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


               EMERGING CONTAMINANTS, FOREVER CHEMICALS, 
                AND MORE: CHALLENGES TO WATER QUALITY, 
                PUBLIC HEALTH, AND COMMUNITIES

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

                                (117-27)

                             REMOTE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                    WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 6, 2021

                               __________

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


     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                             transportation
                             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-634 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                              

             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

  PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska                      District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York                 HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California             JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida               DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania   MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,            STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
  Puerto Rico                        SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota              TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              GREG STANTON, Arizona
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi           JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York         CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas                SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California           CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
                                     KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
                                     MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
                                     NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
                                     MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                                     TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana

            Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

 GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, 
               Chair
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JARED HUFFMAN, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JOHN KATKO, New York                 JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
MIKE BOST, Illinois                  ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
DOUG LaMALFA, California             CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia,
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas              Vice Chair
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida               FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,            SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
  Puerto Rico                        GREG STANTON, Arizona
NANCY MACE, South Carolina           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)      District of Columbia
                                     STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
                                     PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex 
                                     Officio)

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water Resources 
  and Environment, opening statement.............................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water 
  Resources and Environment, opening statement...................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................    69
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Texas, prepared statement.............................    69

                               WITNESSES

Elizabeth Southerland, Ph.D., Former Director, Office of Science 
  and Technology, U.S. EPA Office of Water, oral statement.......    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Christopher F. ``Chris'' Kennedy, Town Manager, Town of 
  Pittsboro, North Carolina, oral statement......................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Elise F. Granek, Ph.D., Professor, Environmental Science and 
  Management, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, oral 
  statement......................................................    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    20
Captain Charles Moore, LL.D., Research Director, Moore Institute 
  for Plastic Pollution Research, oral statement.................    31
    Prepared statement...........................................    33
Katie Huffling, DNP, R.N., CNM, FAAN, Executive Director, 
  Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, oral statement....    39
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
James J. Pletl, Ph.D., Director, Water Quality Department, 
  Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Virginia Beach, Virginia, on 
  behalf of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, 
  oral statement.................................................    42
    Prepared statement...........................................    44

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano:
    Letter of October 5, 2021, from Adam Krantz, Chief Executive 
      Officer, National Association of Clean Water Agencies......     6
    Letter of October 6, 2021, from Advance Carolina et al.......    70
    Statement of Robert C. Ferrante, Chief Engineer and General 
      Manager, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts...........    72
    Statement of the Water Replenishment District of Southern 
      California.................................................    74
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon:
    Excerpt from Report Titled, ``Final Preliminary Assessment 
      Report for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Atlantic 
      Fleet Weapons Training Area--Vieques, Former Naval 
      Ammunition Support Detachment and Former Vieques Naval 
      Training Range--Vieques, Puerto Rico,'' April 2020, 
      Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic 
      by CH2M Hill, Inc..........................................    55
    Letter of May 18, 2021, from Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, 
      Member of Congress, to EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan..    75
    Memo of December 7, 2020, from B.D. Weiss, Commanding 
      Officer, Naval Air Station Jacksonville....................    76
    Letter of May 31, 2021, from Doriel Pagan Crespo, Eng., 
      Executive President, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer 
      Authority..................................................    76

                                APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to James J. Pletl, Ph.D., 
  Director, Water Quality Department, Hampton Roads Sanitation 
  District, Virginia Beach, Virginia, on behalf of the National 
  Association of Clean Water Agencies............................    79



                            October 1, 2021

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:       Members, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment
    FROM:   Staff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment
    RE:       Subcommittee Hearing on ``Emerging Contaminants, 
Forever Chemicals, and More: Challenges to Water Quality, 
Public Health, and Communities''



                                PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will 
meet on Wednesday, October 6, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT in the 
Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2167, and by video 
conferencing via Zoom, to receive testimony on ``Emerging 
Contaminants, Forever Chemicals, and More: Challenges to Water 
Quality, Public Health, and Communities.'' The purpose of this 
hearing is to examine various perspectives on emerging 
contaminants, including so-called ``forever chemicals,'' and 
their impacts on public health and water quality.

                               BACKGROUND

    This memorandum provides a summary of both unregulated 
contaminants and those of growing concern in surface waters, 
and their effects or potential effects on human health or 
aquatic ecosystems. The memorandum also discusses the Clean 
Water Act's (CWA) framework for addressing contaminants of 
concern in surface waters.

EMERGING CONTAMINANTS

    Emerging contaminant, often called contaminant of emerging 
concern (CEC), is a term that has been used by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and water quality 
professionals to loosely describe various chemicals and other 
substances that have been detected in water bodies, that may 
cause ecological or human health effects and for which the 
scientific understanding of potential risks is evolving.\1\ 
CECs typically are not regulated under current environmental 
laws.\2\ CECs include various types of manufactured chemicals 
and substances, as well as naturally occurring substances, 
which may be found in lakes, rivers, and streams, and may have 
a detrimental effect on fish and other aquatic species.\3\ 
According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), some 
CECs have been known to bioaccumulate up the food chain--
potentially exposing non-aquatic species through the 
consumption of contaminated fish. The USGS monitors and 
assesses CECs from their sources to waterways and all the way 
through the food web.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See, e.g., Congressional Research Service, Contaminants of 
Emerging Concern under the Clean Water Act, Report No. R45998 (Nov. 7, 
2019) https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45998); Advisory 
Report of the Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, 
SAB Advisory on Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Contaminants of 
Emerging Concern, (Dec. 18, 2008) available at https://www.epa.gov/
sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/
sab_advisory_on_aquatic_life_wqc_for_contaminants_of_emerging_concern.pd
f.
    \2\ See Congressional Research Service, Contaminants of Emerging 
Concern under the Clean Water Act, Report No. R45998 (Nov. 7, 2019) 
(located at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45998).
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ U.S. Geological Service, Mission Areas, https://www.usgs.gov/
mission-areas/water-resources/science/emerging-contaminants?qt-
science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The potential range of CECs includes:
      Toxic chemicals, including persistent organic 
pollutants;
      Pharmaceuticals, analgesics, and antibiotics;
      Hormones;
      Surfactants;
      Personal care products;
      Veterinary medicines;
      Endocrine-disrupting chemicals; and
      Nanomaterials.

EMERGING CONTAMINANTS IN SURFACE WATERS

    The USGS has the primary federal responsibility for water-
quality monitoring of the nation's waters. Through its National 
Water Quality Assessment (NWQA) and the Toxic Substances 
Hydrology (Toxics) Program, it is a national leader in 
identifying CECs in the nation's surface, ground, and drinking 
waters. The USGS engages in program and research activities in 
the area of CECs, and coordinates and collaborates with other 
agencies such as the EPA, including with analytical methods 
development, occurrence in the environment, sources and source 
pathways, transport and fate, and ecological effects.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See U.S. Geological Survey. More Information on the 
Contaminants of Emerging Concern in the Environment Investigation. 
Accessed at https://toxics.usgs.gov/investigations/cec/more_cec/
index.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The fiscal year (FY) 2020 enacted budget for the NWQA 
program was $92.5 million, and $93.5 for FY2021.\6\ For the 
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, the FY 2020 budget was 
$13.1 million and for FY 2021 it was $14.3 million.\7\ The 
president's proposed FY 2022 budget requests $95.2 million for 
the NWQA program and $14.6 million for the Toxics program.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ U.S. Geological Survey. Budget Justification and Performance 
Information--Fiscal Year 2022. Page 99. Accessed at https://prd-
wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/atoms/
files/FY2022%20USGS%20Budget%20Justification%20%28Greenbook%29.pdf
    \7\ U.S. Geological Survey. Budget Justification and Performance 
Information--Fiscal Year 2022. Page 9. Accessed at https://prd-
wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/atoms/
files/FY2022%20USGS%20Budget%20Justification%20%28Greenbook%29.pdf
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2002, the USGS researchers released the first nationwide 
study of the occurrence of pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other 
organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams.\9\ Since 2002, 
the USGS has published hundreds of reports that document and 
demonstrate the existence of these substances in U.S. waters, 
the sources of these substances, the assimilations of some of 
these by organisms,\10\ and adverse ecological health 
effects.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Kolpin, D.W., et al., 2002. ``Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and 
Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000: A 
National Reconnaissance.'' Environmental Science and Technology. 36: 
1202-1211.
    \10\ Recent studies include: Kinney, C.A. et al. 2008. 
``Bioaccumulation of pharmaceuticals and other anthropogenic water 
indicators in earthworks from agricultural soil amended with biosolid 
or swine manure.'' Environmental Science and Technology. 42: 1863-1870. 
and Muir, D., Simmons, D., Wang, X. et al. ``Bioaccumulation of 
pharmaceuticals and personal care product chemicals in fish exposed to 
wastewater effluent in an urban wetland.'' Sci Rep 7, 16999 (2017). 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15462-x
    \11\ Recent studies include: Vajda, A.M., et al., 2008. 
``Reproductive Disruption in Fish Downstream of an Estrogenic 
Wastewater Effluent.'' Environmental Science and Technology. 
42(9):3407-14 and Pereira, L.C., de Souza, A.O., Bernardes, M.F.F. et 
al. A perspective on the potential risks of emerging contaminants to 
human and environmental health. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22, 13800-13823 
(2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4896-6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2002 USGS study involved monitoring for 95 CECs that 
may be associated with human, industrial, and agricultural 
waste, including antibiotics, other prescription drugs, 
steroids, reproductive hormones, personal care products, 
products of oil use and combustion, insecticides, fire 
retardants, solvents, and plasticizers, among others.\12\ 
Samples were chosen based on being downstream from urban 
centers or livestock production, and therefore vulnerable to 
contamination.\13\ Therefore, these results are not 
representative of all streams across the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Kolpin, D.W., et al., 2002. ``Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and 
Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000: A 
National Reconnaissance.'' Environmental Science and Technology. 36: 
1202-1211.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2002 study identified one or more CEC in 80% of sampled 
streams, with 86% of the CECs detected at least once.\14\ A 
median of seven CECs were found in those streams in which the 
study authors identified a target CEC, with one stream 
containing 38 of the targeted CEC.\15\ For interpretive 
purposes, the authors sorted the 95 CECs into 15 categories, 
based on their uses or origins.\16\ At least six of those 
categories--steroids, nonprescription drugs, insect repellent, 
detergent constituents, disinfectants, and plasticizers--showed 
up in over 60% of the streams tested. Another three 
categories--steroids, detergent constituents, and 
plasticizers--made up almost 80% of the total measured 
concentration of contaminants.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While measured concentrations of individual compounds were 
generally low, total combined concentrations of all targeted 
CECs were considerably higher in a number of instances.\18\ For 
those substances that have drinking water guidelines or aquatic 
life criteria associated with them, ambient levels were not, 
for the most part, exceeded.\19\ However, the authors noted 
that ``many of the 95 Organic Wastewater Contaminants (OWCs) do 
not have such guidelines or criteria determined. . . .'' \20\ 
Thirty-three of the 95 target CECs are known, or are suspected, 
to exhibit at least weak hormonal influence, with the potential 
to disrupt normal endocrine function.\21\ All of these known or 
suspected endocrine disruptors were detected in at least one of 
the stream samples during the study.\22\ The study authors note 
that ``measures of concentrations of reproductive hormones may 
have greater implications for health of aquatic organisms than 
measured concentrations of nonprescription drugs.'' \23\ In 
sum, the 2002 USGS study authors concluded the implications of 
this research are that many such compounds survive wastewater 
treatment and biodegradation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id. at 1209.
    \24\ Kolpin, D.W., et al., 2002. ``Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and 
Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000: A 
National Reconnaissance.'' Environmental Science and Technology. 36: 
1202-1211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2002, the USGS has continued to investigate the 
presence of contaminants in the nation's water and their 
interactions with the environment. Earlier in 2021, USGS 
researchers found that varying amounts of pesticide 
transformation (degradation) products were present in 90% of 
the small streams in mostly urban basins that were sampled, and 
parent pesticides were present in 95% of those streams sampled 
in varying amounts.\25\ However, the researchers acknowledged 
that the understanding of transformation products and their 
occurrence and potential toxicity in aquatic ecosystems remains 
limited.\26\ In this study, the pesticide atrazine was the most 
frequently detected, in more than half of the samples.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Mahler, B.J. et al., ``Inclusion of Pesticide Transformation 
Products Is Key to Estimating Pesticide Exposures and Effects in Small 
U.S. Streams.'' Environmental Science & Technology. 2021. 55 (8), 4740-
4752.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AQUATIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS

    For many CECs, the toxicological effects, or potential 
toxicological effects, are still being studied. The 2002 USGS 
study researchers found that, when exposed to organic 
wastewater contaminants (OWCs), ``acute effects to aquatic 
biota appear limited because of the low concentrations 
occurring in the environment.'' \28\ Measured concentrations 
for this study were generally low and rarely exceeded benchmark 
levels such as drinking-water guidelines, drinking-water health 
advisories, or aquatic-life criteria. However, they noted that 
``chronic effects from low-level environmental exposure to 
select OWCs appear to be of much greater concern.\29\ The 2002 
USGS researchers' report cites a number of studies in which 
long-term, chronic impacts to aquatic and environmental health 
have been demonstrated as a result of exposure to CECs.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Kolpin, D.W., et al., 2002. P. 1208.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over time, USGS researchers have identified toxicological 
or endocrine effects on aquatic and environmental health. This 
USGS research has included studies of developing anti-microbial 
and anti-biotic resistance at beaches and coastal areas,\31\ 
mercury and PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) contamination of 
fish in the southeastern U.S.,\32\ endocrine disrupting 
chemicals from wastewater effluent resulting in altered 
(cancerous, reduced sized, intersex) reproductive organs in 
fish,\33\ and the bioaccumulation of pharmaceuticals and other 
wastewater effluent contaminants in earthworms from 
agricultural soil partially comprised with biosolids.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Fogarty, L.R., et al., 2003. ``Abundance and Characteristics 
of the Recreational Water Quality Indicator Bacteria Escberichia coli 
and Enterococci in Gull Faeces.'' Journal of Applied Microbiology. 94: 
865-78.
    \32\ Hinck, J.E., et al., 2008. ``Chemical Contaminants, Health 
Indicators, and Reproductive Biomarker Responses in Fish from Rivers in 
the Southeastern United States.'' Science of the Total Environment. 
390:538-57.
    \33\ Hinck, J.E., et al., 2008, Vajda, A.M., et al., 2008.
    \34\ Kinney, C.A., et al., 2008. ``Bioaccumulation of 
Pharmaceuticals and other Anthropogenic Waste Indicators in Earthworms 
from Agricultural Soil Amended with Biosolid or Swine Manure.'' 
Environmental Science and Technology. 42: 1863-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the past few years, there has been increased media 
attention around the presence of plastics (microplastics and 
plastic pellets) in our waterways. Recent research suggests 
that some aquatic species might ingest microplastics, but 
whether there are long-term impacts needs more study.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Boechler, B.R., Granek, E.F. et al. 2019. ``Microplastic 
occurrence and effects on commercially harvested North American finfish 
and shellfish: Current knowledge and future directions.'' Limnology and 
Oceanography Letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS

    Currently, the potential acute and chronic effects of many 
CECs on human health are not clearly understood. As 
demonstrated above, however, research is developing that has 
identified acute or chronic effects on other studied species. 
Contaminants in water can enter the body through several 
pathways, including ingestion, surface contact, and inhalation 
of vaporized water. Pregnant women, infants and children, and 
individuals with suppressed immune systems may be more at risk 
for negative health consequences from toxic contaminants.
    The 2002 USGS study noted that there is little 
understanding of the potentially toxic interactive effects of 
complex mixtures of CECs in the environment.\36\ Several 
compounds included among the targeted CECs in the 2002 USGS 
study are noted to break down into other constituents over 
time.\37\ As a result, the study authors called for increased 
research into the health effects of individual CECs, mixtures 
of these compounds, and degradants of certain compounds.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Kolpin, D.W., et al., 2002. ``Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and 
Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000: A 
National Reconnaissance.'' Environmental Science and Technology. 36: 
1202-1211.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2008, USGS released a national reconnaissance study that 
identified the presence of CECs in untreated drinking water 
sources that were sampled across the United States.\39\ Sixty-
three of the 100 targeted CECs were detected in at least one 
water sample (taken from 74 untreated drinking water source 
locations.) \40\ The researchers noted that the study data 
would help prioritize and determine the need, if any, for 
future occurrence, fate and transport, and health-effects 
research for subsets of the studied chemicals and their 
degradates most likely to be found in water resources used for 
drinking water in the United States.\41\ Even though there may 
be no immediate health effects at the tiny concentrations in 
which these substances have been detected, concern has been 
expressed by some in the research community about the potential 
human health impacts of long-term, low-level exposures to these 
substances.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Focazio, K.J., et al., 2008. ``A National Reconnaissance for 
Pharmaceuticals and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in the United 
States--II) Untreated Drinking Water Sources.'' Science of Total 
Environment. 402: 201-206.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Tee L. Guidotti, MD, MPH, Rapid Public Health Policy Response 
Project. 2008. Pharmaceuticals are in the Drinking Water: What Does it 
Mean? George Washington University School of Public Health and Health 
Services. (Dr. Guidotti was a majority witness at the September 18, 
2008 Committee on Water Resources and the Environment Hearing on 
``Emerging Contaminants in U.S. Waters.'' Dr. Guidotti provided a copy 
of his referenced report, cited here, to the Subcommittee as an 
attachment to his written testimony.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One large class of substances--Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 
substance (PFAS) chemicals--has received increased attention in 
recent years, and the EPA considers some to be CECs.\43\ 
According to the EPA, studies of PFAS have found immunological, 
developmental, reproductive, hepatic, renal, and carcinogenic 
effects, among others.\44\ A recent Harvard study found 
evidence that PFAS exposures may increase the severity of the 
coronavirus in individuals.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ See e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emerging 
Contaminants and Federal Facility Contaminants of Concern. Last 
accessed at https://www.epa.gov/fedfac/emerging-contaminants-and-
federal-facility-contaminants-concern.
    \44\ See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Basic Information 
on PFAS.'' Accessed at https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas.
    \45\ Grandjean, P., et al. 2020. ``Severity of COVID-19 at elevated 
exposure to perfluorinated alkylates.'' PLOS ONE. Accessed at https://
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244815.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLEAN WATER ACT FRAMEWORK FOR ADDRESSING SURFACE WATER POLLUTANTS

    The Clean Water Act (CWA) \46\ is the federal government's 
primary statutory tool for protecting the quality of the 
nation's surface waters. The 1972 CWA identified two national 
goals: the elimination of discharge of pollutants into 
navigable waters by 1985; and, wherever attainable, the 
achievement of an interim goal of water quality which provides 
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and 
wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water by 
July 1, 1983 (also known as ``swimmable and fishable 
waters'').\47\ While the nation has made great progress towards 
these goals, neither has been met yet in all waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CWA includes two mechanisms through which to protect 
surface waters: technology-based control standards and water 
quality-based control standards. Technology-based standards, 
through the development and use of effluent limitation 
guidelines (ELGs), were intended to result in the complete 
elimination of the discharge of pollutants into surface waters 
by 1985, through a process of increasingly strict technology-
based control standards over time. Water quality standards are 
intended as a backstop that would entail a strengthening of 
effluent guidelines until a water body is no longer listed as 
impaired.

EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES:

    ELGs are national standards that the EPA develops under the 
CWA on an industry-by-industry, pollutant-by-pollutant 
basis.\48\ ELGs are based on the performance of treatment and 
control technologies and intended to represent the greatest 
pollutant reductions from a given industry that are 
economically achievable and technically feasible. ELGs are not 
determined by water quality or toxicity levels in a waterbody 
or based on any health standard or criteria. This effluent 
guideline approach was envisioned by the 1972 CWA to be an 
interim step, with the eventual goal of an elimination of all 
pollutant discharges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ 33 U.S.C. Sec.  1311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 1972, EPA has established ELGs for 59 industrial 
categories.\49\ The ELG regulations apply to about 40,000 
facilities that discharge directly to the nation's waters, 
129,000 facilities that discharge to municipal sewage treatment 
plants, and certain construction sites.\50\ The Agency 
periodically reviews the existing ELG regulations and updates 
them, as appropriate.\51\ EPA considers four main factors when 
prioritizing existing ELGs for possible revision, including the 
performance of applicable and demonstrated wastewater treatment 
technologies, process changes, and pollution prevention 
strategies to reduce pollutants in an industrial category's 
wastewater; the costs (economic achievability) of demonstrated 
wastewater treatment technologies, process changes, and 
pollution prevention alternatives; the amount and types of 
pollutants in an industrial category's discharge; and the 
opportunity to promote technological innovation or to eliminate 
inefficiencies or impediments to pollution prevention.\52\ EPA 
last updated limits for 39 of the current 59 industries across 
the nation more than 30 years ago, and 17 of those limits date 
back to the 1970s.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ See https://www.epa.gov/eg/effluent-guidelines-plan.
    \50\ See id.
    \51\ See id.
    \52\ See id.
    \53\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If a sector has no specific ELG associated with it, it is 
up to the permit writer to establish site-specific technology-
based limits to control the discharge. Under Section 304(b) of 
the CWA, EPA must identify and generate ELGs for those industry 
sectors that generate more than trivial amounts of toxic or 
``nonconventional'' pollutants.
    Pursuant to Section 307(a) of the CWA, EPA has identified a 
class of toxic pollutants known as ``priority pollutants.'' EPA 
must develop ELGs for these substances. Currently, 126 specific 
toxic substances are listed on the priority pollutant list 
under the CWA (this list was generated from 65 pollutants and 
classes of pollutants.)

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS:

    In those instances where a CWA permit with technology-based 
discharge limitations (or secondary treatment limits for 
treatment works) is not sufficiently stringent to ensure that 
state-established ambient water quality standards will be met 
for the water body where the discharge is located, the CWA 
requires the implementation of more stringent, water quality-
based effluent (discharge) limits in the permit to ensure that 
water quality standards for the waterbody will be met.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ 33 U.S.C. 1312
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following implementation of all relevant technology-based 
controls (based on the relevant effluent guidelines) and permit 
limitations for all point source dischargers on a water body, 
if the water body's water quality standards are not being met 
for a water quality parameter, the CWA requires the development 
of water-quality based discharge limits for those chemicals or 
pollutants that are causing the impairment of the waterbody. 
However, unlike the technology-based effluent limits, water 
quality-based limits do not require a cost-benefit analysis but 
are focused on establishing specific discharge limits for 
pollutants that are known to cause water quality impairments to 
receiving waters.
    In summary, the framework of the CWA provides a process for 
the identification of specific water bodies where the 
technology-based limits fail to achieve water quality standards 
for identified pollutants, as well as a mechanism for imposing 
more stringent discharge limits on dischargers of those 
identified pollutants that, if properly implemented, should 
result in the water body meeting a state's water quality 
standards.

FEDERAL ACTION

    There has recently been Congressional interest in 
addressing one group of CECs--PFAS--and in using other statutes 
to do so. PFAS are a broad class of chemicals with diverse 
properties that are present in a wide variety of industries 
including first responder services and safety equipment, 
aerospace, energy, automotive, medical devices, 
pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, textiles, and 
electronics.\55\ Examples of products that might contain PFAS 
include medical products and garments, coatings for medical 
devices, semiconductors, solar panels, high-performance 
electronics, and fuel-efficient technologies.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Environmental Protection Agency. ``Basic Information on 
PFAS.'' Accessed at https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas; 
See also: Environmental Protection Agency. ``EPA's Per- and 
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan''. Feb. 2019. Available 
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-02/documents/
pfas_action_plan_021319_508compliant
_1.pdf.
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 117th Congress, the House passed the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce's H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act on July 
21, 2021 by a final vote of 241-183.\57\ The legislation 
directs the 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.\58\ Within five years, 
the EPA must determine whether the remaining PFAS substances 
should be designated as hazardous substances.\59\ The 
legislation would also require EPA to make a determination 
whether PFAS should be designated as toxic pollutants under the 
CWA. If the EPA were to designate PFAS as toxic, then the 
agency would be required to establish standards to limit 
discharges of PFAS from industrial sources into waters of the 
United States.\60\ In addition, the legislation would also 
require EPA to issue a national primary drinking water 
regulation for PFAS that, at a minimum, includes standards for 
PFOA and PFOS.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ See https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021217; please note the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure received a referral on 
this bill but did not mark it up in Committee.
    \58\ See PFAS Action Act of 2021. Accessed at https://
www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2467/text
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ Id.
    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Among other requirements, the legislation mandates that EPA 
must issue a final rule adding PFOA and PFOS to the list of 
hazardous air pollutants, test all PFAS for toxicity to human 
health, and regulate the disposal of materials containing 
PFAS.\62\ Finally, H.R. 2467 would provide incentives to 
address PFAS, such as grants to help community water systems 
treat water contaminated by PFAS.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other instances where Congress has addressed PFAS-related 
issues include the National Defense Reauthorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA 2021).\64\ This law included several 
provisions to address PFAS concerns and over $200 million in 
funding for studies and research and development on PFAS 
related issues, such as $50 million to develop technologies for 
the disposal of PFAS and remediation of environmental 
contamination \65\ and $15 million to continue the Center for 
Disease Control and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry joint study on the health effects of exposure to 
PFAS.\66\ Further, appropriations for Fiscal Year 2020 required 
EPA to report to Congress on addressing PFAS cleanup and 
provided $2.8 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water 
State Revolving Funds, including $20 million for state-level 
PFAS clean up.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ P.L. 116-283, The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
    \65\ Section 334, Supra note 64.
    \66\ Section 337, Supra note 64; See also: the FY 2020 Joint 
Explanatory Statement, available at https://appropriations.house.gov/
sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/HR%201865%
20-%20Division%20D%20-%20Interior%20SOM%20FY20.pdf.
    \67\ P.L. 116-94, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, EPA recently announced planned actions in its 
Effluent Guidelines Program Preliminary Plan 15.\68\ As part of 
Preliminary Plan 15, the EPA plans on initiating rulemakings on 
several new ELGs. One ELG would address the Organic Chemicals, 
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) category to address the 
discharge of PFAS substances from facilities that manufacture 
PFAS.\69\ The EPA would also initiate a new ELG rulemaking for 
the Metal Finishing category to address PFAS discharges from 
the chromium plating operations.\70\ In addition, EPA would 
initiate detailed studies of PFAS discharges from the Landfills 
and Textile Mills categories.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15, 86 Fed Reg. 
51155 (proposed September 14, 2021).
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Id.
    \71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               WITNESSES

      Dr. Elizabeth Southerland, Former Director of 
Science and Technology, U.S. EPA Office of Water
      Chris Kennedy, Town Manager, Town of Pittsboro, 
North Carolina
      Dr. Elise Granek, Associate Professor, 
Environmental Science and Management Department, Portland State 
University
      Charles Moore, Research Director, Moore Institute 
for Plastic Pollution Research
      Dr. Katie Huffling, Executive Director, Alliance 
of Nurses for a Healthy Environment
      Dr. James (Jim) Pletl, Director of Water Quality, 
Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Virginia Beach, VA (on 
behalf of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies)

 
EMERGING CONTAMINANTS, FOREVER CHEMICALS, AND MORE: CHALLENGES TO WATER 
                QUALITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND COMMUNITIES

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
   Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:02 a.m., in 
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. 
Grace F. Napolitano (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present in person: Mrs. Napolitano and Mr. Rouzer.
    Members present remotely: Mr. Huffman, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. 
Malinowski, Mr. Delgado, Mr. Pappas, Ms. Bourdeaux, Mr. 
Carbajal, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Norton, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Graves of 
Louisiana, Mr. LaMalfa, and Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning. I call this hearing to 
order.
    Today's hearing will focus on challenges related to 
emerging contaminants and so-called forever chemicals. This 
committee has not had a hearing on this issue in more than 10 
years, so we are very long overdue in addressing the topic.
    Let me begin by asking unanimous consent that the chair be 
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's 
hearing.
    And, without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that Members not on the 
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at 
today's hearing and ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition 
to unmute their microphone to speak and to mute again when not 
speaking, when you finish. To avoid any inadvertent background 
noise, I request that every Member keep their microphone muted 
when not seeking recognition to speak. Should I hear any 
inadvertent background noise, I will request that Members 
please mute their microphone.
    Finally, to insert a document into the record, please have 
your staff email it to [email protected].
    Now for my opening statement about today's hearing, which 
has been a long time coming. This is our first hearing in about 
10 years on emerging and persistent threats to our water and 
how these threats affect human health and the health of our 
communities and of our environment.
    In that time, there have been many studies conducted and 
new science developed on tracking and treating such 
contamination. I am glad to have a panel of experts in front of 
us--well, before us on the Zoom--to catch us up on latest 
information.
    Today, we know more about the impacts of contaminants on 
human health, aquatic species, and the environment; however, 
there remain many, many gaps in our understanding. At this 
hearing, we will explore some of the impacts of these 
contaminants and the roles that Federal and the State 
governments should play to protect our health and the health of 
our water resources.
    Water quality and protection of our surface water resources 
is not a partisan issue. The Clean Water Act was passed with 
overwhelming bipartisan support, enough to override a 
Presidential veto. I know that the goals of the act are 
something we can all agree on even today.
    To ensure water quality for communities across the Nation, 
we must rely on two separate but very important elements: 
knowledge on threats to water quality and various tools with 
which to manage those threats. Also important is continued 
diligence, research into new and emerging contaminants.
    During the last administration, we saw unprecedented steps 
to critically weaken both of these initiatives. The last 
administration needlessly weakened Clean Water Act protections 
over rivers, our streams, and our wetlands that provide 
drinking water to over 117 million Americans. But fortunately 
for all Americans, this illegal action has now been thrown out 
by the courts.
    The last administration also slowed water quality 
enforcement efforts to a standstill, imposing political 
influences on decisions when or if to enforce the law. Worse 
still, the last administration's EPA actively tried to 
undermine and silence the scientific and technical expertise 
and the effectiveness of the Agency, putting all of our 
communities at risk.
    The current administration has tried to restore the 
critical mission of EPA, which is to protect human health and 
the environment. However, there is lot of work to be done to 
correct previous inadequacies and get our research and water 
quality management back on track.
    We must protect our most vulnerable communities from 
unfettered pollution and the burden of forever chemicals and 
the harmful contaminants. Many of the discharges being 
discussed today come at an extremely high cost to the health of 
humans and our environment, to local economies, and to local 
communities and local water treatment plants forced to bear the 
costs of removal; that is, the taxpayer.
    Simply put, we cannot allow upstream polluters to introduce 
dangerous pollutants into our waterways at the cost of everyday 
citizens and businesses. We can't tolerate polluter giveaways 
and corporate profits at the expense of our own environment. 
Water is too essential to human life to be threatened anywhere 
by anyone.
    I do look forward to hearing from our highly esteemed panel 
on the biggest threats to our water quality and what additional 
tools we can provide to eliminate these threats. We must be 
vigilant in protecting our water, including learning current 
and future threats to human health and the environment and 
ensuring we meet all these challenges to clean water for all.
    At this time, I would like to yield to my colleague, my 
good friend, Mr. Rouzer, for his statement or any thoughts he 
may have.
    [Mrs. Napolitano's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in 
Congress from the State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water 
                       Resources and Environment
    Today's hearing has been a long time coming.
    This is our first hearing in about 10 years on emerging and 
persistent threats to our water and how these threats affect human 
health and the health of our communities and our environment. In that 
time, there have been many studies conducted and new science developed 
on tracking and treating such contaminants. I am glad to have a panel 
of experts in front of us today to catch us up on the latest 
information.
    Today, we know more about the impacts of contaminants on human 
health, aquatic species, and the environment; however, there remain 
some gaps in our understanding. At this hearing, we will explore the 
impacts of these contaminants and the roles that federal and state 
governments should play to protect our health and the health our water 
resources.
    Water quality and the protection of our surface water resources is 
not a partisan issue. The Clean Water Act was passed with overwhelming 
bipartisan support; enough to override a presidential veto. I know that 
the goals of that Act are something we can all agree on, even today.
    To ensure water quality for communities across the nation, we must 
rely on two separate but important elements: in-depth knowledge on 
threats to water quality, and various tools with which to manage those 
threats.
    During the last administration, we saw unprecedented steps to 
critically weaken both of these initiatives.
    The Trump EPA needlessly weakened Clean Water Act protections over 
rivers, streams, and wetlands that provide drinking water to over 117 
million Americans--but, fortunately, for all Americans, this illegal 
action has now been thrown out by the courts.
    The Trump EPA also slowed water quality enforcement efforts to a 
standstill, imposing political influences on decisions when (or if) to 
enforce the law. Worse still, the Trump EPA actively tried to undermine 
and silence the scientific and technical expertise and effectiveness of 
the agency--putting all our communities at increased risk.
    The Biden administration has started to restore the critical 
mission of EPA to protect human health and the environment. However, 
there is a lot of work to be done to correct previous inadequacies and 
get our research and water quality management back on track.
    We must protect our most vulnerable communities from unfettered 
pollution and the burden of forever chemicals and harmful contaminants. 
Many of the discharges being discussed today come at an extremely high 
cost to the health of humans and the environment, to local economies, 
and to local water treatment plants forced to bear the costs of 
removal.
    Simply put, we cannot allow upstream polluters to introduce 
dangerous pollutants into our waterways at the cost of everyday 
citizens and businesses. We can't tolerate polluter giveaways and 
corporate profits at the expense of our environment. Water is too 
essential to human life to be threatened anywhere.
    I look forward to hearing from our highly esteemed panel on the 
biggest threats to our water quality and what additional tools we can 
provide to eliminate these threats. We must be vigilant in protecting 
our water, including learning current and future threats to human 
health and the environment and ensuring we meet these challenges to 
clean water for all.
    Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you 
holding this hearing. And I would also like to thank our 
witnesses for being with us today.
    This is a very important hearing to examine contaminants of 
emerging concern, including some plastics, pharmaceuticals, 
PFAS, and other substances that may pose risks to health and 
the environment.
    Like other States, my home State of North Carolina is 
familiar with these issues. For many years, PFAS contaminants 
known as GenX were discharged into the Cape Fear River from 
industrial facilities upstream. Since then, the State, as well 
as local governments, have spent millions of dollars and 
countless hours working to remedy the situation.
    This challenge is why I have been supportive of legislative 
efforts to make PFAS a priority for EPA so that States and 
communities can get better support on addressing this matter.
    These communities rightfully have questions about these 
chemicals and how they affect the drinking water and 
environment, which also leads to questions about their effect 
on personal health, even when at very minute levels.
    The scientific community is working hard to answer these 
questions, but there is a lot that we still don't know. More 
study and research and development are needed to better 
understand the effects of these chemicals, how widespread they 
are, which particular PFAS substances are ones of concern, 
whether those that are of concern are still used in commerce or 
are now just legacy pollutants, and how they can be monitored 
and cleaned up.
    With this gap in knowledge, we need to ensure any 
regulatory actions or requirements are backed by science and 
done thoughtfully to protect communities and reduce risk. A 
good, strong manufacturing base that produces products American 
consumers want, I believe, can coexist with efforts to improve 
the environment, if done properly. But we must not fly blindly 
and make emotion-based regulatory decisions rather than using 
informed science and an understanding of all the risks that are 
involved.
    For instance, water and wastewater treatment facilities are 
in a unique position. They are not responsible for PFAS and 
other contaminants of emerging concern entering water sources, 
but they are responsible for water treatment and cleaning it up 
nonetheless. While research is ongoing, at this time, there are 
few treatment methods for removing PFAS from wastewater and 
even fewer for disposal of PFAS. In the meantime, our water and 
wastewater utilities face the prospect of significant liability 
based on how they deal with these substances, even though they 
did not create them. The options before them are expensive, 
which can become a great burden for many communities and their 
ratepayers.
    As our Government moves forward to address PFAS, it is 
essential we keep in mind the need for further information on 
PFAS and the economic impacts of cleanup on communities. 
Looking forward, we should think about the possible effects of 
substances before they become common in our lives and the 
products we use, which then also become common in our 
environment. This is equally true of other substances that 
might be considered as an emerging concern.
    We also need to better understand where these substances 
come from, whether that is a manufacturing facility or from the 
personal products or medicines we use in our own homes that 
then are passed along into wastewater after being rinsed down 
the household drain. And there are many, many of those. There 
are many household products that will take your breath away if 
inhaled, in fact; yet they go right down the drain every day. 
Additionally, shampoos, hair dyes, et cetera, all go right down 
the drain, leaving remnants that most surely go into our 
drinking water. Addressing these downstream impacts beforehand 
can avoid a lot of health and environmental concerns and 
expense.
    So, I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses 
about these and other contaminants of emerging concern and how 
we can better prepare and educate our communities and, 
hopefully, achieve progress in this realm.
    Again, thank you to our witnesses for being here.
    And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    [Mr. Rouzer's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress 
 from the State of North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
                    Water Resources and Environment
    Thank you, Chair Napolitano. I appreciate you holding this hearing, 
and I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here today. 
Today's hearing will examine contaminants of emerging concern, 
including some plastics, pharmaceuticals, PFAS, and other substances 
that may pose risks to health and the environment.
    Like other states, my home state of North Carolina is familiar with 
these issues. For many years, PFAS contaminants known as ``GenX'' were 
discharged into the Cape Fear River from industrial facilities 
upstream. Since then, the state as well as local governments have spent 
millions of dollars and countless hours working to remedy the 
situation.
    This challenge is why I've been supportive of legislative efforts 
to make PFAS a priority for EPA so that states and communities can get 
better support on addressing this matter. These communities rightfully 
have questions about these chemicals and how they affect the drinking 
water and environment, which also leads to questions about their effect 
on personal health even when at very minute levels.
    The scientific community is working hard to answer these questions, 
but unfortunately there is still much we don't know. More study, and 
research and development are needed to better understand the effects of 
these chemicals, how widespread they are, which particular PFAS 
substances are ones of concern, whether those that are of concern are 
still used in commerce or are now just legacy pollutants, and how they 
can be monitored and cleaned up.
    With this gap in knowledge, we need to ensure any regulatory 
actions or requirements are backed by science and done thoughtfully to 
protect communities and reduce risks. A good strong manufacturing base 
that produces products American consumers want can coexist with efforts 
to improve the environment if done properly.
    But we must not fly blindly and make emotion-based regulatory 
decisions rather than using informed science and an understanding of 
the risks that are involved. For instance, water and wastewater 
treatment facilities are in a unique position. They are not responsible 
for PFAS and other contaminants of emerging concern entering water 
sources, but they are responsible for water treatment and cleaning it 
up, nonetheless.
    While research is ongoing, at this time there are few treatment 
methods for removing PFAS from wastewater and even fewer for disposal 
of PFAS. In the meantime, our water and wastewater utilities face the 
prospect of significant liability based on how they deal with these 
substances even though they did not create them. The options before 
them are expensive, which can become a great burden for many 
communities and their ratepayers. As our government moves forward to 
address PFAS, it is essential we keep in mind the need for further 
information on PFAS and the economic impacts of clean-up on 
communities.
    Looking forward, we should think about the possible effects of 
substances before they become common in our lives and the products we 
use, which then also become common in our environment. This is equally 
true for other substances that might be considered as an emerging 
concern.
    We also need to better understand where these substances come 
from--whether that's a manufacturing facility or from the personal 
products or medicines we use in our own homes that then are passed 
along into wastewater after being rinsed down the household drain. 
There are many household products that will take your breath away if 
inhaled--yet they go right down the drain every day. Additionally, 
shampoos, hair dyes, etc. all go right down the drain leaving remnants 
that most surely go into our drinking water. Addressing these down-
stream impacts beforehand can avoid a lot of health and environmental 
concerns and expense.
    I'm looking forward to hearing from our witnesses about these and 
other contaminants of emerging concern and how we can better prepare 
and educate our communities and hopefully achieve progress in this 
realm.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer. And that was quite 
on time.
    I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National 
Association of Clean Water Agencies in support of provisions 
from the clean water standards for PFAS be entered into the 
record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
 Letter of October 5, 2021, from Adam Krantz, Chief Executive Officer, 
National Association of Clean Water Agencies, Submitted for the Record 
                      by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
                                                   October 5, 2021.
The Honorable Peter DeFazio,
Chairman,
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

    Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
    On behalf of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies 
(NACWA), which represents over 340 public wastewater and stormwater 
utilities across the country, I write in support of language under 
consideration in Congress which seeks to advance the U.S. EPA's work to 
address PFAS through the Clean Water Act.
    NACWA appreciates that your Committee has worked to craft 
legislation that would strategically focus on source control approaches 
to help keep PFAS out of our nation's waterways. Specifically, your 
legislation (as passed in H.R. 2467, Sec. 17) would set timelines and 
guardrails for EPA to establish recommended human health water quality 
criteria, effluent limitation guidelines and pretreatment standards for 
certain industrial categories.
    NACWA sincerely appreciates your dedication to working with us to 
ensure that legislation is workable and would advance public health and 
environmental protection in a meaningful way, based on sound science.
    Development of such standards is not without significant cost and 
compliance concerns for clean water agencies. But it will also provide 
important guidance and clarity for regulated utilities and the public. 
We appreciate Congress' efforts to provide funding to help public clean 
water agencies address new PFAS costs, helping protect the public 
ratepayers from burdens to manage pollution they did not create.
    Enclosed, please find a document outlining considerations and 
requests from the public clean water sector as potential regulations 
advance.
    Thank you again for your continued attention to PFAS concerns and 
the recommendations of the public clean water sector. Please don't 
hesitate to reach out anytime to discuss further.
        Sincerely,
                                               Adam Krantz,
                 CEO, National Association of Clean Water Agencies.

                               __________
                               enclosure
  Municipal Clean Water Considerations on Clean Water Act Legislative 
                               Proposals
                      NACWA Fact Sheet--Fall 2021
Background and Issue
    The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) represents 
public wastewater and stormwater agencies of all sizes nationwide. Our 
more than 340 municipal clean water utility members across the country 
provide an essential public service of managing billions of gallons of 
wastewater and stormwater each day, as well as actively engaging in 
resource recovery including treating and managing thousands of tons of 
nutrient-rich biosolids.
    As attention to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has 
grown, so has focus on clean water utilities' potential role in helping 
prevent the release of PFAS into the environment. NACWA is closely 
following efforts by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) and Congress to advance scientific understanding and regulation 
of PFAS.
    Municipal clean water utilities are passive receivers of PFAS--they 
do not produce, manufacture or use PFAS in their operations. Utilities 
simply receive PFAS in the raw influent arriving at the treatment 
plant, which includes a mix of domestic, commercial, and industrial 
wastewater streams. Given the wide range of uses for these chemicals, 
from consumer products in our homes to the vast commercial and 
industrial applications, coupled with their resistance to degradation, 
raw wastewater arriving at a municipal treatment plant is likely to 
contain some level of PFAS.
    Influent concentrations depend on the nature of the discharges to 
the treatment plant and have the potential to be significantly reduced 
through source control focused on industries that contribute relatively 
high levels of PFAS. Reducing PFAS getting into the system in the first 
place is key because clean water utilities were not designed to treat 
emerging contaminants such as PFAS, and treatment options are limited 
and costly.
    Currently, there are no reasonably cost-effective techniques 
available to treat or remove PFAS in the sheer volume of wastewater 
managed daily by clean water utilities. PFAS present significant 
treatment challenges by their very design as ``forever chemicals,'' 
with most technologies unable to destroy the strong carbon fluorine 
bond. For this reason, NACWA strongly supports a ``polluter pays'' 
approach to addressing PFAS, with remediation and treatment costs born 
by those industries that profit from the production of the chemicals, 
not by municipal ratepayers.
    NACWA supports work underway at EPA including the recent formation 
of its PFAS Council that will serve a critical role in leading a 
federal response to addressing PFAS contamination. Federal progress in 
understanding the fate, transport, and risk of PFAS and on any 
appropriate standards would provide much needed clarity and confidence 
with regards to how to best protect public health and the environment.
    Two legislative proposals under consideration in the 117th Congress 
would address PFAS through the Clean Water Act. NACWA supports these 
efforts to advance EPA's regulatory process and appreciates that 
Congress has worked with the Association to refine these proposals over 
the past few years.
Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Water 
        Quality Criteria for PFAS (as incorporated in H.R.2467, Sec. 
        17)
    This legislation would set timelines for EPA to establish 
recommended human health water quality criteria, effluent limitation 
guidelines and pretreatment standards for certain industrial 
categories.
    It is critical to get these issues right so that investments made 
result in meaningful benefits and so the public can have confidence 
environmental and public health protection. NACWA appreciates that this 
Congressional language sets timelines and guardrails to more quickly 
and comprehensively advance the process at EPA without bypassing the 
science and addresses nine industrial sectors that are known to 
discharge PFAS in their wastewater streams.
    Effluent limitations guidelines, or ELGs, and the pretreatment 
program facilitate EPA targeting the highest-priority sources of 
chemicals of concern, significantly and effectively reducing industrial 
pollutants before they enter the municipal wastewater treatment plant 
or waterways.
    ELGs would provide national standards for PFAS discharges on an 
industry-by-industry basis. Industries which discharge directly to the 
environment would see these standards incorporated their discharge 
permits, and industrial facilities which send their effluent to 
municipal wastewater treatment plants would be regulated through EPA's 
Pretreatment Program.
    NACWA strongly supports EPA evaluating and as necessary developing 
ELGs and pretreatment standards for industrial categories discharging 
PFAS-containing effluent to the sewer system. This reflects a 
``polluter pays'' approach to regulating PFAS where the industrial 
creators of these chemicals bear much of the cost to address them. 
However, municipal wastewater treatment agencies will also incur costs 
as they administer and enforce their local pretreatment programs.
    NACWA strongly supports Congress' efforts in this legislation to 
provide funding to clean water utilities to help them afford the new 
costs that will be associated with PFAS pretreatment. This will help 
protect municipal ratepayers who are not responsible for putting PFAS 
into the environment in the first place.
    Addressing PFAS through ELGs and the pretreatment program can help 
reduce the heaviest loading into the wastewater treatment system. But 
it must be recognized that a municipal clean water utility's industrial 
pretreatment program will not control or eliminate the domestic inputs 
of PFAS to the wastewater treatment plant from everyday household 
products such as nonstick cookware, stain resistant carpets, personal 
care products, waterproof clothing, and many others that are ubiquitous 
in American homes.
    Water Quality Criteria--Under the Clean Water Act, Section 304(a), 
the Administrator is required to publish water quality criteria that 
accurately reflects the latest scientific knowledge on identifiable 
effects on health and the environment that might be expected from the 
presence of pollutants, like PFAS, in water. EPA's 2019 PFAS Action 
Plan and 2020 PFAS Action Plan Update acknowledge that the Agency is 
determining if there is enough available data and research to support 
Clean Water Act water quality criteria. This process of developing 
criteria is important and understandably takes time.
    The EPA Office of Water's Health and Ecological Criteria Division 
is currently working to develop recommended human health water quality 
criteria and ambient water quality criteria for PFAS and is expected to 
release draft criteria for public comment and review sometime in the 
near future.
    NACWA appreciates that the Congressional language sets a timeline 
for publishing water quality criteria which we understand the Agency 
believes is achievable. As the scientific understanding of PFAS 
continues to develop, it is imperative that Congress allows EPA's work 
to progress and that the ultimate criterion EPA recommend rely on 
evidence-based science and reflect the risks posed.
    EPA continues to reiterate that it will not consider implementation 
costs or other practical realities when it develops water quality 
criteria and that its sole basis is on the science. Unless any eventual 
water quality criteria account for background levels, costs, or the 
need for industrial controls to be in place first, the public clean 
water community could be saddled with a regulatory and economic 
crisis--driven by Clean Water Act permit limits for PFAS they simply 
cannot meet not should be responsible for.
    PFAS present an acute control challenge by their very design as 
``forever chemicals,'' with most technologies unable to destroy the 
strong carbon-fluorine bond. Currently, there are no cost-effective 
technologies available to treat or remove PFAS in the sheer volume of 
wastewater managed daily by clean water utilities.
    Public clean water utilities simply cannot treat to a zero level of 
PFAS. Even if ``zero'' were possible, removing PFAS chemicals from 
municipal wastewater influent and effluent would require advanced 
treatment techniques such as granulated activated carbon, ion exchange, 
or reverse osmosis--all of which are prohibitively expensive for the 
substantial volume of wastewater that may need to be treated to meet 
any Clean Water Act water quality standards. And many of these 
treatment technologies create PFAS-contaminated residuals that would 
require their own costly treatment and management options.
    NACWA supports efforts that add greater scientific confidence in 
developing water quality criteria recommendations as these criteria 
could ultimately become water quality standards adopted by state and 
tribal regulatory authorities and incorporated into Clean Water Act 
permits.
Disclosure of Introductions of PFAS (as incorporated in H.R.2467, Sec. 
        13)
    This proposal would require ``owners and operators of an industrial 
source'' that introduces any PFAS to notify the municipal clean water 
utility of the identity and quantity of each substance, whether the 
substance is susceptible to treatment by the utility, and whether the 
substance would interfere with the utility's operation.
    NACWA supports the goals of this provision to provide utilities 
critical information about contaminants entering their systems. The 
provision also helps advance a ``polluter pays'' model where the 
producers of these chemicals are responsible for addressing their 
impacts.
    However, NACWA requests additional legislative language to clarify 
that the regulatory and legal onus of notification is on the industrial 
sources that are indirectly discharging to the wastewater treatment 
plant--not on the utility administering the industrial pretreatment 
program. We suggest adding language such as ``a treatment works shall 
not face liability under this section if the owner or operator of an 
industrial source fails to comply with the requirements in subsection 
(a).''
    Without such protection, if an industrial source fails to notify 
the municipal clean water utility, the utility itself could face 
subsequent downstream compliance and enforcement repercussions for 
discharging PFAS under the Clean Water Act.

Contact: Kristina Surfus, [email protected]

    Mrs. Napolitano. Next, I would like to proceed to hear from 
our witnesses who will testify. I will ask the witnesses to 
please turn their cameras on and keep them on for the duration 
of the panel. Thank you for consenting to be here, and you are 
most welcome.
    On today's panel, we have Dr. Elizabeth Southerland, former 
Director of Science and Technology, Office of Water, U.S. EPA, 
Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Chris Kennedy, town 
manager, town of Pittsboro, North Carolina; Ms. Elise Granek--I 
hope I pronounced that right, Ms. Elise--professor, 
Environmental Science and Management, Portland State 
University; Mr. Charles Moore, research director, Moore 
Institute for Plastic Pollution Research; Ms. Katie Huffling, 
DNP, R.N., CNM, FAAN, executive director, Alliance of Nurses 
for Healthy Environments; and Dr. James Pletl, director, Water 
Quality Department, Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Virginia 
Beach, Virginia, on behalf of the National Association of Clean 
Water Agencies.
    Without objection, your prepared statements will be entered 
into the record. Now witnesses are asked to limit their remarks 
to 5 minutes.
    We will start with Dr. Southerland, please. Welcome, and, 
please, you may proceed.

  TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH SOUTHERLAND, Ph.D., FORMER DIRECTOR, 
  OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. EPA OFFICE OF WATER; 
    CHRISTOPHER F. ``CHRIS'' KENNEDY, TOWN MANAGER, TOWN OF 
 PITTSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA; ELISE F. GRANEK, Ph.D., PROFESSOR, 
     ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT, PORTLAND STATE 
  UNIVERSITY, PORTLAND, OREGON; CAPTAIN CHARLES MOORE, LL.D., 
   RESEARCH DIRECTOR, MOORE INSTITUTE FOR PLASTIC POLLUTION 
   RESEARCH; KATIE HUFFLING, DNP, R.N., CNM, FAAN, EXECUTIVE 
  DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE OF NURSES FOR HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS; AND 
  JAMES J. PLETL, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY DEPARTMENT, 
HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, ON 
   BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES

    Ms. Southerland. Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member 
Rouzer, distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is 
Elizabeth Southerland. I had the privilege of serving in the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from January 1984 until 
August 2017, when I retired as Director of the Office of 
Science and Technology in the Office of Water. Thank you for 
the opportunity to testify on emerging contaminants and forever 
chemicals.
    The Clean Water Act provides adequate authority for States 
and EPA to address these newly identified harmful chemicals. 
They have not done so, however, because they lack a national 
list of priority contaminants in the Nation's waters and a 
coordinated monitoring program by Federal, State, and 
interstate agencies that proactively looks for these 
contaminants.
    We are currently suffering from a reactive system that 
waits for a public health or environmental crisis to occur 
before we begin monitoring and even considering controls. This 
happened with the PFAS forever chemicals and will happen in the 
future with other contaminants if we fail to develop a 
proactive approach.
    Congress should require the Federal Government to develop 
and maintain a priority list of newly identified harmful 
chemicals for use by Federal and State water monitoring 
programs. Once monitoring data identify where these 
contaminants pose risk, EPA and the States can control these 
discharges to the Nation's waters using Clean Water Act 
authorities. EPA and FDA can also use this information to 
improve their chemical review programs to prevent new 
contaminants from entering the environment.
    Since my retirement, I have been a member of the 
Environmental Protection Network, a bipartisan organization of 
EPA alumni volunteering their time to protect the health and 
welfare of the American people. While my testimony incorporates 
some information developed by EPN, I am here in my personal 
capacity.
    The fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act 
took the first real step towards developing a proactive 
approach to newly identified contaminants by establishing the 
National Emerging Contaminant Research Initiative to protect 
the Nation's drinking water quality.
    Congress should expand this initiative to cover all 
beneficial uses of the Nation's waters because certain 
contaminants pose a much greater risk to aquatic life, fish 
consumers, and swimmers than to drinking water consumers. 
Congress should also require that this research initiative be 
used to develop and maintain a national list of priority 
contaminants.
    Once this national list has been developed, EPA and U.S. 
Geological Survey must include the priority contaminants in 
their national monitoring programs and provide technical 
assistance to State and interstate agencies to add these 
analyses to their monitoring. EPA should get industry support 
by using the Toxic Substances Control Act authority to require 
industry to provide analytical methods and toxicity assessments 
for any priority contaminants that they manufacture, import, or 
use.
    Industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants are 
often not designed to reduce these unregulated contaminants so 
they enter water bodies through direct discharges, as well as 
through agricultural and urban stormwater runoff. Control of 
these contaminants will be most quickly achieved by EPA 
promulgating national technology-based permit limits for entire 
industries and by States setting technology-based permit limits 
for individual industrial facilities within their boundaries.
    In order to prevent new, high-risk, man-made chemicals from 
entering the environment in the first place, EPA must improve 
the Toxic Substances Control Act's new chemical review program 
by requiring more comprehensive data from companies seeking to 
bring industrial chemicals into commerce. EPA and FDA may also 
need to improve their new chemical review programs for 
pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics if these chemicals 
are found to be frequently occurring contaminants in the 
Nation's waterways.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you 
today. I look forward to answering any questions.
    [Ms. Southerland's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Southerland, Ph.D., Former Director, 
       Office of Science and Technology, U.S. EPA Office of Water
    Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, distinguished Members 
of the Subcommittee, my name is Elizabeth Southerland. I had the 
privilege of serving in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
from January 1984 until August 2017 when I retired as the Director of 
the Office of Science and Technology in the Office of Water.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify about ``Emerging 
Contaminants, Forever Chemicals, and More: Challenges to Water Quality, 
Public Health, and Communities.'' Today I will give you my thoughts on 
how states and EPA can use Clean Water Act (CWA) authorities to address 
contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), including the forever 
chemicals. I believe that the CWA provides adequate authority for 
states and EPA to address CECs, but they have not done so because they 
lack a systematic process to identify, prioritize, and monitor for 
CECs. Currently, the country lacks a coordinated monitoring program 
that proactively looks for CECs in water bodies used for drinking 
water, swimming, fishing, and aquatic life protection. We are suffering 
with a reactive system that waits for a public health or environmental 
crisis to occur before we begin monitoring and considering controls. 
This happened with the PFAS forever chemicals and will happen in the 
future with other contaminants if we fail to develop a proactive 
approach. I want to note at the outset that controlling CECs once they 
enter the environment presents serious challenges, as I will discuss in 
a moment. I urge the Committee to also consider the need to prevent 
harmful chemicals from entering the U.S. market by using the 
authorities of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). Under TSCA, EPA needs to require more 
comprehensive data from companies seeking to bring new industrial 
chemicals into commerce. Also, EPA needs to improve the risk evaluation 
of existing industrial chemicals by evaluating all pathways of 
exposure, including those regulated under the CWA and the Safe Drinking 
Water Act (SDWA). In addition, EPA and the Food and Drug Administration 
may need to improve their review and regulation of pesticides, 
pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics to better prevent contamination of 
surface and ground waters if these chemicals are found to be frequently 
occurring CECs.
    Since my retirement, I have been a member of the Environmental 
Protection Network (EPN), a bipartisan organization of more than 550 
EPA alumni volunteering their time to protect the health and welfare of 
the American people. My testimony incorporates information developed by 
EPN, but I am here in my personal capacity.
                    Contaminants of Emerging Concern
    There is no statutory or regulatory definition of CECs, but the 
term refers to unregulated substances detected in the environment that 
may present risks to human health, aquatic life, or the environment. 
CECs can be naturally occurring substances such as algal toxins or man-
made substances such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, 
industrial chemicals, pesticides, and microplastics. Industrial and 
municipal wastewater treatment systems are often not designed to treat 
CECs, so they can enter water bodies through direct discharges as well 
as through agricultural and urban stormwater runoff. In the U.S. today 
there are over 40,000 industrial chemicals in commerce, and new 
chemicals are being introduced every year, so CECs may be discovered 
any time there is environmental monitoring. Whenever a new contaminant 
is detected in the air, water, fish, or soil, citizens expect their 
state and federal environmental agencies to answer their questions 
about the toxicity, occurrence, and treatment options for those 
contaminants. In most cases, state and federal agencies lack the 
information to answer those questions, and that lack of information 
heightens public concerns about health risks.
                     National List of Priority CECs
    Congress should require the federal government to establish a 
national list of priority CECs, a formal process to develop and update 
that list, and a coordinated water monitoring program by federal, 
state, and interstate agencies that includes the priority contaminants. 
The FY20 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) took the first step 
towards initiating these actions by directing the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop a National Emerging Contaminant 
Research Initiative to protect the nation's drinking water quality. On 
May 3, 2021, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 
(NIEHS) published a Request for Information (RFI) for this new research 
initiative, asking for public comment on the research needed to 
identify, analyze, monitor, and mitigate drinking water contaminants of 
emerging concern. In this RFI, the NIEHS defined drinking water 
contaminants of emerging concern as ``newly identified or re-emerging 
manufactured or naturally occurring physical, chemical, biological, 
radiological, or nuclear materials that may cause adverse effects to 
human health or the environment and do not currently have a national 
primary drinking water regulation.'' This definition is broad enough to 
also support a priority list of contaminants posing risks to all 
beneficial uses of water bodies. The responses to this RFI should be 
evaluated to see if they adequately address risks to aquatic life, fish 
consumers, and swimmers and thus support a National Emerging 
Contaminant Research Initiative for all beneficial uses of the nation's 
waters. It is important to have a research initiative that focuses on 
more than drinking water. Aquatic organisms are more sensitive to 
pesticides and other types of contaminants than humans, and human 
exposure to certain contaminants can be greater from eating fish and 
shellfish than from drinking water. This is particularly true for 
contaminants that are highly hydrophobic, that partition to aquatic 
environments through surface sediment, and that bioaccumulate in fish 
and shellfish.
    The NDAA directed EPA and Health and Human Services (HHS) to 
establish an Interagency Working Group on CECs to facilitate 
coordination of federal research under the new Research Initiative. 
Congress should direct the participating federal agencies to issue 
solicitations for research on CECs posing risks to uses other than 
drinking water. The NDAA also directed EPA to evaluate ways to increase 
technical assistance and support for states to analyze CECs in drinking 
water, implement a program for states to apply for technical assistance 
on CECs, and develop a database of tools and resources to assist states 
with emerging contaminants. Congress should expand this new technical 
assistance program to apply to all beneficial uses of water.
                           Monitoring of CECs
    Once a national list of priority CECs has been developed, EPA 
should include the priority contaminants in its National Aquatic 
Resource Surveys of rivers/streams, lakes, coastal waters, and wetlands 
and in its Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program for drinking 
water systems. EPA should provide technical assistance and support to 
state and interstate agencies to analyze for these contaminants in 
their monitoring of surface and ground waters. The U.S. Geological 
Survey should include these contaminants in their National Water 
Quality Assessment Program and in their special studies for states. 
Federal and state monitoring programs should also include non-targeted 
laboratory analyses to discover unknown CECs so these can be added to 
the priority list in future years.
    Detecting CECs does not prove that risks exist. The public needs to 
know if these substances are occurring at levels adversely affecting 
human health or aquatic life. At the present time, the public depends 
on EPA, other federal agencies, and university researchers to determine 
the toxicity of CECs and for EPA and the states to recommend safe 
levels in air, water, fish, and soil. Federal agencies and university 
researchers do not have the resources to assess all the CECs found in 
the environment and need industry to contribute to these efforts. Using 
Section 8 authority of TSCA, EPA should require industry to provide 
toxicity assessments and analytical methods they have developed for 
priority CECs. When industry has not yet developed these assessments 
and methods, EPA should issue testing orders under Section 4 of TSCA to 
require industry to develop this information so that monitoring and 
risk evaluations can begin as quickly as possible.
                            Control of CECs
    Once monitoring has identified the concentrations and locations of 
CECs, studies have identified toxic effects, and exposure routes are 
known, EPA and states can develop regulations or voluntary approaches 
to limit exposures and can remediate contaminated areas. Under the CWA, 
the primary mechanism to control pollutants in surface water is through 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. The CWA 
authorizes EPA and the states to limit or prohibit the discharge of 
pollutants through technology-based effluent limitations and through 
water quality-based permit limits. It is critically important that CEC 
discharges be controlled at the source, with polluters paying to treat 
their wastewater instead of downstream drinking water consumers paying 
to treat their tap water.
    The CWA requires EPA to publish effluent limitation guidelines 
(ELGs), which are the required minimum technology-based standards for 
industrial wastewater discharges. These national permit limits must be 
based on a treatment technology that is economically achievable for the 
entire industry category being regulated. Where EPA has not set ELGs 
for a particular industrial category or where pollutants and processes 
were not considered when an ELG was developed, the CWA authorizes the 
permitting authority (EPA or 47 states) to impose technology-based 
effluent limits on a case-by-case basis using Best Professional 
Judgement (BPJ). Those BPJ limits must be based on a technology that is 
economically achievable for the single facility covered by the permit. 
Since it typically takes EPA about six years to promulgate an ELG for 
an entire industry category, states should use this BPJ authority to 
set facility-specific limits more quickly for dischargers of CECs 
posing risks to their citizens. The National Emerging Contaminant 
Research Initiative should be designed to provide states with the data 
to support these BPJ limits by funding research on effective treatment 
technologies for CECs in wastewater.
    Where technology-based permit limits are not adequate to meet the 
state's water quality standards, the permitting authority needs to set 
water quality-based limits. Development of water quality-based permit 
limits for CECs will be slower than development of technology-based 
limits because of the process involved. The CWA requires states to 
adopt water quality standards to protect the designated uses of their 
water bodies and to adopt criteria for all pollutants on the Toxic 
Pollutant List for which EPA has published criteria. Most states rely 
on EPA to publish and ``from time to time thereafter revise'' water 
quality criteria that reflect the latest scientific knowledge. EPA can 
develop these criteria for CECs whenever data are available on their 
toxicity and routes of exposure. EPA develops human health criteria to 
protect people who drink the water and eat the fish, recreational 
criteria to protect swimmers, and aquatic life criteria to protect fish 
and shellfish. States use EPA's criteria as guidance in adopting 
enforceable water quality standards and then set water quality-based 
permit limits for point source dischargers that meet these standards.
    The CWA clearly gives EPA and the states the authority to limit or 
prohibit the discharge of CECs through technology-based and water 
quality-based permit limits, but these limits require adequate data on 
the concentrations and toxicity of CECs in wastewater and receiving 
waters. EPA and the states do not currently have the staff, funding, or 
proactive approach to collect this critical information in most cases. 
Absent these data, CECs will not effectively be controlled through CWA 
programs.
                       Prevention of Future CECs
    The federal government must improve its new chemical review 
programs to prevent high-risk, man-made chemicals from contaminating 
the nation's surface and groundwater. Under TSCA, EPA needs to require 
more comprehensive data from companies seeking to bring new industrial 
chemicals into commerce. Under TSCA, EPA also needs to improve the risk 
evaluation of industrial chemicals already in commerce by evaluating 
all pathways of exposure, including those regulated under the CWA and 
the SDWA. In addition, EPA and the Food and Drug Administration may 
need to improve their regulation of pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and 
cosmetics to better prevent contamination of surface and ground waters 
if these chemicals are found to be frequently occurring CECs.
                               Conclusion
    The CWA gives EPA and the states adequate authority to address CECs 
once they have entered the water cycle, but they cannot use this 
authority unless national monitoring data identify where these CECs 
pose risks to public health and the environment. Congress needs to 
require the development and maintenance of a national list of priority 
CECs so federal, state and interstate water monitoring programs can 
proactively look for these contaminants. Congress should expand the 
National Emerging Contaminant Research Initiative to cover contaminants 
posing risks to all beneficial uses of the nation's waterways. EPA 
should improve its use of TSCA authority to prevent new and existing 
chemicals from contaminating waterways and to require industry 
development of analytical methods and toxicity data for existing CECs. 
EPA and states should make broader use of their authority to set 
technology-based permit limits to control wastewater discharges of 
these contaminants.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts. I look forward 
to answering your questions.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Dr. Southerland. And I thank 
all your volunteers for doing such a great job in trying to 
keep America safe.
    Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
    Mr. Kennedy. Good morning, Madam Chair Napolitano, Ranking 
Member Rouzer, and other distinguished congressional Members. I 
thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the effects 
of emerging contaminants and forever chemicals on a small town.
    My name is Chris Kennedy. I serve as the chief executive 
officer in the capacity of town manager for Pittsboro, North 
Carolina, a quaint town of 4,500 residents in the piedmont of 
North Carolina nestled to the west of Raleigh and southeast of 
Greensboro. The latter proximity is of utmost importance to 
Pittsboro. While we are bolstered by the expansive growth found 
in the sprouting markets of Wake County and the Research 
Triangle Park, which tout some of the highest growth rates in 
the country, we are also downstream of the contributors of 
PFOS, PFOA, and 1,4-dioxane in North Carolina's Piedmont Triad. 
Despite historic and continued prosperity on the industrial 
front--and we support a robust economy--we are fully enveloped 
in the negative externalities of this production.
    In Pittsboro, the effects of PFOS, PFOA, and 1,4-dioxane 
are among the worst in the country. Pittsboro draws its water 
from the picturesque Haw River, a tributary into the Cape Fear 
River. The PFAS levels in the Haw River at our raw water intake 
experience consistent readings nearing 100 parts per trillion 
and have seen levels approaching 1,000 parts per trillion. For 
context, the EPA has established a nonenforceable health 
advisory level of 70 parts per trillion for the sum of PFAS 
chemicals. For 1,4-dioxane, the EPA has a nonbinding health 
advisory level established between 0.35 and 35 micrograms per 
liter. Pittsboro, as recently as June 30 of this year, was 
exposed to an upstream contamination of 687 micrograms per 
liter.
    To be clear, Pittsboro has no industry that contributes to 
this concern. We are simply subject to upstream contamination 
with little recourse to pursue remedy. The effects of continued 
contamination on our residents have led to numerous health-
compromising effects that I will allow my counterparts, those 
in the microbiological and other sciences realm, to further 
define and describe. I can state from a nonmedical and 
nonscientific stance that my residents are afraid of our 
drinking water and its effects on their short- and long-term 
health.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has only intensified these concerns 
as we now worry about the efficacy of the vaccines and our 
internal immune systems that are likely compromised by 
prolonged exposure to these contaminants via our drinking 
water.
    Despite our scale impediments, the town has sought to 
remedy the problems with advanced treatment measures in our 
water system. We are currently in the process of implementing a 
$3.4 million project in our waterplant we have titled ``Fast-
Track GAC.'' We have utilized the term ``fast-track'' as we 
seek immediate action despite funding constraints. The term 
``fast-track'' is also indicative of compromises necessary to 
facilitate the installation of this infrastructure.
    Even at $3.4 million, this project includes compromises 
such as serving only one-half of our plant capacity. 
Infrastructure that is typically housed in a structure must be 
exposed to the elements and piping will be strewn across the 
ground because we simply cannot afford to cover or bury the 
infrastructure.
    To afford this project, the town is spending the entirety 
of our ARPA funds, totaling $1.397 million, as well as the town 
adopting a 43-percent increase to our water rates with the 
adoption of this current year's fiscal budget. Frankly, such an 
increase in other communities would have the manager relieved 
of his duties. For further perspective, our entire water and 
wastewater budget in fiscal year 2021 was $3.9 million. So it 
goes without further elaboration that a single $3.4 million 
project that nearly exceeds our typical operating capital 
budget is concerning.
    We have identified future costs to provide advanced 
treatment to eradicate PFOS, PFOA, and 1,4-dioxane to cost 
between $15 million and $20 million in initial capital expense 
and millions more perpetually in increased operational expense. 
Our customer base, at just over 2,100 individual accounts, 
cannot reasonably be burdened with this expense. The financial 
reality and demand to remedy these introduced contaminants is 
simply too great to organically, from a budgetary perspective, 
address the problem.
    While I am not asking for funding in my testimony today as 
I share my story, I speak to support stricter regulations on 
emerging contaminants and forever chemicals. I support a 
common, maximum acceptable contamination level for drinking and 
recreational waters. Treating all bodies of water, both 
drinking water sources and recreational waters, with equivalent 
care by eliminating the term ``recommendation'' in favor of 
clear and precise levels of acceptable contamination is what we 
seek.
    The better the raw water, the more effective and longer 
lasting the treatment media or membranes. Increased efficacy 
and longevity reduce operational expense and future capital 
expansion. Cleaner water reduces demands on chemicals, 
filtering, electrical energy, and other costs that escalate 
quickly, especially in combination.
    The externalities of added advanced infrastructure are not 
without their own concerns. For example, GAC used in granular 
activated carbon is typically disposed of via incineration. The 
disposal methods surely have secondary and tertiary effects 
that when compounded only displace contamination for drinking 
water purposes, entering the system again elsewhere or 
downstream.
    In summary, I offer my testimony today to provide the 
insight of a small town that is disproportionately burdened 
with the need to react to the injection of emerging 
contaminants and forever chemicals into our drinking water 
without clear evidence to afford and manage such 
infrastructure. I support the consideration of precise, 
enforceable maximum contamination levels, removing the term 
``recommendation'' from the lexicon in the standards for 
emerging contaminants and forever chemicals, and the equal 
application of these MCLs for emerging contaminants and forever 
chemicals for all bodies of water. Anything contrary to this 
action negatively affects not only my town in Pittsboro, but 
towns and cities all over this country.
    [Mr. Kennedy's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Christopher F. ``Chris'' Kennedy, Town Manager, 
                   Town of Pittsboro, North Carolina
    Chair DeFazio and Chair Napolitano, I thank you for the opportunity 
to speak today about the effects of emerging contaminants and forever 
chemicals on a small town. My name is Chris Kennedy and I serve as the 
Chief Executive Officer in the capacity of Town Manager for Pittsboro, 
North Carolina, a quaint town of 4,537 residents in the piedmont of 
North Carolina nestled to the west of Raleigh and southeast of 
Greensboro. The latter proximity is of utmost importance to Pittsboro. 
While we are bolstered by the expansive growth found in the sprouting 
markets of Wake County and the Research Triangle Park, which tout some 
of the highest growth rates in the country, we are also downstream of 
the industry found in North Carolina's Piedmont Triad known for 
manufacturers and contributors of PFOS, PFOA and 1,4 dioxane. North 
Carolina is founded on an economy of industry that has supported this 
state, country and beyond for generations. Despite historic and 
continued prosperity on the industrial front, and we support a robust 
economy, we are fully enveloped in the negative externalities of this 
production.
    In Pittsboro, the effects of PFOS, PFOA and 1,4 dioxane are among 
the worst in the country. Pittsboro draws its raw water from the 
picturesque Haw River, a tributary into the Cape Fear River. You may 
have heard about the Cape Fear River in articles discussing GenX in and 
around Wilmington, North Carolina. The PFAS levels in the Haw River at 
our raw water intake experience consistent readings nearing 100 ppt 
(parts per trillion) and have seen levels approaching 1,000 ppt. For 
context juxtaposition, the EPA has established a non-enforceable health 
advisory level of 70 ppt for the sum of PFAS chemicals. For 1,4 
dioxane, the EPA has a nonbinding health advisory level established 
between 0.35 and 35  g/L (micrograms per liter), Pittsboro, as recently 
as June 30, 2021, was exposed to an upstream contamination of 687  g/L. 
To be clear, Pittsboro has no industry that contributes to this 
concern. We are simply subject to upstream contamination with little 
recourse financially or in terms of policy at the state or federal 
level to pursue remedy. The effects of continued contamination on our 
residents have led to numerous health-compromising effects that I will 
allow my counterparts, those in the microbiological and other sciences 
realm, to further define and describe. I can state from a non-medical 
and non-scientific stance, that my residents are afraid of our drinking 
water and its effects on their short- and long-term health. The COVID-
19 pandemic has only intensified these concerns as we now worry about 
the efficacy of the vaccines and our internal immune systems that are 
likely compromised by prolonged exposure to these contaminants via our 
drinking water. I speak as small-town Manager who requests your 
attention and action to reduce the source of these contaminants.
    Despite our scale inequities, the Town has sought to remedy the 
problems with advanced treatment measures in our water system. We pilot 
studied low pressure reverse osmosis (LPRO), granular activated carbon 
(GAC), ion exchange (IX), and ultra-violet advanced oxidation processes 
(UV-AOP) to remove these contaminants from our drinking water. We are 
currently in the process of implementing a $3.4 million project at our 
water treatment plant that we have titled ``Fast-Track GAC''. We have 
utilized the term ``fast-track'' as we seek immediate action despite 
our funding constraints. The term fast-track is also indicative of the 
compromises necessary to facilitate the installation of this 
infrastructure. Even at $3.4 million, this project includes compromises 
such as serving only one-half of our plant capacity [1.0-million-
gallons of our 2.0-million-gallon plant capacity], infrastructure that 
is typically housed in a structure will have to be exposed to the 
elements and piping will be strewn across the ground because we simply 
cannot afford to cover or bury the infrastructure. To afford this 
project, the Town is spending the entirety of our American Rescue Plan 
Act (ARPA) funds distributed to us from the federal government to the 
State of North Carolina, totaling $1.397 million, on this water 
treatment project. We have many other ARPA related needs, but find our 
water quality to be most important, justifying the 100% expense of this 
revenue. In addition to the revenue from the ARPA funds, we adopted a 
43% increase to our water rates with the adoption of this current 
fiscal year budget. Frankly, such an increase in other communities 
would have the manager relieved of his duties. For further perspective, 
our entire enterprise (water and wastewater) fund budget in Fiscal Year 
2020-2021 was $3,993,447. So, it goes without further elaboration that 
a $3.4 million advanced treatment project that nearly exceeds our 
typical operating and capital budget is concerning. These numbers also 
do not contemplate the expense of previous studies. We have identified 
the future costs to provide advanced treatment to eradicate PFOS, PFOA 
and 1,4 dioxane to cost $15-20 million in initial capital expense, and 
millions more perpetually in increased operational expense running 
these sophisticated systems. Our customer base, at just over 2,100 
individual accounts, cannot reasonably be burdened with this expense. 
The financial reality and demand to remedy these introduced 
contaminants is simply too great to organically, from a budgetary 
perspective, address the problem.
    While I am not asking for funding in my testimony today as I share 
my story, I speak to support stricter regulations on emerging 
contaminants and forever chemicals. There is much discussion on what is 
a maximum acceptable contamination level, and whether that differs for 
drinking or recreational waters. However, all water basins are 
connected, by either literal contiguous connection or by evaporation 
and rain. Treating all bodies of water, both drinking water sources and 
recreation waters, with equivalent care by eliminating recommendations 
in favor of clear and precise levels of acceptable contamination 
ultimately provides my town financial relief by reducing my operational 
expense in the pre-treatment of our drinking water. The extent of 
expense of these advanced treatment methods is directly contingent upon 
the contamination levels in the raw water. The better the raw water, 
the more effective and longer lasting the treatment media or membranes. 
Increased efficacy and longevity reduce operational expense and future 
capital expansion costs. Cleaner water reduces demands on chemicals, 
filtering, electrical energy, and other costs that escalate quickly, 
especially in combination. Even with the ability to remove emerging 
contaminants, the impediments for advanced treatment methods are not 
merely price considerations. The externalities of the added advanced 
treatment measures are numerous and not without their own concerns. For 
instance, the granular activated carbon utilized in a GAC filtering 
system produces excellent filtering of PFOA and PFOS contaminants, 
however, this media is typically disposed of via incineration. The 
disposal methods, be they incineration or another, surely have 
secondary and tertiary effects that when compounded only displace the 
contamination briefly for drinking water purposes, entering the system 
again elsewhere or downstream. Reverse osmosis, considered by many to 
be the best technology available, produces a concentrated effluent 
loaded with contaminants removed from the raw water. This concentrated 
effluent must be discharged somewhere, often back into the stream; 
again, only displacing the chemicals temporarily for a specific end 
user. Despite the technological advances that allow better filtration 
and removal of these emerging contaminants and forever chemicals from 
our drinking water, if we are only displacing these contaminants and we 
wish to alter this scenario, source reduction has to be at the 
forefront of our strategies.
    In the past year, I have interviewed with The Guardian and Consumer 
Reports, and countless other media outlets. Now, here I speak with each 
of you. Small-town Managers barely break the front page of their local 
newspaper most days, and yet, due to our water quality, here I am in 
front of the United States Congress representing not only Pittsboro, 
but other communities like us, that are disproportionately affected 
with increased costs and demands on our water system due to chemical 
contamination without clear avenues to afford and manage such 
sophisticated infrastructure. My town is on verge of expansive growth 
with a project named Chatham Park that includes 22,000 homes and 
twenty-two million square feet of commercial development. This project 
alone will propel us from a small town with a population just under 
5,000, to over 60,000 people at buildout. Economic development is a 
fierce competition, and the upstream contamination of our drinking 
water source is hindering our efforts. Our ability to see the fruits of 
this project and other development opportunities are compromised by our 
water quality. Realtors are now using real estate disclosures to alert 
potential buyers about our water system. This negatively affects both 
residential and commercial growth. Even in a no-growth scenario, I find 
this plight unacceptable. Our current citizens and residents deserve 
better. The demand for more sophisticated water treatment methods robs 
from other needed utility projects that facilitate our growth. Duke 
University and North Carolina State University are studying the levels 
of contamination in my residents by drawing blood and sampling domestic 
water in our homes. This is a testament to our community's willingness 
to be a part of the solution, but it mainly serves as a reminder that 
we are closer to the statistical testing data in a lab analysis than 
the real solutions for the problem. I have the privilege of serving an 
engaged and willing elected body, citizenry, and customer base with 
little ability to effectuate real progress as we are continually 
subjected to contaminated water. Again, I speak to support proactive 
approaches rather than reactive treatments.
    So, in summary and simply, I offer my testimony today to provide 
the insight of a small-town that is disproportionately burdened with 
the need to react to the injection of emerging contaminants and forever 
chemicals into our drinking water. I support the consideration of 
precise and enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), removing the 
term ``recommendation'' from the lexicon in the standards for emerging 
contaminants and forever chemicals, and the equal application of these 
MCLs for emerging contaminants and forever chemical standards for all 
water bodies. Anything contrary to this action negatively affects not 
only my town of Pittsboro, North Carolina, but towns and cities all 
over this country. I close with this: As the adage goes, water is the 
source of life. For me, water has become the source of consistent 
frustration and despair.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. And I am sure that 
if others had a chance to testify, they would say the same 
thing about the contamination of their water.
    Dr. Granek, you may proceed.
    Ms. Granek. Thank you, Chair Napolitano, Ranking Member 
Rouzer, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to 
present to you.
    I am a marine ecologist with 20 years of experience 
conducting field and laboratory research on coastal marine 
ecosystems, including on emerging contaminants, such as 
microplastics, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides.
    Emerging contaminants are ubiquitous in marine and 
freshwater ecosystems, as well as in our bodies. Drinking water 
extracted from rivers, fish, shellfish, sea salt, and craft 
beer we consume, freshwater and marine animals we value for 
tourism, are all exposed to a cocktail of dozens to hundreds of 
contaminants in our streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans. We are, 
in turn, exposed to these contaminants. Yet in the United 
States, our regulatory policy takes a pollutant-by-pollutant 
approach with benchmarks set for a very limited number of the 
thousands of contaminants currently in production and use 
today.
    These numerous chemicals can interact synergistically to 
become more toxic in combination than individually. Therefore, 
managing a subset of chemicals on an individual basis fails to 
address how humans and animals experience chemicals in the 
environment and likely underrepresents human health and 
environmental effects of multiple contaminant exposure, and 
some chemical effects are exacerbated by warming water 
temperatures.
    Microplastics are plastics smaller than the width of a 
pencil and include a large number of different chemical 
compositions from those in synthetic clothing, like fleece 
jackets and raincoats, to polymers used in chip bags, straws, 
or PVC tubing. Our research findings show microplastics are 
pervasive in our waterways and aquatic organisms.
    Here in the Pacific Northwest, in recreationally harvested 
razor clams and commercially valuable Pacific oysters and pink 
shrimp, 95 out of 100 individuals have microplastics in their 
tissues. All black rockfish we have examined contain 
microplastics. Again, all of these in their consumable tissue.
    Other studies report microplastics in drinking water, sea 
salt, craft beer, and honey. So, it isn't surprising that a 
recent study out of New York State found that all infant and 
adult stool samples collected contained microplastics.
    Not only are microplastics in plants, animals, and humans, 
but dozens of studies have now identified harmful effects of 
microplastic exposure in corals, lobsters, and other shellfish, 
finfish, and humans. Deleterious effects range from adverse 
reproductive outcomes, physical organ damage, and altered 
growth and development, to behavioral changes, reduced immune 
response, and inflammation, all of which can affect populations 
of commercial or endangered species.
    Since microplastics have been found in human placentas of 
newborn babies and colon tissue of colon cancer patients, these 
microplastics may be affecting human health. Yet no Federal 
regulations currently exist to inform consumers of 
microplastics in their food, set safe levels of microplastics 
in human food items or drinking water, or to limit microplastic 
release into waterways.
    Pharmaceuticals are biologically active chemicals 
manufactured to generate a biological response in the body. 
Personal care products or hygiene products--toothpaste, soaps, 
sunscreens, cosmetics--identified as contaminants of emerging 
concern. These compounds together called PPCPs enter rivers, 
estuaries, and oceans after being washed down the drain from 
industry, hospitals, animal care facilities, and households, 
and enter our waterways in large part because there is no 
regulated disposal process nationally, and current wastewater 
infrastructure does not remove many of these compounds.
    In Puget Sound, Washington, federally listed juvenile 
Chinook salmon accumulated 36 different PPCPs in their tissue, 
some at concentrations higher than in effluent released from 
nearby wastewater treatment plants. Pharmaceutical effects on 
humans can also be observed in animals. For example, fluoxetine 
in the antidepressant Prozac can reduce inhibition in humans 
and ensure crabs went around their predators, leading to 
increased loss of limbs and death for the crabs. Some of these 
chemicals impact wild animals that are endangered, of cultural 
importance and/or critical to recreational and commercial 
fishing.
    Pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides, 
rodenticides, and fungicides, are widely used in agriculture, 
forestry, and farming by municipalities and homeowners to 
reduce unwanted vegetation, decrease wildfire risk, and 
increase yield of target species. About one-third of U.S.-grown 
crops use pesticides which then enter waterways via spray 
drift, groundwater, and runoff post-rainfall. Over 100 
pesticides are documented to cause harmful effects on aquatic 
plants, animals, human development, and human health, including 
genetic damage, decreased growth, reduced reproductive output, 
and behavioral change.
    In summary, though more multiple-stressor studies are 
needed to understand the full scope of how these contaminants, 
paired with environmental stressors resulting from climate 
change, are affecting freshwater and marine plants and animals, 
there is ample scientific evidence that these contaminants 
affect freshwater and marine organisms, with potential 
implications for human consumers.
    More active management between policymakers and scientists 
is needed to determine appropriate benchmarks for these 
chemicals, both individually and in combination with other 
chemicals, to safeguard environmental and human health. 
Benchmarks need to consider how simultaneous exposures to 
multiple contaminants affect animals, including commercially 
important and endangered species, as well as public health.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, and I 
welcome questions.
    [Ms. Granek's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Elise F. Granek, Ph.D., Professor, Environmental 
  Science and Management, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon
    I would like to thank Chair DeFazio, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking 
Member Rouzer, and Members of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment for this opportunity to present written testimony on 
Emerging Contaminants, Forever Chemicals, and More: Challenges to Water 
Quality, Public Health, and Communities.
    Emerging contaminants, including forever chemicals and other 
compounds, are ubiquitous in our marine and freshwater ecosystems as 
well as in our bodies. The drinking water we extract from rivers, the 
fish and shellfish that are the backbone of the fishing industry, the 
sea salt, and craft beer we consume, and the freshwater and marine 
animals that we value for tourism, are exposed to not just a single 
contaminant, but a cocktail of contaminants as they swim in or attach 
to the bottom of our streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans. Similarly, we 
humans are exposed to these same contaminants when we swim in lakes and 
oceans, eat food harvested from those waters, and even when we breathe 
the air around us (e.g., Brahney et al. 2021, Zhang et al. 2020). Yet 
in the United States, our regulatory policy takes a pollutant by 
pollutant approach, with benchmarks indicating safe levels of exposure 
for aquatic animals or human consumers for a very limited number of the 
thousands of contaminants currently in production and use today 
(https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/chemistry-context/debunking-myth-
chemicals-testing-safety/). Aquatic plants, animals and humans are 
experiencing and consuming many chemicals simultaneously, some of which 
interact synergistically--more toxic in combination than individually, 
some interacting antagonistically--in which case the effects of one may 
counteract the effects of another. As a result, managing a subset of 
chemicals and doing so on an individual basis is an unrealistic 
representation of how humans and animals are experiencing chemicals in 
the environment--and likely under-represents the human health and 
environmental effects of any individual contaminant or suite of 
contaminants. Moreover, the effects of some of these chemicals on 
plants and animals is exacerbated by warming water temperatures (Noyes 
and Lima, 2015).
    These issues are relevant to state and federal agencies tasked with 
managing species and ecosystems, to federally recognized tribes, many 
of whom depend on aquatic items as first foods (such as salmon and 
lamprey here in the Pacific Northwest), as well as industry groups 
including the aquaculture industry, whose product and livelihood can be 
affected by chemical contamination.
                        Professional Background
    I am a marine ecologist with 20 years of experience conducting 
field and laboratory-based research on coastal marine ecosystems and 12 
years of experience conducting research on emerging contaminants in 
coastal marine and freshwater ecosystems and species.
    I offer information from studies by my lab group and those of my 
collaborators and colleagues on emerging contaminants in our fresh and 
marine waters. My expertise in this sphere is limited to the scientific 
information on the presence and effects of emerging contaminants, with 
particular focus on microplastics, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides on 
fresh- and marine waters, sediment, and animals.
                             Microplastics
    My students, colleagues, collaborators, and I have been studying 
microplastics in river water, shellfish, and more recently finfish in 
the Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington). Microplastics are small 
plastics, smaller than the width of a pencil and down to microscopic 
sizes. They include an array of chemical compositions ranging from the 
types of plastics used to make synthetic clothing like fleece jackets 
to other polymers used in chip bags, straws, etc. Our research findings 
align with studies conducted elsewhere in the US and internationally 
that have found microplastics to be pervasive in our waterways and 
aquatic organisms. For example, 99 out of 100 razor clams sampled in 
the Pacific Northwest have microplastics in their tissue. Similarly, 
for Pacific oysters, an important shellfish species for aquaculture in 
our region, 99 out of 100 individuals have microplastics in their 
tissues (Baechler et al. 2020a, b). In pink shrimp, an economically 
important fishery in the region, 9 out of 10 contain microplastics. 
Additionally, all of the Black Rockfish we have examined contain 
microplastics in their consumable tissue.
    In addition to microplastics in shellfish and finfish, many studies 
report microplastics in our drinking water, sea salt, craft beer, and 
honey (Zhang et al. 2020). So perhaps it isn't surprising that a recent 
study out of New York State found that all infant and adult stool 
samples collected contained microplastics (Zhang et al. 2021).
Why does it matter that we find microplastics in waterways, drinking 
        water, salt, and seafood?
    A large body of research identifies effects of microplastic 
exposure in animals ranging from corals, crustaceans (e.g., lobsters) 
and shellfish, to finfish and humans (see Table 1 below). The 
deleterious effects range from adverse reproductive outcomes, physical 
organ damage, and altered growth and development, to behavioral 
changes, reduced immune response, and inflammation (see Granek et al. 
In Press).
    Additionally, other chemicals in waterways, some of which I will 
discuss below, can stick to the surface of plastic pieces in the 
environment providing a transport pathway for such chemicals to enter 
the bodies of animals and humans.
    In summary, when microplastics affect the growth and reproductive 
output of animals (such as those harvested commercially), then 
organisms grow more slowly and may have fewer offspring. From a human 
health perspective, microplastics have been found in human tissue 
ranging from the placentas of newborn babies (Ragusa et al. 2021) to 
colon tissue of cancer patients (Ibrahim et al. 2020). So these 
microplastics are making their way into humans with potential effects 
on human health. Yet no federal regulations currently exist to inform 
consumers of microplastics in their food, to limit microplastic release 
into waterways, or to set safe levels of microplastics in human food 
items.
           Pharmaceuticals and Personal care products (PPCPs)
    Pharmaceuticals are biologically active chemicals manufactured to 
induce a response in humans or other animals. Personal care products 
are personal hygiene products (including toothpastes, soaps and 
shampoos, sunscreens, etc.) and cosmetics and are identified as 
contaminants of emerging concern. These compounds are washed down the 
drain from industry, hospitals, animal care facilities, households, 
etc. and enter our waterways in part because there is no regulated 
disposal process nationally and current wastewater infrastructure does 
not remove most of those compounds (Ehrhart et al. 2020). Once washed 
down the drain, these chemicals enter rivers, estuaries and oceans. 
Though pharmaceuticals generally do not bioaccumulate, because they are 
constantly released into waterways from wastewater treatment plants and 
septic systems, they are considered pseudo-persistent.
    In Puget Sound, Washington, juvenile Chinook salmon (federally 
listed under the Endangered Species Act) accumulated 36 different 
pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in their tissue, 
often at concentrations similar to or greater than concentrations of 
the effluent released from wastewater treatment plants nearby (Figure 
1; Meador et al. 2016). Similarly, 18 PPCPs were detected in Olympia 
oysters, a protected species in Oregon.
    Because pharmaceuticals are designed to be biologically active, the 
effects they have in humans can translate into effects on other 
animals. For example, as use of prescribed oral antibiotics affects gut 
microbiota in humans, those same antibiotics alter the gut microbiota 
in shellfish exposed to antibiotics in their water environment (e.g., 
Teixeira 2017). Fluoxetine, the active ingredient in the antidepressant 
Prozac, can reduce inhibition in humans; similarly, shore crabs exposed 
to fluoxetine have a reduced inhibition around their predators, leading 
to increased loss of limbs and death (Peters et al. 2017).
Why does it matter that freshwater, estuarine, and marine animals are 
        exposed to pharmaceuticals and personal care products?
    Some of these chemicals can reduce growth or increase predation in 
wild populations of animals that are grown commercially, harvested 
recreationally, of cultural importance to tribes, and that are 
endangered.


  Figure 1. Occurrence of detected analytes in fish (salmon = stars, 
sculpin = circles), estuarine water, and wastewater effluent. Data are 
ordered from high to low concentrations in juvenile Chinook salmon. All 
     replicate data shown for each matrix. From Meador et al. 2016.

                               Pesticides
    Pesticide use, including herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, 
and fungicides, extends across numerous industries, including 
agriculture, forestry, and Christmas tree farming as well as by 
municipalities and homeowners to manage vegetation in public right-of-
ways and on private property. Herbicide applications are used to reduce 
competition from unwanted vegetation, decrease wildfire risk, and 
increase survival and yield of target species (Shepard et al. 2004; 
Clark et al. 2009). Approximately \1/3\ of U.S.-grown crops use 
pesticides, and while they are generally applied directly to target 
plants, pesticides enter the environment via spray drift, runoff 
following rainfall, and groundwater (Tudi et al. 2021).
    Once applied, pesticide properties and watershed characteristics 
affect how they move and where they go in the environment, with some 
compounds degrading or moving quickly through the watershed and others 
persisting in the environment and in organisms for long periods of time 
(Wang et al., 2019). These and other factors influence how organisms 
are exposed to potentially harmful pollutants which can have 
detrimental effects on development, reproduction, and behavior in 
aquatic plants and animals (Luschak et al. 2018).
    Of the wide array of pesticides used in each industry, over a 
hundred have been documented to cause deleterious effects on aquatic 
plants, animals and/or human development and health (e.g., Bhardwaj et 
al. 2018; Cimino et al. 2016; Gonzalez-Alzaga 2015; Mnif et al. 2011; 
Rani et al. 2020). Exposure to atrazine can cause genetic damage and 
decreased growth, in Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) (Bouilly et 
al. 2004), reproduction and growth in zooplankton, ovarian growth in 
crabs (Silveyra et al. 2017), and reproduction and behavior in fish 
(e.g., zebrafish--Brachydanio rerio and rainbow trout--Oncorhynchus 
mykiss; Graymore et al. 2001). Moreover, the highest toxicity has been 
reported in earlier, more fragile aquatic invertebrates life stages 
(Lindsay et al. 2010) . These negative impacts on reproductive success 
of some organisms, including humans (Figure 2) have implications for 
future populations.


 Figure 2. Consequences of chemical pesticides on human health and the 
                  environment. From Rani et al. 2020.

Why does it matter that freshwater, estuarine, and marine animals are 
        exposed to pesticides?
    Some of these chemicals can affect fitness and survival of animals 
preyed on by commercial species as well as the commercial species 
themselves. Some of these compounds can accumulate in shellfish tissue 
(e.g., Scully-Engelmeyer et al. 2021) that is then consumed by humans. 
Dozens of studies have identified human health effects of exposure to 
agricultural pesticides (Bhardwaj et al. 2018; Cimino et al. 2016; 
Gonzalez-Alzaga 2015; Rani et al. 2020). Ultimately, sublethal levels 
of pesticide exposure pose a threat to organisms; this threat can be 
challenging to quantify and monitor, but can have disruptive effects on 
animal populations (Stark and Banks, 2003).
                            Other chemicals
            PFAS
    Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are found or used in 
hundreds of consumer products and industrial processes, including but 
not limited to stain- and oil-resistant coatings on clothing and in 
food packaging, hydraulic fluids used in aviation, paints, adhesives, 
and fire-fighting foams (Cousins et al., 2019; Lau et al., 2007). PFAS 
are a ubiquitous class of industrial contaminants found in waterways 
nationwide. Ecotoxicity data on newer PFAS are scarce, and to-date just 
a handful of studies have been conducted with freshwater aquatic 
organisms (Hoke et al., 2016, 2015) with very little data for effects 
on marine organisms. Yet a myriad of studies have identified a variety 
of negative health effects resulting from exposure to PFAS ranging from 
adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes and cancer to liver 
disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, and altered 
immune and thyroid function (e.g., Fenton et al. 2021).
            Tire wear particles and associated chemicals
    A complex mixture of chemicals associated with tire wear particles 
enter the environment primarily through stormwater runoff (Johannessen 
et al. 2021). As cars drive along our roadways, small tire fragments 
wear off and end up in roadways or aerosolized. These tire wear 
particles and associated chemicals have recently been identified as a 
significant driver of coho salmon mortality in the Pacific Northwest, 
affecting up to 90% of returning salmon in some streams (Tian et al. 
2021). A chemical commonly used in car tire manufacturing interacts 
with ozone in the environment creating a toxic by-product, 6PPD-
quinone, which then enters the environment when it leaches from tire 
wear particles that are washed off roadways and into our waterways 
during rain events (Johannessen et al. 2021, Tian et al. 2021). These 
particles and their associated chemicals are toxic to a number of 
species in our waterways (Khan et al. 2019, Wik 2008). Other 
unidentified chemicals have been detected in tire wear particles, as 
the chemical mixtures used in tire manufacturing are complex, 
proprietary, and largely unregulated (Tian et al. 2021, Wik & Dave 
2009). The formation of a previously unknown chemical, 6PPD-quinone, as 
an unintended by-product from car tire manufacturing highlights the 
potential for understudied chemicals to produce unforeseen 
environmental sequences and the need for regulatory mechanisms to 
protect species from these effects.
                                Summary
    In our collaborative research with colleagues across multiple 
universities, state and federal institutions, federally recognized 
tribes in the Pacific Northwest, Industry groups, and non-governmental 
organizations, there is concern about the threats emerging contaminants 
pose to freshwater and marine animals as well as human consumers.
    Though more multiple-stressor studies are needed to understand the 
full scope of how these contaminants, paired with environmental 
stressors resulting from climate change--such as ocean acidification 
and increasing sea surface temperature--are affecting freshwater and 
marine plants and animals, there is ample scientific evidence that 
these contaminants affect freshwater and marine organisms, with 
potential implications for human consumers.
    More active engagement between policy makers and scientists is 
needed to determine appropriate benchmarks for these chemicals, both 
individually and in combination with other chemicals, to safeguard 
environmental and public health. Such benchmarks need to consider how 
simultaneous exposure to multiple contaminants affects animals, 
including commercially important and endangered species, as well as 
public health.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you.

   Table 1. Ecological and biological effects of microplastic fibers on organisms by species and material type (modified from Granek et al. In Press)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Level                     Type of Effect          Organism Clade          Genus species      Plastic Material Type     In Text Citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub/                                 Adverse                 Bivalves..............  Mytilus spp..........  Polyamide Nylon......  (Cole et al., 2020)
Cellular...........................  Immune
                                     Response..............
                                                             Coral.................  Acropora sp..........  n/a..................  (Mendrik et al.,
                                                                                                                                    2021)
                                                             Coral.................  Seriatopora hystrix..  n/a..................  (Mendrik et al.,
                                                                                                                                    2021)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub/                                 Cellular                Annelid Worms.........  Lumbricus terrestris.  Polyester............  (Prendergast-Mil- ler
Cellular...........................  Response..............                                                                         et al., 2019)
                                                             Bivalves..............  Mytilus                composite household    (Alnajar, Jha and
                                                                                      galloprovincialis.     lint.                  Turner, 2021)
                                                             Coral.................  Acropora sp..........  n/a..................  (Mendrik et al.,
                                                                                                                                    2021)
                                                             Coral.................  Seriatopora hystrix..  n/a..................  (Mendrik et al.,
                                                                                                                                    2021)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Nephrops norvegicus..  Polypropylene........  (Welden and Cowie,
                                                                                                                                    2016)
                                                             Humans................  Homo sapiens.........  nylon, polyester.....  (Dijk et al., 2020)
                                                             Nematodes.............  Caenorhabditis         polyethylene           (Liu et al., 2021)
                                                                                      elegans.               terephthalate.
                                                             Nematodes.............  Caenorhabditis         polyethylene           (Liu et al., 2021)
                                                                                      elegans.               terephthalate.
                                                             Nematodes.............  Caenorhabditis         polyethylene           (Liu et al., 2021)
                                                                                      elegans.               terephthalate.
                                                             Rodents...............  Mus musculus.........  nylon, polyester.....  (Dijk et al., 2020)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub/                                 Oxidative               Annelid Worms.........  Lumbricus terrestris.  Polyester............  (Prendergast-Mil- ler
Cellular...........................  Stress................                                                                         et al., 2019)
                                                             Bivalves..............  Mytilus spp..........  Polyamide Nylon......  (Cole et al., 2020)
                                                             Bivalves..............  Mytilus spp..........  Polyamide Nylon......  (Cole et al., 2020)
                                                             Coral.................  Acropora sp..........  n/a..................  (Mendrik et al.,
                                                                                                                                    2021)
                                                             Coral.................  Seriatopora hystrix..  n/a..................  (Mendrik et al.,
                                                                                                                                    2021)
                                                             Echinoderms...........  Apostichopus           n/a..................  (Mohsen et al., 2021)
                                                                                      japonicus.
                                                             Fish..................  Dicentrachus labrax..  polyethylene (80%);    (Barboza et al.,
                                                                                                             polyester (19%);       2020)
                                                                                                             rayon (1%).
                                                             Fish..................  Trachurus trachurus..  polyethylene (80%);    (Barboza et al.,
                                                                                                             polyester (19%);       2020)
                                                                                                             rayon (1%).
                                                             Fish..................  Scomber colias.......  polyethylene (80%);    Barboza et al., 2020)
                                                                                                             polyester (19%);
                                                                                                             rayon (1%).
                                                             Fish..................  Danio rerio..........  polypropylene........  (Qiao et al., 2019)
                                                             Nematodes.............  Caenorhabditis         polyethylene           (Liu et al., 2021)
                                                                                      elegans.               terephthalate.
                                                             Terrestrial Snails....  Achatina fulica......  polyethylene           (Song et al., 2019)
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organ                                Growth                  Bivalves..............  Mytilus                composite household    (Alnajar, Jha and
                                     Development...........                           galloprovincialis.     lint.                  Turner, 2021)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Emerita analoga......  polypropylene........  (Horn, Granek and
                                                                                                                                    Steele, 2020)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Artemia franciscana..  polypropylene,         (Kim et al., 2021)
                                                                                                             polyethylene
                                                                                                             terephthalate.
                                                             Fish..................  Carassius auratus....  ethylene vinyl         (Jabeen et al., 2018)
                                                                                                             acetate (EVA).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organ                                Inflammation            Fish..................  Carassius auratus....  ethylene vinyl         (Jabeen et al., 2018)
                                                                                                             acetate (EVA).
                                                             Fish..................  Danio rerio..........  polypropylene........  (Qiao et al., 2019)
                                                             Rodents...............  Cavia porcellus......  polyester............  (Pimentel et al.,
                                                                                                                                    1975)
                                                             Zooplankton...........  Artemia franciscana..  polyethylene           (Kokalj, Kunej and
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).   Skalar, 2018)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organ                                Oxidative               Crustaceans...........  Homarus americanus...  polyethylene           (Woods et al., 2020)
                                     Stress................                                                  terephthalate (PET).
                                                             Fish..................  Danio rerio..........  polypropylene........  (Qiao et al., 2019)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organ                                Physical Organ          Bivalves..............  Mytilus                composite household    (Alnajar, Jha and
                                     Damage................                           galloprovincialis.     lint.                  Turner, 2021)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Artemia franciscana..  polypropylene,         (Kim et al., 2021)
                                                                                                             polyethylene
                                                                                                             terephthalate.
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Nephrops norvegicus..  Polypropylene........  (Welden and Cowie,
                                                                                                                                    2016)
                                                             Fish..................  Dicentrachus labrax..  polyethylene (80%);    (Barboza et al.,
                                                                                                             polyester (19%);       2020)
                                                                                                             rayon (1%).
                                                             Fish..................  Trachurus trachurus..  polyethylene (80%);    (Barboza et al.,
                                                                                                             polyester (19%);       2020)
                                                                                                             rayon (1%).
                                                             Fish..................  Scomber colias.......  polyethylene (80%);    (Barboza et al.,
                                                                                                             polyester (19%);       2020)
                                                                                                             rayon (1%).
                                                             Fish..................  Carassius auratus....  ethylene vinyl         (Jabeen et al., 2018)
                                                                                                             acetate (EVA).
                                                             Fish..................  Danio rerio..........  polypropylene........  (Qiao et al., 2019)
                                                             Humans................  Homo sapiens.........  polycarbonate,         (Ibrahim et al.,
                                                                                                             polyamide,             2021)
                                                                                                             polypropylene.
                                                             Humans................  Homo sapiens.........  polyester............  (Pimentel et al.,
                                                                                                                                    1975)
                                                             Rodents...............  Cavia porcellus......  polyester............  (Pimentel et al.,
                                                                                                                                    1975)
                                                             Terrestrial Snails....  Achatina fulica......  polyethylene           (Song et al., 2019)
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).
                                                             Zooplankton...........  Artemia franciscana..  polyethylene           (Kokalj, Kunej and
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).   Skalar, 2018)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organism                             Adverse                 Crustaceans...........  Emerita analoga......  polypropylene........  (Horn, Granek and
                                     Reproductive..........                                                                         Steele, 2020)
                                     Response..............
                                                             Nematodes.............  Caenorhabditis         polyethylene           (Liu et al., 2021)
                                                                                      elegans.               terephthalate.
                                                             Nematodes.............  Caenorhabditis         polyethylene           (Liu et al., 2021)
                                                                                      elegans.               terephthalate.
                                                             Terrestrial Veg.......  Lolium perenne.......  high-density           (Boots et al., 2019)
                                                                                                             polyethylene (HDPE);
                                                                                                             polylactic acid
                                                                                                             (PLA).
                                                             Worm..................  Aporrectodea rosea...  high-density           (Boots et al., 2019)
                                                                                                             polyethylene (HDPE);
                                                                                                             polylactic acid
                                                                                                             (PLA).
                                                             Zooplankton...........  Ceriodaphnia dubia...  polyethylene           (Ziajahromi et al.,
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).   2017)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organism                             Behavioral              Annelid Worms.........  Lumbricus terrestris.  Polyester............  (Prendergast-Mil- ler
                                     Change................                                                                         et al., 2019)
                                                             Bivalves..............  Mytilus                composite household    (Alnajar, Jha and
                                                                                      galloprovincialis.     lint.                  Turner, 2021)
                                                             Bivalves..............  Mytilus edulis.......  Nylon................  (Christoforou et al.,
                                                                                                                                    2020)
                                                             Bivalves..............  Macomona liliana.....  Polyethylene           (Hope et al., 2020)
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).
                                                             Cnidarians............  Aiptasia pallida.....  nylon, polyester,      (Romano de Orte et
                                                                                                             polypropylene.         al., 2019)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Hyalella azteca......  Polypropylene........  (Au et al., 2015)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Nephrops norvegicus..  Polypropylene........  (Welden and Cowie,
                                                                                                                                    2016)
                                                             Nematodes.............  Caenorhabditis         polyethylene           (Liu et al., 2021)
                                                                                      elegans.               terephthalate.
                                                             Terrestrial Snails....  Achatina fulica......  polyethylene           (Song et al., 2019)
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).
                                                             Zooplankton...........  Daphnia magna........  Nylon, Polyethylene    (Hernandez et al.,
                                                                                                             terephthalate.         2019)
                                                             Zooplankton...........  Tigriopus japonicus..  Polyester............  (Kang et al., 2020)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organism                             Growth                  Bivalves..............  Macomona liliana.....  Polyethylene           (Hope et al., 2020)
                                     Development...........                                                  terephthalate (PET).
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Hyalella azteca......  Polypropylene........  (Au et al., 2015)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Emerita analoga......  polypropylene........  (Horn, Granek and
                                                                                                                                    Steele, 2020)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Carcinus maenas......  polypropylene........  (Watts et al., 2015)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Nephrops norvegicus..  Polypropylene........  (Welden and Cowie,
                                                                                                                                    2016)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Homarus americanus...  polyethylene           (Woods et al., 2020)
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).
                                                             Microphytobenthos.....  Cyanobacteria........  Polyethylene           (Hope et al., 2020)
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).
                                                             Nematodes.............  Caenorhabditis         polyethylene           (Liu et al., 2021)
                                                                                      elegans.               terephthalate.
                                                             Nematodes.............  Caenorhabditis         polyethylene           (Liu et al., 2021)
                                                                                      elegans.               terephthalate.
                                                             Terrestrial Veg.......  Lolium perenne.......  high-density           (Boots et al., 2019)
                                                                                                             polyethylene (HDPE);
                                                                                                             polylactic acid
                                                                                                             (PLA).
                                                             Worm..................  Aporrectodea rosea...  high-density           (Boots et al., 2019)
                                                                                                             polyethylene (HDPE);
                                                                                                             polylactic acid
                                                                                                             (PLA).
                                                             Zooplankton...........  Daphnia magna........  Nylon, Polyethylene    (Hernandez et al.,
                                                                                                             terephthalate.         2019)
                                                             Zooplankton...........  Artemia franciscana..  polyethylene           (Kokalj, Kunej and
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).   Skalar, 2018)
                                                             Zooplankton...........  Ceriodaphnia dubia...  polyethylene           (Ziajahromi et al.,
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).   2017)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organism                             Neurological            Fish..................  Dicentrachus labrax..  polyethylene (80%);    (Barboza et al.,
                                                                                                             polyester (19%);       2020)
                                                                                                             rayon (1%).
                                                             Fish..................  Trachurus trachurus..  polyethylene (80%);    (Barboza et al.,
                                                                                                             polyester (19%);       2020)
                                                                                                             rayon (1%).
                                                             Fish..................  Scomber colias.......  polyethylene (80%);    (Barboza et al.,
                                                                                                             polyester (19%);       2020)
                                                                                                             rayon (1%).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organism                             Survivorship or         Crustaceans...........  Hyalella azteca......  Polypropylene........  (Au et al., 2015)
                                      Mortality
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Emerita analoga......  polypropylene........  (Horn, Granek and
                                                                                                                                    Steele, 2020)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Emerita analoga......  polypropylene........  (Horn, Granek and
                                                                                                                                    Steele, 2020)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Artemia franciscana..  polypropylene,         (Kim et al., 2021)
                                                                                                             polyethylene
                                                                                                             terephthalate.
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Nephrops norvegicus..  Polypropylene........  (Welden and Cowie,
                                                                                                                                    2016)
                                                             Crustaceans...........  Homarus americanus...  polyethylene           (Woods et al., 2020)
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).
                                                             Zooplankton...........  Daphnia magna........  polyethylene           (Jemec et al., 2016)
                                                                                                             terephthalate.
                                                             Zooplankton...........  Ceriodaphnia dubia...  polyethylene           (Ziajahromi et al.,
                                                                                                             terephthalate (PET).   2017)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population                           Adverse                 Crustaceans...........  Emerita analoga......  polypropylene........  (Horn, Granek and
                                     Reproductive..........                                                                         Steele, 2020)
                                     Response..............
                                                             Nematodes.............  Caenorhabditis         polyethylene           (Liu et al., 2021)
                                                                                      elegans.               terephthalate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References
Baechler, B, Granek, E., Hunter, M, and Conn, K. 2020a. Microplastic 
    concentrations in two Oregon bivalve species: Spatial, temporal, 
    and species variability. Limnology & Oceanography Letters. https://
    doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10124

Baechler, BR, EF Granek, Scott J. Mazzone, Max Nielsen-Pincus, Susanne 
    M. Brander. 2020b. Microplastic exposure by razor clam recreational 
    harvester-consumers along a sparsely populated coastline. Frontiers 
    to Marine Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.588481

Bhardwaj JK, Saraf P. 2014. Influence of toxic chemicals on female 
    reproduction: a review. Cell Biol Res Ther. 3:1.

Bouilly, K., McCombie, H., Leitao, A., & Lapegue, S. (2004). 
    Persistence of atrazine impact on aneuploidy in Pacific oysters, 
    Crassostrea gigas. Marine Biology, 1(1), 1-1. https://doi.org/
    10.1007/s00227-004-1369-8

Cimino, A.M., A.L. Boyles, K.A. Thayer, M.J. Perry. 2016. Effects of 
    neonicotinoid pesticide exposure on human health: a systematic 
    review Environ. Health Perspect., 125: 10.1289/EHP515

Clark, L.A., Roloff, G.J., Tatum, V.L., Irwin, L.L. (2009). Forest 
    herbicide effects on Pacific Northwest ecosystems: a literature 
    review. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Technical 
    Bulletin No. 970. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 63 pp. 
    plus Appendices.

Cousins, I.T., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Miller, M., Ng, 
    C.A., Patton, S., Scheringer, M., Trier, X., Vierke, L., Wang, Z., 
    DeWitt, J.C., 2019. The concept of essential use for determining 
    when uses of PFASs can be phased out. Environ. Sci.: Processes 
    Impacts 21, 1803-1815. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EM00163H

Ehrhart, A, Granek, EF, Nielsen-Pincus, M. Horn, D. 2020. Leftover drug 
    disposal: customer behavior, pharmacist recommendations, and 
    obstacles to drug take-back box implementation. Waste Management. 
    118: 416-425.

Fenton, S.E.; Ducatman, A.; Boobis, A.; DeWitt, J.C.; Lau, C.; Ng, C.; 
    Smith, J.S.; Roberts, S.M. 2021. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance 
    Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and 
    Strategies for Informing Future Research. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 
    4: 606-630.

Gonzalez-Alzaga B, Lacasana M, Aguilar-Garduno C, Rodriguez-Barranco M, 
    Ballester F, Rebagliato M, Hernandez AF. 2014. A systematic review 
    of neurodevelopmental effects of prenatal and postnatal 
    organophosphate pesticide exposure. Toxicol Lett. 230:104-21.

Granek, EF, K Conn, B Fish, E Nilsen, L Pillsbury, A Strecker, and S 
    Rumrill. 2016. Emerging contaminants in Oregon's native oysters: 
    spatial and temporal variability. Science of the Total Environment 
    557-558: 869-879.

Granek, EF, Traylor, SD, Tissot, AG, Hurst, PT, Wood, RS and Brander, 
    S. In Press. Clothes encounters of the microfibre kind: the effects 
    of natural and synthetic textiles on organisms. In Ed. J. Weis. 
    Microplastics: Environmental problems and textile solutions. Taylor 
    and Francis.

Graymore, M., Stagnitti, F., & Allinson, G. (2001). Impacts of atrazine 
    in aquatic ecosystems. Environment International, 26(7-8), 483-495. 
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(01)00031-9

Hoke, R.A., Ferrell, B.D., Ryan, T., Sloman, T.L., Green, J.W., Nabb, 
    D.L., Mingoia, R., Buck, R.C., Korzeniowski, S.H., 2015. Aquatic 
    hazard, bioaccumulation and screening risk assessment for 6:2 
    fluorotelomer sulfonate. Chemosphere 128, 258-265. https://doi.org/
    10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.01.033

Hoke, R.A., Ferrell, B.D., Sloman, T.L., Buck, R.C., Buxton, L.W., 
    2016. Aquatic hazard, bioaccumulation and screening risk assessment 
    for ammonium 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoate. 
    Chemosphere 149, 336-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/
    j.chemosphere.2016.01.009

Ibrahim YS, Tuan Anuar S, Azmi AA, Wan Mohd Khalik WMA, Lehata S, 
    Hamzah SR, et al. 2021. Detection of Microplastics in Human 
    Colectomy Specimens. JGH Open 5:116-21. doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12457

Johannessen, C., Helm, P., & Metcalfe, C. D. (2021). Detection of 
    selected tire wear compounds in urban receiving waters. 
    Environmental Pollution, 287, 117659.

Johannessen, C., Helm, P., Lashuk, B., Yargeau, V., & Metcalfe, C. D. 
    (2021). The Tire Wear Compounds 6PPD-Quinone and 1, 3-
    Diphenylguanidine in an Urban Watershed. Archives of environmental 
    contamination and toxicology, 1-9.

Khan, F. R., Halle, L. L., & Palmqvist, A. (2019). Acute and long-term 
    toxicity of micronized car tire wear particles to Hyalella azteca. 
    Aquatic Toxicology, 213, 105216.

Lau, C., Anitole, K., Hodes, C., Lai, D., Pfahles-Hutchens, A., Seed, 
    J., 2007. Perfluoroalkyl acids: a review of monitoring and 
    toxicological findings. Toxicological sciences 99, 366-394.

Lindsay, S., Chasse, J., Butler, R. A., Morrill, W., & Van Beneden, R. 
    J. (2010). Impacts of stage-specific acute pesticide exposure on 
    predicted population structure of the soft-shell clam, Mya 
    arenaria. Aquatic Toxicology, 98(3), 265-274. https://doi.org/
    10.1016/j.aquatox.2010.02.012

Lushchak, V. I., Matviishyn, T. M., Husak, V. V., Storey, J. M., & 
    Storey, K. B. (2018). Pesticide toxicity: a mechanistic approach. 
    EXCLI journal, 17, 1101.

Meador JP, Yeh A, Young G, Gallagher EP. 2016. Contaminants of emerging 
    concern in a large temperate estuary. Environmental Pollution 
    213:254-267; doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.088.

Mnif, W., Hassine, AIH, Bouaziz, A, Bartegi, A, Thomas, O and Roig, B. 
    2011. Effects of endocrine disruptor pesticides: a review. Int. J. 
    Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 2265-2303; doi:10.3390/
    ijerph8062265

Noyes, P. D., & Lema, S. C. (2015). Forecasting the impacts of chemical 
    pollution and climate change interactions on the health of 
    wildlife. Current Zoology, 61(4), 669-689.

Peters, J, E Granek, C de Rivera, and M Rollins. 2017. Prozac in the 
    water: Chronic fluoxetine exposure and predation risk interact to 
    shape behaviors in an estuarine crab. Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 
    10.1002/ece3.3453

Ragusa A, Svelato A, Santacroce C et al (2021) Plasticenta: first 
    evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int 
    146:106274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274

Rani, L, K. Thapa, N. Kanojia, N. Sharma, S. Singh, A.S. Grewal, A.L. 
    Srivastav, J. Kaushal. 2020. An extensive review on the 
    consequences of chemical pesticides on human health and 
    environment. J. Clean. Prod. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124657

Scully-Engelmeyer, K ; EF Granek, M Nielsen-Pincus, A Lanier, S 
    Rumrill, P Moran, E Nilsen, ML Hladik, and L Pillsbury. 2021. 
    Exploring biophysical linkages between coastal forestry management 
    practices and aquatic bivalve contaminant exposure. Toxics 9(3), 
    46; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9030046

Shepard, J. P., Creighton, J., & Duzan, H. (2004). Forestry herbicides 
    in the United States: An overview. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 
    32(4), 1020-1027. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-
    7648(2004)032[1020:FHITUS]2.0.CO;2

Silveyra, G. R., Canosa, I. S., Rodr!guez, E. M., & Medesani, D. A. 
    (2017). Effects of atrazine on ovarian growth, in the estuarine 
    crab Neohelice granulata. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 
    Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology, 192, 1-6. https://doi.org/
    10.1016/j.cbpc.2016.10.011

Stark, J. D., & Banks, J. E. (2003). Population-level effects of 
    pesticides and other toxicants on arthropods. Annual review of 
    entomology, 48(1), 505-519.

Tian, Z., Zhao, H., Peter, K.T., Gonzalez, M., Wetzel, J., Wu, C., Hu, 
    X., Prat, J., Mudrock, E., Hettinger, R. and Cortina, A.E. (2021). 
    A ubiquitous tire rubber-derived chemical induces acute mortality 
    in coho salmon. Science, 371(6525), 185-189.

Teixeira, J, 2016. Effects of Antibiotic Mixtures across Marine 
    Intertidal Trophic Levels: Examining Environmentally-Relevant 
    Contaminant Concentrations. MS Thesis, Portland State University.

Tudi, M., Daniel Ruan, H., Wang, L., Lyu, J., Sadler, R., Connell, D., 
    Chu, C., & Phung, D. T. (2021). Agriculture development, pesticide 
    application and its impact on the environment. International 
    Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1112. 
    https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031112

Wang, R., Yuan, Y., Yen, H., Grieneisen, M., Arnold, J., Wang, D., . . 
    . & Zhang, M. (2019). A review of pesticide fate and transport 
    simulation at watershed level using SWAT: Current status and 
    research concerns. Science of The Total Environment, 669, 512-526.

Wik, A. (2008). When the Rubber Meets the Road--Ecotoxicological Hazard 
    and Risk Assessment of Tire Wear Particles. Department of Plant and 
    Environmental Sciences; Institutionen for vaxt-och 
    miljovetenskaper.

Wik, A., & Dave, G. (2009). Occurrence and effects of tire wear 
    particles in the environment--A critical review and an initial risk 
    assessment. Environmental pollution, 157(1), 1-11.

Zhang, J, Wang, L, Trasande, L, and Kannan K. In Press. Occurrence of 
    Polyethylene Terephthalate and Polycarbonate Microplastics in 
    Infant and Adult Feces Environmental Science & Technology Letters 
    DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00559

Zhang, Q, Genbo Xu, E, Li, J, Chen, Q, Ma, L, Zeng, EY and Shi H. 2020. 
    A Review of Microplastics in Table Salt, Drinking Water, and Air: 
    Direct Human Exposure. Environmental Science & Technology 54 (7), 
    3740-3751 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04535

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Dr. Granek.
    Wondering if the manufacturer has found replacements for 
some of the chemicals.
    Before we begin, I would like to recognize Representative 
Lowenthal to say a few words about Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Lowenthal.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    This is my great pleasure to introduce my friend, Captain 
Charles Moore. Captain Moore is the founder of the Algalita 
Marine Research Foundation, and he is the research director of 
the Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research. Both of 
these are located in Long Beach, California.
    Captain Moore has been credited, and rightfully so, with 
the discovery and the early research related to the North 
Pacific Gyre or what we commonly know as the Great Pacific 
Garbage Patch.
    I have been lucky to have been able to call Charlie my 
friend for more than 30 years, and credit him for my interest 
and work related to addressing plastic pollution. After early 
research trips that Charlie would take out to the middle of the 
Pacific Ocean--he would go out on these research trips--he 
would come back and show me samples of the plastic that he had 
collected and he would explain to me all about his findings. 
This has had and continues to have a profound impact upon me.
    Charlie, thank you for being here with us today, and I look 
forward to your testimony.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal.
    Mr. Moore, you may proceed.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Honorable Chair Napolitano and 
Ranking Member Rouzer and members of the committee, and Alan.
    Plastics, the giant molecules that have come to 
characterize the modern age, are not well understood by the 
average citizen. We Americans love stories of explosive growth 
that leads to expansion of our economic base, and that plastic 
story is easily told. We had to manufacture the first plastics 
to win World War II. After the war, new mass-produced plastics 
replaced traditional material, and because of their infinite 
moldability, became the designer's dream that ushered in the 
throwaway society and, boy, did we throw plastics away. That 
story of plastic is a bad one.
    I wish the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's estimate of an 
ocean half plastic, half fish by mid-century in just 29 years 
was alarmist propaganda, but it is based on peer-reviewed 
science. So is the estimate that we breathe in 16 bits of 
plastic every hour, a credit card's worth every week. Synthetic 
polymer, litter, and dust are different from their natural 
cousins because of their endurance. Even when they break apart 
and appear to go away, they persist as tiny microplastic 
pieces.
    So, as I discovered these microplastics in the Great 
Pacific Garbage Patch in 1999, six times as much as the 
associated zooplankton, I have been writing and lecturing on 
plastic use and waste. The topic has little political baggage. 
No one has suggested to me that vagrant plastic is a good thing 
for our environment, and it would be nice to see more.
    For today's hearing, my goal is to explain how waste 
plastics from the molded chair to the crispy chip bag to the 
broken down microplastic particle constitute serious 
impairments to land, air, and water quality, public health, our 
communities, and threaten the health of the biosphere.
    Every year we make more plastic than the weight of the 
Earth's human population, and as much as one-third of it goes 
AWOL. For the ocean, a dump truck full goes in every minute. 
Many plastics are made from harmful monomers such as styrene, 
vinyl chloride, bisphenol A. A small percentage of these remain 
as free monomers, even after the majority have been chained 
together by industrial polymerization, and these free monomers 
can leach out. Also, the monomer additives in consumer plastics 
can leach into things that touch the plastic. Flame retardants, 
UV stabilizers, softeners, colorants, biocides, blowing and 
foaming agents are mixed into the resin. There may be a dozen 
or more and they can be half the weight of the product. Coming 
into contact with such products allows them to enter the 
circulatory system.
    One of the most studied of these endocrine disrupters or 
gender benders is bisphenol A. BPA was among the EDs selected 
by the Endocrine Society in a detailed 2012 explanation of how 
they exploit sensitive hormone systems. BPA and similar 
molecules derail normal cellular function, organ development, 
and behavior, especially during fetal and neonatal period when 
babies are very sensitive to chemicals that alter hormone 
signaling. This results in damage to brain development, 
reproduction, the immune system, cardiovascular system, and 
metabolism.
    The volume of laboratory studies on BPA numbers in the 
hundreds and the list of associated human health problems reads 
like a catalog of modern Western diseases. To highlight one, 
changes in mammary glands leading to the rise in breast cancer 
were viewed as conclusive. Plastic ingestion by whales and 
seals, fishes and birds, jelly fish, marine worms, bivalves, 
corals--said to find the plastic tasty--and zooplankton, point 
to its ability to mimic natural food. Even the terrestrial 
soils where a common soil arthropod consume plastic perturbing 
its gut microbiota.
    Plastic food does not provide nutrients. It blocks 
passages, delivers pollutants, causes false feelings of being 
full, and damages the epithelial lining. These effects have 
been noted in nine species of fish, four species of mollusks, 
two crustaceans, two mammals, and two human cell cultures. In a 
fish study, the microplastics crossed the blood-brain barrier 
and inhibited feeding behavior. What will they do in our 
brains? Being insulators, they are sure to interfere with 
electrical signaling.
    Plastics were found in a human placenta in four of six 
women after childbirth, rendering the fetal placental unit 
vulnerable to adverse effects. Even leafy plants can contain 
the smallest waste plastic. They accumulate on the roots of the 
plants and in one study were transported to leafy parts of 
failed cress as it grew.
    Plastic waste is hazardous waste, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency should take action to limit microplastic 
pollution. The Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act of 2021 
has critically needed features, such as a moratorium on virgin 
plastic production, minimum recycled plastic content, a 
national bottle bill, and attention to environmental justice 
implication. We should make sure its funds go directly to 
cities and counties to build the needed infrastructure. The 
extended producer responsibility provisions of the bill need to 
support local decisionmaking. The American recycling 
infrastructure plan prepared by the National Recycling 
Coalition, Zero Waste USA, and the Institute for Local Self-
Reliance provides guidance for these investments.
    Thank you.
    [Mr. Moore's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Captain Charles Moore, LL.D., Research Director, 
             Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research
    Honorable Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Sass, and Sub Committee 
Chair Napolitano
    Since discovering the Great Pacific Garbage Patch a quarter of a 
century ago, I have been warning of the threat to Water Quality, Public 
Health, and Communities posed by plastic; not only plastic waste, but 
plastic in common use by all types of consumers. It only took three 
generations for man-made polymers, once an exotic material, to attain 
ubiquity. We wear them, sit on them, drive in them, carpet our homes 
with them, and sleep on them. Single use and many washable face masks 
are made of plastic fibers. We have made plastics the packaging system 
for nearly all our food and nearly every product we purchase. The road 
to technical modernity is paved with unintended consequences, and 
synthetic polymers have surprised us with unwanted outcomes that are 
only now being studied. From space junk in orbit, to trash on the 
slopes of Mount Everest, down to bottles at the bottom of the deep 
ocean, vagrant plastics symbolize technical know-how's dirty secret: 
developing exciting new products and materials is profitable, but 
issues of safety and recovery are often externalized, becoming 
``someone else's problem.''
                              Key Concepts
      We live in the Plastic Age, but there is general 
ignorance about the plastic materials humans use most in their daily 
lives.
      Plastics are polymers, meaning that single molecules 
called monomers are joined together by modern chemistry into long 
chains composed of thousands of monomers, making them Giant Molecules 
\1\.
      The vast majority of plastics in common use do not break 
down through biodegradation, or any other means, fast enough to matter. 
Thus plastic accumulates in the environment over time \2\ \3\. Cracking 
and breaking of polymer chains by sunlight and oxidation results in the 
creation of microplastics (plastic smaller than 5 mm in size) \4\.
      Microbeads are manufactured microplastics that have been 
purposely added to toothpaste and cosmetics, now largely banned through 
legislation \5\. The Clean Water Act regulates all plastic over 5 mm in 
size \6\, however, most microplastics are unregulated, including fibers 
shed from clothing and those derived through fragmentation of larger 
objects.
      Manufacturers of plastic products largely divorce 
themselves from the issue of recovery of the material after its useful 
life. Collection and recovery of their vagrant plastic waste is left to 
municipalities, organized and informal recyclers, non-governmental 
organizations and concerned citizens. Unfortunately, current efforts 
fail to collect millions of tons per year worldwide \7\.
      Plastics are often made from harmful chemical monomers, 
e.g., styrene, vinyl chloride, and bisphenol A; a percentage of which 
is still free even after most have been chained together by 
polymerization. Other chemical additives give desired characteristics 
to consumer plastics. These mixed in monomers can and often do leach 
out into things touching the plastic. The diversity of plastic 
materials represents a serious challenge for managing and predicting 
the impacts of plastic on the environment \8\.
      Increasing numbers of studies are documenting 
developmental derailments, including hormonal disruption and cancers, 
attributable to certain plastic monomers, e.g., bisphenol A, styrene, 
and plastic additives, e.g., phthalates, brominated flame retardants 
and nonylphenols, at environmentally relevant doses \9\.
      Plastic is now recognized as constituting a ``Planetary 
Boundary Threat,'' which disrupts essential planetary systems.
      The political landscape is changing. Policy measures to 
combat plastic pollution are increasing rapidly at all governmental 
levels, national, state and local.
                       A Brief History of Plastic
    Natural polymers, such as lignin, rubber and silk are abundant, but 
nature's plastics have not been implicated in persistent environmental 
or health issues, principally because they biodegrade. The post-World 
War II era has been increasingly dominated by man-made polymer 
materials designed to defeat oxidation and other natural decay 
processes. During WWII the warring nations were cut off from 
traditional supply routes for raw materials. This created an urgent 
need for ramping up production of important synthetic replacements 
which had been invented in the 1930's, such as nylon, polyvinyl 
chloride (PVC) and acrylic (polycarbonate/plexiglass). After the war, 
this new mass production technology would not be left idle. It would 
serve as an addition to the post-war economy of Keynesian consumerism, 
ushered in with a ``Life Magazine'' article from August, 1955 titled 
``Throw Away Living.'' The article included the famous photo by Peter 
Stackpole of a nuclear family--mom, dad and their daughter--throwing 
disposable food service items into the air next to a trash can. It 
claimed that the modern housewife would soon be liberated from the 
chore of doing dishes; she would simply throw them away and buy more. A 
decade later, in 1967, the father figure in the movie ``The Graduate'' 
famously exhorts the young protagonist, Benjamin Braddock (Dustin 
Hoffman): ``There's a great future in plastics.'' This scene is often 
invoked by those concerned with plastic's dark side as an example of 
prophesy fulfilled, but with unforeseen consequences. If an age in 
history is defined by the material most used by the citizens of that 
era, then we live in the plastic age. With the help of polymer 
chemists, about half of all the world's chemists, plastic production at 
around 3 million tons in 1970 went up a hundred fold to over 300 
million tons in 2020 \10\.
                    Lack of Recovery Infrastructure
    According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, nearly one-third of 
all plastics are not collected by any waste management system and end 
up in and on land, lakes, rivers and the ocean \11\. The quantity of 
plastic waste ``improperly'' disposed of per year worldwide by cities 
with an ocean coastline has been estimated at 31.9 mil metric tons \7\. 
Given the ominous proliferation of plastic in the environment, the 
question arises as to why more plastics are not recovered for reuse and 
recycling. There are several reasons, principal among them is that the 
cost to recover, clean and reprocess the used plastic exceeds, in 
nearly all cases, the cost of virgin plastic resin. Plastics are 
hydrophobic/lipophilic molecules that readily sorb (adsorb/absorb) oily 
contaminants that are not easily washed off. Plastics melt at low 
temperatures, which fail to oxidize these contaminants before becoming 
new plastic feedstock. For this reason, recycled plastics cannot be 
used in food contact applications and would require an expensive 
process of lining a recycled plastic container with a protective layer 
of virgin plastic. Furthermore, nearly all plastic products fashioned 
from recovered waste plastics require a significant percentage of 
virgin resin in order to meet specification requirements.
    Due to the lack of profitability in recycling the innumerable 
different types of plastic, and the constant introduction of new 
plastics, nearly all recycled plastics are traditional resin types with 
a large market share, such as high density polyethylene (HDPE #2), 
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET #1) and Polyproylene (PP #5). Still, 
many of these require subsidies by government or industry in order to 
be profitable. State bottle bills that require a deposit are one 
example. The lack of take back infrastructure for unprofitable plastics 
is a contributing factor in the proliferation of plastic waste in the 
environment.
    Burning and so-called ``chemical recycling'' that processes mixed 
plastics for fuel create greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate 
change \12\. Theoretically, chemical recycling can create a feedstock 
for new plastics, but this is not currently the focus of that industry, 
as virgin feedstocks are far less expensive.
           The Planetary Boundary Threat of Plastic Pollution
    Plastic pollution is crossing what is termed a planetary boundary 
threat \13\. Three criteria are used to determine if plastic pollution 
is a planetary boundary threat:
    1)  Is it pooly reversible?
      a.  This has clearly been met. It will be impossible to remove 
plastic waste from most niches of the environment, e.g. deep sea \14\.
    2)  Are there effects only visible at a planetary scale?
      a.  Villarrubia-Gomez \15\ states: . . . ``the mismanagement of 
discarded plastic is already implicated in globally systemic alteration 
to food webs, habitats, and biogeochemical flows.'' If it is not clear 
that criteria #2 has already been met, it shortly will be. In my own 
research, I have identified large areas of the ocean where surface 
plastics outweigh and in some cases outnumber the associated 
zooplankton \16\. The San Francisco Estuary Institute and the 5 Gyres 
Institute surveyed river and stream plastic inputs to San Francisco 
Bay. They estimated annual discharge of microplastics to the Bay via 
stormwater was 7 trillion.\17\
    3)  Is there a disruptive effect on Earth-system processes?
      a.  Criteria #3: I believe there is enough evidence from widely 
diverse sources to make the claim that the fitness of earth's biology 
as a whole is negatively affected by plastics and their associated 
chemicals. Oceanographer Curtis Ebbesmeyer has termed ocean plastic 
pollution, ``the greatest infection of the sea,'' and plastic pollution 
of air and fresh water threatens the circular loop of the water cycle 
as a clean source for drinking.
                             Health Effects
    The volume of research in this area is growing exponentially, with 
new revelations of worrisome effects every year. As mentioned above, 
thousands of monomer molecules are linked together to produce a single 
giant polymer molecule, but industrial polymerization never succeeds in 
uniting 100% of the monomers. Three plastics in particular have been 
singled out because of the toxicity of their unbonded monomers: 
polycarbonates, polyvinyl chloride and polystyrene. The monomers of all 
three are ranked among the highest volume chemicals produced worldwide, 
each at billions of pounds annually.
Bisphenol A (BPA)
    Probably no single plastic constituent has been studied as 
extensively or generated as much debate among scientists, industry and 
regulatory agencies as BPA, the key monomer in the synthesis of both 
polycarbonate plastics (including food packaging) and the resin lining 
of many food and beverage cans and water pipes. Though BPA was never 
used as a drug, it was first synthesized to be an oral synthetic 
estrogen. This came well before the discovery that reacting BPA with 
phosgene (a chemical warfare gas used in WWII) created polycarbonate, a 
clear material that is so shatter-proof that it performed well as 
windshield material in WWII aircraft. This welcome finding led to 
widespread use of polycarbonates in common non-breakable items like 
baby bottles, sippy cups, 5-gallon water bottles, dinnerware, medical 
devices, eyeglass lenses, CDs and DVDs. BPA's high production volume, 
estrogen mimicry and especially widespread infant exposure triggered an 
avalanche of research, starting with the 1997 publication of a ground-
breaking finding by developmental biologist Frederick vom Saal. He 
discovered that feeding very low doses of BPA to pregnant mice produced 
prostate enlargement in male offspring \18\ \19\. That BPA is also 
widely used in thermal paper receipts, where it is free (non-
polymerized) and directly adsorbed dermally while handling \20\, has 
recently intensified concerns about the risks of exposure in adults 
too. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences defines 
endocrine disruptors (EDs) as chemicals that ``may interfere with the 
body's endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, 
reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and 
wildlife.'' Unraveling the ED properties of BPA has helped overturn two 
traditional notions in toxicology: that the dose makes the poison and 
that the relationship between dose and toxicity is linear. Thus, the 
response to low dose exposure cannot be predicted by what happens at 
high doses, and detrimental effects seen at low doses can be absent at 
high doses. Low dose exposure effects are seen in the picomolar and 
nanomolar ranges at which natural hormones are active. Hormonal systems 
are so designed that even modest changes in hormone concentrations 
within the low dose range can trigger significant biological effects.
    BPA was among EDs selected by The Endocrine Society in a detailed 
2012 explanation of how ED's exploit these sensitively engineered 
hormone systems. In essence, BPA and some similar molecules derail 
normal cellular function, organ development and behaviors, especially 
during fetal and neonatal periods which are specifically sensitive to 
chemicals that alter endocrine signaling \21\ \22\. Consequently, 
exposure in adulthood can have negligible impact at the same exposure 
levels which have profound effects at critical points in early 
development. BPA binds not only to the nuclear and membrane estrogen 
receptors, but also to the thyroid hormone and androgen receptors, 
which likely explains its many affected endpoints in animal studies: 
prostate, mammary gland, brain development and behavior, reproduction, 
immune system, cardiovascular system and metabolism. In under just two 
decades, the volume of laboratory studies alone numbers in the 
hundreds, so a complete review of all the reports of harm is not 
possible here. However, the changes seen in mammary gland histology and 
rise in mammary (breast) cancer incidence are viewed as conclusive, 
though there is ample evidence also that the development of the 
prostate gland is affected by fetal or perinatal low dose exposure.
Vinyl chloride
    Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is sometimes dubbed the poison plastic 
because of toxicities associated with all stages of its lifecycle, 
starting with synthesis. Its vinyl chloride monomer is made from 
chlorine and ethylene and is a highly flammable and explosive gas. By 
far, the number one use of vinyl chloride is producing PVC polymer for 
plastics like shower curtains, window frames, house sidings, household 
plumbing, garden hoses, medical tubing, carpeting, upholstery, school 
lunch boxes and backpacks. Many studies dating back as far as the 1930s 
demonstrated that even short-term exposure to vinyl chloride in 
laboratory animals and factory workers caused liver damage, and by the 
early 1970s, studies linking rare hepatic tumors (angiosarcoma) to 
chronic workplace exposure via inhalation or dermal contact had the 
attention of industry and governments \23\. Worldwide, air pollution in 
communities around factories using vinyl chloride also became an issue.
Styrene
    The styrene monomer is the building block of polystyrene plastics. 
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined 
that styrene is a possible carcinogen, and the National Toxicology 
Program classifies styrene as ``reasonably anticipated to be a human 
carcinogen.'' For the general public, breathing indoor air, as well as 
ingestion of styrene migrants into foods and beverages packaged or 
served in polystyrene are primary routes of exposure. For example, 
several studies have documented styrene contamination of hot beverages 
(like tea, milk and coffee) served in crystal or foamed polystyrene 
cups and in water bottled in polystyrene, with increasing contamination 
as the beverage temperature, fat content and time in the container 
increase \24\.
Additives to Plastic Polymers
    The categorical list of allowed additives is alone alarming: 
catalyzers, hardeners, strengtheners, softeners, flame retardants, 
lubricants, antioxidants, colorants, texturizers, stabilizers, UV 
protectors and blowing/foaming agents. Industry has multiple options 
within each category. Additives can be over half the mass, and the 
number in a finished product can easily be in the double digits, all of 
which are unknown to the consumer because the ingredients are deemed 
proprietary.
    Furthermore, some products have multiple plastic parts, like baby 
bottles with a nipple, ring, bottle and cap, multiplying the number of 
additives present. Unlike a plastic's monomers, the additives are not 
chemically bonded to the polymer, just mixed in, and thereby free to 
migrate out depending on conditions the product encounters. Heating, 
freezing, acidity, microwaving, dishwashing, UV radiation, storage 
duration and impact stress are all conditions which can promote 
leaching out of additives. This discussion focuses on two high 
production volume additives associated with health hazards: phthalate 
plasticizers and polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants.
Phthalates
    Phthalates are a family of esters used as softeners primarily in 
PVC plastics. They allow the polymer molecules to slide along one 
another. By weight they can comprise as much as half of the final 
product. Common consumer items containing phthalates include food 
containers and wrappers, shower curtains, raincoats, floor tiles, 
rubbery or squishy toys, vinyl upholstery and car interior/dash 
components (that new car smell). Plastic medical devices like infusion 
bags and tubing often derive their flexibility from phthalates, a 
concern in both adults undergoing hemodialysis and in neonatal 
intensive care units where exposure can be continuous for extended 
periods. Early life exposure in male rodents has identified a phthalate 
syndrome with many features of androgen deficiency and feminization of 
male reproductive development: reduced testosterone production, 
decreased sperm counts, malformations of the epididymis, seminal 
vesicles, vas deferens and prostate, as well as hypospadias, 
cryptorchidism, nipple/areolae retention and a reduced anogenital 
distance indicative of demasculinization of the perineum. Phthalates 
are also known obesogens in animal models. Exposure in utero, in 
newborns, or in adulthood all cause weight gain with increased number 
and size of adipocytes \25\. Because of the clear cut anti-masculine 
effect of early life exposure in rodents and an emerging literature 
documenting similar effects in humans, the U.S. Congress, in 2008, 
placed permanent bans on three phthalates--DEHP (di-2-ethylhexyl 
phthalate), DBP (dibutyl phthalate) and BBP (benzyl butyl phthalate)--
and an interim ban on three others--DINP (di-isononyl phthalate), DIDP 
(di-isodecyl phthalate) and DnOP (di-n-octyl phthalate)--in childcare 
items designed for children 3 years and under that can be placed in a 
child's mouth: includes toys, baby bottles, sippy cup, sucking aids and 
teethers. The permanent ban is most restrictive as it applies to any 
children's toy. Similar bans on the same phthalates were enacted three 
years earlier in the European Union. Manufacturers of child care items 
are free to use any other phthalates or substitute plasticizer they 
deem safe, based on industry's internal assessment of safety.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
    PBDEs arose as a replacement for the legacy pollutant PCB. They are 
a family of flame retardants widely used in products like upholstery, 
textiles, bedding, televisions and electronic appliances where 
flammability is an issue. Because they are not chemically bonded in 
plastics, PBDEs migrate out into air and dust and are a worldwide 
environmental contaminant. PBDE levels are especially high in offices 
because of computers and other electronic devices. Whereas indoor air 
and diet are thought to be main routes of exposure for most adults, 
dust may be more important for toddlers because of greater hand to 
mouth activity. The breast milk levels of North American women indicate 
the highest body burden in the world, 40 times higher than the highest 
levels reported for Swedish women. Like PCBs, PBDEs are structurally 
similar to the thyroid hormone thyroxine (T4), so it's not 
surprising that laboratory studies find thyroid-disrupting effects 
attributable to PBDEs. In 2003, California passed a bill to phase out 
certain PCBs by 2008. The flame retardant industry argues that the 
benefits accrued through saving lives by fire prevention outweigh any 
medical consequences. Over time, however, the cost/benefit ratio is 
likely to shift \26\.
      Key Actions and Policy Measures to Reduce Plastic Pollution
    Prevention efforts work better than recovery at reducing impacts to 
the environment \7\ \27\. Cleanup cannot address the waste going into 
the environment today \27\. Ending waste means rethinking waste 
management. Waste materials are actually resources waiting to be 
reused. Landfills will be and are being mined for raw materials as they 
become scarce. Additionally, landfilling requires valuable space and is 
not part of a circular economy. The plastic never creates new products. 
We need to embrace the cradle to cradle concept and encourage the 
circular economy to increase the value of materials. Bans, such as the 
plastic bag ban in California, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 
microbead ban, and local municipal Styrofoam bans have been shown to 
drastically reduce those types of litter from ending up in the 
environment. Corporate social responsibility initiatives, even 
volunteer ones like Operation Clean Sweep, if adhered to, result in 
reductions \28\. Extended Producer Responsibility measures like those 
proposed in the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2021 are 
gaining prominence based on the idea that prevention and cleanup should 
be subsidized by the producers most responsible for the waste. The bill 
has critically needed features such as a moratorium on virgin plastic 
production, minimum recycled plastic content, a national bottle bill 
and attention to environmental justice implications. We have to make 
sure that funds go directly to cities and counties to build the needed 
infrastructure. The EPR provisions of the bill have to support local 
decision-making. The American Recycling Infrastructure Plan (prepared 
by the National Recycling Coalition, Zero Waste USA and Institute for 
Local Self-Reliance) provides the guidelines for investments.
References
\1\ Seymour, R. B.; Carraher Jr., C. E.; Carraher, C. E. Giant 
    Molecules: Essential Materials for Everyday Living and Problem 
    Solving; Wiley-Interscience, 1990; Vol. 15.

\2\ Chamas, A.; Moon, H.; Zheng, J.; Qiu, Y.; Tabassum, T.; Jang, J. 
    H.; Abu-Omar, M.; Scott, S. L.; Suh, S. Degradation Rates of 
    Plastics in the Environment. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8 (9), 
    3494-3511.

\3\ Singh, B.; Sharma, N. Mechanistic Implications of Plastic 
    Degradation. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2008, 93 (3), 561-584.

\4\ Andrady, A. L. Microplastics in the Marine Environment. Mar. 
    Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62 (8), 1596-1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/
    j.marpolbul.2011.05.030.

\5\ Bill Text--(AB-888) Waste Management: Plastic Microbeads.

\6\ Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of 
    California to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the 
    Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed 
    Bays, and Estuaries of California; 2015.

\7\ Jambeck, J. R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T. R.; Perryman, 
    M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Lavender, K. Plastic Waste Inputs 
    from Land into the Ocean. Science (80-. ). 2015, 347 (6223), 768-
    770. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415386.010.

\8\ Rochman, C. M.; Brookson, C.; Bikker, J.; Djuric, N.; Earn, A.; 
    Bucci, K.; Athey, S.; Huntington, A.; McIlwraith, H.; Munno, K.; et 
    al. Rethinking Microplastics as a Diverse Contaminant Suite. 
    Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2019, 38 (4), 703-711.

\9\ Adam, V.; Yang, T.; Nowack, B. Toward an Ecotoxicological Risk 
    Assessment of Microplastics: Comparison of Available Hazard and 
    Exposure Data in Freshwaters. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2019, 38 (2), 
    436-447. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4323.

\10\ Cohen, A.; Saal, F. S.; Weil, A. Integrative Environmental 
    Medicine; Weil Integrative Medicine Library; Oxford University 
    Press, 2017.

\11\ Foundation, E. M. The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future 
    of Plastics. (PDF). Ellen MacArthur Found. 2016, 29.

\12\ Hamilton, L. A.; Feit, S.; Muffett, C.; Kelso, M.; Rubright, S. 
    M.; Bernhardt, C.; Schaeffer, E.; Moon, D.; Morris, J.; Labbe-
    Bellas, R. Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet. 
    Cent. Int. Environ. Law 2019.

\13\ Arp, H. P. H.; Kuhnel, D.; Rummel, C.; MacLeod, M.; Potthoff, A.; 
    Reichelt, S.; Rojo-Nieto, E.; Schmitt-Jansen, M.; Sonnenberg, J.; 
    Toorman, E.; et al. Weathering Plastics as a Planetary Boundary 
    Threat: Exposure, Fate, and Hazards. Environ. Sci. & Technol. 2021.

\14\ Chiba, S.; Saito, H.; Fletcher, R.; Yogi, T.; Kayo, M.; Miyagi, 
    S.; Ogido, M.; Fujikura, K. Human Footprint in the Abyss: 30 Year 
    Records of Deep-Sea Plastic Debris. Mar. Policy.

\15\ Villarrubia-Gomez, P.; Cornell, S. E.; Fabres, J. Marine Plastic 
    Pollution as a Planetary Boundary Threat--The Drifting Piece in the 
    Sustainability Puzzle. Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 213-220. https://
    doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.035.

\16\ Moore, C. J.; Moore, S. L.; Leecaster, M. K.; Weisberg, S. B. A 
    Comparison of Plastic and Plankton in the North Pacific Central 
    Gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2001, 42 (12), 1297-1300.

\17\ Sutton, R. Understanding Microplastic Levels, Pathways, and 
    Transport in the San Francisco Bay Region; San Francisco Estuary 
    Institute, 2019.

\18\ Nagel, S. C.; vom Saal, F. S.; Thayer, K. A.; Dhar, M. G.; 
    Boechler, M.; Welshons, W. V. Relative Binding Affinity-Serum 
    Modified Access (RBA-SMA) Assay Predicts the Relative in Vivo 
    Bioactivity of the Xenoestrogens Bisphenol A and Octylphenol. 
    Environ. Health Perspect. 1997, 105 (1), 70-76.

\19\ Vom Saal, F. S.; Cooke, P. S.; Buchanan, D. L.; Palanza, P.; 
    Thayer, K. A.; Nagel, S. C.; Parmigiani, S.; Welshons, W. V. A 
    Physiologically Based Approach to the Study of Bisphenol A and 
    Other Estrogenic Chemicals on the Size of Reproductive Organs, 
    Daily Sperm Production, and Behavior. Toxicol. Ind. Health 1998, 14 
    (1-2), 239-260.

\20\ Hormann, A. M.; Vom Saal, F. S.; Nagel, S. C.; Stahlhut, R. W.; 
    Moyer, C. L.; Ellersieck, M. R.; Welshons, W. V; Toutain, P.-L.; 
    Taylor, J. A. Holding Thermal Receipt Paper and Eating Food after 
    Using Hand Sanitizer Results in High Serum Bioactive and Urine 
    Total Levels of Bisphenol A (BPA). PLoS One 2014, 9 (10), e110509.

\21\ Vandenberg, L. N.; Colborn, T.; Hayes, T. B.; Heindel, J. J.; 
    Jacobs Jr., D. R.; Lee, D.-H.; Shioda, T.; Soto, A. M.; vom Saal, 
    F. S.; Welshons, W. V. Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: 
    Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses. Endocr. Rev. 
    2012, 33 (3), 378-455.

\22\ Zoeller, R. T.; Brown, T. R.; Doan, L. L.; Gore, A. C.; 
    Skakkebaek, N. E.; Soto, A. M.; Woodruff, T. J.; Vom Saal, F. S. 
    Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Public Health Protection: A 
    Statement of Principles from The Endocrine Society. Endocrinology 
    2012, 153 (9), 4097-4110.

\23\ Karstadt, M. PVC: Health Implications and Production Trends. 
    Environ. Health Perspect. 1976, 17, 107-115.

\24\ Khaksar, M.-R.; Ghazi-Khansari, M. Determination of Migration 
    Monomer Styrene from GPPS (General Purpose Polystyrene) and HIPS 
    (High Impact Polystyrene) Cups to Hot Drinks. Toxicol. Mech. 
    Methods 2009, 19 (3), 257-261.

\25\ Heindel, J. J.; Blumberg, B.; Cave, M.; Machtinger, R.; Mantovani, 
    A.; Mendez, M. A.; Nadal, A.; Palanza, P.; Panzica, G.; Sargis, R. 
    Metabolism Disrupting Chemicals and Metabolic Disorders. Reprod. 
    Toxicol. 2017, 68, 3-33.

\26\ Siddiqi, M. A.; Laessig, R. H.; Reed, K. D. Polybrominated 
    Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs): New Pollutants--Old Diseases. Clin. Med. 
    Res. 2003, 1 (4), 281-290.

\27\ Borrelle, S. B.; Ringma, J.; Law, K. L.; Monnahan, C. C.; 
    Lebreton, L.; McGivern, A.; Murphy, E.; Jambeck, J.; Leonard, G. 
    H.; Hilleary, M. A.; et al. Predicted Growth in Plastic Waste 
    Exceeds Efforts to Mitigate Plastic Pollution. Science (80-. ). 
    2020, 369 (6510), 1515-1518.

\28\ Moore, C.; Lattin, G.; Zellers, A. Measuring the Effectiveness of 
    Voluntary Plastic Industry Efforts: AMRF'S Analysis of Operation 
    Clean Sweep; 2005.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you for your testimony, Mr. 
Moore. I notice that not every plastic is being recycled, so 
that is an addition to that.
    Dr. Pletl, you may proceed.
    Oh, I am sorry. Ms. Katie Huffling. I am sorry, I got ahead 
of myself here.
    You may proceed, Ms. Huffling.
    Ms. Huffling. Thank you.
    Thank you to Chair Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you so much 
for the opportunity to provide testimony here today.
    My name is Dr. Katie Huffling, and I am the executive 
director of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. I 
am also a nurse midwife.
    The alliance is the only national nursing organization 
focusing solely on the intersection of health in the 
environment. My work in environmental health began early in my 
midwifery career when I recognized what an important component 
the environment is to having a healthy pregnancy and healthy 
babies. I now work with nurses and nursing organizations around 
the country and globally to address the health impacts caused 
by environmental toxins.
    A core part of nursing practice is working to prevent 
disease. We work every day to help our patients stay healthy. 
Unfortunately, we now know that exposures to environmental 
toxins are implicated as one of the sources of rising rates of 
health issues in children such as asthma, leukemia; 
neurodevelopmental impacts such as autism and ADHD; diabetes 
and obesity. Environmental exposures make it much more 
difficult for nurses and other health professionals to do our 
jobs.
    So why are environmental exposures such an issue in 
children's health? Children are not just little adults; they 
eat more, breathe in more air, and drink more per body weight 
than adults. They ingest more toxins pound for pound, and due 
to their hand-to-mouth activities and time spent on the floor, 
are at increased risk of exposures. And their little bodies are 
still developing, so they process environmental contaminants 
differently than adults and may experience more significant 
health impacts.
    Besides the pain and suffering experienced by children and 
families facing health impacts from environmental exposures, 
there are also significant financial impacts. In the United 
States, we are spending approximately $76.6 billion every year 
on environmentally related diseases in children. The average 
cost for one child with cancer, including healthcare costs and 
parental days lost from work, is $833,000.
    Just the loss of one IQ point decreases that child's 
lifetime earning potential by $11,000 to $15,000. This amount 
quickly adds up as IQ points are lost and can mean the 
difference between poverty and middle class for these children 
over a lifetime. By addressing environmental causes of disease, 
we have an immense opportunity to improve the lives of children 
and families across the United States and significantly reduce 
healthcare and societal costs.
    As we are seeing with PFAS water contamination and have 
seen historically with many other chemical exposures linked to 
human health impacts, we have a failure of regulatory 
oversight. Chemicals need to be proven safe before being put on 
the market. When chemicals are pulled from the market only 
after harm has occurred, our children and families are 
unwittingly being used as human experiments.
    Also, the way safety testing is currently performed on 
chemicals does not mirror the way we are all exposed to 
chemicals in everyday life. Chemicals are usually tested 
individually; however, none of us are exposed to a single 
chemical on a single day. Research is greatly needed into the 
area of these cumulative exposures for regulatory agencies to 
make appropriate decisions related to the health impacts of 
chemical exposures.
    PFAS exposure from water sources is very concerning for the 
health of infants and children. PFAS can pass through the 
placental barrier and has been found in cord blood, indicating 
fetal exposure during pregnancy. It is also passed through 
breast milk. And if an infant is formula fed, they would be 
getting exposed to PFAS every time they were fed if the 
drinking water source was contaminated.
    An area of great concern to the nurses I work with is the 
link between PFAS exposure and decreased vaccine effectiveness. 
I was recently part of a meeting of the National Academy of 
Sciences committee investigating guidance on PFAS testing and 
health outcomes. Over the course of the meeting, it became 
clear that communities are frightened. Their health providers 
don't know how to assess for exposures and don't know what to 
do if an exposure is found. They are frustrated that exposures 
from water supplies are taking so long to be assessed and 
addressed. And many communities, especially small communities, 
lower income communities, and some communities of colors, are 
struggling to pay for filtration systems that will remove PFAS 
from their water supplies. They are wondering why they are 
being forced to pay for a problem they did not cause.
    Clean water is essential to health. The alliance strongly 
supports efforts that will decrease environmental exposures 
through our drinking water system and encourages this committee 
to move swiftly to address these growing areas of concern.
    Thank you so much.
    [Ms. Huffling's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Katie Huffling, DNP, R.N., CNM, FAAN, Executive 
         Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony here today. My 
name is Dr. Katie Huffling and I'm the Executive Director of the 
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. I am also a nurse-midwife. 
The Alliance is the only national nursing organization focusing solely 
on the intersection of health and the environment. My work in 
environmental health began early in my midwifery career when I 
recognized what an important component the environment is to having a 
healthy pregnancy and healthy babies. I now work with nurses and 
nursing organizations around the country and globally to address the 
health impacts caused by environmental exposures.
    Thank you for holding this hearing to learn more about emerging 
contaminants in water and their potential for health impacts, 
especially in those who are most vulnerable--such as infants and 
children. A core part of nursing practice is working to prevent 
disease. We work every day to help our patients stay healthy. We would 
be happy to see you just once a year for your annual wellness visit, 
rather than a sick visit for your child. Unfortunately, we now know 
that exposures to environmental toxins are implicated as one of the 
sources of rising rates of health issues in children such as asthma, 
leukemia, neurodevelopmental impacts such as autism and ADHD, diabetes, 
and obesity.\1\ Environmental exposures make it much more difficult for 
nurses and other health care professionals to do our jobs.
    So why are environmental exposures such an issue in children's 
health? Children are not just little adults. They eat more, breathe in 
more air, and drink more per body weight than adults. They ingest more 
toxins pound for pound and due to their hand to mouth activities and 
time spent on the floor are at increased risk of exposures. And their 
bodies are still developing so they process environmental contaminants 
differently than adults and may experience more significant health 
impacts.
    Besides the pain and suffering experienced by children and families 
facing health impacts from environmental exposures, there are also 
significant financial impacts. In the United States, we spend 
approximately $76.6 billion every year on environmentally related 
diseases in children.\2\ The average cost for one child with cancer, 
including healthcare costs and parental days lost from work, is 
$833,000.\3\ Just the loss of one IQ point decreases that child's 
lifetime earning potential by $11,000-$15,000.\2\ This amount quickly 
adds up as IQ points are lost and could mean the difference between 
poverty and middle class for these children over a lifetime. By 
addressing environmental causes of disease, we have an immense 
opportunity to improve the lives of children and families across the 
United States and significantly reduce healthcare and societal costs.
    As we are seeing with PFAS water contamination, and have seen 
historically with many other chemical exposures linked to human health 
impacts, we have a failure of regulatory oversight. Chemicals need to 
be proven safe before being put on the market. When chemicals are 
pulled from the market only after harm has occurred, our children and 
families are unwittingly being used as human experiments. Also, the way 
safety testing is currently performed on chemicals does not mirror the 
way we are all exposed to chemicals in everyday life. Chemicals are 
tested individually, however none of us are exposed to a single 
chemical in our daily life. Research is greatly needed into the area of 
these cumulative exposures for regulatory agencies to make appropriate 
decisions related to the health impacts of chemical exposures.
    PFAS exposure from water sources is very concerning for the health 
of infants and children. PFAS can pass through the placental barrier 
and has been found in cord blood, indicating fetal exposure during 
pregnancy. It is also passed through breastmilk and if an infant is 
formula fed, they would be getting exposed to PFAS every time they were 
fed if the drinking water source was contaminated. An area of great 
concern to the nurses I work with is the link between PFAS exposure and 
decreased vaccine effectiveness.\4\
    I was recently part of a meeting of the National Academy of 
Sciences committee investigating guidance on PFAS testing and health 
outcomes. Over the course of the meeting, it became clear that 
communities are frightened. Their health providers don't know how to 
assess for exposures and don't know what to do if an exposure is found. 
They are frustrated that exposures from water supplies are taking so 
long to be assessed and addressed. And many communities, especially 
small communities, lower income communities, and some communities of 
colors, are struggling to pay for filtration systems that will remove 
PFAS from their water supplies. They are wondering why they are being 
forced to pay for a problem they did not cause.
    Clean water is essential to health. The Alliance strongly supports 
efforts that will decrease environmental exposures through our drinking 
water system and encourages this committee to move swiftly to address 
these growing areas of concern.
References
\1\ NIEHS/EPA Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention 
    Centers. (2017). Protecting children's health where they live, 
    learn, and play. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-
    10/documents/niehs_epa_childrens_
    centers_impact_report_2017_0.pdf.

\2\ Science and Environment Health Network. (2010). The price of 
    pollution: Cost estimates of environment-related childhood disease 
    in Michigan. http://www.ecocenter.org/sites/default/files/
    the_price_of_pollution.pdf.

\3\ US Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Benefit and cost 
    analysis for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 
    the steam electric power generating point source category. https://
    www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/steam-
    electric_benefit-cost-analysis_09-29-2015.pdf.

\4\ Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the Environment. 
    Factsheet on perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for health 
    professionals. https://www1.villanova.edu/university/nursing/
    macche.html.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Huffling. It is important 
they also check the imports of the U.S. because we don't test 
any of those.
    Mr. Pletl, you may proceed. How do you pronounce your name, 
please?
    Mr. Pletl. Certainly. Last name pronounced Pletl, just like 
metal.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Pletl. Thank you, sir. Thank you. You are 
on.
    Mr. Pletl. Good morning, and thank you, Chair Napolitano, 
Ranking Member Rouzer, and all members of the subcommittee, for 
the invitation to testify before you today on behalf of the 
National Association of Clean Water Agencies, or NACWA, on the 
important issue of emerging contaminants.
    I am Dr. James Pletl, the director of the Water Quality 
Department for the Hampton Roads Sanitation District, which 
provides public sanitary sewer services to 1.7 million people 
in southeastern Virginia. I am honored to be here today to 
represent NACWA and the more than 340 public clean water 
utilities the association represents nationwide, who like HRSD, 
are on the front lines protecting public health and the 
environment every day. I appreciate the opportunity to testify 
today regarding the perspectives of the public clean water 
utility community and our recommendations for addressing 
emerging contaminants.
    Emerging contaminants include a wide array of chemical 
substances that can be detected in the environment, such as 
pharmaceuticals, personal care product ingredients, 
nanomaterials, and other chemicals, including per- and 
polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
    Public clean water utilities do not produce or manufacture 
these chemicals or use them in the treatment process. Utilities 
simply receive PFAS in the raw influent that arrives at the 
treatment plant, which includes a mixture of wastewater streams 
from domestic, commercial, and industrial sources. Utilities 
are required to treat the influent they receive in accordance 
with all appropriate laws and regulations.
    Clean water utilities were not designed to treat these 
emerging contaminants, and treatment options are limited and 
costly. PFAS presents significant treatment challenges by their 
very design as forever chemicals, with most technologies unable 
to destroy the strong carbon fluorine bond. Currently, there 
are no reasonably cost-effective techniques available to treat 
or remove PFAS in the sheer volume of wastewater managed daily 
by clean water utilities. HRSD alone treats 55 billion gallons 
of wastewater annually.
    For these reasons, source control and eliminating the use 
of these chemicals in the manufacture of our everyday 
commercial and consumer products must be at the heart of any 
fair and cost-effective efforts to reduce PFAS entering the 
environment. We urge the Federal Government to advance 
understanding of the PFAS risk to human health and the 
environment, and based on improved understanding, take 
necessary measures to eliminate nonessential uses and reduce 
PFAS at its source of use.
    NACWA strongly supports EPA using its authority under the 
Clean Water Act to evaluate and, as necessary, develop effluent 
limitation guidelines and pretreatment standards for industrial 
categories discharging PFAS-containing wastewater directly or 
through municipal sewer systems. However, as these standards 
are developed, there are subsequent burdens placed on clean 
water utilities which administer and enforce their local 
pretreatment programs.
    We appreciate efforts by Congress to provide important 
funding to clean water utilities to help them afford the new 
costs associated with addressing PFAS through the pretreatment 
program.
    It is important to note that a clean water utility's 
industrial pretreatment program will not control or eliminate 
the domestic inputs of PFAS to the wastewater treatment plant 
because they originate from the use of everyday household 
products, such as nonstick cookware, personal care products, 
waterproof clothing, and others. Removing PFAS chemicals from 
municipal wastewater influent and effluent will not be readily 
affordable in the near future because the advanced treatment 
technology required is expensive and there is little benefit to 
scale of treatment. Large and small systems will experience 
significant financial burden if required to adopt these 
technologies. These financial constraints underscore the need 
to first reduce industrial inputs and nonessential uses of PFAS 
and consumer goods.
    Utilities are also understandably concerned about the 
development of any requirement to meet water quality criteria 
for PFAS. Unless water quality criteria account for background 
levels, cost, and the priority of putting upstream industrial 
controls in place first, the clean water utilities could be 
faced with a cost and compliance crisis; namely, permit limits 
that simply cannot be met without unaffordable cost.
    Better scientific understanding of PFAS fate, risk, and 
transport is also crucial to help municipalities make sound 
management decisions with regards to treated wastewater 
residual solids or biosolids. Increased concerns over PFAS and 
municipal residuals have appeared at the State level. Some 
clean water utilities are facing severe regulatory constraints 
on their biosolids management programs without sufficient 
scientific study. Clear Federal guidance is critical to support 
the local management of residuals in a safe and cost-effective 
manner.
    In closing, as science further evolves on PFAS and how to 
best protect public health, public utilities stand ready to do 
our part to ensure the communities we serve are best protected 
from risk. We look to Congress and the administration to be a 
long-term partner with us and assist our communities in this 
shared effort.
    NACWA thanks you for the invitation to provide this 
testimony. I look forward to continuing to work together on 
policy solutions that protect the health of our communities 
through the application of risk-based science.
    That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 
questions the committee might have.
    [Mr. Pletl's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of James J. Pletl, Ph.D., Director, Water Quality 
    Department, Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Virginia Beach, 
Virginia, on behalf of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies
    Good morning and thank you to the Chairs DeFazio and Napolitano, 
Ranking Members Graves and Rouzer, and all members of the Subcommittee 
for the invitation to testify before you today on behalf of the 
National Association of Clean Water Agencies, or NACWA, on the 
important issue of emerging contaminants.
    My name is James Pletl, and I am the Director of the Water Quality 
Department for the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD), which 
provides public sanitary sewer services to 1.7 million people in 
Southeastern Virginia. I am honored to be here today to represent NACWA 
and the more than 340 public clean water utilities the Association 
represents nationwide who, like HRSD, are on the front lines protecting 
public health and the environment every day.
    Emerging contaminants include a wide array of chemical substances 
that, due to increasingly-sensitive analytical methods, can now be 
detected in the environment at increasingly lower levels and are 
garnering attention because many have not yet been fully evaluated as 
to the risks they may pose. Emerging contaminants include 
pharmaceuticals, personal care product ingredients, nanomaterials, and 
other chemicals including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. 
PFAS chemicals have been manufactured and used in countless everyday 
products in the U.S. and around the world since the 1940s and continue 
to be found in our consumer goods. Unfortunately, while these 
manufactured chemicals have existed for decades, much about them 
remains unknown. While we can detect PFAS in the environment at the 
part per trillion level, the potential risks to our environment and 
ourselves is still being researched and the scientific understanding of 
PFAS continues to develop, including how these chemicals move through 
the environment and the toxicology at various concentrations.
    Clean water utilities closely follow emerging contaminant-related 
issues because our mission is to protect human health and the 
environment, and we know we may be called upon to help address them. I 
appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding the perspectives 
of the public clean water utility community and our recommendations for 
addressing emerging contaminants. These include focusing on source 
control, developing our scientific understanding of toxicity and risk 
assessment to guide regulatory policy, and ensuring that the costs of 
controlling current industrial sources as well as addressing pre-
existing pollution impacts are not unfairly shifted to public 
ratepayers who are already facing affordability challenges and were not 
the cause of the pollution.
    I'd like to emphasize two points at the outset.
    First, public clean water utilities are passive receivers of PFAS, 
meaning utilities do not produce or manufacture these chemicals or use 
them in the treatment process. Utilities simply receive PFAS in the raw 
influent that arrives at the treatment plant, which includes a mixture 
of wastewater streams from domestic, commercial and industrial sources. 
Utilities are required to treat the influent they receive in accordance 
with all appropriate laws and regulations. Given the wide range of uses 
for these chemicals, from consumer products in our homes to the vast 
commercial and industrial applications, coupled with their resistance 
to degradation, raw wastewater arriving at the municipal treatment 
plant is likely to contain some level of PFAS. Whether influent 
concentrations are relatively lower or higher will likely depend on the 
nature of the user's discharges to the treatment plant.
    Second, clean water utilities were not designed to treat these 
emerging contaminants, and treatment options are limited and costly. 
PFAS present significant treatment challenges by their very design as 
``forever chemicals,'' with most technologies unable to destroy the 
strong carbon fluorine bond. Currently, there are no reasonably cost-
effective techniques available to treat or remove PFAS in the sheer 
volume of wastewater managed daily by clean water utilities.
    For these reasons, source control and eliminating the use of these 
chemicals in the manufacture of our everyday commercial and consumer 
products must be at the heart of any fair and cost-effective efforts to 
reduce PFAS entering the environment. We urge the federal government to 
advance understanding of the risks to human health and the environment 
associated with PFAS and, based on improved understanding, take 
necessary measures to eliminate non-essential uses and reduce PFAS at 
its source of use. NACWA has encouraged EPA to look holistically across 
the broad array of existing federal statutes and regulations and 
develop a comprehensive path forward to best protect human health and 
the environment given limited resources to do so.
    Under the Clean Water Act, NACWA strongly supports EPA using its 
authority to evaluate and, as necessary, develop effluent limitations 
guidelines (ELGs) and pretreatment standards for industrial categories 
discharging PFAS-containing wastewater directly or through municipal 
sewer systems. Industries that discharge their wastewater to municipal 
wastewater treatment plants would be regulated through the National 
Pretreatment Program, a successful cooperative effort among federal, 
state, and local clean water utility authorities, that gives clean 
water utilities the ability to develop local limits to better meet the 
needs of their specific treatment facilities. Using national ELGs and 
pretreatment standards would also help to establish an approach to 
regulating PFAS where the industrial creators of these chemicals are 
responsible for the cost to address them, rather than shifting their 
costs to municipal ratepayers.
    ELGs and the pretreatment program facilitate EPA targeting the 
highest-priority sources of chemicals of concern, significantly and 
effectively reducing industrial pollutants before they enter the 
municipal wastewater treatment plant or waterways. However, as these 
standards are developed, there are additional burdens created and 
required of clean water utilities which administer and enforce their 
local pretreatment programs. Utilities may need to create a 
pretreatment program if they do not have one already or they may need 
to scale up an existing pretreatment program to cover a potentially 
expansive list of upstream industrial sources of PFAS.
    We appreciate efforts by Congress to provide important funding to 
clean water utilities to help them afford the new costs associated with 
addressing PFAS through the pretreatment program. Congressional 
attention is also important to ensure EPA has the resources needed to 
identify the appropriate industrial categories and set science-based 
guidelines. NACWA is opposed to any efforts to bypass science or 
established regulatory processes or set timelines that cannot credibly 
be met. It is, in short, critical to get this right before proceeding 
with any actions and to take the time necessary to do so based on sound 
science.
    Addressing PFAS through ELGs and the industrial pretreatment 
program can help reduce some of the largest PFAS sources into the 
wastewater treatment system. But it must be recognized that a municipal 
clean water utility's industrial pretreatment program will not control 
or eliminate the domestic inputs of PFAS to the wastewater treatment 
plant from everyday household products such as nonstick cookware, stain 
resistant carpets, personal care products, waterproof clothing, and 
many others.
    Acknowledging the limits of source control and pretreatment, some 
are looking to clean water utilities to provide treatment technology to 
target PFAS. But due to the widespread use of these chemicals, their 
persistence in the environment and the technological and financial 
limitations of large-scale wastewater treatment, public clean water 
utilities simply cannot treat PFAS to levels being expected of drinking 
water systems with current technology. Removing PFAS chemicals from 
municipal wastewater influent and effluent will require advanced 
treatment technologies such as granulated activated carbon, ion 
exchange, reverse osmosis, or pyrolysis--all of which are prohibitively 
expensive for the substantial volume of wastewater that will need to be 
treated. Many of these treatment technologies result in residuals that 
would be PFAS-contaminated and require their own treatment and 
management options; leading to a never-ending circular path of waste 
that is extremely expensive to eliminate.
    For these reasons, utilities are understandably concerned about the 
development of any regulated requirement to meet standards of quality 
like water quality criteria. EPA has time and again stated that it will 
not consider implementation costs or other practical realities when it 
develops water quality criteria--they must only be based on the 
science. Unless any eventual water quality criteria account for 
background levels, cost, and the priority of putting upstream 
industrial controls in place first, the clean water utility communities 
could be faced with a cost and compliance crisis: namely, permit limits 
that simply cannot be met. Once these requirements are written into 
regulation a municipality has little opportunity to modify them.
    Better scientific understanding of the actual risks posed by PFAS 
and the environmental and health benefits of actions being taken to 
address them is also crucial to help municipalities make sound 
management decisions for the communities they serve. This is especially 
true in the management of treated wastewater residual solids, or 
biosolids, where there are currently only three reliable management 
options: they can be applied to land as a fertilizer and soil 
amendment, sent to a landfill, or incinerated.
    Each of these biosolids management options may have their own 
challenges when emerging contaminants are considered. While EPA 
continues its work on understanding the potential risks of PFAS in 
biosolids, increased concerns over PFAS in municipal residuals have 
started to appear at the state level. Some clean water utilities are 
facing severe regulatory pressures on their biosolids management 
process without sufficient scientific study on how these new 
regulations will impact their management of thousands of tons of 
residuals generated each day; a necessary result of the wastewater 
treatment process. Clear federal guidance is critical to provide 
assurances regarding how the management of residuals can be safely and 
cost-effectively carried out. Biosolids land application has remained a 
long-held and safe practice with clear benefits to utilities, farmers, 
and the environment. Curtailing or banning land application due to 
trace levels of PFAS will create a significant challenge for public 
utilities, increase loading to landfills--which can in turn negatively 
impact clean water utilities that are looked at to treat landfill 
leachate--or put increasing pressure on already dwindling incinerator 
capacity, all at increased cost to ratepayers.
    Lastly, PFAS and other emerging contaminants highlight the need for 
Congress to continually focus on and modernize the process by which 
U.S. EPA and other federal agencies review and approve chemicals to be 
produced and used in the marketplace. The long-term environmental fate 
and potential health and ecosystem impacts must be considered prior to 
production and use of any chemical, rather than looking to communities 
and public utilities to remediate or remove new concerning compounds 
after they have been used and discarded.
    As public utilities across the country deal with a variety of 
growing water quality challenges and increasing compliance obligations, 
communities are facing critical decisions on how to invest in and 
update their critical clean water infrastructure while maintaining 
affordable rates for customers. Each time an emerging contaminant comes 
to the forefront for potential regulation, it must be reviewed through 
a consistent and scientific regulatory process with a focus on 
meaningful risk assessment and not simply reacting to public/political 
outcry.
    In closing, as science further evolves on PFAS and how to best 
protect public health, public utilities stand ready to do our part to 
ensure the communities we serve are best protected from risk. As 
stewards of the environment and public health this is our key goal, and 
we look to Congress and the Administration to be a long-term partner 
with us and assist our communities in this shared effort.
    NACWA thanks you for the invitation to provide this testimony, 
appreciates the ongoing engagement by the Committee with the public 
clean water sector on this issue, and looks forward to continuing to 
work together on policy solutions that protect the health of our 
communities through the application of thorough, risk-based science. 
That concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any 
questions the Committee may have.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Pletl. It is great 
testimony because I think it is incumbent upon all of us to 
begin to question where all these contaminants are coming from, 
what we are doing about it, and how we can help address it.
    Thank you to all our witnesses. We will now have questions 
for you, and we will use the timer to allow 5 minutes of 
questions from each Member. If there are additional questions, 
we may have additional rounds as necessary.
    I will begin the questioning, and I will give the order. We 
have Mr. Huffman, Mr. Malinowski, Mr. Pappas, and Mr. Cohen 
following me and my colleagues.
    The question for the panel of witnesses, all of you, I will 
ask a simple question of the witnesses to start discussion, a 
simple yes or no will do.
    Do you think that Congress and EPA and other agencies are 
doing all they can to protect human health from all emerging 
contaminants?
    I will start with Dr. Southerland and then go down the 
line.
    Ms. Southerland. Absolutely not.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Kennedy?
    Mr. Kennedy. No, ma'am.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Granek?
    Ms. Granek. Absolutely not.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Moore?
    Mr. Moore. No.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Huffling?
    Ms. Huffling. No, they are not.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
    And Mr. Pletl?
    Mr. Pletl. That is no.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
    We all agree with you. We think that we require more 
research and a more honest approach to this.
    The followup question is for Dr. Southerland. You said you 
don't think Congress and EPA and other agencies are doing 
enough to protect us from the emerging contaminants. What 
actions would you prioritize?
    Ms. Southerland. Thank you, Chairwoman, for that question. 
They really need to build on this National Emerging Contaminant 
Research Initiative. It has really gotten off to a great start, 
but it is really right now just focused on drinking water 
quality. Congress needs to expand the mission of that research 
initiative and require this national list of priority 
contaminants to be developed. They also need to require a 
coordinated monitoring program to look for these contaminants 
so we can find out where we need to focus our efforts.
    And then I really think we have to have some kind of 
targeted appropriation that will allow EPA to really expand the 
tiny little effluent guideline program they have for these 
technology-based permit limits on industries. I think they only 
have like 20 people now, and they cannot possibly address this. 
The water quality approach that Jim talked about in his 
testimony takes years and years to develop water quality 
criteria and standards and TMDLs to implement. The only fast 
way to do this is technology based.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, do you think that EPA shouldn't be 
the only agency?
    Ms. Southerland. Well, absolutely. We need to have the new 
chemical review programs under the Toxic Substances Control Act 
and the Pesticide Act really take a look at what they need to 
do. We have some specific suggestions for the TSCA program. 
Right now, they allow--like GenX, which is certainly a problem 
in North Carolina, was passed through the new chemical review 
program several years ago and now we have this enormous problem 
from that.
    Mrs. Napolitano. It got imported.
    Ms. Southerland. Exactly. So EPA needs to improve their new 
chemical review program under the Toxic Substances Control Act 
and require more comprehensive data from industry.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
    In your testimony, you mentioned several areas that require 
additional research on emerging contaminants, including how 
these contaminants interact with each other and how they 
interact with the environmental stressors. Even though 
additional research is needed, do you think we should wait 
until the research is done before we begin action on these?
    Dr. Granek?
    Ms. Granek. Thank you for the question, Chair Napolitano. 
Although there is more research needed, there is ample evidence 
that action is needed now. We have ample data on all of these 
groups of contaminants indicating environmental impacts, 
impacts on aquatic and marine organisms, and on human health.
    So, waiting for more data, we could wait for a thousand 
years for more data. We have enough data to act to know these 
chemicals are problematic and that the interactions of these 
chemicals are problematic.
    Mrs. Napolitano. There has been a lot of research done on 
it already.
    Ms. Granek. Yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. All research. We need to be----
    Ms. Granek. There is a large body of research, hundreds of 
papers if you look across all of these compounds.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Go ahead.
    Ms. Granek. I was just going to say, the area of research 
that is really lacking is looking at how these compounds 
interact and affect organisms. We have a number of studies, but 
that is probably the area that has the least amount of research 
done.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
    Real quickly, Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate you sharing with 
the committee the story of Pittsboro.
    Do you think the Federal Government is doing enough to keep 
the water supply of towns like yours, small cities, safe for 
use, and what is your recommendation?
    Mr. Kennedy. I would say no, Madam Chair. And my 
recommendation will be centered upon source reduction. I do 
believe that we need to find the source of these contaminants. 
I do believe that we need to invest in alternatives to PFAS, 
PFOA, and other types of emerging contaminants, find equivalent 
materials that provide the same benefits of these without the 
negative externalities.
    And so, we do feel as a small town that we are kind of left 
on the island. We have a significant impediment in terms of 
finances in order to try to eradicate these from our drinking 
water, and we are struggling to find reasonable solutions 
despite our creativity and need to correct those.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
    I am sorry, Mr. Rouzer, you're next.
    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Dr. Pletl, a couple questions for you before I get to some 
of the others. So why is careful analysis of contaminants of 
emerging concern so important? And then followup, what happens 
if this process is short-circuited?
    Mr. Pletl. So, at the basis of most of our process in this 
world of dealing with emerging contaminants is monitoring and 
analytical measurements. And having reliability and analytical 
measure is extremely critical. For example, right now, there is 
a proposal out for a particular method, an analytical method, 
to be used to evaluate PFAS chemicals, and the position right 
now is that that analytical method can be used for a number of 
matrices, biosolids, water, what have you.
    The problem with that in its current state is that it has 
only been done in its--performance has only been established in 
a single laboratory, and we really haven't had a chance to see 
what that performance looks like. So, at the same time, EPA is 
recommending that we start to use this method as we make 
measurements out in the environment, make measurements in 
effluent, influent, so have you.
    So, we need to have reliability, because if we are going to 
do this within a permanent regulatory program, there are 
liabilities associated with this information. And I personally 
sign hundreds of discharged monitoring reports every year 
citing the truth and accuracy of the information that is 
submitted to the State, in this case, Virginia, and to do that 
for a method that has only been shown to perform in a single 
lab falls far short of what we normally expect for analytical 
methods.
    So, the foundation of this program, this approach really 
does depend on analytical measurement. And we have lots of 
different universities and research labs across the country 
that are using different methods. It is extremely important 
when we start to talk about regulating compounds so that the 
foundation of that whole process, the analytical measurement, 
we are sure that the information is reliable, so that when 
current actions and legal liability that comes along with those 
permit actions are defensible, we know that we can go back to 
that data and that data is defensible. So, the analytical 
measurement is critical.
    Did I answer all of your question?
    Mr. Rouzer. Yes. And following up on that, so what type of 
impact does this have for ratepayers?
    Mr. Pletl. So if we, for example, start to take some 
measurements and those measurements don't have the certainty 
that we believe they do, and we are going to make decisions on 
whether we should install a new treatment technology at a 
wastewater treatment plant to perhaps address that, the 
compound or the group of compounds, that is going to increase 
the cost of treatment and that cost is going to be translated 
to the ratepayer.
    So, we need to be sure that the information that we are 
using is reliable in deciding what technologies will be 
installed, whether it be necessary or not. So, relating data 
back to toxicity information, impact information that we have 
in the literature, it is all very important for us to make 
sound decisions for the ratepayers so that the outcome that 
will result from us installing some type of technology is going 
to be the outcome that we are all hoping for.
    Mr. Rouzer. In 45 seconds left here, and this is for anyone 
on the panel, has anyone done any kind of economic analysis of 
the impact to consumers and users of the products that contain 
these various CECs? And then a followup question, too. What do 
you replace these chemicals with? On the one hand, we want a 
strong manufacturing base in this country. On the other hand, 
we want to make sure that we are protecting the environment as 
well.
    I just have a few seconds, if anyone has a quick answer.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rouzer. I guess there is not a quick answer. Part of 
the value of this hearing is drilling down on this, because, 
obviously, if you end up banning certain chemicals, that 
affects the nature of the product that you are producing that 
consumers want. And, obviously, there needs to be some type of 
replacement in order to produce those products. So, anyhow, 
just a fundamental question that we have got to contend with.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
    I think we have rising complaints that EPA is overreaching, 
not how they are trying to protect our children and our 
families.
    Mr. Huffman, you are next. You may proceed.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. Madam Chair, thanks for holding 
this important hearing. And I want to thank the witnesses for 
their insights.
    I have worked in the water world for almost my entire 
career, going back to my time on my local water board. And I 
certainly have my share of opinions on how we can rise to this 
challenge that others have described to making sure that we 
address emerging contaminants and these forever chemicals so we 
can protect our health and environment.
    But I want to start with asking Dr. Southerland a little 
bit about biosolids. I know EPA recently awarded four grants 
for some research on the fate and transport of PFAS and other 
constituents in biosolids.
    Dr. Southerland, with your experience at EPA, how would you 
expect the results of this research to support future 
rulemakings and inform the work of EPA in that area?
    Ms. Southerland. So, I absolutely expect that the results 
are going to show we need to have controls on PFAS through the 
pretreatment program, so that the utilities, as Jim Pletl was 
just saying, won't have to bear the cost of all the treatment 
of PFAS coming into these municipal treatment plants.
    I am convinced that the biosolid study is going to show--we 
already know from Decatur, Alabama, experience--that biosolids 
are going to be concentrated with these forever chemicals. And 
that, in turn, really eliminates the really wonderful 
beneficial use of biosolids that all of us depend on, not just 
for good use of that product, but also for really defraying the 
cost from municipal treatment plants.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes. Thank you for that. Another reason to get 
upstream to the source of these contaminants and do something 
about that.
    Dr. Pletl, I will go to you next. Your testimony brings the 
perspective of a clean water utility that is on the front lines 
of dealing with these problems. I think people forget that you 
have to deal with everything we flush down the drain.
    I once did a bill on the problem of flushable wipes. 
Companies come up with a product that they think can be 
flushable, and it might make it down the toilet, but it clogs 
up wastewater systems and causes all sorts of havoc further 
downstream. And that is just one of many ways in which you have 
to contend with the back end of these problems. And so, I agree 
that polluters, not ratepayers, should really bear the bulk of 
the cost to controlling things like PFAS pollution.
    And as someone downstream of this, let me ask you to speak 
to how wastewater agencies are the passive receivers of these 
problems. And what are some ways that EPA and other agencies 
can do more to help?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. Are you there, Doctor? Did we lose Dr. Pletl?
    Mr. Pletl. I am here.
    Mr. Huffman. Oh, sorry.
    Mr. Pletl. Yes. I wanted to show support for something that 
Dr. Southerland said about the Toxic Substances Control Act. 
And I think we can do a much better job on the front end of 
this process. A little bit more accountability on the part of 
agencies that want to introduce products into the environmental 
stream, if you will, in the United States. And think about a 
little bit more about not just initial exposures and 
possibilities, but long term, especially for some of these 
chemicals that do not degrade readily.
    So, I think we can do a much better job on the front end, 
even before our consumers, our public use these products, 
making sure that we understand what is going to happen to those 
chemicals once they are released from each home or each 
commercial business. So, we need to do a better job there.
    Mr. Huffman. Would you agree that an obvious place to start 
would be in products that don't have to have these chemicals? 
And would you support efforts to phase out nonessential uses of 
PFAS, for example, in everyday household goods?
    Mr. Pletl. Yes. That was actually part of my statement, 
that the two places we should focus on, obviously, are where 
chemicals are being produced; and then second, where those 
chemicals are actually being used in products.
    Mr. Huffman. Thanks.
    And in the few seconds I have left, I would like to ask Dr. 
Southerland about how EPA can do more through TSCA to make sure 
that companies don't bring the next new emerging contaminant 
into commerce. What else can we do with TSCA and other laws?
    Ms. Southerland. So, actually, the new TSCA amendments gave 
EPA a really important role about doing a safety evaluation 
before the chemical enters commerce. In the old TSCA, we had to 
wait until we had some horrifying problem and then we could try 
to take the thing out of commerce. So, what we find is a real 
need for EPA to use--which they did not do in the previous 
administration--all their authorities to require adequate data 
from the chemical company asking to bring a new chemical into 
commerce so that they can make a good, reasonable safety 
decision. We find that that was not done frequently in the 
previous administration, and that needs to be fixed.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate that.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Huffman.
    Mr. LaMalfa, you are next.
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. LaMalfa? There you are.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to 
defer a couple rounds here, please.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Then we will go on to Mr. Garret Graves.
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. Garret Graves?
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. OK. We will go on to Mr. Malinowski.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks 
to all the witnesses.
    So, unlike Mr. Huffman, I can't claim to be a lifelong 
expert on the issue that we are discussing today, but I have 
listened very carefully to all of the witnesses. I have also 
consulted, in recent days, with my senior policy adviser, John 
Oliver, of HBO, who did a wonderful presentation on this. We 
probably should have had him as one of the witnesses today.
    I really want to start with a broad historical question for 
Ms. Southerland first, and that is, how did we get here? After 
all, this is not a new issue. If we look at PFAS, for example, 
we know that the companies that produce products like Teflon--
DuPont's chief among them--knew about the dangers, extreme 
risks posed by these chemicals going back to, I guess, at least 
the early 1990s, which means that the scientific community was 
aware, was doing studies and reports.
    From your perspective, as somebody who has spent many, many 
years at EPA, what is it about our system of monitoring and 
regulating these kinds of chemicals that causes it to fail for 
so long, even when the scientific knowledge is there?
    Ms. Southerland. So let me just start with just a little 
historical aspect. The old TSCA did require us to show a 
problem before we could take action on the chemical. And there 
is a lot of protection for the chemical industry from 
confidential business information. So, we were really 
hamstrung, and that is part of what John Oliver was pointing 
out last night--or Sunday, is that we did not have the studies 
that the industry had. There was no transparency or sharing of 
that information.
    The new TSCA gives us all kinds of new authority to, first, 
before you even allow a chemical into commerce, to require 
adequate data from the industry. When it is a confidential 
business information, we cannot share it as openly with the 
public but certainly within the Agency we can. And I just saw, 
actually today, an announcement that EPA is going to start a 
whole new database with all of the studies that they can find 
on all 9,000 of the PFAS chemicals and make that publicly 
available.
    So, transparency and the new authorities under TSCA will be 
able to cure these problems that John Oliver so brilliantly 
exposed in his show.
    Mr. Malinowski. OK. What about the problem of--it seems to 
me we are still there with the wide variety of PFAS chemicals, 
that we are kind of--we are approaching this one compound at a 
time, right, where one particular variety of PFAS is shown to 
be harmful or toxic. So hopefully we ban that. But then what 
stops the industry from just moving on to a similar substance 
that has not yet gone through the rigorous testing? Are we 
always going to be one or two steps too late?
    Ms. Southerland. Well, the--and I did want to respond to 
Representative Rouzer on this, but I was too intimidated by the 
time limit.
    The issue is, really, we do have--because of the pressure 
on PFAS, we have already developed all kinds of safe 
alternatives for firefighting foam and for certain types of 
food packaging. We already have corporate action actually 
saying that they will no longer buy these PFAS-contaminated 
products. And that, in turn, has a big marketplace. So, there 
is enormous innovation in the chemical industry that would 
allow them to come up with safe alternatives. We just have to 
use the authority we have to crack down on the ones that we 
know are causing problems.
    And I am convinced the Biden administration is going to use 
the TSCA authority to treat whole groups of chemicals as a 
category that can then be run through the TSCA process of 
regulating them. The question is, how long are you willing to 
wait for those categories to complete that minimum 7-year 
process? It would be a lot quicker for Congress to ban 
nonessential uses of PFAS than to wait for this TSCA process to 
take place.
    Mr. Malinowski. And so we should. Thank you so much.
    And I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski.
    Next is Miss Gonzalez-Colon, you may proceed.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will 
continue--can you hear me now?
    Mrs. Napolitano. You are on.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. OK.
    Mrs. Napolitano. We can hear you.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
    My question will be to Dr. Southerland, if you are 
available to me. Dr. Southerland, it is known that there are 
carcinogens in groundwater. Should the EPA have removed 
regulatory guidelines for contaminants in some wells that 
people utilize for drinking water?
    Ms. Southerland. OK. So, the authority that EPA has for 
setting drinking water standards applies to public water 
systems that have to have a certain number of users to be 
eligible for drinking water standards. All these individual 
private wells, of course, we would want them to meet the water 
quality and drinking water standards that we have set for the 
community water systems. But, really, EPA does not have the 
authority. We have to work with local health departments to try 
to ensure that these individual private wells are meeting those 
standards.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. The second question I need to know is 
that, should the Federal Government provide further testing in 
the instance of private wells when they are located near 
Superfund sites?
    Ms. Southerland. So, under the Superfund program, we have 
lots of authority to require the responsible party for the 
contamination to provide safe drinking water for the residents. 
And, of course, if it is an orphan site where there is no 
viable responsible party, EPA will do that. So that is why you 
will see, in many of these cases, they will be giving bottled 
water to people, or they will be putting filtering systems on 
each individual household's water well in order to provide them 
with the safe drinking water. So, we do have that authority.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. So, the question I am making is, if 
you fail to study a specific source or route of exposure, could 
risk be adequately determined?
    Ms. Southerland. Sorry, I didn't hear that.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. If you fail to study a specific source 
or a specific route of exposure, could the risk be adequately 
determined?
    Ms. Southerland. I am sorry, I can't hear.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Hypothetically, if one of my 
constituents drinks well water but the Federal Government 
assumes that no one is consuming safe water in their health 
risk assessments, could the Federal Government adequately 
assess the risk?
    Ms. Southerland. So, we try to do risk assessments when we 
are dealing with a contamination cleanup. And, usually, if 
there are private wells involved, we actually want to do the 
monitoring, the real monitoring for where those wells exist. We 
don't just assume that they are all meeting the national 
drinking water standards. We actually get information from that 
specific geographic area where we suspect there is a 
contamination problem.
    Miss Gonzales-Colon. The reason I am making this question 
is--and I would like, Madam Chair, I would like to submit a 
2020 PFAS report for Vieques, which concluded that residents of 
Vieques don't drink from private wells in Puerto Rico. However, 
just this year, the mayor of Vieques has stated in the Natural 
Resources Committee in June of this year that residents do, in 
fact, drink from wells on the island.
    And I would love to submit that for the record, Madam 
Chair, if you are amenable.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, ma'am. So ordered.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
 Excerpt from Report Titled, ``Final Preliminary Assessment Report for 
 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training 
 Area--Vieques, Former Naval Ammunition Support Detachment and Former 
   Vieques Naval Training Range--Vieques, Puerto Rico,'' April 2020, 
  Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic by CH2M 
 Hill, Inc., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon
    The report excerpt is retained in committee files and is available 
online at: https://www.navfac.navy.mil/niris/ATLANTIC/VIEQUES/
N69321_004181.pdf, pages 52-68.

    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
    The reason I am making this question is to--you know, they 
are near a Superfund area. People said at the time that they 
were not drinking water from the wells in the area. Now the 
mayor established that, yes, they do. So that was the reason of 
my question.
    Do you have any comment on that?
    Ms. Southerland. No. You actually need site-specific data 
from those wells before you can assume that they are safe. I 
mean, it sounds like there is a high chance that they are 
highly contaminated.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Doctor.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Appreciate 
your questions.
    Next would be Mr. Pappas. You may proceed.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair and to 
the ranking member, for holding this hearing today. I 
appreciate the expertise and the comments of our panelists here 
about these important issues.
    I actually just came from an event in my district. It was a 
roundtable conversation with EPA Administrator Regan, as well 
as concerned citizens in a community that has been contaminated 
with PFAS by an industrial polluter. This has been going on for 
years. I have got hundreds of households in my district that 
are receiving bottled water right now as they await a safe 
drinking water hookup. People are very concerned about what 
this means for their health, what they are able to do in their 
own homes and on their property.
    And so, we know that this issue is not just emerging for 
our communities. It is one that is well studied, where we are 
aware of the dangers of PFAS, but yet we haven't seen the kind 
of regulation we need at the Federal level to move us forward.
    Now, our State has put in place some important regulations, 
some aggressive regulations, when it comes to PFAS and drinking 
water specifically, but we just can't allow States to figure 
this problem out on their own. We really need to leverage the 
expertise, the research, and the regulatory power of the 
Federal Government to make progress on this.
    So, I know we are awaiting a roadmap coming forward from 
EPA to help us realize these next steps. I think the 
Administrator was pretty clear today that he wants to move 
forward as quickly as possible. And that is maybe my first 
question, maybe I can turn to Dr. Southerland first.
    Could you talk a little bit about how long it takes EPA to 
decide whether an emerging contaminant should be regulated and 
how Congress could potentially help EPA make these 
determinations faster?
    My concern here is that we are going to be 2, 4, 6 years 
down the line and not have in place the kind of regulations we 
need to be protecting people, both from the legacy 
contamination that is out there in districts like mine, as well 
as active contamination that is ongoing. So, if you have any 
thoughts about how we can speed that process up and what that 
looks like moving forward, I think that would be helpful for 
us.
    Ms. Southerland. Yes. This is a huge issue that, you know, 
we have had this since the beginning of time, and that is, if 
you don't know that you should monitor for it, you are not ever 
going to look for it, and then you are never going to find it. 
And so, the system we have now is fully reactive. We have to 
have some horrifying crisis, either, you know, all the fish are 
killed, or people are deathly ill, something that would cause 
you to then finally monitor and check for where there could be 
pollutants that you were not previously aware of that could be 
causing this public health or environmental crisis.
    So, I think the only way to fix this--and that is what I 
tried to focus on in my comments--we need to have a national 
list of priority contaminants and a coordinated monitoring 
program from Federal and State agencies that continually looks 
for these things and then finds them before the horrifying 
crisis occurs, so that we can then begin to come up with 
controlled mechanisms or remediation mechanisms of some kind.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thanks for those comments. I support that 
approach. And I am wondering about some legislation that I have 
introduced, it would help make these determinations, when it 
comes to PFAS and the Clean Water Act, issuing regulations 
under that Clean Water Act. And I am wondering--the legislation 
also looks at deadlines--if you think legislative deadlines for 
EPA would at all be helpful in kind of moving the Agency 
forward?
    Ms. Southerland. So, deadlines are deeply problematic on an 
agency now that is the smallest it has been since the 1980s. I 
was particularly pushing in my testimony for an increase in the 
effluent guideline program. They are the guys that do the 
technology-based permit limits for entire industries. They are 
down to 20 people right now, and they cannot possibly handle 
all the various industries that are discharging PFAS right now.
    So, to put deadlines in now when the Agency is in such a 
critical condition is really not going to be helpful, because 
they literally do not have the human capital to carry these 
things out on any kind of tight deadline. We need to beef up 
the staff, train them, and then we can worry about having tight 
deadlines.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thanks for those thoughts.
    And I think as we take a look at the roadmap, I am hoping 
it is going to come with a set of recommendations for how we 
can best support the Agency and give it the resources it needs 
to move with great speed, because this is a problem, as far as 
most of my constituents are concerned, that should have been 
addressed yesterday.
    With that, I see my time has expired, so I yield back, 
Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. We might have a second 
round going.
    But I would like to call Mr. Rouzer next. But before I do, 
next are Mr. Cohen, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Lowenthal.
    Mr. Rouzer, you are on.
    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate you 
letting me go a second time before I have to head to the 
airport soon.
    Dr. Granek, I was intrigued with some of the comments in 
your testimony. And I would like for you to elaborate, you 
know, what sort of items do you find contaminants of emerging 
concern in?
    And I go back to my original experience with GenX. When I 
first heard about it, we had a meeting down in Wilmington, 
North Carolina, with the Governor and the State secretary of 
health and human services. And we were talking about GenX and 
PFAS and PFOS. And I got to thinking about it, and I was like, 
well, how many emerging contaminants are there--shampoos, dyes, 
everything that we use every day. There are household cleaners 
that we use that, if you happen to open it and you get a strong 
whiff of it, it will take your breath away. All of this stuff 
goes into the drain or down the drain on a continual basis day 
after day after day.
    And you mentioned some of that or a lot of that in your 
testimony. And I am just curious if you wouldn't mind talking 
about some of those items and what they are. What consumer 
products are we seeing these contaminants turn up in? And what 
do we use those substances for?
    Ms. Granek. Thank you for that question. If I understood 
correctly, I think you were asking what animals they are found 
in as well as what kind of compounds. Is that correct?
    Mr. Rouzer. Well, you had a wide variety of--or a layout of 
a wide variety of influences of the compounds. And I just 
thought maybe you want to address that a little bit. And I am 
just trying to learn too.
    Ms. Granek. Yes. When we start looking--as Dr. Southerland 
mentioned, when we start looking in the ocean or in freshwater 
at what organisms have these compounds, what animals, we see 
them in finfish. We see many of these compounds in Chinook 
salmon. We see them in shellfish, like clams and oysters. And 
we see effects, as I mentioned, that, again, vary by compound, 
but we see effects on reproduction and development. We see 
effects on immune response, right, which, as one of other 
speakers mentioned, is problematic, especially during COVID 
since we know that reduced immune response can affect the 
effectiveness of vaccines.
    To your question, I think about what kind of compounds we 
are seeing, we are seeing a number of compounds that are in 
household cleaners, as you mentioned. There are a set of 
compounds that we see called alkylphenols that are surfactants 
in cleaners. Alkylphenols are used both in household cleaners 
like shampoos and soaps and laundry detergent and dishwashing 
detergent. But they are also used actually as surfactants in 
pesticide and herbicide mixtures applied to agricultural and 
forestry lands. And so those get applied sometimes aerially or 
ground applications to land. They can get washed into waterways 
as well.
    We see a number of pharmaceuticals in personal care 
products; things ranging from triclosan, which is an 
antibacterial and antibacterial soap, to caffeine which we 
consume in our coffee and tea. And we see a number of 
antibiotics like azithromycin or erythromycin, et cetera, as 
well as some legacy contaminants in PFAS chemicals.
    Mr. Rouzer. How many emerging contaminants are there? The 
range of things that you just described is basically what we 
all use every day. It is really, when you drill down--the more 
you drill down on this, the more expansive, the more 
universal--you see just how expansive all this is. So----
    Ms. Granek. Yes. Oh, excuse me.
    Mr. Rouzer. When it comes to smart regulation and having a 
balanced approach here, how do we handle this if there are so 
many different emerging compounds out there of concern?
    Ms. Granek. Yes. My expertise is definitely not in the 
regulatory side of things. Dr. Southerland mentioned classes of 
compounds, and I do think that that is an approach to take. 
But, yes, there are hundreds of emerging contaminants that we 
don't yet regulate or have any sort of benchmarks for what 
levels are safe for aquatic organisms or for human health.
    Mr. Rouzer. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
    The cumulative impact is frightening, really it is.
    Mr. Cohen, you are next.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair. And indeed it is 
frightening, for I am a lifelong--and that is longer than 
many--user of Teflon product, thinking that I was saving myself 
calories, and I am killing myself, apparently.
    Ms. Granek, you talked about PFAS, and your testimony 
states Federal regulations not [inaudible] Consumers of 
microplastics in their food.
    Somebody, something [inaudible] there is background noise--
--
    Mrs. Napolitano. You are cutting out, sir.
    Mr. Cohen. I am cutting out.
    Mrs. Napolitano. In and out.
    Mr. Cohen. Ms. Granek? Ms. Granek, can you hear me? Hello?
    Ms. Granek. I think I can hear you now. Yes.
    Mr. Cohen. Great. Thank you, thank you.
    Tell me about the PFAS and microplastic releases in our 
waterways and our bodies. Should I be concerned about dying 
very soon because I have done Teflon all my life and used 
certain shampoos?
    Ms. Granek. My research actually is not specifically on 
human health, although many of the studies on animals we find 
that the effects can translate to human health. My research 
doesn't focus on PFAS, so I can speak less to PFAS.
    What I can say is that we are exposed to microplastics on a 
daily basis, both when we drink from water bottles, nonreusable 
water bottles. We are breathing microplastics in when we 
breathe air. Microplastics are so pervasive that they are in 
our shellfish, they are in our beer, they are in our sea salt, 
they are in our water. If our water comes from--if there are 
upstream municipalities that are releasing treated wastewater 
into a waterway and then a downstream municipality takes in 
that water as drinking water----
    Mr. Cohen. Let's take it as a given that they are a lot of 
places. What can we do as Government officials in laws to see 
to it that we protect the human species?
    Ms. Granek. Great question. I think that we need 
regulations on release of microplastics into waterways and 
benchmarks for what is safe in drinking water and perhaps in 
food, so we have regulations of levels of mercury, for example, 
that are safe in fish. But we have no benchmarks for levels of 
plastics that are safe for consumption, for example.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, ma'am.
    Ms. Huffling, do you [inaudible] knowledge of PFAS and its 
harms on human beings? Ms. Huffling, did you hear me?
    Ms. Huffling. I am sorry, I did not.
    Mr. Cohen. Do you have knowledge of PFAS and its harmful 
effects on human species?
    Ms. Huffling. Yes.
    Mr. Cohen. [Inaudible.]
    Ms. Huffling. The National Health and Nutrition Examination 
Survey, which studies the health and well-being of the U.S. 
population, has found pretty much everyone in the U.S. has PFAS 
in their body. And what we are now learning about PFAS is that 
exposure is associated with a number of health impacts, such as 
thyroid impacts. It can impact birth with--associations with 
preterm birth, decreased effectiveness of vaccines, which is 
very concerning as a public health professional. It is also 
associated with some types of cancer, such as testicular 
cancer, as well as elevated cholesterol levels. Many of these 
are things that we are seeing rising rates of throughout the 
United States and can be incredibly costly to treat.
    Mr. Cohen. What could we do to mandate that they are 
limited in their application on foods and the effect on human 
species?
    Ms. Huffling. Right. Food is an important source of PFAS 
exposure in humans. Reducing its use in food containers and 
food processing plants is important, moving away from Teflon-
based pans and things, using things like cast iron pans that 
have a more natural, nonstick capability without the addition 
of these additional chemicals.
    There are ways that all of us can move away from these 
things that I think, regulatorywise, moving away from its use 
and food packaging and processing is a really important way 
that we can reduce exposures in humans.
    Mr. Cohen. Is using plastic containers in your microwave 
dangerous?
    Ms. Huffling. Heating up plastic in your microwave can 
definitely increase the chances of different chemicals within 
that plastic to leach into your food. So definitely not 
recommended that you microwave plastic.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, some of them that I have say they are 
microwave safe. Should there be some type of more clear 
delineation on the product that you are risking your health?
    Ms. Huffling. Definitely. I think, again, it is an issue 
with the way our regulatory system works that we are not 
required to be saying in many products what the different 
ingredients are, how they may be leaching out into the human 
body or into our food. I think it is definitely an area that 
there can be improvement.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much. And I have learned a lot. I 
watched the John Oliver tape, and that is scary as heck. When I 
go to my grave, I will be emanating PFAS or something, 
chemicals. It is dangerous. And the PFAS legislation taught me 
a lot. When I first saw it, I thought it had something to do 
with Flomax, but I know now it is worse than that.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. LaMalfa, you are next. You are on, sir, proceed.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the 
opportunity.
    I think when we have this discussion here, ultimately--and 
I have seen it here in California--the move will be made to ban 
plastic products that are used for containers, so have at it. 
But they will have to be replaced with glass, have to be 
replaced with aluminum or stainless steel or other products in 
order to hold fluids, hold other products that require 
shipping. And so, when you do all this--heck, maybe even wooden 
barrels.
    If you want to go back to these things, they are going to 
be heavier, they are going to be more complicated to produce 
and tote our products that people use every day. It will be a 
lot different game when you ban plastics like this. I have no 
doubt there will be legislation to push this. If it doesn't 
come from our California Legislature, it will be coming from 
certain folks in DC. It will be an interesting discussion going 
down the line. We can certainly improve how we do things, but I 
think the banners will be out to do this.
    I also find it fascinating in the conversation here, it was 
mentioned that we are using our kids as an experiment. So that 
is amazing with the mandates coming down the pike in the 
pharmaceutical thing where kids under the age of 12 are going 
to be forced to get certain vaccines that have been untested on 
them.
    So that all said, we will get back to the focus here. Now, 
in my northern California district here, we have had 1\1/2\ 
million acres' worth of forest fires releasing all sorts of 
stuff into the air, ultimately into our streams, our rivers, 
our water, our stored water, and our lakes. And so, we have 
battled year after year to try and get forest management that 
makes sense so all this ash, all this byproduct does not end up 
in our streams. If you want to talk about an impact, that is 
going to be a big one very immediately.
    And so, we do a little about it. The Forest Service is 
unable to get out of its tracks due to either legislation 
stopping it or lawsuits. I fret for that, because our water 
supply in California is already in peril. And we have folks 
trying to remove dams to get rid of the threat to fish, 
supposedly, up on the Klamath, whereas the situation there 
isn't really about fish. And we don't mention the 20 million 
cubic yards of silt and material behind those dams that can get 
into our waterways and will get into the waterways. We gloss 
over all that and go after this. It is really pretty 
discouraging in this issue.
    What we have is, in California and the West, a lot of 
things have gone on with mining in the early days. And so we 
end up with things like the WOTUS rule under the Obama 
administration. And it went way too far in regulation, I 
believe, and a lot of us in the West believe, in farming and 
agriculture.
    What is it we are really looking at here with the 
regulations coming down the pike, whether it is on plastics or 
on water in general? I would like to ask Dr. Pletl about that. 
I am sure you have had some intense reaction to regulations on 
policy before. Can you give us some detail on the best 
practices that our officials will be looking at to engage with 
landowners in the private sector on how to reduce the pollution 
without immediately making an enemy out of the folks that are 
out there producing our crops, and our mined products, and our 
timber that we need to be harvesting instead of burning 2 
million acres of each year? What do you think, Dr. Pletl?
    Ms. Southerland. Well, I certainly know the Biden 
administration has announced that they are already underway 
with a very comprehensive nationwide approach to talk to all 
stakeholders about where they should go next in protecting 
waters of the U.S. And, of course, this is the fundamental 
issue of the Clean Water Act, where do the NPDES permits and 
the approaches apply? What waters, what wetlands are covered? 
And to be 50-some years after the passage of that act and still 
not have clarity on that is really hurting the program.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Dr. Pletl, it is being reinterpreted to mean 
that every pond that a farmer has on his ranch, his irrigation 
ditches, his drainage ditches, that those are somehow now in 
the scope of what was passed in the early seventies as meaning 
completely different. Do you have any idea how many millions of 
acre-feet of water are being flushed out of our stored areas 
and taken away from agriculture?
    In order to flush the bay delta--the delta is being flushed 
with so much of the water that could be used for people in 
agriculture. Instead, because of municipalities that have 
overflow from their sewer systems, all surrounding the San 
Francisco Bay area and even coming from upstream a little bit, 
municipalities, when their sewers overflow, water has to be 
taken from other people in order to make that equation come out 
somehow a little bit better on the parts per billion or million 
in the water in the bay area. What we are talking about here is 
an appropriation of water taken away from people making good 
production of it because others are polluting with it.
    What do you think about the need to do more in the San 
Francisco Bay area with those municipalities surrounding the 
bay?
    Ms. Southerland. What I will say is EPA cannot, by any 
rulemaking, take away all the many agricultural exemptions that 
are already provided for in the Clean Water Act. The Clean 
Water Act already envisioned your concern. They told the 
agricultural community, you don't have to apply for any permits 
on your farm ponds, on your irrigation ditches; you don't have 
to worry about gullies or puddles that form during stormwater. 
All of those, by statute, are limited----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Ma'am, I am sorry to interrupt. EPA, in 
concert with the Army Corps of Engineers, is doing that very 
thing in northern California. They are making people get 
permits to plow their land to change crops because of some 
waterways the United States interpretation that they are so far 
getting away with.
    Ms. Southerland. The Clean Water Act provides a full 
exemption from all farmland that has been previously farmed. It 
is only if you want to move into agriculture in an area that 
has never been farmed before like----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Ma'am, you need to let the EPA and the Army 
Corps of Engineers know about that----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. LaMalfa, your time is up.
    Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Because they're enforcing 
otherwise. Thank you.
    Sorry, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Ms. 
Southerland.
    Next we will go to Mr. Stanton, and then followed by Ms. 
Norton and Mr. Lowenthal.
    Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding 
this hearing. I want to thank each of the witnesses for your 
very important testimony.
    In the desert Southwest, climate change has caused a long-
term drought, and the reservoirs that supply water to the 
region, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, are at historically low 
levels, threatening the long-term sustainability of this 
critical water source.
    Southern Arizona in particular is heavily dependent on 
water delivered from the Colorado River, by way of the Central 
Arizona Project. Unfortunately, they are finding PFAS in 
groundwater, their only other reliable potable water source 
near the Air Force base and the Air National Guard installation 
in Tucson, and it is spreading throughout the community. As a 
result, the drinking water aquifer that serves over 700,000 
people is at risk.
    To add to the complications, Tucson is a closed basin water 
system with little to no surface water that can flush PFAS out 
of the basin, making the community even more vulnerable to PFAS 
contamination. The longer we wait to treat the PFAS 
contamination, the more at risk our water will be, and the more 
it will cost to clean up. And most importantly, PFAS-
contaminated water is water the city of Tucson cannot use, even 
in the middle of this historical drought.
    In addition to Tucson, thousands living near Luke Air Force 
Base in the Phoenix metropolitan area have had to use bottled 
water for drinking and cooking for most of this year after a 
high level of PFAS was found in their tap water.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides Federal 
funding for the treatment of PFAS. This is a start, and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues here on the committee to 
do even more to address this issue that affects one of our most 
precious resources, our water.
    I have a couple of questions for Dr. Southerland. Dr. 
Southerland, what else can be done to address PFAS 
contamination in areas that are particularly vulnerable due to 
long-term drought?
    Ms. Southerland. You know, I think the entire Superfund 
program had an initiative that was suspended during the 
previous administration, but they are picking back up on now, 
which is to evaluate every Superfund site for its vulnerability 
to climate change impacts, and that could be drought as in the 
hellish situation you have, or it could be flooding in the 
Northeast. And so, they are often running now on really trying 
to update all their evaluations of their contaminated sites.
    That is also going to be a major initiative of the Biden 
administration and EPA, to make sure every program--air, water, 
land--incorporates environmental justice concerns into their 
evaluations of new projects, not just the old ones like 
Superfund sites, but any new evaluations they do of community 
threats.
    Mr. Stanton. Dr. Southerland, what additional resources are 
needed to expedite the investigations and remediation of PFAS 
in communities like Tucson?
    Ms. Southerland. I think Congress has looked at special 
appropriations already for PFAS. I know they are working very 
carefully with the Department of Defense to make sure the 
Department of Defense addresses their contamination problems. I 
think they are far enough along now on DoD, they have done a 
lot of monitoring and they know where their problems exist, and 
now they just need the funds. And I think they have got a good 
start on that to start the cleanup.
    Mr. Stanton. I thank you very much.
    Mr. Kennedy, I am a former mayor of a city, so I have a lot 
of respect for town managers and city managers. My city manager 
saved my bacon many times when I was mayor of Phoenix.
    In your testimony, you discussed the challenges and efforts 
your community has faced in remediating PFAS in the drinking 
water. As I noted, the infrastructure bill includes investments 
to address PFAS in drinking water, specifically $5 billion to 
help small and disadvantage communities, $4 billion to help 
drinking water utilities remove PFAS from their supplies or 
connect well owners to local water systems. You did address it 
in your earlier testimony, but I will give you a chance to add 
some, if you would like.
    I would like to know what additional steps you think the 
Federal Government should take to assist smaller communities 
like your own which can face significant hurdles to implement 
necessary remediation?
    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, sir, for the question. I would say, 
amongst all the challenges we have, I think those funding 
opportunities are going to be a tremendous benefit to us. We 
are trying to leverage everything we can, be it working with 
our council of governments, other agencies, partnerships with 
other communities around us, trying to leverage better 
opportunities to secure that funding.
    We are looking at funding coming to North Carolina right 
now with some of those funds. We are lobbying to get in excess 
of the posted 3.07 percent. There are hundreds of millions of 
dollars of need in North Carolina.
    I run a very small utility. Our waterplant is only 2 
million gallons a day which, on the grand spectrum, is tiny. 
And we are looking at multiples of tens of millions of dollars. 
And so, when you apply this to the much larger facilities, it 
is an enormous amount of money. So, I think the funding streams 
that are identified so far are a huge help.
    I also believe that having tangible limits, the MCLs, 
having those be precise numbers will go a long way, because as 
we have looked to go towards kind of the product market and 
potential litigation to recoup costs that we are incurring, 
having recommendations removed and saying that there is an 
established standard will help us tremendously. Because just 
like if you are going down the highway or you go around a curve 
and there is a yellow sign says recommended speed is 45; well, 
the police officer is not going to pull you over for going 55. 
And so, we are experiencing that at the contamination level.
    There are recommendations, all of our numbers far exceed 
that, but from a tort claim or other types of product, having a 
precise number would be of great benefit to us.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you for your testimony, and thank you 
for your service.
    And I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Stanton.
    Ms. Norton, you follow. You are recognized.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I very much appreciate 
this important hearing, and I know how bipartisan the concern 
is about water in our country.
    This question is for Dr. Southerland. You warned that 
essentially, our Nation has a reactive system with public 
health waiting for a crisis to occur before we begin monitoring 
and considering it. My constituents here in the District of 
Columbia have only one water source, the Potomac River. That 
furnishes water to almost 5 million people in the DC 
metropolitan area. Meanwhile, there are other metropolitan 
areas, like New York and Los Angeles, that have a second one, 
and many are planning a third one.
    A contamination event in the Potomac River would affect all 
the major water utilities in this area, and that includes 
Federal infrastructure as well. In your opinion, would having a 
second source of water supply for the DC metropolitan area help 
to reduce the threat of high-risk, man-made chemicals 
contaminating our surface groundwater? Have you got any idea 
where we could get a secondary source?
    Ms. Southerland. Unfortunately, I don't. But that is an 
important backup system you definitely need. I know that the 
Chesapeake Bay Program is doing everything they can to really 
monitor closely for all kinds of contaminants to make sure the 
source water for DC's drinking water is as clean as possible, 
but it is a slow process and very complex.
    Ms. Norton. Are there a lot of other jurisdictions that 
have only one water supply?
    Ms. Southerland. I just don't have the information on that.
    Ms. Norton. That is an area, Madam Chair, that needs to be 
investigated, because that is a clear and present danger.
    My next question is for Mr. Moore. You have described how 
manufacturers of plastic largely divorce themselves from the 
issue of recovery. I am concerned about how our current system 
passes the responsibility of plastic waste on to individuals.
    We know that prevention efforts work better than recovery 
at reducing impacts on the environment, and there, of course, 
are prevention efforts like recycling, we have that here in the 
District of Columbia, but we fail to collect millions of tons 
of plastic waste each year worldwide. In what ways can 
Government regulation and oversight help shift the duty back to 
plastic producers and combat misleading claims of recyclability 
that some use to skirt responsibility for the waste they 
produce?
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Representative Norton, for that 
important question. The key is that products be what we call 
benign by design, that they have built into their plan of an 
afterlife for their product some infrastructure that can take 
it back and make it part of what we call a cradle-to-cradle 
production system, where these manufactured products are like 
biological products in the biological world, where natural 
substances turn back into compost and turn into trees.
    We need the manufactured plastics to come back into 
industry and become new products, and that infrastructure has 
not been created by the industries that produce the products. 
The cleanup has been externalized. It is much like what our 
colleagues have been talking about. The sewage treatment plants 
have to deal with products they have no role in producing. We 
have the municipalities have to deal with the refuse they have 
no role in creating.
    So benign by design, redesign of products, infrastructure 
as part of the productive process needs to be the mandate of 
kind [inaudible] thought. I like to use the term ``precycle,'' 
think before you produce, and make recycling part of the 
program.
    Ms. Norton. I understand it begins at the source.
    Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
    Mr. Lowenthal, followed by Mr. Delgado.
    Mr. Lowenthal.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I am going to follow up on some of the very important 
questions that were just raised by Representative Norton about 
our broken recycling system, and I will get to that in a 
minute.
    But I want to thank all the witnesses for your very 
important testimony. While these issues are complex, there 
seems to be a common thread in that the best way to address the 
toxic chemicals and the pollutants is to ensure that they don't 
get into our environment and waterways in the first place. That 
is really--and once these materials are produced, they burden 
our waste streams, like our local wastewater facilities; or 
worse, they pollute our environment and cause harms to our 
ecosystems and to our bodies.
    Because it is critically important that we ensure that 
these contaminants do not enter our waterways in the first 
place, I included several provisions in my bill, the Break Free 
from Plastic Pollution Act, to protect our environment, as well 
as municipal water districts from the downstream impacts. It 
also really has what is called extended producer 
responsibility. That is, instead of communities and individuals 
being responsible for the cleanup--because we know a tiny 
percentage of our recycle material actually gets recycled when 
we do it, just a fraction. I think lower or smaller than 3 
percent. So, this model is just broken.
    But I want to talk about what we can do also, in addition 
to making the producers responsible for it, for the funding of 
the recycling, for the design of the programs, for the managing 
of these programs, not leaving it up to the taxpayers to do 
that. But I also am interested very much in the proper labeling 
of plastic. And in the bill, it includes labeling of plastic 
wet wipes to ensure that they are not flushed; requirements of 
manufacturers to include microfiber filters in washing 
machines, because there is so much that ends up in our water 
system from our washing machines; and ensuring that toxic 
chemicals by having zero--and one thing by also having zero 
discharge of plastic pellets.
    What we see is that the producers of our plastic have been 
able to discharge millions and millions of plastic pellets into 
our waterways. There should be zero discharge of plastic 
pellets. And we have to ensure that toxic chemicals are no 
longer included in the manufacturing of plastic products that 
we use every day.
    So, Captain Moore, I want to go back to your statements 
that you mentioned before. Can you go into more detail 
regarding how plastic products, like single-use plastic, 
Styrofoam, and others break down into microplastics, 
nanoplastics, and how these can disrupt our ecosystems or, even 
worse, enter our bodies? Can you kind of explain to us a little 
bit about this process?
    Mr. Moore. In my testimony, I mentioned blowing and foaming 
agents. Polystyrene is heavier than water, but when it is blown 
and foamed in to make Styrofoam, it floats. And it floats 
because it has millions of tiny bubbles of air that create 
great insulation. That is why it delivers hot beverages and you 
don't feel the heat on a thin cup. It is hot on the inside, but 
you don't feel it on the outside because it is insulated by all 
this air.
    Well, when those things get left in the environment, they 
go through a breakdown process in which those thin walls crack, 
allowing the item to become water-logged, and then begins to 
sink, since the styrene is denser than water, and it begins to 
populate the entire water column. So, it undergoes a fracturing 
process, it becomes smaller particles. Those particles then 
look like food to marine creatures, gets consumed. And then it 
goes through the stage of becoming a micro or nanoplastic in 
which it becomes ingested voluntarily/involuntarily.
    Much of the feeding that goes on in the ocean is not 
looking and seeing and tasting and eating. It is a sweeping 
vacuuming action in which zooplankton have developed ways to 
sift water, and everything was considered to be food, 
biodegradable. But plastics, not being biodegradable, get swept 
up and become nonnutritive. So that is only one aspect of an 
answer to your question, but since we are out of time, but that 
would be a start.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Well, thank you, Captain Moore.
    And since I am out of time, I am going to yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal.
    Mr. Delgado, you may proceed.
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Delgado?
    Well, I believe he may not be on, so I guess I will have to 
go to myself.
    I will ask Dr. Huffling, your testimony states that 
chemicals need to be proven safe before being put on the 
market. Similarly, most of you agree, the position of the 
ranking member and I, that it is more cost effective to prevent 
these chemicals from entering the environment than to treat 
them afterwards.
    To all the panel, again, a yes or no will do, do you agree 
that more of the burden needs to be placed on those who 
manufacture or produce these chemicals than to leave the 
economic and environmental responsibility to the public?
    Ms. Southerland. I will start. Absolutely, yes.
    Mr. Kennedy. Madam Chair, yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Granek. Madam Chair, absolutely, yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Moore?
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Pletl?
    Mr. Pletl. Madam Chair, yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, it is very important that we 
consider this a very--not important--critical issue for all of 
us, and I trust in talking to my colleague, the ranking member, 
we need to have a followup hearing. Do you agree? We should 
have followup hearing with the industry to come and tell us 
what they are doing about preventing these chemicals from being 
put out to the general public.
    Anybody?
    Ms. Southerland. Yes.
    Ms. Huffling. Yes, that would be great.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, then, we--too many unknowns of the 
impact right now because a lot of these are not regulated, and 
my concern is too many cancers have been prevalent the last, I 
would say, two generations. The last 20 years it is just 
unbearable. And we also must have the agencies come together 
for quicker action and also provide funding to be able to help 
small communities deal with it. So, we propose at the next 
meeting, we will battle beyond the horizon, I hope. I think Mr. 
Rouzer and I agree that it is important enough to be able to 
clarify some of the questions that were brought up today.
    I am now closing because I am asking for unanimous consent 
that the record of today's hearing remain open until such a 
time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions 
that may be submitted to them in writing. And unanimous consent 
that the record remain open for 15 days for any additional 
comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses. 
Please, witnesses, any additional information, please send it 
to us to be included in the record of today's hearing.
    And, without objection, so ordered.
    I would suggest to all the Members, if you have any ideas 
for the next meeting that I would like to hold, and I think Mr. 
Rouzer agrees with me, please send them to us.
    I would like to thank all my witnesses very profusely for 
their insight and their testimony today.
    Then, if no other Members have anything to add, the 
committee stands adjourned.
    Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]


                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              


  Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress 
     from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chair Napolitano, and thank you to our witnesses for 
being here today.
    The topic of contaminants of emerging concern or ``CECs'' is not 
new to this committee--or to Congress.
    Congress has provided authorities to the EPA to address CECs. Over 
the last few years, interest in CECs has focused on a particular group 
of substances known as PFAS.
    Due to the vast number of PFAS compounds--and by ``vast'' I mean 
thousands--there is still much we do not know. We have more questions 
than answers.
    As this committee considers the most effective way to approach 
management of PFAS in our Nation's wastewater systems, it is critical 
Congress not just act to say we did `something'. Too often when 
Congress rushes to act it leads to doing more harm than good.
    I look forward to hearing an update today on PFAS, and other CECs, 
and how we can best equip our communities with the most up-to-date 
information and data about these compounds.
    Thank you, Chair Napolitano. I yield back.

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in 
                    Congress from the State of Texas
    Thank you, Subcommittee Chairwoman Napolitano, and Ranking Member 
Rouzer, for holding today's hearing on contaminants and the many 
serious water quality challenges we face today. I would also like to 
thank our panelists.
    Clearly, the issue of contamination in our water supply is one of 
extreme concern. Although the potential effects of many emerging 
contaminants or ``CECs'' on human health are still being studied, 
research has identified many adverse chronic effects that these 
contaminants have on other species.
    It is alarming that these potentially injurious water contaminants 
can enter the human body with relative ease, through ingestion, surface 
contact, or merely though the inhalation of vaporized water. Even more 
concerning is that those demonstrated to be most at risk are pregnant 
women, infants, and children, and those with suppressed immune systems: 
our most vulnerable populations.
    In my congressional district, Texas' 30th, the United States 
Geological Survey (USGS), along with the Dallas Water Utility is 
conducting a study on the Trinity River. In this study, USGS' Texas 
Water Science Center is collecting and analyzing samples from inflows 
and outflows of five Dallas water treatment plants and five sites in 
the Trinity River for pharmaceuticals and other compounds of emerging 
concern. Along with many residents in the Dallas area, I am anxious to 
see the results of this study to find out if there are any salient 
items of concern that may impact my constituents and how they could be 
addressed.

                                 
Letter of October 6, 2021, from Advance Carolina et al., Submitted for 
                 the Record by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
                                                   October 6, 2021.
Sent via Email

Administrator Michael Regan,
Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460, 
        [Redacted]@epa.gov

    Dear Administrator Regan:
    Thank you for making a commitment to aggressively address per- and 
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination as Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    On behalf of our members, partners, and community advocates across 
the country, we urge you to include strong commitments to curb 
industrial releases of the toxic ``forever chemicals'' known as PFAS in 
the upcoming PFAS Road Map being developed by the EPA. Our groups are 
on record strongly supporting the Clean Water Standards for PFAS Act of 
2021, a bill that would establish deadlines for EPA to determine how to 
address industrial discharges of PFAS under the Clean Water Act, which 
was included the bipartisan PFAS Action Act of 2021 and PFAS Action Act 
of 2020 as well as H.R. 3684, the INVEST in America Act, which have all 
passed the House.
    As you know, PFAS are a family of over 5,000 synthetic compounds 
used in a variety of industrial processes and consumer products from 
non-stick cookware to stain-resistant coatings and grease-proof 
packaging. Often referred to as ``forever chemicals,'' PFAS chemicals 
are extremely persistent in the environment and the human body, and 
many have been linked at very low doses to serious health harms, 
including cancer, damage to the reproductive and immune system, 
reducing the efficacy of vaccines, and thyroid and kidney disease.
    According to recent analysis, nearly 30,000 industrial facilities 
could be discharging PFAS into the air and water. Industrial discharges 
of PFAS waste threaten the drinking water for millions of Americans, 
including vulnerable communities in Latino, low-income, rural and 
environmental justice communities who are already overburdened by 
pollution. While some states like Michigan have taken steps to curb 
industrial discharges, most have not. Unfortunately, recent action by 
EPA falls short of what is needed to sufficiently address industrial 
discharges of PFAS both in terms of scope and urgency.
    As Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental 
Quality, you took enforcement action against The Chemours Company to 
compel them to control their PFAS discharges. Now we urge you to 
protect communities across the country just as you did for communities 
in North Carolina.
    Your enforcement action was based on a simple premise--PFAS 
dischargers must disclose their pollution to permitting agencies before 
they can be allowed to contaminate our streams and rivers. If EPA made 
clear that this existing legal requirement applies to PFAS, dischargers 
across the country would be forced to take responsibility for their 
pollution. EPA should also learn from the cleanup happening under the 
Chemours Consent Order. The technology that Chemours has applied to 
nearly eliminate PFAS discharges in many instances can be used in case-
by-case technology-based effluent limit determinations to clean up 
rivers across the country while EPA prepares nationwide effluent 
limitation guidelines. EPA should require use of these tools across the 
country.
    Earlier this month, EPA released its Preliminary Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan 15. While we recognize that this is a positive 
first step, Plan 15 excludes most of the industry categories that are 
making the PFAS pollution challenge even bigger--despite the well 
documented risks posed by PFAS exposure in humans and our environment. 
Plan 15 also fails to set deadlines for new standards. We find this 
extremely disappointing.
    By contrast, the U.S. House of Representative has twice passed 
bipartisan legislation that would require the EPA to set PFAS standards 
for nine industry categories within four years. We believe that 
anything less ambitious than the standards endorsed by the House would 
fall short of what communities struggling with PFAS pollution expect 
from EPA.
    We urge you to finalize a robust PFAS Road Map that shifts 
responsibility for stopping the ongoing PFAS crisis to polluters. We 
encourage EPA to use existing authorities to require disclosure of PFAS 
and use of technology to control discharges, set a PFAS drinking water 
standard, quickly set nationwide standards to restrict industrial 
releases of PFAS, designate PFAS as hazardous substances, end needless 
uses of PFAS, and ensure that PFAS wastes are properly disposed.
    Thank you for your ongoing leadership in addressing the PFAS 
contamination crisis, and we hope the EPA's upcoming PFAS Road Map will 
include a commitment to expand efforts to curb industrial releases of 
PFAS.
        Sincerely,
Advance Carolina.
Advocates for a Clean Lake Erie.
Alabama Rivers Alliance.
Alabama State Association of Cooperatives.
Alaska Community Action on Toxics.
Alianza Nacional de Campesinas.
Alliance for the Great Lakes.
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.
American Sustainable Business Council.
Anthropocene Alliance.
Black Warrior Riverkeeper.
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners.
Cahaba River Society.
Cahaba Riverkeeper.
Cape Fear River Watch.
Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation.
Center for Biological Diversity.
Center for Environmental Health.
Center for Progressive Reform.
Center for Public Environmental Oversight.
Charleston Waterkeeper.
Children's Environmental Health Network.
Choctawhatchee Riverkeeper.
Choices Interlinking.
Church of the Living God.
Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger (CSWAB).
Clean Cape Fear.
Clean Water Action.
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life.
Common Ground Consulting, LLC.
Community Action Works Campaigns.
Community Water Center.
Congaree Riverkeeper.
Consumer Reports.
Coosa Riverkeeper.
Crawford Stewardship Project.
Defend Our Health.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network.
Duke University.
Earthjustice.
Eastern Panhandle (WV) Green Coalition.
Ecology Center.
Endangered Habitats League.
Environment America.
Environmental Justice Task Force in Tucson.
Environmental Protection Network.
Environmental Working Group.
Family Farm Defenders.
Fannie Lou Hamer Center for Change.
Fight For Zero.
Food & Water Watch.
For Love of Water (FLOW).
Friends of the Detroit River/Detroit River Public Advisory Council.
Friends of the Rivers of Virginia.
Friends of Toppenish Creek.
Gas Free Seneca.
Great Lakes PFAS Action Network.
Green Science Policy Institute.
GreenCAPE.
GreenLatinos.
Gunpowder RIVERKEEPER.
Harpeth River Conservancy.
Haw River Assembly.
Healthy Gulf.
Hometown Action.
Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited.
Kentucky Resources Council.
Kootenai Environmental Alliance.
League of Conservation Voters.
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).
Living Rivers & Colorado Riverkeeper.
Los Angeles Waterkeeper.
Louisiana Green Corps.
Lynnhaven River NOW.
Massachusetts Rivers Alliance.
Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water.
Miami Waterkeeper.
Michigan League of Conservation Voters.
Midwest Environmental Advocates.
Military Poisons.
Milwaukee Riverkeeper.
Mississippi Rising Coalition.
Mississippi River Collaborative.
Missouri Confluence Waterkeeper.
Missouri NAACP.
Moms for a Nontoxic New York.
Mountain Watershed Association.
MountainTrue.
Nantucket Land Council, Inc.
National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association.
National Wildlife Federation.
Natural Resources Defense Council.
NJ Audubon.
Ogeechee Riverkeeper.
Oregon Environmental Council.
OVEC-Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
Pax Christi USA, New Orleans.
Peconic Baykeeper.
Pennsylvania Council of Churches.
People's Justice Council.
PfoaProjectNY.
Physicians for Social Responsibility.
PolicyLink.
Potomac Riverkeeper Network.
Public Interest Research Group.
Puget Soundkeeper.
Rachel Carson Council.
River Network.
Riverkeeper.
Rockbridge Area Conservation Council.
Rogue Riverkeeper.
Rural Advancement Fund of the National Sharecroppers Fund, Inc.
Rural Coalition.
Safer States.
San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper.
Satilla Riverkeeper.
Save RGV.
Save The Sound.
SC Idle No More, SCIAC.
Science and Environmental Health Network.
Seneca Lake Guardian.
Sierra Club.
Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (Northeastern 
University).
Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project.
Southern Environmental Law Center.
SouthWings.
St. Johns Riverkeeper.
Steps Coalition.
Suncoast Waterkeeper.
Surfrider Foundation.
Sustain Charlotte.
Sustainable Agriculture of Louisville.
Tennessee Riverkeeper.
TerraScapes Environmental.
Testing for Pease.
The Downstream Project.
The People's Justice Council.
The Rising Youth.
The Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans.
Three Rivers Waterkeeper.
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council.
Tree Fredericksburg.
Turtle Island Restoration Network.
Twin Harbors Waterkeeper.
Union of Concerned Scientists.
Verde.
Vermont Conservation Voters.
Waterkeeper Alliance.
Waterkeepers Chesapeake.
Waterway Advocates.
WE ACT for Environmental Justice.
West Virginia Rivers Coalition.
Winyah Rivers Alliance.
Wisconsin EcoLatinos.
Women's Voices for the Earth.
WV Citizen Action Group.
Your Turnout Gear and PFOA.
Zero Waste Washington.

CC:  Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator for the EPA
     Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water
     Brenda Mallory, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental 
Quality

                                 
 Statement of Robert C. Ferrante, Chief Engineer and General Manager, 
 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Submitted for the Record by 
                        Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
    Thank you to Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairwoman 
Napolitano and Ranking Member Rouzer, and all members of the 
Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this testimony. As the Chief 
Engineer and General Manager for the Los Angeles County Sanitation 
Districts (Sanitation Districts), I submit this testimony today to 
highlight our concerns about the potential effects of Per- and 
polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS) on wastewater agencies such as ours. 
The Sanitation Districts support the testimony previously provided by 
Dr. James Pletl on behalf of the National Association of Clean Water 
Agencies (NACWA) and submit this testimony to highlight our concerns 
and recommendations.
    By way of background, the Sanitation Districts provide wastewater 
and solid waste management services to approximately 5.6 million people 
in 78 cities and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. We have 
been supplying recycled water to water agencies in our service area 
since the early 1960s, and we now supply approximately 100,000 acre-
feet annually for groundwater replenishment, agricultural use, 
industrial use and landscape irrigation use at over 800 sites.
    PFAS are a class of thousands of compounds with a wide array of 
uses, such as non-stick cookware and many types of industrial and 
consumer products, water repellent products, fire-fighting foams, 
cosmetics and cleaning products. Manufacturers have been utilizing PFAS 
in their production for decades, and during this time, scientific 
understanding of the potential health and environmental impacts has 
continued to be developed. PFAS compounds are persistent and 
bioaccumulative, and for these reasons are known as ``forever 
chemicals.'' PFAS compounds are ubiquitous in the environment and can 
now be detected in the parts per trillion range.
    Drinking water treatment systems and wastewater treatment 
facilities are not ``producers'' or manufacturers of PFAS, and these 
essential public service providers do not utilize or profit from PFAS 
chemicals. Rather, we are ``receivers'' of these chemicals, which are 
used by all types of industries and everyday consumers, and merely 
convey and/or manage the traces of PFAS coming into our systems daily 
through society's ubiquitous use of PFAS in thousands of products.
    In southern California, as in other parts of the country, many 
water supply agencies, pumpers and purveyors have had to take 
groundwater wells out of service due to PFAS detections and are taking 
steps to both find (and pay for) alternative short-term water 
supplies--which is especially challenging yet critical during the 
current drought conditions--while they develop PFAS remediation 
programs. These remediation programs are already anticipated to cost 
hundreds of millions of dollars in Los Angeles and Orange Counties 
alone, and as more human health protection thresholds are set at very 
low levels for drinking water and more water quality testing data for 
PFAS become available, the cost is very likely to grow significantly.
    Every day the Sanitation Districts focus on advancing our mission 
``[t]o protect public health and the environment through innovative and 
cost-effective wastewater and solid waste management, and in doing so, 
convert waste into resources such as recycled water, energy, and 
recycled materials.'' We do this through maintenance and care of our 
infrastructure, as well as via forward thinking innovation and use of 
technologies to ensure protection of public health and the environment 
today and into the future. Additionally, we seek to maximize resource 
recovery, and we have been recognized as a ``Utility of the Future'' 
for the past five years in large part due to these efforts. As much as 
anything else, the increasingly widespread detection of PFAS in the 
environment may threaten the continued viability of these resource 
recovery programs by undermining public confidence in recycled water 
and biosolids quality. We believe that now is the time for action and 
we join others in recommending that Congress take bold action to phase 
out the use of PFAS compounds in non-essential products and 
applications. Only by phasing out the use of PFAS in the next few years 
will we be able to get out in front of this metastasizing problem.
    We work hard to ensure that rates are affordable, especially for 
our customers in disadvantaged areas. The technology options to treat 
for PFAS in wastewater are limited and costly, and at this time cannot 
completely remove PFAS from the wastewater. As noted in Dr. Pletl's 
testimony, there is not currently (nor is there expected to be in the 
very near future) a cost-effective way of treating for PFAS in 
wastewater, at least in part due to the sheer volume that would entail. 
In addition to concerns about the potential human health and 
environmental impacts of PFAS in wastewater and its byproducts such as 
biosolids and recycled water, it is also of great concern that without 
cost-effective treatment technologies and readily available means of 
managing treatment residuals, the financial burden will lay with our 
customers. This amounts to the public, who are our customers and your 
constituents, subsidizing this pollution by manufacturers.
    The Sanitation Districts supports the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency's (EPA) scientific evaluation of the effects of PFAS on human 
health and the environment. Further, the Sanitation Districts support 
EPA's development of standards for the pretreatment, remediation, and 
regulation of PFAS to reflect a ``polluter pay'' approach, one that 
will ensure that the financial burden will not be shifted to our 
customers while manufacturers avoid responsibility and still continue 
to use PFAS in an ever-increasing array of products. An unintended 
consequence of a traditional designation under CERCLA as a hazardous 
substance may be that local public agencies could end up subsidizing 
manufacturers' liability, as public utilities such as the Sanitation 
Districts and other water and wastewater agencies could be deemed to be 
responsible parties in the clean-up of PFAS in groundwater. As a 
provider of over 100,000 acre-feet of recycled water a year, and with 
significantly more recycled water projects in development, the 
Sanitation Districts want to ensure that those who rely on that water 
can continue to receive it. This is an even more urgent priority than 
in the past, due to the extreme drought conditions gripping the Western 
United States at this time. We respectfully request that Congress 
consider all of these intertwined issues as it considers legislation to 
address the very important, yet multi-faceted, PFAS issue.
    Thank you again to Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, 
Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Rouzer, and all members of the 
Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this testimony. The Los 
Angeles County Sanitation Districts look forward to continuing to work 
with the Subcommittee and entire House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee on addressing contaminants of emerging concern 
and PFAS.

                                 
 Statement of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, 
          Submitted for the Record by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
    The Water Replenishment District (WRD) is the largest groundwater 
management agency in California, established in 1959 by a vote of the 
people. The boundaries of WRD encompass 420-square miles and 43 cities 
in southern Los Angeles County. There are over four million people in 
WRD's service area who use about 82 billion gallons of groundwater a 
year, which accounts for nearly half of the region's water supply.
    WRD manages robust water treatment programs to support water 
providers. WRD's Safe Drinking Water Program (SDWP) supports water 
providers seeking to acquire funding for water treatment. WRD's 
Disadvantaged Communities Program (DAC) works with water providers in 
low-income communities to submit competitive applications for grants to 
remediate wells affected by contaminants. WRD has secured millions of 
dollars in grants to remediate groundwater, ensuring continued access 
to affordable and high-quality groundwater.
    WRD is grateful for the Committee's ongoing attention to the 
important issue of water quality and appreciates the opportunity to 
work closely with you to address contaminants of emerging concern. As 
you know, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states exposure to 
unsafe levels of certain PFAS substances may result in adverse health 
effects. This is because PFAS are bioaccumulatory; these substances can 
build up in the human body. While the human body has difficulties 
breaking down PFAS, these ``forever chemicals'' are also persistent in 
the environment. Consequently, it is costly and difficult to eliminate 
PFAS from water supplies. Federal investments in PFAS remediation are 
urgently needed to remediate PFAS-affected wells.
    WRD's approach to water remediation is to act quickly and treat 
wells affected by contaminants before it spreads. This is why the WRD 
Board of Directors voted to approve a $34 million Per- and 
Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) Remediation Program last year. Due to demand for 
funding the district is now considering expanding the program to 
provide at least $61 million to affected water providers.
    On February 6, 2020, the California Department of Drinking Water 
announced the response level (RL) of 10 parts per trillion for PFOA and 
40 parts per trillion for PFOS based on a running four-quarter average. 
These levels were released as part of AB 756, a bill signed into law in 
California that requires provisions related to PFAS levels be released 
to monitor PFAS and to notify the public about the quality of water 
being delivered to customers.
    Per state directives, PFAS was identified in over 34 wells managed 
by 13 different water purveyors with PFOS and/or PFOA contaminants 
above California's regulatory Response Level (RL). Water purveyors with 
PFAS-affected wells above the RL must notify the public about the well 
or remove the well out of use. WRD's PFAS Remediation Program provides 
the institutional support small and/or disadvantaged water purveyors 
need to treat PFAS-affected wells and maintain an uninterrupted supply 
of water for their customers.
    Although we cannot see them, groundwater aquifers are immense 
natural reserves that are susceptible to contamination. Water 
percolates from surface water into these aquifers, where contaminants 
like PFAS can move throughout groundwater basins. To maintain healthy 
groundwater levels, WRD deposits water into the Montebello Spreading 
Grounds where water percolates from the surface into deep groundwater 
aquifers. PFAS have contaminated water in these aquifers and can 
migrate to downstream wells. Extracting and remediating PFAS is 
essential for the protection, health and safety of the groundwater 
basins.
    After successful stakeholder outreach, WRD received applications 
from cities and water providers to remediate dozens of PFAS-affected 
wells. WRD's PFAS Remediation Program offers clear benefits to the 
community. The program:
      Supports water purveyors in extracting and treating 
groundwater contaminated by PFAS
      Helps ensure an uninterrupted supply of groundwater
      Protects groundwater basins from further harm that could 
arise from contaminant migration
      Preserves groundwater for four million people and reduces 
community exposure to PFAS

    To ensure PFAS remediation in WRD's service area and beyond is 
successful, federal investments in treating PFAS are urgently needed. 
PFAS can be found in manufacturing facilities, landfills, wastewater 
treatment plants, and animals in areas where PFAS buildup persists over 
time. These substances comprise a family of approximately 5,000 human-
produced chemicals that are used in a variety of products and 
applications including:
      Non-stick cooking supplies
      Water repellent products
      Fire-fighting foams
      Cleaning products
      Electronics manufacturing
      Certain types of packaging

    In the US, manufacturers have phased out select PFAS chemicals. 
However, PFAS chemicals can still be manufactured internationally, 
where they are used for various consumer products. This means PFAS may 
continue to enter our air, water, soil, and environment.
    If water providers are solely responsible for the cleanup of PFAS, 
costs will be passed down to consumers, likely increasing rates and 
costs of water. WRD's PFAS Remediation Program will only cover a 
fraction of the costs needed to fully remediate PFAS. Therefore, 
immediate action and investments are needed to remediate PFAS-affected 
wells.
    WRD would like to thank the Committee for hosting a hearing on this 
important issue. Please know that WRD is available to serve as a 
resource to the Committee and we welcome any opportunity to work with 
you and the Biden Administration on water quality issues.

                                 
 Letter of May 18, 2021, from Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, Member of 
  Congress, to EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan, Submitted for the 
                Record by Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon
                                                      May 18, 2021.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of the Administrator,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Mailing Code 1101A, Washington, DC 
        20460.

    Dear Administrator Regan:
    Congratulations on your recent nomination to serve our country as 
the 16th Administrator of the EPA. I am writing you to request that 
your agency review the water quality drinking standards for perchlorate 
and issue new standards if appropriate.
    As you know, I am the sole representative in Congress for more than 
3 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico. Approximately 8,300 
of those citizens live on the island of Vieques. In 2007, certain water 
quality tests demonstrated perchlorate levels of 160 g/l, and more 
recently in 2014, levels of 94 g/l.
    I ask that the EPA review the relevant science and issue a new 
standard for perchlorate, if necessary. Finally, I would like to 
inquire into whether the EPA has looked at current or historical 
groundwater use patterns by citizens during emergencies, such as 
Hurricane Maria and Irma in 2017. I look forward to continuing to work 
with the Environmental Protection Agency to issue guidelines that 
prevent harms arising from contaminated water, soils, and air. Nowhere 
is this issue more important for me than on the island of Vieques and 
the broader Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Area. I look forward to 
your timely response.
        Sincerely,
                                  Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
                                        Member of Congress (PR-AL).

                                 
 Memo of December 7, 2020, from B.D. Weiss, Commanding Officer, Naval 
 Air Station Jacksonville, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jenniffer 
                             Gonzalez-Colon
                                                              6000,
                                                        SerN00/436,
                                                          7 Dec 20.
From:       Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station Jacksonville
To:         Building Occupants

Subj:       RELOCATABLE OVER-THE-HORIZON RADAR SITE, VIEQUES ISLAND, 
PUERTO RICO PERFLUOROALKYL AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES SAMPLING

    1.  The safety and health of our personnel at the Relocatable Over-
the-Horizon Radar site, Vieques Island, Puerto Rico is our top 
priority. I am writing to inform you of the results of the drinking 
water testing conducted in Building 1 on 6 October 2020 in response to 
the March 2020 Secretary of Defense Policy for Perfluoroalkyl and 
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) sampling in Department of Defense-
owned water systems.
    2.  By this letter, I am informing you that drinking water testing 
results identified 6 of the 18 PFAS compounds were detected above the 
method reporting limit (MRL) but that evidence of Perfluoroctanoic Acid 
and Perfluoroctanoic Sulfate in the building was below the levels set 
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency health advisory
    3.  In an effort to ensure the safety and health of our military 
and civilian personnel, Department of Defense policy requires this 
testing, despite PFAS being considered ``emerging contaminants'' for 
which there are no Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory standards. Based 
on the sampling results, the Navy will conduct one year of quarterly 
sampling and then bi-annually thereafter until all results are below 
the MRL.
    4.  If you have any immediate concerns, please contact Jens Sapin 
[phone number and email redacted].
                                                B.D. Weiss.

                                 
   Letter of May 31, 2021, from Doriel Pagan Crespo, Eng., Executive 
President, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, Submitted for the 
                Record by Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon
                                                      May 31, 2021.
Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez,
Resident Commissioner,
Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 
        20515-5400.

    Dear Resident Commissioner:
    We acknowledge receipt of your request regarding the use of wells 
in the Municipality of Vieques. The Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer 
Authority (PRASA) does not currently supply potable water from wells on 
Vieques. PRASA had nineteen (19) wells in the southern area of the 
municipality island, they were put out of operation due to saline 
intrusion and with the construction of the pipeline from the mainland 
in 1976.


    Two (2) of them, in battery A, are kept out of operation temporary 
and have a meter for electric power service, however at the moment, 
they cannot distribute drinking water.


    Wells A-1 and A-2 that are kept out of operation temporary require 
important improvements to enter in service including an emergency 
generator, full laboratory analysis to verify water quality and 
inspections by regulatory agencies in order to be used as a source of 
potable water in the Vieques municipality. During an emergency, PRASA 
provides drinking water through tanker trucks that are brought from the 
Island.
    If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to 
contact us.
        Sincerely,
                                 Doriel Pagan Crespo, Eng.,
     Executive President, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority.


                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


 Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to James J. Pletl, Ph.D., Director, 
 Water Quality Department, Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Virginia 
 Beach, Virginia, on behalf of the National Association of Clean Water 
                                Agencies

    Question 1. Please provide your assessment of the Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15? \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, EPA, available at 
https://www.epa.gov/eg/preliminary-effluent-guidelines-program-plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a.  Specifically, where are the research and information gaps?
    b.  Further, please elaborate on the role of innovation is 
finalizing the plan.
    Answer. ELG Plan 15 includes the actions planned by EPA to address 
PFAS discharges from industries. The Plan identifies the industries for 
which EPA will develop effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards 
for reducing PFAS discharges, and the industries which EPA will 
continue to study to determine if effluent guidelines and pretreatment 
standards are necessary.
    As EPA develops the regulations and continues its studies, the 
Agency will collect more information about the PFAS discharged by these 
industries, the control technologies that can be used, and the costs 
associated with implementing these technologies. Additional research is 
still needed to determine the environmental and human health risks of 
the PFAS discharges so that appropriate levels of control can be 
required. The effectiveness of control technologies also needs further 
research. But it is impossible to evaluate the risks and controls 
unless a consistent, reliable analytical test method is used for 
determining PFAS concentrations in wastewater, biosolids and air. EPA's 
Method 1633 must therefore be finalized before effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards can be developed and industrial monitoring can 
begin.
    The draft ELG Plan 15 outlines EPA's actions related to effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards, and the finalized Plan will 
consider public comments and any additional information that EPA 
obtains while finalizing the Plan. Innovation will therefore not play 
an important role in the finalization of the Plan, but it will 
certainly be an important consideration as EPA develops the regulations 
for PFAS-discharging industries. Innovation is needed for more 
effective and cost-efficient treatment technologies, and for developing 
substitutes where appropriate for PFAS that remain in use in some 
industries.

    Question 2. On September 2, 2021, EPA and the Department of 
Department (DOD) collaboratively announced the approval of a new 
single-laboratory validated analytical method 1633--to test for Per- 
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in various environmental 
media.\2\ This method can test for 40 PFAS compounds in wastewater, 
surface water, groundwater, soil, biosolids, and more.\3\ However, the 
agencies did not publish the corresponding validation study report on 
the precision, bias, or sensitivity of this method, which is counter to 
longstanding agency policy and raises concerns since EPA has approved 
it for use in individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permits. Please elaborate on why ensuring EPA's 
analytical method development in a fully transparent manner is so key?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Press Release, EPA Announces First Validated Laboratory Method 
to Test for PFAS in Wastewater, Surface Water, Groundwater, Soils, EPA, 
Sept. 2, 2021, available at https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-
announces-first-validated-laboratory-method-test-pfas-wastewater-
surface-water.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. A multi-lab validated, Clean Water Act-promulgated 
analytical method is needed for wastewater utilities to implement ELGs 
and pretreatment standards. EPA must ensure that utilities can have 
confidence in its method and the data collected.
    To date, EPA has not released the single-lab validation report for 
Method 1633, yet as you mention EPA has already given state regulatory 
authorities the green light to begin to incorporate this analytical 
method into NPDES permits for monitoring and collecting PFAS data. This 
is problematic without knowing whether this method passes muster within 
a single laboratory or between laboratories--especially at such low 
levels. It will be costly for permittees to incorporate and may not 
return reliable data. Therefore, EPA needs to release the single-lab 
validation report for comment and complete and report on the multi-lab 
study that will follow with its own public comment period, all based on 
this analytical method, to provide utilities and the public confidence 
in their testing procedures and that ratepayer dollars are being put to 
use in the best way possible. If the analytical method needs 
improvement to provide the most reliable data, we must achieve this 
confidence first before collecting data that might not be truly 
representative of PFAS levels.
    This is especially important now that EPA has released its PFAS 
Roadmap--which specifically states it plans to ``leverage NPDES 
permitting to reduce PFAS discharges in waterways'' and will propose 
monitoring requirements for federally-issued wastewater and stormwater 
permits to better understand where PFAS is expected or suspected to be 
present in discharges. EPA is further proposing to issue guidance for 
states that will ``recommend the full suite of permitting approaches.''
    The PFAS Roadmap further indicates that the multi-laboratory 
validated method will not be available until Fall 2022 and is unclear 
whether public comment on the method will occur before the Agency 
initiates a rulemaking to promulgate this method under the Clean Water 
Act. It is imperative that the Agency is transparent throughout its 
analytical development process to ensure the process provides the most 
reliable data and scientific confidence. Clean Water Act and Clean Air 
Act permittee liability associated with data reported to regulatory 
agencies demands reliable data.

                              [all]