[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]