[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]