I touched on it very briefly in my 
statement, but the majority of compounds in the environment 
now, and most of the PFAS compounds in our products, are ones 
that we're not measuring with our standard methods, and they're 
not being regulated, and they're not included in our standards. 
Some of them--some of those compounds that we're not measuring 
actually degrade into compounds that have already been 
associated with negative health impacts.
    So as we think about developing uniform standards, I would 
put out there that I think we need to think about, you know, a 
screen for total organofluorine compounds, and then think about 
some of these compounds that we're missing, and their health 
impacts after that. So thank you for the opportunity to 
comment.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much. And my time has 
expired, so I'll now recognize Ranking Member Bice, Ranking 
Member of the Environment Subcommittee, for five minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you so much. My first question is to Ms. 
Dindal. It is my understanding that the majority of your work 
is funded or done in collaboration with the DOD. PFAS 
contamination on military complexes is a high profile issue, 
and three Air Force bases in Oklahoma, Vance, Tinker, and 
Altus, are in need of cleanup. In addition to this Committee, I 
also serve on the House Armed Services Committee, so I'd like 
to dive deeper into how DOD projects are coordinated or 
utilized by non-defense research that fall under the 
jurisdiction of the Science Committee.
    Ms. Dindal. Yes, ma'am, thank you for the question. We 
looked at DOD's critical needs, which were identified in the 
SERDP-ESTCP September 2017 workshop of where to inform our 
investments. All of the developmental work that we have done 
has been self-funded by Battelle. EPA performed an evaluation 
of our technology for destroying AFFF, and released a journal 
publication, and we've also been awarded, and have contracts 
pending, where EPA is a co-principal investigator with us on 
DOD projects. So the performance results are definitely 
transferable to other agencies, and to others that are dealing 
with commercial sites as well.
    Mrs. Bice. Excellent. What is your level of interaction, 
then, with the agencies, namely the EPA and the DOE, when you 
successfully demonstrate a technology like the PFAS 
Annihilator? Are the results and the data sort of easily 
transferable to those agencies?
    Ms. Dindal. Yes, they are. They are--it is information that 
has been generated--as I said, the EPA has just released a 
journal publication on supercritical water oxidation and the 
effectiveness for AFFF. Our interaction with EPA has been as a 
co-principal investigator on our DOD projects so that we can 
engage with them as we are progressing with the technology.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you for that. Can you talk a little bit 
about the pros and cons of PFAS incineration, and how your 
research involves methods for removing PFAS from GAC (granular 
activated carbon)?
    Ms. Dindal. So that is correct, GAC, or granulated 
activated carbon, will remove the PFAS from the water, but it 
won't destroy it. The GAC filters are typically sent back to 
the vendor for thermal reactivation. One of our early 
investments was in a process for regenerating GAC that was a 
non-thermal process. We have a liquid regenerant that we use, 
and we've developed a system so that the GAC can be regenerated 
without the use of thermal processes. And so once that GAC is 
treated with our GAC regeneration, the GAC can be re-used, and 
the regenerate can be destroyed by the Annihilator technology.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you for that. And my last question, Ms. 
Sunderland, you mentioned earlier that we're, you know, 
utilizing PFAS in a variety of areas, including in packaging, 
particularly in the food area. What is the suggestion for 
moving away from that?
    Dr. Sunderland. My suggestion would be to follow the lead 
of the European Union, and counties like Denmark, which is to 
phaseout these products in our food packaging. There's a lot of 
discussion in the academic community right now on essential 
uses of PFAS, so where do they really convey a benefit to the 
product, or where can they be replaced by less toxic 
alternatives? And certainly there are many non-PFAS-based 
alternatives to food packaging. The--a few of the States are 
already looking at banning PFAS in food packaging, and I think 
it's something that could be done with a little support quite 
easily on a Federal level.
    Mrs. Bice. OK. That's the extent of my questions. Madam 
Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes 
Ms. Stevens, Chairwoman of the Research and Technology 
Subcommittee, for five minutes.
    Ms. Stevens. You know, it's absolutely fascinating, as we 
talk about the cleanup, and the complex technologies and 
processes that go into it, and yet we've got to devote energy 
and time to thinking about prevention. And certainly we're 
doing both today, but the enormity of the cleanup is just 
astonishing. And, Ms. Hendershott, I'm just wondering if you 
could give us the Michigan perspective of the cleanup, 
particularly, you know, costs, manpower, how far we can go? You 
know, listening to Ms. Dindal, and reading through her 
testimony, and this Annihilator technology, and the 
supercritical water infrastructure that they're putting into 
place, it's absolutely incredible, but then I start to think 
about the actual infrastructure, and how far we can actually go 
with this. So--yes.
    Ms. Hendershott. Great question. The amount of PFAS in our 
site--so I--as I said before, we have 193, 94, MPART--or PFAS 
sites recognized currently in our State, and we're still 
identifying PFAS sites every day, additional ways at which a 
PFAS concentration in groundwater exceeds the State standard, 
and then it becomes officially an MPART site, but a lot of 
these are legacy issues in large, large areas.
    Our--we've been investigating all of our commercial 
airports. Almost all of our airports have significant issues. 
We've gone offsite to look at doing precautionary drinking 
water sampling around the airports because many of these are in 
and surrounded by residential areas, serviced by groundwater 
for drinking water, so it's really important to understand 
that, because fully identifying a site that is a mile, two 
miles, three miles large, because of the AFFF use on these 
airports, is really quite difficult, time consuming, and very, 
very costly.
    So when you talk about what does it take to clean up an 
airport, a military site, a large tannery, or a large industry, 
you're talking about huge investments. And while, you know, a 
PFAS Annihilator is a great first step, I'm very excited to see 
that, we need something that can go--we're looking at really a 
combination of technologies. How do we cleanup the groundwater? 
How do we cleanup those soils? How do we cleanup surface water? 
And it's usually a combination of technologies. There's not one 
technology that can do all of the things that we'd need 
necessary for cleanup, and so we're looking for--is there a way 
to--like Dr. Jaffe's research on degradation of PFAS in the 
soils or in groundwater, can we do that? Can we do--use the 
PFAS Annihilator in maybe foreign landfill leachate, another 
huge issue? What do we do with our wastewater treatment 
biosolids?
    So it's not just cleanup of individual sites, but all these 
processes where PFAS are coming out, or are in some sort of a 
waste stream that need to be addressed. All of those need some 
sort of PFAS treatment, and technology to go with it.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, we have also on the Committee another 
Michigander, the Dean of the Michigan Democratic Delegation, 
Congressman Dan Kildee, who leads our bipartisan task force on 
PFAS and PFAS remediation, and we spend a lot of time talking 
about cost, you know, and who's going to pay for it? And so you 
look at the cost spectrum here, we've got the identification of 
PFAS, and in itself is a complex endeavor, and I want to salute 
every single one of you, you know, who are involved with this 
effort. You know, academic, you know, we've got industry here, 
as well as State actors. That in and of itself is a complicated 
effort.
    Then we've got this--you know, the cleanup, the handling, 
the dealing, and it--you know, we can look at what gets 
shouldered on the taxpayers. You know, we can recruit a fund, 
certainly, and then we've got this last component, which is on 
prevention. And so, you know, as we look to identify our scope 
going forward, absolutely applauding the R&D efforts that are 
taking place, but also recognizing that the continuity of 
investment that needs to get made going forward.
    So, with that, what I'm going to do is I'll pause on the 
time. Ms. Hendershott, we'll come back to you on questions for 
the record, particularly on, you know, what EPA should be 
replicating. I know you've utilized the National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System, and how best we can continue to 
serve all of you at the local level. And with that, Madam 
Chair, perfectly on time, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Well, thank you. Thank you, Ms. 
Stevens. I now recognize Research and Technology Subcommittee 
Ranking Member Waltz for five minutes. And he might have 
stepped away. All right. I am going to turn it over to the 
Committee Counsel for the order of recognition.
    Staff. Recognize Mr. Ellzey.
    Mr. Ellzey. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate 
everybody coming in to--today to discuss this very important 
issue. I have a quick question for Ms. Dindal. As a Naval 
aviator, I'm very familiar with AFFF, and what it does, and--as 
well, in the news recently, in Hawai'i, the water system for 
numerous families has been polluted by some leaking fuel that 
got into their water system. My question to you is at what 
point would your Annihilator be able to be used, and how 
scalable is it? And finally, real quickly, how much power does 
that thing use? It sounds like an exciting technology. I'd be 
hopeful that that could be used on the water system in Hawai'i, 
but, you know, is it--is--in the next couple years, is it going 
to be largely scalable? And thank you for your time.
    Ms. Dindal. Thank you, sir, for that wonderful question. 
It's scalable today. We have a mobile unit that is capable of 
destroying up to 500 gallons per day. We will be deploying that 
starting in January. We are also constructing a larger scale 
system that is capable of up to 5,000 gallons per day. So it is 
scalable today, and I'm--and I am very happy to, you know, talk 
further about how that could be scaled, you know, especially 
when it would--comes to, you know, drinking water systems. When 
you talk about impacts due to AFFF, there are some existing 
systems that are in place treating that drinking water now, so 
that GAC can be used to treat, for example, the drinking water, 
and then Annihilator can be couple with that. So when we're 
talking about scaling, it can either be scaled by itself, or in 
combination with other technologies to perform more of a 
treatment train approach.
    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you. And is the power requirement for 
that fairly large?
    Ms. Dindal. Sir, thank you for repeating the question. I 
knew there was another important point we wanted to cover. It 
is not. We can do it with a generator in the field, or we can 
plug it in to house power. It is not energy intensive.
    Mr. Ellzey. OK. Fantastic. And finally, I know Battelle 
does a lot of important work, one of which is near and dear to 
me as--and I'm sure it is to Mike Waltz, as those of us who 
deployed in combat. You do a lot of work with--at Battelle with 
correcting nerve damage from traumatic brain injury and 
explosions in combat, so thank you for the work Battelle does. 
I look forward to seeing more important and scalable issues 
from Battelle. Thank you for your time today, and, ahead of 
time, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Staff. Ms. Bonamici is recognized.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much to our Subcommittee Chairs 
Sherrill and Stevens, and Ranking Members Bice and Waltz, and 
especially to our witnesses for your expertise, and your 
testimony. And I note that our Subcommittee Chairs are from New 
Jersey and Michigan, two of the States that are really leading 
the way at the State level on addressing PFAS. But, as we've 
already discussed this morning, we really do need a Federal 
standard so everyone is protected, not just those in States 
that have made the issue a priority. And I note that in my home 
State of Oregon we have not detected as much PFAS in drinking 
water, but we are--our Department of Environmental Quality is 
doing a lot of testing.
    So I want to ask Ms. Hendershott, because--your experience 
in Michigan implementing the enforceable drinking water 
standards, which I know New Jersey has done as well--so can you 
tell us what went well in the collaboration between Michigan 
State experts and national experts, what could've been 
improved, and what lessons can we at the Federal level learn 
from Michigan's efforts over the past few years?
    Ms. Hendershott. A fantastic question. Thank you. So when 
we went to look for the enforceable standards for what we set 
as the State MCLs, or the maximum contaminant levels for the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, for Michigan, we first started with--
consulting with our internal experts at the State level for 
health, and setting what--we came up with advisory levels for 
what we thought was appropriate based on the best available 
science, the research at the time, and our understanding.
    Then we went to the national experts, and asked them, and 
created a Science Advisory Board, similar to what EPA is doing, 
and actually some of those same experts were on our Science 
Advisory Board as well, to get their input on whether they 
agreed with our assessment, did they agree with the science, 
did they have anything else--I think that was absolutely 
important. The next step that we did was then go to the public, 
talk to the public, get their input, held a number of different 
public hearings and events on sharing that science, that 
information, with the public to get their input, and went 
through that--what is really pretty standard MCL development 
process for EPA.
    But I think the things that went very well were obviously 
getting the input of the Science Advisory Board, double 
checking our science, making sure we had the best available 
information, and incorporating the public input into this, 
because I think, if we don't hear anything else from our 
public, they want us to be transparent. They want to know 
what's going on, they want to hear, and have a voice at the 
table.
    Ms. Bonamici. OK.
    Ms. Hendershott. So I----
    Ms. Bonamici. And I don't want to cut you off, but I want 
to get to another question for everyone.
    Ms. Hendershott. Sure.
    Ms. Bonamici. And I just want to note, I appreciate the 
public input part, and I think the more public knowledge there 
is, and the--public education efforts, you know--I know that a 
lot of food packaging, as we were talking about--I just learned 
that a lot of dental floss contains PFAS. I think the more 
public knows about this, the more they're going to be engaged.
    So, for each of you, you know, our underserved communities, 
and communities of color, have suffered disproportionately from 
exposure to a wide range of toxins, including PFAS, and so I'm 
encouraged by the EPA's October release of the PFAS Roadmap, 
which is establishing the plan to research, restrict, and 
remediate. So I want to ask each of you, the plan directs 
agencies to incorporate environmental justice considerations 
into programs and policies, so what opportunities do you see 
for the Federal Government to further engage on the 
environmental justice as it relates to PFAS research and 
development, prevention, and mitigation? And if you could keep 
your answers brief, that would be helpful. And I'll start with 
you, Dr. Sunderland.
    Dr. Sunderland. Sure. Thank you for that very important 
question. I think our first task is to understand the 
communities that are disproportionately affected by PFAS. I 
have several graduate students working on this subject right 
now, and there are many broader tools that we can leverage to 
look at that. And then I think the point touched on earlier, 
with, you know, which--are communities equally able to afford 
the risk mitigation that's needed if they contaminated drinking 
water, things like this. So this----
    Ms. Bonamici. And I'll go to Dr. Jaffe before I run out of 
time. I'm going to try to get quick responses from--Dr. Jaffe, 
please?
    Dr. Jaffe. Yes. One important thing is to identify the 
sources, and typically we have more contaminated sources in 
those close to disadvantaged communities. They need to be 
identified, and addressed, and contained.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Ms. Hendershott? I think you're 
muted.
    Ms. Hendershott. Sorry. Just for the EJ communities, I 
think that they have a disproportionate amount of storage and 
disposal facilities that end up in their communities, and so 
not just looking at the contamination sites, but how the PFAS 
would flow through their communities would be very important.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And Ms. Dindal?
    Ms. Dindal. We need to ensure that the technologies that 
are brought forward are cost-effective to be able to be 
deployed in every community.
    Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you very much. I yield back. 
Thank you, Madam Chairs.
    Staff. Ranking Member Waltz is recognized.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chairman, for 
your indulgence. Ms. Dindal, I'd like to hear about the PFAS 
Signature Advanced Analytics Tool, which I understand 
identifies specific signatures of PFAS in areas of comingled 
sources. Specifically, how does this tool incorporate any 
machine learning (ML) AI (artificial intelligence) 
technologies, and do you think this tool will be upgraded and 
improved as we advance our understanding and use of AI and ML?
    Ms. Dindal. Thank you, sir, for that excellent question. 
Certainly happy to share about our PFAS Signature Tool, and 
excited to tell you about its capabilities. So PFAS Signature 
combines analytical chemistry and data science. We use high 
resolution mass spectrometry, where we'll do non-targeted 
analysis which generates thousands of mass spectral data. We 
can then, from there, use a filtering process that we 
developed. That's really where our innovation is. And from that 
we can also using a suspect screening tool look for up to 496 
different PFAS compounds.
    So, as I said, our innovation is around really the data 
filtering process, but it's also key to reducing it so that we 
can utilize those AI/ML techniques, which are used to train the 
tool on different sources and signatures of PFAS.
    Mr. Waltz. That's great. And--so do you see--well, can we 
just get--can you rewind the clock a little bit, and just tell 
us a little bit more about kind of how it was developed, and 
what went into that? Because I think it's just a--just as a 
process and an approach, something that I would hope to see 
replicated across the board. And what kind of collaboration did 
you have as you developed the tool?
    Ms. Dindal. Thank you for the question. We had a cross-
disciplinary research approach when developing this tool. It 
involved analytical chemists, modelers, subject matter experts 
in a number of different areas in order to bring the tool. As I 
said, data science is really where this tool is enabled. The 
power comes from our ability to filter the tool. So it was a 
strong internal collaboration, and it is one that has 
significant impacts.
    As we look at site investigation, where there is the need 
for more data, the ability to deploy a tool like PFAS Signature 
allows more information to be learned about that site early in 
the investigation process, which can really improve the 
approach we take--and really better inform those approaches 
that we take to remediating the site.
    Mr. Waltz. So how do we--Ms. Dindal, how do we--I don't 
know how to say this. What's needed to ramp up the use of tools 
like these, right? I mean--such as the signature, and the--and 
your predict tool. You know, how do we get them more widely 
adopted, and then how can government, you know, how can 
government coordinate, and to ensure that these types of tools 
are utilized, but I think importantly how do they--you know, to 
help make sure that they're accessible?
    Ms. Dindal. Thank you. That's a great question as well. 
Increasing the number of opportunities for demonstrations of 
these technologies is key to getting them more widely used and 
accepted. More technology performance data will increase the 
confidence in these new approaches, and ultimately accelerate 
cleanup times when those technologies are utilized. So right 
now we have a proposal pending with DOD to utilize a technology 
toolbox approach, where we have Signature, our Predict tool, 
which is a groundwater fate and transport modeling tool, and 
our PFAS Insight, which is a passive sampling tool. We have a 
proposal to demonstrate all three of those technologies working 
in combination to support additional site investigation.
    So that will be key for us--if that proposal is funded, and 
we move forward with demonstrating this under the ESTCP 
Program, that will be critical in terms of getting it widely, 
or more adopted, within the DOD.
    Mr. Waltz. OK, great, thank you. And just in the, you know, 
30 seconds or so I have remaining, can you just speak briefly 
to the--what you see is the current state of PFAS alternatives 
research, and the viability of any alternatives that we know 
of?
    Ms. Dindal. Yes, sir. I can speak from it from the 
perspective that Battelle is supporting DOD, through the ESTCP 
Program, evaluating non-fluorine forms of AFFF, and that 
research is still ongoing. We are doing the test and 
evaluation, and to this point there has not been a PFAS-free 
foam that has been identified that meets the military 
specifications, but that research is continuing.
    Mr. Waltz. Great. Thank you so much, and I yield.
    Staff. Mr. Tonko is recognized. You're on mute, Mr. Tonko.
    Mr. Tonko. Sorry about that. Can you hear me?
    Staff. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. I believe Representative Stansbury needed to go 
before me, unless that's changed?
    Staff. Yes, sir. Are you yielding time?
    Mr. Tonko. Yes, I am, to Representative Stansbury.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Tonko, and thank you, Madam 
Chairwoman, for convening today's panel. Given the impacts of 
PFAS in our communities, and communities across the country, 
and particularly in New Mexico, it's vital that we advance 
coordination and advanced science and research on the impacts, 
cleanup, and alternatives to PFAS in order to address these 
issues.
    In New Mexico we have had devastating impacts from PFAS 
contamination, especially in Curry and Otero Counties in the 
eastern side of our State, where PFAS was used as--in 
firefighting foams at Cannon Air Force Base that has led to 
contaminated drinking water supplies, private wells, and wells 
that supply dairies in the Ogallala Aquifer, and also 
contamination at Holloman Air Force Base, which has led to 
extensive groundwater contamination.
    PFAS has also been detected in water bodies throughout our 
State, and we are just beginning to scratch the surface in 
understanding the full picture of this contamination, the fate 
and transport of the contaminants within our communities, and 
the impacts on environmental and human health. Our dairies in 
particular, and the dairy industry, as one of our leading 
agricultural industries, has been just devastated. Thousands of 
gallons of milk have been dumped, and people's livelihoods have 
been destroyed by this contamination.
    So my question is really to Doctors Jaffe and Sunderland, 
which is how can we expedite and increase the speed of our 
understanding and our ability to measure these contaminants, 
and to do remediation, especially in areas where there's been 
large-scale spills?
    Dr. Sunderland. I'll start with how can we detect them, and 
perhaps Dr. Jaffe can take how can we remediate them? I think--
so in terms of understanding and detecting PFAS, I think 
support for joint collaboration between EPA and NIST is 
essential, so we need standard methods that fully capture all 
of the compounds that we know are used in commerce, and we're 
innovating on those detection methods, and making sure they're 
usable in the field.
    And I think another component of this that you touched on 
is just understanding all the different types of PFAS sources, 
so there are efforts underway, you know, to integrate PFAS 
accounting into the Toxic Release Inventory, and other data 
bases. And those--I think, with support from all of you, those 
efforts could be accelerated. I'll yield to Dr. Jaffe now.
    Dr. Jaffe. Thank you for the question. So when we look at 
PFAS remediation, right now most of our efforts are site 
specific, where we have high concentrations of PFAS. When 
you're concerned about agricultural processes, dairy farms, we 
probably have very dispersed, very low concentration of PFAS. 
They may have been applied with sewage sludge, and that's much, 
much more challenging to remediate these large, large sites. We 
need to have more focused research. It could be the Department 
of Agriculture that focuses on that, on how to make these PFAS 
leach so they don't go back into the food chain, and how we may 
be able to sequester them. And there could be methods, 
depending on which one that you could mobilize the PFAS a 
little bit more, so that they get out of the root zone. We 
don't have a good methodology to address that right now.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you to both of the doctors. It's just 
so urgent that expedite this research and development, and then 
expedite the cleanup of these communities. As I said, it's been 
economically devastating, and also just devastating to these 
communities, so I appreciate the work that you all do. I'm 
heartened to see that the administration is helping to 
coordinate this work through the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, and I look forward to getting NDAA passed, 
and advancing and supporting this Committee's work on this 
effort. So thank you very much, and thank you to Representative 
Tonko for yielding, and I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Gonzalez is recognized.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. Thank you to the Chairs and 
Ranking Members for holding this hearing today, and to our 
distinguished witnesses for joining us. While the science of 
PFAS continues to evolve, a couple things I think are clear. 
First, given the wide use of PFAS in so many products, these 
chemicals have found their way into the soil, and in many cases 
our drinking water. That's obvious. Second, with a growing body 
of evidence directly linking PFAS to adverse health effects, we 
need to be doing more to improve our R&D efforts in 
surveillance, rapid testing, and treatment technologies. I want 
to particularly emphasize the importance of treatment 
technologies, because, regardless of any action taken by 
Congress or the EPA to regulate PFAS, many Americans could be 
drinking contaminated water for years if we don't identify and 
support solutions that will destroy these forever chemicals.
    Ms. Dindal, I appreciated your testimony, particularly your 
comments and recommendations on how we continue to make 
advances in these PFAS destruction technologies. I actually had 
the opportunity to visit one of Battelle's environmental labs 
back in 2019 in Columbus, Ohio, and it's extraordinary to see 
the progress that your organization has made with the 
Annihilator technology in such a short period of time. Also, it 
has an awesome name, so, you know, congrats on that.
    I think, you know, one thing we can take away from all the 
testimony we've heard is that total destruction of these 
chemicals is of the utmost importance, and the technologies at 
Battelle sound very promising. Could you please describe how 
you believe the Annihilator would work to remediate sites that 
are currently contaminated with PFAS in the groundwater, and 
does it work for contaminated soil?
    Ms. Dindal. Yes, sir, thank you for the question. PFAS 
Annihilator is very applicable to groundwater treatment. It can 
be done in a number of scenarios. It can be used directly to 
treat that groundwater. In some sites there are existing 
remediation systems that are in place, like granulated 
activated carbon or ion exchange, that are already pumping and 
treating at different sites. As opposed to replacing that with 
a new technology, we can work in augmentation with that 
technology, so that's another opportunity to scale quickly, and 
not have to completely change to a new solution, but rather 
augment the solution that is there.
    You asked a question about soil as well. That is----
    Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
    Ms. Dindal.[continuing]. Another area where we are 
focusing. We have an active DOD SERDP contact to develop the 
technology further for soil. Currently the process to get it in 
an aqueous state, where we would remove the PFAS from the soil 
through a soil washing technique, and then we would destroy it 
with Annihilator, but we are working now on treating the solid 
material directly.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Great. How far along is that technology? It 
sounds like that's more in development than the other. How 
close are you all, do you think, to really----
    Ms. Dindal. It is. It's--the soil directly is in early 
stage, but, as I said, we do have a solution to wash the soil, 
and then destroy that. It would just be a two step process.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Great. And sort of related to that, could you 
share how your conversations have been going with Federal 
agencies, and how they want to use this technology at their 
waste sites? And then, if there's barriers that the Federal 
agencies are throwing up, I'd certainly love to hear about that 
as well.
    Ms. Dindal. We have been having a lot of conversations 
about this technology, particularly as we have begun to scale 
it and put it on this mobile platform. The conversations with 
DOD and EPA in particular, and the focus on a mobile technology 
that we can take the solution to the waste, and not move the 
waste around the Nation has been positively received, and that 
is why we've built our second larger unit also on a mobile 
platform. There's encouragement and engagement to utilize this 
technology. We do have a couple of current contracts with DOD 
to deploy the technology in the next year.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Great. Well, that's great to hear. 
Congratulations on all the progress. I know this Committee's 
very excited to see what you all can do in this space. Thank 
you to the Ranking Members and the Chairs, and I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Casten is recognized.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you so much, and thanks to our witnesses. 
I want to dive sort of straight into questions, and I'm--I 
really just have some basic science questions, and I'm hoping 
you can help me, Dr. Sunderland. I'm proud to have supported 
the PFAS Action Act to designate PFAS as a hazardous substance 
under CERCLA, and direct EPA to study whether it should be 
designated as a toxic pollutant, but I'm scratching my head a 
little bit, because there was this FDA analysis about a year 
ago that, if I'm reading it right, suggests that food, rather 
than water, is the primary source of PFAS contamination for 
most Americans. And, as I've gone through, that looks to be a 
measure of the number of people who are--have PFAS in their 
system, not necessarily the dosage.
    So, Dr. Sunderland, I wonder if you can give us a little 
bit of an overview, do we have a good sort of dose response 
data for PFAS? Is there such a thing as a safe level? Do we 
know? Give us a little bit of an overview, if you could, on 
where the--what the status of that science is.
    Dr. Sunderland. Sure. Thank you very much for the question. 
For the--on the health side, there are many different health 
outcomes, and so, in terms of establishing a dose response 
relationship, it would depend on the specific compound being 
considered, and the types of effects that have been 
investigated. Certainly we've seen, for things like immune 
toxicity, and we've seen effects at high levels, we've seen 
effects in adults, so we've seen an association between PFAS 
exposure, for example, in severity of COVID-19 in adult 
populations, and then we've seen effects in terms of antibody 
production following routine vaccination in children. So for 
those types of effects--and I would say there's a whole suite 
of effects on the metabolic system, so human metabolism, which 
relate to things like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. So 
for those kinds of outcomes, we do have fairly well established 
dose response relationships. There are many, many new types of 
impacts being discovered all the time.
    You commented on this difference between--and very 
astutely, you know, we have high dose communities, so some of 
these contaminated communities that have--water exposures 
versus the general population, and I think it's worth noting 
that exposures in the general population are still of concern. 
And for those populations it's true that we would think that 
diet is very important. And I guess one thing I really want to 
highlight for this Committee is we have almost no data to 
characterize what are the most important exposure sources for 
the U.S. general population. We should be concerned about 
everybody. We're most concerned about risk mitigation for those 
contaminated communities, but as soon as we get that under 
control, I think it's really important to also think about the 
whole population. And, until we identify those predominant 
exposure sources, it's very difficult to identify the most 
appropriate risk mitigation options. And our food supply has 
been systematically understudied, so most of our knowledge is 
from European data. And I don't want to be long-winded, so I'll 
stop there.
    Mr. Casten. So--well, so--and I don't want to misunderstand 
that. Are you suggesting that the highly exposed populations 
are more likely for water-based exposure, or----can you answer 
that?
    Dr. Sunderland. Yes. So we have highly exposed populations 
from a--like, it is possible to get highly exposed populations 
from a variety of--in a variety of ways. The ones that we've 
looked at most closely are these contaminated communities, but 
we also have data on population level exposures from CDC, and 
there are--you know, there are ways that people in the general 
population can also be highly exposed, through use of products, 
through dietary ingestion, and other sources. And we simply 
don't have enough data on those--you know, the--what we would 
call the U.S. general population outside of these contaminated 
communities to really have an informed response right now, and 
I think that's a really big gap in our knowledge that needs to 
be addressed.
    Mr. Casten. All right. So, with the little time I have 
left, I have a dumb and sort of selfish question. I represent a 
fairly affluent district in the Chicago suburbs that doesn't 
have a military base, and it--we certainly have our, you know, 
our pockets of inequality, but I think we're generally more 
fortunate than most. But on the other hand, last time I did a 
poll, 100 percent of my constituents eat food. The--can you 
just tell us what--how do you personally, in your expertise, 
think about nonstick cookware? Is it a thing we should be 
concerned about? How do you--what would you advise people who 
eat and cook to do, given what you know as a scientist?
    Dr. Sunderland. I mean, I'm a strong believer in the--cast 
iron pans, and not using nonstick cookware, but, you know, I 
rely a lot on my husband for cooking, so--what can I say? 
They're--these are personal choices, right? And I think that, 
you know, there's a variety of advice we can give to people to 
mitigate their personal exposures to PFAS in products. That is 
one of the handles that we could use to reduce exposures for 
the general population, by phasing out the nonessential uses in 
some of those products.
    Mr. Casten. Well, thank you very much. I'm out of time. I 
may follow up on the record to see if your husband's got some 
good records--good recipes for us. But thank you, and I yield 
back.
    Staff. Ms. Ross is recognized.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you. Thank you very much to our 
Subcommittee Chairwomen, and also to the Ranking Members, for 
holding this very important hearing. I've been doing a lot of 
work on PFAS issues, bipartisan work, because of all the 
contamination in North Carolina (NC). My home State of North 
Carolina knows PFAS issues too well. Chemical companies have 
polluted the Cape Fear River with PFAS for years, and I've 
worked on these issues both with Congressman Hudson and 
Congressman Rouzer, so I appreciate Representative Bice's 
emphasis on the bipartisan work that we're doing on this.
    But tests of drinking water in my district, including 
Raleigh and Cary, have also detected PFAS. Fortunately, though, 
my district also includes NC State University, home to 
researchers and scientists who've dedicated their time and 
expertise to assessing PFAS exposure, bioaccumulation, and 
remediation, as well as the harmful health effects that can 
result from exposures to these forever chemicals. And in 
October I had the privilege of touring NC State's Center for 
Environmental Health and Effects of PFAS, where I witnessed the 
incredible work our scientists are undertaking to learn more 
about these chemicals.
    That same day I joined EPA Administrator Michael Regan in 
North Carolina to announce the Biden Administration's plan to 
combat PFAS pollution in a governmentwide effort with eight 
Federal agencies, and several people have referenced this plan. 
I understand that it had its first meeting to discuss 
coordination, and, Ms. Hendershott, I don't know if you 
followed that meeting, but recognizing that these initiatives 
are in their early stages, can you speak to what you've seen so 
far? And, if you don't know what's happened in that meeting, 
I'd love to hear from our other experts here.
    Ms. Hendershott. Yes. Thank you for that great question. 
I'm not sure exactly which meeting you're talking about, but if 
you're referring to the EPA PFAS Roadmap, I am very encouraged 
by the coordinated actions that EPA's going to be taking. I 
would further request that all of the Federal agencies 
coordinate at an--at the national level, at a very high level, 
to strategize on PFAS response, because I don't think one 
agency, or one department, has all the answers. And so I think, 
as we learned in Michigan, that a coordinated response, all the 
way, you know, from the low levels of field work, up to the 
strategic decisions for implementation and process are really, 
really important, including our general public, so--not wanting 
to leave the public out of it. But I think the Roadmap is a 
great first step, but there are many, many more steps to take.
    Ms. Ross. And, do be clear, that meeting was a meeting of 
the joint Subcommittee on Environment, Innovation, and Public 
Health. Did anybody else follow that meeting, and have any 
reactions to the first steps? Maybe not. OK. Then, for all of 
the witnesses, what do you hope the--this inter-agency 
coordinating body will accomplish as it relates to our R&D 
needs? Maybe Dr. Sunderland? Do you have any comment on that?
    Dr. Sunderland. So the body that recently met? What----
    Ms. Ross. The inter-agency coordinating body, yes, where--
with the eight different agencies.
    Dr. Sunderland. Yes. Well, I think we've heard many 
different ideas for what we hope the--this body accomplishes, 
and they broadly fall within the areas of exposure and risk 
mitigation, comprehensively identifying the health outcomes 
associated with these compounds, thinking about the remediation 
techniques, making them available, and then source--you know, 
comprehensive source identification across the country. So--and 
I think it was highlighted a moment ago as well, you know, 
there are many steps that we need to take. So if others want to 
comment as well, I'd welcome their input.
    Ms. Ross. Well, let me shift, because I only have twenty-
six seconds left. One of the efforts that we've taken in North 
Carolina with advocates is to get Chemours, which has done most 
of the PFAS contamination, to bear some of the financial 
responsibilities for research. And so do you agree that the 
Federal Government and academic research institutions should 
not have to bear the full cost of needed PFAS research, and 
that industry should be required to chip in, particularly when 
they were part of the cause?
    Dr. Sunderland. I absolutely agree.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Gimenez is recognized.
    Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions 
at this time. Thank you.
    Staff. Thank you. Mr. Kildee is recognized.
    Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much to the two Chairs for 
holding this really important hearing. This is a subject that 
I've spent a lot of time on, so, for Chairwoman Stevens and 
Chairwoman Sherrill, thank you. I've been working on these 
issues ever since I learned about the people that I represent 
in Oscoda having been exposed to PFAS. And, you know, we know, 
from this testimony and from research, that these chemicals are 
linked to health issues, thyroid disease, cancer, et cetera. 
The people of Oscoda have been dealing with this because the 
military used firefighting foam containing PFAS that has 
leached into the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base, and into 
their drinking water. And even though the base has been closed 
for thirty years, the people of Oscoda are still dealing with 
these impacts.
    But, of course, it's not the only community dealing with 
PFAS contamination. In fact, a couple years ago, when 
Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick and I, my Republican colleague, 
founded the bipartisan congressional PFAS Task Force, we didn't 
have that many Members involved because people didn't know 
about it. This task force now has more than sixty Members, and 
it's because, as we discover the extent of PFAS contamination, 
Members of Congress understand that we have this responsibility 
to step up and defend the people that we work for. And that's 
why I'm so happy that this continues to be a--very much a 
bipartisan effort.
    One of the ways that people are exposed through--to PFAS is 
through drinking water when firefighting foam containing PFAS 
leaches into the groundwater. This affects those folks, but 
also particularly affects firefighters, who are posed to--
exposed to PFAS when they use this foam. And obviously 
firefighters have a much higher rate of cancer, and so we have 
this obligation to protect communities, and especially to 
protect those firefighters. We were able, through this 
Committee, to pass legislation that would require both military 
and civilian airports to find alternatives to PFAS containing 
firefighting foam, and to help with the transition. Again, 
through this Committee, I was able to secure $95 million in the 
Build Back Better Act, which hopefully will come to the 
President's desk in the not too distant future, to replace 
firefighting foam containing PFAS. So this is an are I'm really 
curious about.
    And I want to start with Ms. Hendershott. If you might 
address how--assuming the Build Back Better dollars are 
delivered, how this would help you, and sort of what the state 
of play is in terms of being able to remove PFAS firefighting 
foam from the environment?
    Ms. Hendershott. Absolutely. Great question. Thank you, 
Representative Kildee. So, you know, as I said, Michigan's been 
collecting--we've collected over 51,000 gallons of PFAS 
containing AFFF. But, as Ms. Dindal said, you know, the 
research on a fluorine-free--truly fluorine free foam is still 
in the process, so we need to do better than what we've got 
right now for Class B while the research continues. I think 
there needs to be measures to look at what is truly fluorine-
free, what's the next best thing until we can get that 
research. It's unfair for us to collect the Class B 
firefighting foam, and then not give additional--or additional 
options to our firefighters that are out there on the first 
lines, and it's really--my thoughts are to make sure that 
they're, one, protected, that we're not exposing them to the 
Class B AFFF anymore, but also that they have appropriate 
measures for replacement.
    And I don't know that we're quite there yet, but there are 
best management practices that we can put in place so that when 
they do have to use it, environmental cleanup is done quickly, 
it's contained, and we want to minimalize the use of it as much 
as possible.
    Mr. Kildee. Well, thank you so much, Ms. Hendershott for 
your testimony, for the answer, but especially for the great 
work you're doing. I'm proud of the way the State of Michigan 
has taken this challenge on.
    I want to quickly turn, if I could, back to--Dindal. I was 
really taken by your testimony, and particularly Mr. Gonzalez's 
questions, about the use of this technology that you've been 
developing when it comes to treatment of groundwater, 
particularly as it might work in concert with GAC filtration. 
Can you help me understand sort of the cost and scalability? I 
know you've mentioned the scalability to be able to get to, 
say, a 5,000 gallon per day threshold, but help me understand 
what the all-in costs of this might be once taken to scale, as 
compared to the cost of implementing GAC filtration, which has 
been a limitation in some--and I know this is the case in 
Oscoda, in our ability to sort of take this on at scale. Could 
you address that?
    Ms. Dindal. Yes, I can, and thank you for your leadership 
with the bipartisan PFAS Task Force. It certainly has been 
impactful. And I appreciate your question. We are certainly 
focused on bringing forward an economically viable solution, 
because we know that if the technology is not affordable, it 
won't be adopted. And we have been evaluating costs of current 
demonstration projects. We will be doing that as part of our 
current demonstration projects with DOD as we look at the 
scale, and what the costs will be involved. That will provide 
cost data on the implementation in a real world scenario, as 
the cost could vary from site to site, depending on the site 
conditions.
    I will say that EPA did cite some costs to dispose of AFFF 
in a recent publication, and it was on the order of $28 per 
gallon, so we certainly understand that that's an unsustainable 
cost, and we want to be able to provide the most cost-effective 
solution possible.
    Mr. Kildee. Well, thank you for that. Thank you all for 
your work. An excellent hearing, with excellent witnesses. I 
yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Foster is recognized.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you. Am I audible and visible here?
    The Staff. You are, sir.
    Mr. Foster. OK. Well, first off, of immediate concern here, 
for I guess Ms. Dindal, is water-borne PFAS destroyed by 
putting it through a coffee machine?
    Ms. Dindal. By putting it through a coffee machine?
    Mr. Foster. Coffee machine, yes. Yes, I mean--or do you 
need the supercritical pressure, as--and the other additives to 
actually destroy the chemical, in addition to the heat and 
boiling temperatures?
    Ms. Dindal. Yes, sir, the technology is based on 
supercritical water oxidation, which indicates that it is--at a 
certain pressure and temperature it becomes in the 
supercritical state----
    Mr. Foster. Sure, yes.
    Ms. Dindal [continuing]. And then an oxidant is added in 
order to break the C-F (carbon-fluorine) bond.
    Mr. Foster. OK. All right. Now, you know, I'm struggling 
with the biotoxicity thresholds for all these things. We had an 
issue in my district having to do with ethylene oxide, where 
it--there was a huge amount of uncertainty about what the safe 
concentration is. And, you know, there's obviously a wide 
variety of PFAS compounds, and I would not be surprised to find 
orders of magnitude differences in the safe concentrations of 
those different compounds. And--so my question, I guess, to Dr. 
Jaffe, or whoever wants to handle it, what would a systematic 
program to actually identify the biotoxicity thresholds of all 
the different compounds, or at least the most important ones, 
what would that look like, and the rough time scale and dollar 
cost? Whoops, I think you're muted, if you're----
    Dr. Jaffe. Sorry, thank you. Thank you for the question, 
and I was saying I'm probably the least qualified to answer 
this question because I'm not a toxicologist, but what we need 
to understand is how toxicology is linked to molecular 
structures. Instead of looking at a molecule at a time, how can 
we sort of find groups that are toxic, and which ones we have 
to be concerned about that? As I mentioned earlier, there are 
4,700 PFAS, and it's hard to look at them one by one. So look 
at the molecular structure, see what part is of concern, what 
part is toxic. And I----
    Mr. Foster. Ms. Sunderland, do you want a----
    Dr. Jaffe. Yes.
    Mr. Foster [continuing]. Shot at that?
    Dr. Jaffe. Thank you.
    Dr. Sunderland. Thank you. That's an excellent question. I 
think the first point I would make is that we actually don't 
have any kind of health information available for the majority 
of these compounds. And Dr. Jaffe mentioned the 4,600 plus, 
which has recently been upgraded to 9,000 plus potential 
structures, so there's a big challenge here where we only have 
actual data for a few of these compounds, and certainly the 
health outcomes associated with exposures to those compounds 
are quite different. So we have a few well studied PFAS, we 
have many that we need to consider. There are programs at EPA 
which are looking at this, so things like the ToxCast Program, 
high throughput screening, linking some of these detection 
methods to toxicological assays. These show a lot of promise, 
and I think we could leverage from these. There are some great 
people at EPA working on these programs.
    I also think we have to think about this idea of mixtures. 
So the--you know, do we want to think about health impacts 
associated with PFAS one by one, or do we want to think about 
it in the way that's relevant to how we're exposed to these 
compounds? So we may get a certain mixture of PFAS through AFFF 
exposure, we're going to get a different mixture of PFAS 
compounds through consumer products, and diet, and other 
pathways, so this kind of research is really important. NIH has 
some important research going on in this area. It's an area, I 
think, that research needs to be supported to get some of those 
answers to that important question you just asked.
    Mr. Foster. Yes. I--has anyone gone through and tried to 
generate a scope--a project scope and estimate for really 
nailing this? Or is it simply impossible, because ultimately 
what you need are long-term human exposures, which is not 
something that we're willing or eager to do?
    Dr. Sunderland. Certainly there's some data. I think that 
part of the limitation right now on the health side is actually 
detection, so characterizing--you know, the chemistry is so 
interwoven with understanding the health outcomes that, until 
we know what, you know, what the exposure vector is, it's 
difficult to say, you know, comprehensively an answer to your 
question. I think there certainly are preliminary data on this 
that provide a partial answer to your question, but we haven't 
nailed it, as you say, so it's something that we need to keep 
looking at. There's some great work going on at NIH right now 
also with animal models, looking at some of these----
    Mr. Foster. Yes. But those are limited to short term, very 
high concentrations, and I know in the ethylene oxide thing, 
you know, what we were interested in is long term, very low 
concentration exposures, and the important question of is there 
an--actually a biologically safe dosage of this which 
completely controls the cost of mitigation that you get to? So 
it's a--anyway, thank you, and I yield back.
    Staff. Ms. Wild is recognized.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you so much, and thank you, Madam Chair. I 
appreciate the testimony of our witnesses today to illustrate 
the work that we still need to do to understand and address 
PFAS risk. Earlier this year the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection conducted surveys of more than 400 
sites across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania suspected to have 
PFAS contamination, and found at least one PFAS chemical in a 
third of those tested sites. The State is now moving forward to 
protect our drinking water with a limit on PFOA and PFOS, two 
common types of PFAS, to ensure that the more than 3,000 water 
systems across Pennsylvania measure and limit the--these 
chemicals to no more than 14 or 18 parts per trillion, 
respectively. But, as our witnesses have noted, there are so 
many more research questions, including how we can also assess 
our air quality, understand impact on our health, or detect any 
kind of PFAS chemical.
    So I'd like to start--Ms. Hendershott, in your testimony 
you mentioned that Michigan developed water quality standards 
for PFOA and PFOS, using both expertise in the State, and with 
support from national experts. And, of course, as a 
representative in Pennsylvania, where we are taking these 
initiatives, where our Governor and his administration are 
taking these initiatives, I'd love to know what went well, in 
terms of the collaboration between State experts in Michigan 
and those at the national level, and any recommendations that 
you might give to leaders in my State as they move forward with 
a similar standard?
    Ms. Hendershott. I think the recommend--the biggest 
recommendation would be to continue to collaborate, gather the 
best available science, and make sure we're making the right 
assumptions. You know, we did a great job of communicating both 
with our internal experts and the external national experts, 
but even in two years the science is rapidly changing. There's 
so much more that we know today than we did two years ago, when 
we started that process. And so I think gathering as many of 
the national experts together, to really give you the best 
available science--because once these things are set, 
obviously, it takes a lot longer for us to change MCLs than the 
science does to improve our understanding and knowledge. So 
just making sure we're working with the best available 
modeling, and the best available human health outcomes, as Dr. 
Sunderland was talking about, is really, really important for 
us.
    Ms. Wild. Well, thank you. And I will tell you, and this is 
for the whole panel, when I started running for Congress, 
before I was even elected, one of the very first community 
groups I met with were from a region in my district with--that 
has very serious PFAS concerns and contaminants, and so this is 
something I've been hearing about from the beginning. I've--you 
know, and it continues that I hear about this from my 
constituents. And--so I really appreciate the testimony today.
    I want to make sure that I have good context for my 
constituents, and anyone else learning about this topic, to 
understand the current science. And so, Dr. Sunderland, and 
then any body else who would like to answer, how should we, as 
Members, talk about this issue in our districts with concerned 
constituents, and perhaps with constituents who don't--have 
never heard of PFAS, don't know what it is, and don't know what 
the possible impact could be? That was for Dr. Sunderland, as--
--
    Dr. Sunderland. Yes. Thank you for the question. And I 
think, you know, the way I approach interactions with 
communities is to first ask them, I guess, what they're 
concerned about most. And you've mentioned that there are 
community members who've already expressed concerns, so I think 
listening to the things that people are concerned about. In my 
experience, you know, the general population is concerned about 
ways that they were exposed through consumer products, and 
providing helpful tips on how to reduce their personal 
exposures, if they're concerned about it.
    I think balancing these risk messages is really important, 
so we, you know--and there's been a lot of concern among the 
Federal agencies about creating a sort of frenzied climate of 
fear around these chemicals, and what we're instead trying to 
do is say, OK, well, you know, if this is something of personal 
concern, here are ways that you can reduce exposures. And then, 
for those populations that we know are already at risk, we're 
doing our best to find some of the technologies and some of the 
solutions for reducing those exposures in the very short term. 
So that's, I guess, where I'd start. I'd welcome input from 
others on that conversation as well. Thank you.
    Ms. Wild. Well, thank you, I appreciate that. I'd love 
their input too, but, unfortunately my time is up, as is so 
often the case in these hearings. But thank you very much, Dr. 
Sunderland. Thank you to the entire panel.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. I just want to echo that. Thank you so 
much to our witnesses for testifying before the Committee 
today. Unfortunately, I need to step away, so Representative 
Stevens will be taking the Chair for the remainder of the 
hearing. Thanks so much.
    Ms. Stevens. So be it. Now we'll recognize our next 
witness. Who do we have in the queue, please?
    Staff. Mrs. Fletcher is recognized.
    Ms. Stevens. Ms. Fletcher.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Stevens, and, 
of course, to Chairwoman Sherrill, who just left, as well as to 
everyone who's here today. Really grateful that you're holding 
this important hearing, and very grateful to our witnesses for 
taking the time to testify on this important topic today. Some 
of my questions relate to things that I have already heard some 
of my colleagues ask, which I think, to me, just underscores 
the importance of some of the issues that we've been focused on 
in our Committee. And, of course, want to thank my colleague 
Dan Kildee for his work on the PFAS Task Force, which I'm very 
glad to be a part of as well.
    And some of his questions about the firefighting foam 
relate directly to some of my concerns that got me involved and 
interested in this topic when we had a very large chemical fire 
in the Houston Ship Channel, right outside of my district, and 
we were very focused on the PFAS in the firefighting foam used 
to fight those very difficult fires to put out, and the 
resulting PFAS contamination that we found down into Galveston 
Bay. So a lot of concerns in my community, as are people across 
the country concerned with these issues, and so I'm really 
grateful for your insights today.
    Last year I introduced a bill, in the last Congress, and 
it's the Federal PFAS Research Evaluation Act, and that will 
direct EPA to work with the National Academies to conduct a 
series of research studies on PFAS. The studies in my bill 
would advance the research on human exposure and toxicity 
hazard estimation, as well as the environmental hazards and 
treatment of PFAS contamination. So I really appreciate the 
insights that I've already heard from our witnesses on these 
issues, and--to help us really further refine this bill, and 
this effort, before reintroducing it in this Congress.
    So I guess maybe, with the time I have, I'd love to just 
put this question generally out to all of you to weigh in on 
how comprehensive studies to identify research gaps, and help 
advance the field of PFAS research and development, could be 
useful. And maybe if you could just share your thoughts on the 
types of questions you think that these kind of studies should 
tackle? Maybe I'll just start--I'd love to hear from all of 
you. Maybe I'll start with Dr. Sunderland, since you mentioned 
in your testimony that threat exposure research falls under the 
mandate of the EPA. Could you elaborate on the type of exposure 
research EPA should conduct, and then, again, what kinds of 
questions you think studies about the gaps could tackle?
    Dr. Sunderland. Yes. Thank you very much for that important 
question, and for asking that. I think for EPA, and for this 
general theme of exposure research, we just--you know, we 
basically need studies that systematically look in a 
representative way for different populations across the country 
at what the exposure sources and pathways are. And, believe it 
or not, that is missing for the majority of individuals.
    So we have--you know, we've talked a lot about contaminated 
drinking water, and I think because we've recognized that as a 
problem, and because the States have been so proactive about 
that, we've made a lot of progress on both understanding 
concentrations in drinking water across the country, and also 
understanding, you know, who's exposed and who's at risk. So 
that's wonderful, that's a great success. Unfortunately, we 
don't have a comparable research program for things like 
dietary exposure. There's, you know, some preliminary work from 
FDA, but it's not statistically representative of the U.S. 
population and different demographic groups.
    And this is where EPA really has a specialty, so, if given 
the mandate to do that kind of work in a--you know, the key 
here is in a representative way for the whole--you know, for 
different demographic groups in the population. So I'm thinking 
of something analogous to what the CDC does with NHANES 
(National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), but from 
the exposure perspective for PFAS. So I would love to see that 
kind of work. It's not inexpensive, so it would have to be a 
partnership, probably, with CDC, ATSDR, and EPA, but it would 
fill, in my mind, a big gap in knowledge that's so important 
for really taking those risk mitigation actions now, and that's 
really ultimately what people are most concerned about, because 
they're asking all of you, you know, what should I do, how do I 
reduce my exposure? And we can tell people in contaminated 
communities we can provide an answer, but not elsewhere. So 
thank you for that question.
    Ms. Stevens. Congresswoman Fletcher, we're losing you. 
You've got to unmute.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Well, I used up my time, so thank you, 
Chairwoman Stevens. I was going to say, since I was coming to 
the end of my time, I would love it if any of our other 
witnesses would submit an answer to that question for the 
record after the conclusion of the hearing. I----
    Ms. Stevens. Fabulous.
    Mrs. Fletcher [continuing]. Appreciate it, and I appreciate 
all of your testimony. Thank you again, Chairwoman Stevens. I 
yield back.
    Ms. Stevens. Fabulous. And, for the good of the order, do 
we have anyone else in the queue for questions right now, 
Members for questions?
    Staff. No, we do not, Ms. Stevens.
    Ms. Stevens. OK. I thought we had that accurately. Well, 
thank you so much to our witnesses for your expert testimony. 
Several Members have already recognized that they'll be 
submitting questions for the record. Clearly PFAS remains a 
topic of the day, a topic of our time, and this Committee will 
remain very dedicated to the R&D efforts, as well as the 
environmental implications, in terms of how we remediate PFAS, 
how we identify PFAS, and how we prevent the worst of its 
impacts.
    And certainly we are one exclusive Committee in the 
Congress, but you can--when we talk about a whole of government 
approach, and you talk about the multitude of agencies that 
will involve this work, we also recognize that we've got to 
take an all of Congress approach, and that we will have this 
Committee, and Energy and Commerce, and certainly some of the 
other regulatory effects that need to be addressed here. And 
we're always in favor of, you know, the agencies that we have 
direct oversight over, particularly NIST, in terms of their 
public/private partnership and advisory approach. The EPA as 
well is going to play, you know, obviously an oversized role, 
so we look forward to the dialog. We salute your work.
    And, with that, the record's going to remain open for two 
weeks for these questions for the record, all right? So Members 
are going to have time to submit those, and we'll get back to 
you--or look forward to hearing back from you. But, with that, 
the Committee will be adjourned, and thank you all so much.
    [Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Subcommittees were 
adjourned.]

                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Question

                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
                   
Responses by Dr. Elsie Sunderland

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Responses by Ms. Abigail Hendershott
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6186.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6186.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6186.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6186.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6186.066

Responses by Ms. Amy Dindal

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Responses by Dr. Peter Jaffe

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    [Submitted by Representative Bill Posey]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]