[Senate Hearing 117-515]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-515
EXAMINING FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS PFAS
CONTAMINATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 9, 2021
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-439 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ALEX PADILLA, California MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
Zachary I. Schram, Chief Counsel
Lena C. Chang, Director of Governmental Affairs
Chelsea A. Davis, Professional Staff Member
Emily Manna, Professional Staff Member
Jaqlyn E. Alderete, Research Assistant
Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director
Andrew Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director
Clyde E. Hicks Jr., Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
Lydia Denis, Minority Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Rob
Portman
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Peters............................................... 1
Senator Carper............................................... 13
Senator Hassan............................................... 15
Senator Rosen................................................ 17
Senator Portman.............................................. 19
Senator Ossoff............................................... 22
Senator Padilla.............................................. 24
Senator Scott................................................ 27
Prepared statements:
Senator Peters............................................... 45
Senator Portman.............................................. 47
WITNESSES
Thursday, December 9, 2021
WITNESSES
Thursday, October 21, 2021
Hon. Sean O'Donnell, Inspector General, Environmental Protection
Agency, and Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Defense........................................................ 3
Michael J. Rorark, Deputy Inspector General for Evaluations, U.S.
Department of Defense.......................................... 5
Richard G. Kidd, Depuyty Assistant Secretary for Environment and
Energy Resilience, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Sustainment, U.S. Department of Defense........................ 7
Laura Macaluso, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Force
Safety and Occupational Health, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense............ 8
Anthony M. Spaniola, Co-Chair, Great Lakes PFAS Action Network... 33
Andrea Amico, Co-Founder, Testing for Pease...................... 34
Mark Johnson, Deputy Director of Business and Regulatory Affairs,
Environmental Protection Agency, State of Ohio................. 36
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Amico, Andrea.:
Testimony.................................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Johnson, Mark:
Testimony.................................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Kidd, Richard G.:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Macaluso, Laura:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 66
O'Donnell, Hon. Sean:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Joint prepared statement..................................... 49
Rorark, Michael J.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Joint prepared statement..................................... 49
Spaniola, Anthony M.:
Testimony.................................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 73
APPENDIX
Additional statements for the Record:............................
Mr. Kidd follow-up to Senator Ossoff............................. 93
Doris C Brock, Wife of a Deceased Air National Guard member
(CMSGT Kendall W Brock)........................................ 108
Mitchell Minor Story............................................. 110
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Mr. O'Donnell/Mr. Roark...................................... 112
Mr. Kidd..................................................... 122
Ms. Macaluso................................................. 133
EXAMINING FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS PFAS CONTAMINATION
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., via
Webex and in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon.
Gary Peters, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Peters, Carper, Hassan, Sinema, Rosen,
Padilla, Ossoff, Portman, Johnson, Lankford, Scott, and Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETERS\1\
Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix
on page 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we begin I want to recognize and honor former
Senator Majority Leader Bob Dole, an American hero who put his
life on the line in service to his nation and certain a giant
here in the Senate, and just genuinely a really good man. As we
reflect on the passing of a true, life-long public servant I
wanted to ask that we take a brief moment of silence to
remember his honorable legacy.
[Pause.]
Thank you. I also wanted to offer my condolences to his
family, friends, and colleagues, and note that Ranking Member
Portman and several of our Senate colleagues are currently
paying their respects at the arrival ceremony in the Capitol
Rotunda. They will join us later this morning.
Communities in my home State of Michigan, and across the
country, have been grappling with exposure to harmful highly
fluorinated chemicals, known as polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS). They are also known as ``forever chemicals.'' PFAS do
not break down naturally in the environment, and while these
chemicals are used in many consumer products, they are also a
key ingredient in many firefighting foams that have been widely
used on military installations across the country.
Exposure to these chemicals, whether through contact with
firefighting foam or contamination found in groundwater
sources, presents serious health and environmental risks to
first responders, servicemembers, their families, and the
communities surrounding military sites.
In Michigan, I have seen firsthand how PFAS contamination
can cause serious harm to our communities. For example, the
residents of Oscoda, Michigan, which is home to the former
Wurtsmith Air Force Base (AFB), have been exposed to harmful
PFAS substances in their groundwater and waterways, including
at Van Etten Lake, for many years.
I have long pushed for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to do more
to engage with the community and to address this serious
contamination at Wurtsmith, and to prevent further harm to the
people and the environment of Oscoda.
Unfortunately, Oscoda is not alone. There are contaminated
sites throughout Michigan, including Camp Grayling, Selfridge
Air National Guard Base, the K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base, the
Alpena Regional Airport, and in States across the country.
Residents in each of these affected communities are asking us
to help protect their health, their loved ones, and their
water.
Today, we will discuss a recent Inspector General (IG)
report that found that the Department of Defense (DOD) did not
take sufficient action to limit this unnecessary, and
unacceptable, exposure to PFAS.
According to this report, despite having information that
PFAS exposure presented concerning health and environmental
risks, the Department of Defense failed to warn servicemembers,
their families, and local communities about these potential
risks for five years, unnecessarily putting them in harm's way.
The Department of Defense has also been reluctant to accept
responsibility for their role in contributing to the PFAS
contamination crisis, and have been slow to take vital actions
that would help limit further exposure to these very dangerous
substances.
The Department also lacks a comprehensive approach across
all its branches to better coordinate efforts to identify areas
of contamination, mitigate exposure, and cleanup PFAS
contamination, including from sources that go well beyond
firefighting foams.
Despite these serious shortcomings, I appreciate the
Department has taken some important steps to better address
PFAS contamination. The Department has begun identifying some
of the populations who have been exposed and conducting blood
tests among firefighters.
Moving forward there is more the Department can do to
expand their blood testing to better track long-term health
consequences of PFAS contamination.
Finally, the Department of Defense must do more to work
collaboratively with communities and State and local
stakeholders who have suffered from PFAS contamination over the
years.
State officials in Michigan and elsewhere have done
important work to test for PFAS, map contaminationsites, and
begin remediation efforts. We will hear more about these
efforts in our second panel today, but the Department of
Defense must build better partnerships with State experts, with
advocates, and those who are leading the charge to address
these serious challenges.
I look forward to hearing from the Inspector General and
Defense Department officials today about this important report,
and what else must be done to protect our servicemembers and
communities from the devastating impacts of PFAS exposure.
With that is the practice of this Committee to swear in
witnesses, so if you will each stand and raise your right hand
please.
Do you swear the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. O'Donnell. I do.
Mr. Roark. I do.
Mr. Kidd. I do.
Ms. Macaluso. I do.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. You may be seated.
Thank you. Our first witness is Sean O'Donnell. Mr.
O'Donnell serves as the Acting Inspector General of the
Department of Defense and is also the Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. O'Donnell
previously served at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for
15 years, most recently as a prosecutor in the Criminal
Division's Money-Laundering and Asset Recovery Section.
Early in his career, Mr. O'Donnell clerked for U.S. Circuit
Judge Raymond Gruender on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit and U.S. District Judge Henry Lee Hudspeth on
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Mr. O'Donnell, welcome to the Committee. You may proceed
with your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SEAN O'DONNELL,\1\ INSPECTOR
GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND ACTING INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. O'Donnell. Good morning, Chairman Peters, Ranking
Member Portman, and distinguished Members of the Committee.
Thank you for inviting us here to discuss the DOD Office of
Inspector General (OIG's) report on the DOD's handling of per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances. I am both the Inspector General
of the EPA and the Acting Inspector General of the DOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The joint prepared statement of Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Roarke
appears in the Appendix on page 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my comments I will briefly define what PFAS are, explain
the EPA's role in addressing PFAS and chemical safety, and
highlight issues preventing the EPA from fulfilling its mission
and leading governmentwide efforts to address PFAS. Michael
Rourke, the DOD Deputy IG for Evaluations, who led our PFAS
report, will provide specific details on the DOD OIG's
findings.
PFAS are long-lasting, synthetic chemicals widely used in
consumer and industrial products. They are so ubiquitous that
they are now found in our water, soil, air, and food. As a
result, most Americans have been exposed to some level of PFAS.
This exposure is made worse because PFAS breaks down very
slowly, which is why they are called ``forever chemicals.''
Indeed, the two types of PFAS covered in the DOD OIG
report, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), which was
commercially known as Scotchgard, and Perfluorooctanoic Acid
(PFOA), which was used in the manufacture of Teflon, persist in
the environment despite being phased out of production in the
United States in 2002 for PFOS and 2015 for PFOA.
Because of the need for credible and timely assessments of
risks posed by PFAS and other chemicals, the EPA OIG recently
identified chemical safety as a top EPA management challenge.
This is based, in large part, on a significant body of work
showing that the EPA lacks the tools and resources necessary to
address the safety of PFAS and other chemicals.
For instance, we found that the EPA lacked the capacity to
conduct chemical risk evaluations, required under the 2016
amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act. We also
reported that the EPA lacked the data and risk assessment tools
to determine the safety of numerous pollutants such as PFAS
found in biosolids used in fertilizers on farms.
A recent uptick in allegations of loss of scientific
integrity at the EPA is also of concern because it undermines
confidence in the agency's ability to effectively assess the
risks of chemicals and to take appropriate action. For example,
we reported that senior officials improperly interceded in the
Dicamba pesticide registration process, changing or omitting
key information in scientific documents and substantially
understating some risks and failing to acknowledge others.
Our work continues. The EPA OIG is currently evaluating
whether the agency's January 2021 toxicity assessment of
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), a type of PFAS, was
compromised by political interference.
The EPA does not always adhere to established rulemaking
procedures when addressing the safety of chemicals like PFAS.
Indeed, earlier this year we reported that a recent EPA PFAS
action only adhered to a little over half of the rulemaking
procedures. In October, in response to a congressional request,
we initiated an evaluation to examine changes made to a
significant new use rule for certain PFAS from the time the
rule was signed to its publication in the Federal Register.
The EPA also struggles with effectively communication risk
to the public, and in particular, to communities at risk. For
example, we recently reported that the EPA's communication
related to PFAS and other emerging chemicals at Superfund sites
had been significantly and consistently delayed.
More broadly, we recently issued three reports on the EPA's
failure to accurately communicate the risk of ethylene oxide, a
chemical associated with elevated cancer risk.
The EPA has been called upon to lead governmentwide efforts
to combat PFAS pollution. Its recent published PFAS Roadmap,
which will guide its actions over the next three years, will
require consistent enforcement, scientific integrity, and risk
communication. This Roadmap will also require effective
communication with governmental partners, including the DOD, as
they address the risk associated with PFAS contamination.
We are here today, as my colleague will testify, because
the EPA and the DOD did not adequately identify, mitigate, and
remediate exposure to PFAS contamination.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will
be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell.
Our next witness is Michael Roark. Mr. Roark is Deputy
Inspector General in the Evaluations component of the
Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General.
Mr. Roark has served with the Department of Defense
Inspector General since June 2000, in several leadership
positions. As prior Acting Deputy Inspector General for
Intelligence and Special Program Assessments, Mr. Roark focused
on oversight across a full spectrum of programs, policies,
procedures, and functions of the intelligence and
counterintelligence enterprise and special access programs
within the Department of Defense.
In his other roles he conducted audits relating to contract
payments, wartime readiness, and operations in Afghanistan,
Southwest Asia, and the combatant commands.
Welcome, Mr. Roark. You may proceed with your opening
remarks.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL J. ROARK,\1\ DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
EVALUATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Roark. Good morning Chairman Peters, Ranking Member
Portman, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you
for inviting us to appear before you today to discuss our July
2021 report on PFAS. The objective of our evaluation was to
determine the extent that the DOD has identified, mitigated,
and remediated the contaminant effects from PFAS at DOD
installations; identified populations exposed to PFAS at DOD
installations; and informed the exposed populations of the
associated health and safety concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The joint prepared statement of Mr. Roarke and Mr. O'Donnell
appears in the Appendix on page 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there are hundreds of materials containing PFAS,
our report focused on a fire suppressant known as aqueous film
forming foam (AFFF) and other PFAS-containing products used by
the DOD.
I will briefly summarize the results of the two findings in
our report. In our first finding we described whether DOD
officials have taken steps to manage the contaminant effects
from PFAS at DOD installations. For PFAS-containing AFFF, DOD
officials have taken steps to manage the contaminant effects
from PFAS, including restricting non-essential use of AFFF and
initiating Federal cleanup response actions.
DOD officials initiated a program in 2006 to proactively
evaluate and manage risks from emerging chemicals (ECs). DOD
policy for ECs requires officials to plan, program, and budget
for risk management actions that are endorsed by the program's
governance council. EC program officials designated PFOS and
PFOA as emerging chemicals and added them to the program's
Watch List, commissioned reports assessing their potential
impacts.
In addition, EC program officials issued a risk alert in
2011 that described the risks to the DOD, including human
health and the environment. However, the 2011 risk alert was
not endorsed by the program's governance council. Therefore,
DOD officials were not required to plan, program, and budget
for any actions in response to that risk alert. EC program
officials did not require proactive risk management actions
until 2016.
DOD policy for emerging chemicals also requires official to
apply an enterprise-wide approach to manage all sources of
potential EC exposure caused by DOD activities. However, DOD
officials did not take steps to proactively identify, mitigate,
and remediate contaminant effects from PFAS-containing
materials other than AFFF. As a result, people in the
environment may have been exposed to preventable risks from
PFAS-containing AFFF and other PFAS-containing materials.
In our second finding we described the steps taken by DOD
officials to identify populations exposed to PFAS and inform
them of the associated health and safety concerns. These steps
included testing drinking water for PFAS on and off
installations to identify impacted communities, providing PFAS-
related health information to military medical facilities, and
to developing a plan to implement PFAS blood testing for DOD
firefighters.
DOD policy requires officials to track, trend, and analyze
occupational and environmental health data to identify and
manage occupational risks. However, DOD officials did not
develop a plan to track, trend, and analyze PFAS blood test
results for firefighters at a DOD-wide level. As a result, the
DOD is missing an opportunity to capture comprehensive data for
firefighters that could be used for risk management, including
future studies to assess significant long-term health effects
relating to PFAS.
We made a total of five recommendations to address the
deficiencies we identified in our report. First, we recommended
that the DOD revise DOD policy for emerging chemicals to
include requirements for initiating risk management actions
based on measurable risks; developing risk management options
and initiating risk management actions as early as possible in
the EC process; and informing DOD users of the designation of
ECs and providing status updates during the EC process. We also
recommended that the DOD complete the EC process for potential
PFAS exposure caused by DOD activities from materials other
than AFFF.
In addition, we recommended that the DOD develop a plan to
track, trend, and analyze PFAS blood test results for DOD
firefighters at a DOD-wide level.
This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Mr. Roark.
Our next witness is Richard Kidd. Mr. Kidd is Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy and Environment
Resilience, where he provides policy and governance for
programs activities that enable resilience and cyber-secure
energy for weapon systems and installations.
Previously, Mr. Kidd served as the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Strategic Integration (SI). In that
position, he was responsible for developing and monitoring
performance metrics for the Army's installation management
community, and leading a strategic effort to examine options
for future Army installations.
Mr. Kidd, welcome to the Committee. You may proceed with
your opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD G. KIDD,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY RESILIENCE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR SUSTAINMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Kidd. Good morning Chairman Peters, Ranking Member
Portman, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I thank
you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Defense
actions related to PFAS, specifically focusing on our clean-up
activities as well as responding to the July report from the
Department's Inspector General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kidd appears in the Appendix on
page 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department recognizes the importance of addressing
concerns related to the clean-up of PFAS. For this reason, we
have invested significant effort into understanding and
addressing the challenges posed by this particular class of
chemicals.
To date, the Department has invested over $1.5 billion to
respond to these challenges, challenges, though, that
unfortunately remain characterized by significant ubiquity and
uncertainty. With over 600 different PFAS across our economy,
these chemicals are ubiquitous. They are found in stain-and
water-resistant fabrics, food packaging, cosmetics, cookware,
and certain firefighter foams, as was mentioned earlier.
Indeed, the EPA estimates that over 98 percent of Americans
have some form of PFAS in their blood today.
Regarding uncertainty, while there is a growing body of
scientific evidence related to the adverse human health effects
related to specific PFAS, it is still unclear what exposures
and what levels result in adverse health effects. The EPA has
published analytic methods to detect fewer than 10 percent of
the PFAS in commerce. The lack of this clear set of measurable
and objective health and environmental standards complicates
our ability to take proactive actions.
These uncertainties extend to our clean-up efforts, where
physics, chemistry, and toxicology establish the realm of the
possible and dictate timelines. Based on what we know today, it
will take years to define the scope of our clean-up and decades
before it is complete.
To help resolve these uncertainties and accelerate clean-
up, the Department has a robust research and development (R&D)
effort in place and is cooperating closely with other Federal
agencies. This R&D effort is probably the largest of its kind
focused on specific aspects relating to detecting and
destruction and replacement of PFAS as well as AFFF
firefighting foam, and in this work we cooperate closely with
other members of the government--the EPA, the Centers of
Disease Control (CDC), Veterans Affairs (VA), the White House
Office of Science and Technology (S&T), and the White House
Office of Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ).
I can assure that in this Administration there is a whole-
of-government effort aimed at addressing the challenges of
PFAS, and the Department is one of, and a very active player in
that effort.
The DOD Office of Inspector General's July 2021 report on
PFAS made two recommendations for the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD A&S). The first
recommended that the Department revise DOD's emerging chemicals
program instruction document. The second was for the Department
to complete the emerging chemicals process for PFAS-containing
materials other than AFFF. Both of those recommendations are
being implemented, and they fall to myself and my office to do
so.
The IG report did recognize that the Department of Defense
has proactively taken clean-up response actions to address PFAS
from AFFF, and the timeline is clear. The Department responded
quickly once EPA published a health advisory level for PFAS.
When it comes to clean-up, the Department follows Federal
law, specifically the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). While the program is
both legally and technically complex, its underlying purpose is
simple--to address the releases that we made protecting the
American people.
The Department has obligated nearly $1.5 billion for clean-
up at 699 installations and Guard facilities. We estimate that
the future costs will exceed $2 billion, and frankly, we expect
that this amount will further increase as we continue with the
clean-up investigations and have a better understanding of the
nature of the challenges that we face. Like our research
program, we believe that this is the largest clean-up effort in
the country.
In summary, DOD is taking deliberate and sustained actions
to address risks to human health and the environment resulting
from DOD activities involving PFAS. We are fulfilling our
clean-up obligations, we are investing in science to remove
uncertainty, and we are working diligently with other Federal
agencies.
I look forward to answering your questions.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Mr. Kidd.
Our final witness for the panel is Laura Macaluso. Ms.
Macaluso is Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Force Safety
and Occupational Health (FSOH) at the Department of Defense,
following her entry into Federal service in 2010. In her role
she oversees the Department of Defense's Safety and
Occupational Health programs and policies that include
aviation, ground, motor vehicle, afloat, and the Safety and
Occupational Health strategic plan.
Ms. Macaluso is also the lead for integrated safety
assessment and reporting trend analysis, mishap reduction, and
mitigation activities, and is a recipient of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) medal for exception civilian
service.
Welcome, Ms. Macaluso. You may proceed with your opening
remarks.
TESTIMONY OF LAURA MACALUSO,\1\ ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR FORCE SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, OFFICE OF
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
Ms. Macaluso. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Peters,
Ranking Member Portman, and distinguished Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
Department's approach to evaluating and addressing potential
health effects to DOD firefighters from exposure to PFAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Macaluso appears in the Appendix
on page 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is committed to maintain the safety, health,
and readiness of our DOD military and civilian workforce. This
includes protecting them from potentially hazardous workplace
exposures and associated health risks. The Department maintains
a strong commitment for the well-being of our workforce by
establishing comprehensive and robust safety and occupational
health programs where potentially hazardous occupational
exposures and risks are monitored, quantified, and mitigated.
In the July DOD OIG PFAS report, the OIG acknowledged the
actions we are taking to implement PFAS blood testing for DOD
firefighters. The OIG, however, found that the DOD firefighter
PFAS blood testing implementation plan needs improvement and
recommended that my office develop a plan to track, trend, and
analyze DOD firefighter PFAS blood test results. We concurred
with this recommendation and are implementing it.
There are many steps, however, along the way to
successfully managing the health risks to DOD firefighters. As
my fellow panel member, Mr. Kidd, has discussed, PFAS not
uniquely attributable to DOD activities. It is, therefore,
extremely difficult to distinguish and measure DOD
firefighters' exposure to PFAS within their occupational
setting and to differentiate those exposures from other sources
of PFAS.
We are monitoring several ongoing studies to examine
sources and types of PFAS exposure and the possible related
health effects. The results of the scientific research on the
health effects are needed before we can develop the
occupational exposure limits and implement systematic workplace
exposure characterization and controls based on those
standards.
However, in the meantime, the Department is taking action
where we can. We began offering PFAS blood testing to DOD
firefighters in October 2020. The Navy and Marine Corps Public
Health Center (NMCPHC) is tracking and trending those blood
test results. The blood test results are provided to each
firefighter and recorded in their occupational medical records.
We provide PFAS fact sheets to the DOD firefighters and to
occupational medicine practitioners. These fact sheets are
based on health information from the Centers for Disease
Control and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR). We are also taking action to qualitatively
identify firefighter exposure trends and looking for
opportunities to minimize firefighter exposures where possible.
We look forward to continued interagency collaboration as
the science develops to inform a proactive and measurable
approach to risk-based decisions on firefighter exposure to
PFAS. The Department is committed to providing a safe and
healthy work environment and protecting our most important
asset, the men and women who defend our nation and those who
support them.
Thank you for your support of DOD and other Federal agency
efforts to better understand PFAS occupational exposures. I
look forward to our discussion today.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Macaluso.
A question is both you and to Mr. Kidd. When did the
Department of Defense first learn that PFAS chemicals were
harmful to human health? I guess it is related to, was it in
2011, when the risk alert was issued, or was it sooner?
I would like to hear a response from both of you.
Mr. Kidd. Sir, the Department of Defense learned about the
health hazards posed by PFAS basically at the same pace as the
rest of America. The manufacturers of PFAS issued health
notices in the 1990s, which sort of triggered initial review of
the chemical, but it was not until 2016, where we had a final
health advisory from the EPA that we were able to take
objective, measurable actions.
Chairman Peters. Ms. Macaluso.
Ms. Macaluso. Yes. I have nothing to add to Mr. Kidd. I
would concur with 2016.
Chairman Peters. So it was in 2016, you are saying, not in
2011.
Mr. Kidd. Sir, what I am saying is in 2016 we had a number
that we could act upon.
Chairman Peters. There was a risk alert, as you know, that
was issued in 2011, and while that risk alert did not come out
until 2011, even though, as you mentioned, there was
information earlier than that, is it fair to say that the DOD
actually had access to research for decades, indicating that
PFAS was a harmful chemical?
Mr. Kidd. Sir, I would not say that we had any access to
any research other than what was available to the rest of the
American public and the regulatory agencies.
Chairman Peters. So you had access to research. You just
were not proactive in using any of that research.
Mr. Kidd. Sir, I have read the instruction, and I have read
the IG's report numerous times, and both of the instruction and
the IG report tell us that we have to be proactive, but that we
also must make objective decisions against measurable outcomes.
In my mind I have been trying to reconcile how can we be
proactive if we do not have a measurable metric? The way I have
been able to see this is it really an extent to where the
Department of Defense has authorities and control over the item
in question. In other words, if the item is almost exclusive to
the Department of Defense, and we have measures available, we
can act. If the item is of broader regulatory nature, where we
do not have the expertise, we rely on that expertise from other
Federal agencies.
So a possible example, so PFAS is used to strengthen the
circuit boards used in rocketry and weapons systems and
aircraft, to give those circuit boards durability under heat
and stress. We, in the Department of Defense, can work with our
manufacturers and implement process controls to reduce the
hazards either during manufacturing or use.
In regard to PFAS in groundwater or drinking water, we have
to rely on the EPA.
Chairman Peters. Mr. O'Donnell or Mr. Roark, do you want to
respond to that statement, in relating to the findings in your
report please?
Mr. Roark. Yes. For our report we mentioned some key
milestones and some key dates in the EC program for PFOS and
PFOA. Specifically, EC program officials added PFOS and PFOA to
the EC Watch List, which kind of initiates the process. Then
there were a series of assessments that were done over a period
of years. However, the next big milestone was in 2011, as you
mentioned, when the risk alert was issued. The 2011 risk alert
did state that AFFF contained chemicals that presented a risk
to human health and also environmental risks that required
special handling and disposal, so that was kind of a key event
there.
Later, in 2016, as was mentioned, the EC program officials
endorsed risk management actions for PFAS-containing AFFF and
issued that guidance to DOD components. So that was kind of
another key milestone. The timeframe between 2011 and 2016 is a
key timeframe.
Chairman Peters. Ms. Macaluso, when did the DOD begin
alerting servicemembers, veterans, and their families,
surrounding communities, and States about the threat of PFAS
contamination?
Ms. Macaluso. I will have to take that question for the
record.
Chairman Peters. OK. Very well.
I have been repeatedly hearing from residents around
Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda, and their concerns about
the proposed interim remedial actions that have been taken
there as well as the overall pace of that remediation, which
is, without question in my mind as well, been very slow, and it
is a source of considerable frustration for the residents of
that area.
Mr. Kidd, under a law that I wrote with Senator Stabenow,
States can request new cooperative agreements on PFAS
remediation and require the Department of Defense to comply
with State law. However, the DOD has so far resisted Michigan's
efforts to invoke this provision.
Could you explain to this Committee the DOD's unwillingness
to adopt a groundwater criteria established by the State of
Michigan for determining the level of contamination?
Mr. Kidd. Senator, I am familiar with a letter that we
received from the Governor of the State of Michigan. I think
that there are some legal ambiguities about what is the proper
course of action to follow, and I would just like to take that
back to our counsel and return to you with a legal response on
what we are doing in regard to the letter from the Governor of
Michigan.
Chairman Peters. What is the timeframe for that? I
appreciate your willingness to do that but how quick can we get
a response?
Mr. Kidd. I will let your staff know by the end of today.
Chairman Peters. OK. Do you have an estimate?
Mr. Kidd. Sir, we have a few holidays coming up. How about
30 days? We will get back to you in 30 days with a letter from
our General Counsel.
Chairman Peters. OK. I appreciate that. Mr. Kidd, what is
the Department of Defense doing to work with the State of
Michigan to ensure adequate testing and sampling of PFAS plumes
that are entering locations like Clark's Marsh and Van Etten
Lake?
Mr. Kidd. Sir, thanks for that question. Wurtsmith is an
interesting case and it is one that I have studied at length
and have met with your House delegates from the State of
Michigan and met with activists from the community and trying
to study what is occurring at Wurtsmith.
The Air Force has spent over $40 million and has seven
interim response measures either in place or under construction
right now, and those are the most of any installations out
there in America. Some of those interim response measures
include additional testing wells, barriers, and soil removal.
In preparing for this hearing I got a newspaper article
from--let me see if I get the pronunciation correctly--Oscoda
County. Is that correct?
Chairman Peters. Oscoda.
Mr. Kidd. Yes, Oscoda County News. So in there was the
Restoration Advisory Board meeting for Wurtsmith was held at
the end of November. It is a quite lengthy article. If I could
I would just quote from one member of the community which I
think highlights both the challenges and the advancements that
have been made at Wurtsmith.
One of the community members, in referring to all the new
work that the Air Force has done over the last six months says,
``I'm serious. This is great stuff. This is great stuff that
should have been done years ago. I really appreciate the fact
that you guys''--the Air Force--``have taken the initiative and
ordered it to get done.''
I think that statement from the community members is
indicating that we have learned from the delays in the past, we
have a better process in place in Wurtsmith. It is my job in
the Department to learn from Wurtsmith what is both good and
bad, and propagate that across to the other installations so
that we are acting faster, that we are more transparent with
our communities, we are sharing information, and we are moving
those interim response measures up earlier into the circle of
process.
Chairman Peters. Certainly it is good to hear that comment,
and I know that there has been progress made. There is no
question about that, although I still hear from community
members that there is not adequate communication that is going
on between the Air Force.
The one question that I think is very important is how will
the Department of Defense ensure that the testing is actually
thorough enough to capture the entire range of PFAS
contamination that we are seeing in that area? How can we
assure the people of that community?
Mr. Kidd. As I said in my remarks, there is significant
uncertainty, and this is one of the areas where uncertainty
exists. As others have indicated there is over 600 different
PFAS in commerce today, used in America, and over 4,000
different chemicals, at least. EPA has approved methods to
detect only about 60 of those, so less than 10 percent in
commerce there are available and viable testing methods.
The Department of Defense, so I mentioned our research and
development activities, and this is one area where we are
cooperating with EPA and have significant investments, how do
we detect the PFAS? How can we be sure at what levels can we do
it?
In August, EPA announced the results of work that they had
done with our team, and we went from 20 to 60, so we tripled
the number of PFAS that we could detect, only this summer. We
need more research. We need to understand this problem better
and we need to address the uncertainties.
The reality is that some of the PFAS that are out there--in
commerce, not across America--we cannot detect them right now
or we cannot detect them reliably. The Department is investing
money to help resolve this.
Chairman Peters. Very well. I have some additional
questions but I will defer those, and Senator Carper, you are
recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am wearing a couple
of hats today. One of them is that of a naval flight officer
(NFO) on active duty in the Vietnam War, stationed at Moffett
Field in California where we shared a base just near Mountain
View, California, shared it with NASA.
One day I was driving to work--this was like 30-some years
ago--and there were two runways, dual runways alongside of each
other at Moffett Field, and early in the morning a Navy P-3
coming in to land, a 13-man aircraft, and a big NASA plane. The
flight controller put both airplanes on the same runway to
land. The NASA aircraft landed right on top of the Navy P-3
aircraft. It killed everybody on board.
I arrived at the base like 10 or 15 minutes after that. The
fire departments came rushing out to put out the fire to try to
save as many lives as they could. Some success, but I think
only one member of the crew survived.
Fast forward about 30 years. I am driving south through
Dover, Delaware on State Route 1, going right alongside Dover
Air Force Base. We have big airplanes there--C-5s, C-17s. A C-7
and C-5 had just taken off a few minutes before I got there,
and they had engine problems. They tried to get back and land
at Dover Air Force Base, landed about a mile short of the base.
The fire departments rushed out, foamed the airplane, trying to
save as many lives as they could, and we had no fatalities.
That is the good news. The bad news at Dover is there were
like four communities around Dover Air Force Base that now have
contamination from PFAS. So you have a substance that was
actually generated and developed to try to save lives, as the
firefighting foam, and it ends up taking a lot of lives and
putting people at risk.
But with PFAS contamination confirmed, I think there are
about 400 military bases around the country. There is a lot of
impact and a lot of concerns to go around, including my own
State. While DOD's activities will be a clear focus of the
first panel, I know contamination associated with military
installations will be a major focus for our second panel as
well.
As the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works
(EPW) Committee I fully realize the critical importance of PFAS
contamination and I am all too aware of the ongoing impact of
these toxic ``forever chemicals'' have on countless communities
across the country, including my own.
I also want to note the complete absence of Federal limits
on these toxic substances, which has sent many States
scrambling to protect their communities and resources. Many
States have had limited resources to set State-specific
standards, which could end up creating a patchwork of
regulatory requirements that could hamper an effective national
effort to manage the nationwide public health risks.
In response to the serious lack of Federal protection I am
working with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works
Committee, and a bunch of other Senate colleagues, on a Senate
legislative package to address PFAS contamination building off
the EPA's recent PFAS Strategic Roadmap and a thoughtful PFAS
package passed by the House. They call it the PFAS Action Act.
I personally feel a great sense of urgency to take steps that
will hopefully provide relief that affected communities,
families, and particularly our most vulnerable infants and
children, so desperately need.
Again, I want to express our thanks to this Committee for
holding this hearing today. With that as a preface, so have so
many installations that are affected by PFAS contamination I do
not see any evidence in the IG report that the DOD has
estimated the number of servicemembers exposed to PFAS or made
any effort to contact them.
A question, Mr. O'Donnell, is this. Thank you very much for
being with us and for wearing a couple of different hats
yourself. But is that a fair read of your report, and Mr. Kidd,
is that an accurate assessment of DOD's level of knowledge?
Mr. Kidd and Mr. O'Donnell, please.
Mr. O'Donnell. I will defer to Mr. Roark, who was the
project lead.
Senator Carper. Can you speak louder?
Mr. O'Donnell. Yes, sir. This is the Inspector General. I
am going to pass to the Deputy Inspector General on the
specifics of the report.
Senator Carper. All right.
Mr. Roark. The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) required that the Secretary of Defense assess the
implications of human health exposure to PFAS. Our Defense
Health Agency in the Department of Defense took several steps
to carry out that requirement that was in the law.
Specifically, they estimated the number of servicemembers,
including veterans, and that was made up of National Guard,
active duty, and DOD firefighters who may have been exposed to
PFAS. Our Defense Health Agency within the DOD would have the
statistics in response to that 2019 NDAA requirement.
Mr. Kidd. I would like to thank Senator Carper for
reminding us a little bit about why we use AFFF, or used AFFF
in the Department of Defense. It saves material and it saves
lives. It was brought into the Department after a major loss of
life on a Navy aircraft carrier, and we have used it
subsequently to address a number of fires and incidents.
I went down to Tyndall Air Base where they train and I met
with the firefighters. It is amazing when they have the AFFF
foam trucks, they plan to attack the fire. They train as if
there is an aircraft that is on fire, with people in it, and
they attack the fire. That is frankly heroic. I see all the
incidents of PFAS use release, intentional or otherwise, that
have occurred in the last 10 months since I have been there,
and one of the stories was a Bradley fighting vehicle loaded
with ammunition was on fire, and the firemen drove right up to
the vehicle and used AFFF foam, risking their lives in that
instance.
That said, I have also seen reports where we have
accidentally released AFFF and caused the need for clean-up.
In regard to clean-up, right now we are tracking 699 sites
where there has been potential PFAS use or exposure. All 699
are in the circle of process, so that is reviewing them. We
have completed the initial phase of that process on 190
installations. Of those 190 installations, 75 were found to
have no evidence of PFAS use, so they have been put aside, and
the others are moving into the next step of the circle of
process, which will allow better definition of the problem and
also allow for some of those interim response activities that
we talked about earlier.
We will complete the first phase of the circle of process,
barring anything unforeseen, on all the Department of Defense
installations by the end of 2023, and then we will continue to
move those through. As we complete that first phase, that will
inform our budget request that we will take to our authorizers
and appropriators.
Senator Carper. Thanks for that response. Mr. Chairman, my
time has expired. I would like to have, if I could, 20 seconds
to ask a question for the record, and that question would be to
ask of Secretary Kidd, please share with us the immediate
challenges that the Department faces in establishing an
enterprise-wide risk management strategy for addressing PFAS
contamination, and additionally, are there actions that
Congress could take that would assist DOD with establishing
such an approach?
Thank you. Thank you all for being with us. Thank you for
your work on this.
Mr. Chairman, our Committee, the EPW Committee, looks
forward to working with you, hand-in-glove, and with Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC). Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Hassan, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank
you and the Ranking Member for holding this really important
hearing. I want to thank our witnesses from the Department of
Defense and the Inspector General, and I want to thank the
witnesses too who are here for the second panel, representing
State government and advocate perspectives, particularly Andrea
Amico, who is really a committed voice for her community and
New Hampshire, and who will be appearing before this Committee
for the second time.
I do have three questions, I think for the first panel, and
I am going to start with a question to you, Mr. Kidd. It is
vital that communities have confidence that when the Defense
Department identifies emerging contaminants that the Department
reacts quickly to protect the health of those in exposed
communities. One of the concerning findings in the Inspector
General report is that the Defense Department's emerging
contaminants program put two PFAS chemicals on a watch list in
2011, but no additional action was taken at that time.
Mr. Kidd, what changes would you make to ensure that this
type of needless and harmful delay does not occur again?
Mr. Kidd. Senator, thank you for your question. The
emerging chemicals program, actually one thing that I think the
IG should have said in their report is that we need to take
actions to strengthen it and make it more robust, so it has a
governance body called the Emerging Chemicals of Concern
Governance Council. The last time it met was 2016.
We are on track to meet in March, and I am going to make it
a priority--I am going to make it an annual event, so we are
not going to wait five years between meetings. We are going to
make it an annual event. We are going to strengthen the muscle
movement in the Department in terms of looking at the
chemicals, getting the reports, and bringing it to that body
for decision.
If they do not have an objective, measurable standard to
make a decision against, then we will try the best that we can,
working through the interagency and our other partners, to get
that standard that can come back to the Department.
Senator Hassan. Let me follow up a little bit, because the
Inspector General's report recommends that the Defense
Department revise its instructions and procedures to ensure
that officials develop risk management actions and proactively
identify and mitigate PFAS chemicals early in the process. That
is regardless of whether an emerging chemical is on the Defense
Department's underlying emerging chemical watch list or
emerging chemical action list.
So both to you, Mr. Kidd, and Ms. Macaluso, will you commit
to implementing these recommendations as quickly as possible?
Mr. Kidd. Yes, ma'am. We have acknowledged that
recommendation and we have accepted it and we are working on
it.
Senator Hassan. Ms. Macaluso.
Ms. Macaluso. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. I will ask a second question and
either one of you can decide to answer it. The Inspector
General's office also found that Defense Department officials
were focused on aqueous film-forming foam, which is a major
source of potential PFAS exposure. While that is truly
important, the Defense Department did not focus on many other
sources of potential PFAS contamination that our servicemembers
are exposed to daily. Defense Department procedures require an
enterprise-wise approach to emerging chemicals.
So will you commit to ensuring that your offices take the
required enterprisewide approach and assess and mitigate the
contaminant effects from all sources of potential PFAS
exposure?
Mr. Kidd. Yes, ma'am. We have also agreed to that
recommendation. The last part of your statement, all sources,
so we do rely on industry and other elements of the Federal
Government to assist us in addressing all sources.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. Ms. Macaluso, you are on the
same page here as well, right?
Ms. Macaluso. Yes.
Senator Hassan. OK. This is a question to you, Ms.
Macaluso. There are publicly available Defense Department
documents dating back to the 1970s that suggest that the
Department knew that PFAS chemicals could be harmful to human
health. However, the Department has used PFAS-containing items
for over 50 years, with mitigation efforts only truly beginning
within the past decade.
Does the Department know how many servicemembers were
exposed to PFAS between 1970 and 2021, and what has the Defense
Department done to proactively notify people who were exposed
decades ago?
Ms. Macaluso. I am representing also our colleagues in
Health Affairs, which would have a much better answer to that
question for tracking that information. I know currently if a
firefighter has a question about a future health effect that we
provide a fact sheet and recommend they talk with their
supervisor and supporting occupational medical clinic to
address their concern and discuss any additional information or
answer questions. We also are collaborating with VA to address
any retired or non-current firefighters in the Department.
Senator Hassan. I appreciate that and I appreciate that
there might be more depths of knowledge from Health Affairs
personnel, and we can certainly follow up with them. But what I
am really trying to get at is what are you all doing
proactively so that a firefighter from a base 50 years ago does
not have to read it in the newspaper and all of a sudden
realize, oh, maybe I should do some outreach. What are you all
doing proactively to notify people that they have likely been
exposed 50 years ago to PFAS?
Ms. Macaluso. That also crosses into working with the
Department of Veterans Affairs for that notification, but we
are collaborating with them on a plan ahead for that.
Senator Hassan. OK. I will follow up with you and with
Veterans Affairs as well, because I just think it is really
important that we are doing proactive outreach here and people
understand what the long-term health effects may be and that
they are getting the best possible health advice with that in
mind.
So thank you very much, and thanks to all the witnesses for
your testimony.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
Senator Rosen, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENNG STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Peters, and of course
Ranking Member Portman for holding this hearing and for, of
course, the witnesses for testifying today.
I want to speak a little bit about our Nevada military
bases, because according to the Environmental Working Group
(EWG) over 700 military installations across the country have
known or suspected discharges of PFAS contamination. In Nevada,
both Creech and Nellis Air Force Bases have confirmed PFAS-
contaminated groundwater.
Last year, I led a letter to the Air Force requesting
information about their investigation of PFAS levels in
groundwater at Nellis, and I raised the issue in a meeting with
then-Acting Secretary of the Air Force, John Roth. Thankfully,
we have since learned that there are no drinking water wells
above the EPA's lifetime health advisory levels at, or, around
Nellis Air Force Base.
However, due to groundwater contamination the Air Force has
begun a multiyear remedial investigation phase CERCLA process.
Mr. Kidd, on average how long does a remedial investigation
clean-up process take, and do you have a timeline of when
Creech and Nellis Air Force Bases will be cleaned up, according
to my discussions last year with Acting Secretary Roth?
Mr. Kidd. So ma'am, earlier in my testimony I stated it
would be years to define the problem and probably decades to
complete it. The CERCLA process, in some cases, can last
indefinitely, over multiple decades, as we continue to treat
the issues, and we do not have a completed process for any
installation where I can tell you where it could end.
We will complete the first phase of the CERCLA process for
all installations by or before the end of fiscal year (FY)
2023. When we do that, we will better understand the hazards
and the options available. We then move to the design phase and
the implementation phase.
Earlier we spoke about Wurtsmith, where we accelerated or
brought forward into the CERCLA process response actions, and I
think that serves as a good model for what we can do on other
installations going forward.
Senator Rosen. That is great but it seems like an awful
long time. I have another question I am going to ask after
this, but I want to be sure that the public water system, the
local communities surrounding the military bases are in the
loop with your investigation that goes on so that they can take
appropriate measures to notify or deal with any issues in their
communities. I want to be sure that there is collaboration with
local communities and local partners around every military base
where you are doing this ongoing investigation.
But the IG report today--and if you do not know it now I
will take that off the record--but the IG report that we are
discussing today concluded that the Defense Department lacks an
enterprise-wide approach to PFAS, thus the length of time.
Specifically, the report found that PFAS contamination may both
be present in unexpected locations, which is why you need to
notify surrounding communities, and it can be also tied to
other sources other than firefighting foam.
Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Roark, can you talk about what routes
of exposure the Defense Department may have ignored and the
potential impact on servicemembers and their families going
forward? Let's start with Mr. O'Donnell and then on to Mr.
Roark, please.
Mr. O'Donnell. I will let Mr. Roark take that question.
Mr. Roark. So your question is correct. The focus has been
on AFFF, and that is a very important part of the puzzle.
However, that is not the only story. As was mentioned earlier,
there are hundreds of different types of PFAS materials and
products that are out there--hydraulic fluid, coatings on
materials, flame-retardant and fire-retardant clothing are some
examples.
And so we wanted to, in our evaluation, get a handle on
whether the Department was taking a proactive approach to
identify, mitigate, and remediate those contaminants, and what
we found in our report was that the attention that was being
devoted to AFFF, although important, was kind of taking up a
lot of the attention, and so, therefore, some of the other
materials containing PFAS were not going through the EC
process, so, therefore, the risks associated with exposure to
those items are not known at this time.
Senator Rosen. I was looking forward to more reporting and
more disclosure, and that his really what I want to talk about
next is PFAS testing and disclosure, because currently the
Defense Department is not required to inform the public water
system or the local community surrounding an installation that
PFAS tests are underway, or even disclose the results of the
testing.
Since PFAS exposure or ingestion can lead to adverse
effects on reproductive and developmental health, increased
risks of cancer, the public should know if they have been
exposed to or are consuming PFAS-contaminated water.
That is why I introduced the Military PFAS Testing
Disclosure Act, bipartisan legislation that would require DOD
to publicly disclose the results of any PFAS testing conducted
on military installations, as I alluded to. Additionally, prior
to conducting PFAS testing, DOD would be required to provide
notice to the managers of the public water systems serving the
areas located immediately adjacent to the military
installation. I am proud to say that my bills have been
included in this year's NDAA and hopefully will soon be law.
So to Mr. O'Donnell and then Mr. Roark, do you agree that
the defense communities, communities around our military
installations deserve to know whether toxic PFAS chemicals may
be threatening their drinking water supplies?
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you, Senator. I think at both the EPA
OIG and the DOD OIG we have noted that an essential part of
meeting and protecting human health and the environment is
communicating risks to affected communities and communicating
in a prompt and effective manner, and frankly, especially over
at the EPA OIG we have seen that that form of communication has
been inconsistent and slow such that communities are often
surprised to find out that their neighborhood sites have
significant pollution of PFAS.
Senator Rosen. I see, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
This is a very serious issue. Communities need to know.
Servicemembers, current, veterans need to know. We need to be
sure that we speed up that notification, and I look forward to
submitting the rest of my questions for the record and
continuing this conversation. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Rosen.
Ranking Member Portman, you are recognized for your
questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN
Senator Portman. Thank you, Chairman Peters, and I am sorry
I was not able to participate earlier to hear the entire
testimony, although my staff was here and I will get it all. I
was at the ceremony preceding the lying in state for Senator
Dole.
But I am very interested in following up on Senator Rosen's
question. We are proud of what we do in Ohio, and we will hear
more about that in the second panel because we will have a
representative from Ohio. But there is a comprehensive plan
there to educate and inform communities about PFAS and the
potential issues. I am pleased with that level of communication
and outreach. I am not as pleased with what we are doing at the
Federal level. I think we should be sharing data, testing
results, other information, be more transparent. It is
important that we educate and communicate with the public.
To Inspector General O'Donnell and Inspector General Roark,
from DOD and EPA, respectively, let me follow up a little bit
on that and talk about what we can do better. What ways can
your respective agencies improve their communication to States
and communities about PFAS, and particularly as research
continues to evolve about these PFAS chemicals and their impact
on health outcomes, which I hope will be forthcoming here in
the next few years. One of my frustrations is understanding
there are 4,700 chemicals involved, roughly. It is not easy but
we need to get better scientific data about what the impact is.
But how can we ensure that there is an accurate and timely
information sharing with the public? Maybe we will start with
you, Mr. O'Donnell.
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you, Senator. As I just said, an
important part of protecting human health and the environment
is, of course, informing communities of the risks that they
face and the pollution in their community and nearby water
sources, food sources. We have, at EPA OIG, a growing and
robust body of work on the EPA's success, or lack thereof, when
it comes to communicating that risk.
What we have found, and this is in particular with respect
to PFAS, is that the States are far ahead of the EPA when it
comes to addressing chemical safety and risk from those
chemicals, and so I think that what we speak to often, and it
has been an enduring issue that we have seen with respect to
the EPA, is that in its role as partner with the States, and,
in particular, it has an oversight role, to join and to really
catch up with the States so that they can provide a consistent
message across the United States.
Senator Portman. Mr. Roark.
Mr. Roark. In our report we mention some of the
communication and coordination activities that are ongoing, but
we also highlight some areas for improvement. In terms of the
areas for communication and coordination that are ongoing there
are really four main areas, which we discuss in our report. The
first was drinking water testing. We catalog the DOD efforts to
test the drinking water for PFAS across the different
communities that are impacted.
Second, we took a look at the notifications to impacted
populations. For example, at Camp Grayling in Michigan we
discussed with them some of their strategies that they have
used such as town hall meetings with the community to discuss
the test results for the groundwater. Also, Camp Grayling
officials also talk to us quite a bit about posting information
on the State of Michigan's PFAS response team website, just so
that the public would have access to that information.
The third area was coordinating with health care providers
so that when folks show up seeking health care they may have an
informed discussion with their health care provider, so getting
that information in the hands of health care providers is
really important. At the OSD level and then at each of the
three military departments they have disseminated information
to health care providers to ensure that that sharing of
information occurs.
Then the final area, the fourth area of coordination is the
annual firefighter blood testing requirement that DOD is
implementing right now.
So were kind of some of the four major items that were
going on. The area for improvement that we noted in our report
was keeping populations such as firefighters aware of where
emerging chemicals are within that emerging chemical process.
When we asked firefighters at the six installations that we
visited as part of this evaluation----
Senator Portman. Was Wright Patterson Air Force Base
(WPAFB) one of those?
Mr. Roark. It was not.
Senator Portman. OK.
Mr. Roark. When we asked them about the 2011 risk alert for
PFAS-containing AFFF they were not aware of that. In addition,
when we asked them about were they aware of exposure risks
regarding materials other than AFFF they were not aware of that
either, which kind of indicated to us that the information may
not be getting down to some of the users of emerging chemicals.
Senator Portman. Let us turn to DOD then quickly to talk
about this. So you identified, as IGs, some shortcomings, and
as I said earlier, some of it is because there is a lack of
good research that is being done so far, and it is not
definitive in the case of some of these chemicals, which we
need to accelerate.
But to Mr. Kidd and Ms. Macaluso, talk about how you
measure. How do you measure the effectiveness of your
communications to servicemembers or families and surround
communities? I think of Wright Patterson Air Force Base and the
surrounding community in Dayton. There has been a frustration
there about information sharing. Are you feeling like you are
communicating the latest developments, the latest research in
an appropriate way to the military and to the public who are
understandably concerned about PFAS?
Mr. Kidd. Senator, I believe that we are improving in our
communications effort and we have a way to go. So as part of
the creating a holistic enterprise response, then-Secretary
Mark Esper created a PFAS task force inside the Pentagon, gave
us three lines of effort: find alternatives to AFFF, honor our
clean-up obligations, and track public health.
When I briefed that program to this Administration, asking
for its reauthorization, it was obviously rightly reauthorized,
and Deputy Secretary Hicks said, ``And you must improve
communication and transparency.'' So that was a charge from
Deputy Secretary Hicks that we are embarking on. We have a way
to go.
I have personally met with a number of the folks that are
going to be on the second panel later this morning, and we have
identified a range of activities that we would like to do,
starting in 2022, once we get a budget, some new starts, in
terms of improving our training. Unfortunately, in some of the
budget cuts of recent years the training programs for our
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), our Restoration Advisory
Committees (RAC) was reduced. We have a best practice guide
that is good but 10 years old.
I would like to go back and revisit the training we provide
to our installations in terms of public outreach. I would also
like to go back and update our best practices guide so that we
can get better outcomes in terms of community engagement.
Senator Portman. My time is expiring, but I hope as a
result of this hearing you will do that, not just that you
would like to do it, but let us make it happen. Again, we need
to have the research catch up as well, to be able to provide
more accurate and relevant information to stakeholders.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman.
Senator Ossoff, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR OSSOFF
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our panel for joining us today. Thank you for your service to
the country.
Mr. Kidd, my first question is for you. As has been noted,
the IG report that is the center of today's hearing found that
DOD has failed to proactively mitigate contaminant effects of
PFAS, resulting in preventable harm.
Georgia is home to four military installations that the
Environmental Working Group has identified as confirmed PFAS
contaminationsites, including Dobbins Air Reserve Base in
Marietta, Georgia; Robins Air Force Base near Macon; Moody Air
Force Base near Valdosta; and the Savannah Airport, which is
home to Savannah Air National Guard Base.
My question for you, Mr. Kidd, is, will you commit to use
every resource at your disposal and to bring, to the best of
your ability, the full power and resources of the Department of
Defense to the necessary effort to remediate contamination
wherever possible, to fully assess the health impacts on these
military communities and the broader communities surrounding
these military communities, in Macon and Valdosta, and
Savannah? And will you, if requested, and then if necessary
personally visit these installations, if and where you have not
yet, to work with me, my office, the local commands, and local
elected officials to ensure DOD is doing everything in its
power to protect human health and cleanup this mess?
Mr. Kidd. Senator, having spent many years in Georgia, when
I was a young man in the Army, I would welcome a trip back, and
so yes, I would be happy to work with you and your office on
all things related to the installations in Georgia. And we will
take, as a do-out, to provide you a report on where in the
CERCLA clean-up process the installations are in Georgia.
In terms of commitments, I commit to following the Federal
law, CERCLA, and the Department will move out expeditiously and
with intent and focus in meeting our obligations under that
law.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Kidd, and I want to ask you
about some of these suspected PFAS contaminationsites,
according to the Environmental Working Group. I want to
highlight Fort Benning, of course, in Columbus, Georgia, and
ask you what will it take, and on what timeline can the
Department of Defense establish whether this is a suspected
contaminationsite or indeed a contaminationsite? I do not want
the soldiers and their families at and around Fort Benning, the
people of Columbus, Georgia, the people of the Chattahoochee
River Valley to have to wonder whether or not groundwater or
their communities may be contaminated with these hazardous
substances.
When will the Department be able to make a definitive
conclusion about whether there is PFAS contamination in Fort
Benning, please?
Mr. Kidd. Senator, I met with the representatives from EWG.
We do not use the terminology ``suspected.'' We have 699
installations where there could have been PFAS use. Those
installations, every one of them, is in the CERCLA process, and
the first part of that process is to investigate whether PFAS
may or may not have been used at that installation.
We have completed the first phase of that process for 190
installations. In 75 of them there was no record of PFAS being
on the installation--or I should not say PFAS--AFFF being on
the installation or used. So those 75 investigations process
has stopped.
The other ones are continuing forward. We are in a
multiyear effort to define the nature, the engineering, the
physical, the chemical nature of whatever AFFF residue may be
found on those installations. I believe that Fort Benning is
part of the CERCLA process, but I will give you--as I said
earlier, we will give you a definitive report of where every
installation in Georgia is in the process.
Senator Ossoff. So when can we expect, first of all, to
receive that report, and can you not give me a date by which
the Environmental Working Group and the Department of Defense
can conclude whether or not there is such contamination at Fort
Benning?
Mr. Kidd. So we collaborate with the Environmental Working
Group, but we are not under an obligation to reach an agreement
with an advocacy organization. We have shared our sites with
them, and they have shared their sites with us, and we are
working through the list in accordance with Federal law.
Senator Ossoff. OK. Mr. Kidd, I am looking at a map
produced by the Environmental Working Group that maps military
installations with confirmed or suspected PFAS discharge or
contamination, and Fort Benning is explicitly listed as having,
and I quote, ``suspected PFAS contamination.'' Do you dispute
that characterization?
Mr. Kidd. Sir, I do not necessarily dispute it. I am just
saying that Fort Benning, all the installations in the military
have been reviewed, and we are applying the CERCLA process. We
apply Federal law to Federal installations. We do not follow
advocacy processes. We follow the processes that you, Congress,
have given us.
Senator Ossoff. What additional authorities could Congress
grant you, Mr. Kidd, in order to accelerate the timeline under
which you could confirm or not the Environmental Working
Group's assessment that there is a suspicion of PFAS
contamination at Fort Benning?
Mr. Kidd. Sir, I will be happy to confirm the assessment of
whether there is PFAS at Fort Benning. I am under no obligation
to confirm the Environmental Working Group's findings.
Senator Ossoff. My question for you is when will you be
able to confirm whether there is PFAS at Fort Benning.
Mr. Kidd. I will be able to tell you if Fort Benning is
part of the CERCLA process by the end of today.
Senator Ossoff. And is that same as confirming whether
there is PFAS at Fort Benning, or is that confirming whether
they are part of a process?
Mr. Kidd. Sir, that is to confirm that they are part of the
process. In my earlier remarks I discussed the uncertainties
and the challenges that we face in the physical, chemical, and
toxicological realm. We have to go to Fort Benning and
determine if AFFF was ever on the installation. Having jumped
out of a lot of airplanes at Fort Benning I can tell you for
sure that they have foam fire trucks on the runway when the
paratroopers take off.
So I would suspect that, yes, AFFF has been at Fort
Benning, and we can tell you where we are in the process and
when we will complete the steps in the process to help define
the problem.
Senator Ossoff. Well, Mr. Kidd, I am grateful for your
service in the Army and now your service in the civilian
capacity, and I will be inviting you to join me for a return to
Columbus, Georgia, in short order so that we can get clarity on
what risks there may be to the soldiers and their families on
the installation.
Thank you again for your responses, and Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Ossoff.
Senator Padilla, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start
by thanking you for this opportunity today to hear from the
Department directly, because it is critical--and you heard this
from all my colleagues--it is critical that we do all we can to
protect our servicemembers, as well as their families, and
surrounding communities from preventable harm. I think that has
been established here today.
We need to continue working with the Department of Defense
to craft real solutions and cleanup PFAS sooner rather than
later. See, we have long known that heavy use of PFAS-based
firefighting foam has impacted servicemembers and nearby
communities. I may sound like a broken record at this point,
but I am outraged every time I hear the stories of
servicemembers in my State who unknowingly raised their
families near PFAS-contaminated bases and had no idea of the
danger until their kids started getting sick.
The sheer number of these painful stories leave no doubt
about the Department of Defense's responsibility for this
issue. But what the Inspector General's report gave us is the
proof that the Department of Defense knew for at least five
years that PFAS posed a concern to human health before they
took steps to protect servicemembers from those toxic
chemicals. The report confirms the Department knew about the
harms of these chemicals but failed to actually notify
servicemembers for years. That is unacceptable.
My first question. I know that others have asked it, but,
Mr. Roark, when exactly did the Defense Department first learn
that PFAS were emerging chemicals of concern that would impact
drinking water in military communities? Was it 2011, 2006, or
earlier? Let me be precise. I am not asking with then public
knew. When did the Department know?
Mr. Roark. Senator, in response to this question we talked
about this a little bit earlier in the hearing. But the process
began when PFOS and PFOA were added to the EC watch list. Then,
after that, there were a series of assessments that were done
in the 2018-2019 range, that led up to the risk alert being
issued in 2011, which described the risk to human health and
the environment. So that is the first key milestone there, and
then in 2016 is when the EC program endorsed the risk
management actions for PFAS-containing AFFF.
Senator Padilla. I think there is overlapping timelines,
one of dangers and risks of these chemicals, one of present use
of chemicals, and one could logically assume that the danger
could have started back in the 1970s, and knowledge of it back
in the 1970s, but we will continue that conversation.
My next question is for Mr. O'Donnell. The Inspector
General report said the Defense Department issued a risk alert
in 2011, but failed to take action until 2016. Why did the
Department wait five years to take action?
Mr. Roark. I can take that question. In our report we
attributed the cause to some deficiencies in DOD policy, the
DOD instruction for emerging chemicals, and specifically we
made two recommendations in this regard that would strengthen
the process to help initiate risk management actions based on
measurable risks and also to develop risk management options
and then initiate risk management actions as soon as possible,
or as early as possible in the EC process. As a result, our
colleagues in the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Sustainment did agree to those recommendations, and I think Mr.
Kidd testified earlier that they are in the process of
implementing those recommendations to improve that policy.
Senator Padilla. So five years was the quickest we could
have acted. That is a question.
Mr. Roark. Our report does criticize the Department for not
taking action earlier, and so I think we have kind of gone
through that today, discussing some of the steps that did occur
and some of the warning signs that were in place. We did hear
instances of officials telling us that they were relying on
regulatory agencies to provide information. We also talked to
officials who kind of discussed some of these ambiguities in
policy which did not require specification. It was more
subjective. That is why I think our recommendations are trying
to bring a little bit more objectivity into the process.
Senator Padilla. All right. I appreciate the objectivity
but I am hoping you are sensing from the Committee--and I think
it is on a bipartisan basis here--a matter of urgency. I will
make note of, one of the measures that Congress has enacted,
including my Clean Water For Military Families Act, that seeks
to provide funding for the completion of testing assessment,
but actual clean-up in a way that is done sooner rather than
later. I think 30 years is way too long.
Maybe I can ask Mr. Kidd this. What is necessary to get
this done faster, have this clean-up be done in a matter of 10
years or less, not 30 years or more? What would it take?
Mr. Kidd. Sir, first a couple of things. So to answer your
question directly, I am not sure. As I said earlier, we are
dealing with unknowns and uncertainties about how to detect
PFAS, how to properly collect or dispose of it. The Department
of Defense has the largest research effort in the Federal
Government aimed at detecting and destroying PFAS. We are
optimistic that we will help to change some of the parameters
around the science and the engineering.
But right now we basically only have one technology to
treat PFAS, which is granulated activated carbon filters. That
is the current technology. If we can find other technologies
that will change the timeline. We are in extensive discussion
with our authorizing and appropriating committees. They have
been very generous in giving us additional research funds to
accelerate these efforts.
Senator Padilla. Mr. Chair, I know my time has expired, but
I do have two more questions I really would like to include
here. The first is related to what the Inspector General report
says in their 2008 memorandum, that the Department at the time
said further action was not needed to address PFAS in
firefighting foam because, ``industry is taking appropriate
action.''
First, it seems to suggest that the Department of Defense
knew as early as 2008 that PFAS was harmful, and second, we
know now that what industry was doing at the time was replacing
PFOS with PFBS, which is also toxic.
So back to you, Mr. Roark. What action was industry taking
at the time, and can you provide a copy of this 2008 memorandum
to the Committee?
Mr. Roark. So in our report we do mention that August 2008
memo that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) issued, that
stated that they did not plan to take any risk management
options for PFOA since industry was taking action. Therefore,
as a result of that, EC program officials did not present risk
management actions to the EC Governance Council.
The Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L does not exist
anymore, but I think Mr. Kidd represents the predecessor
organization to that, and so I think he would have to comment
on that piece.
Mr. Kidd. So actually, industry started to express concerns
about these chemicals in the 1990s, and the presumption of the
country at the time was that industry would voluntarily fix by
replacing or removing PFAS in AFFF foam. We followed the lead
of industry and the regulatory agencies as the composition was
changed and the concentrations were reduced of PFAS in the AFFF
foam.
Senator Padilla. So you followed the lead of industry, and
you defer to industry for the health and safety of
servicemembers and their families and surrounding communities,
or is that the Federal Government's responsibility?
Mr. Kidd. That was the accepted practice at the time for
this chemical, as articulated by the regulatory agencies.
Senator Padilla. OK. I hear responses, and as I mentioned
at the beginning, in addition to information, objectivity, what
we are trying to make clear here is our sense of urgency.
Let me make my final question this, and this is for all the
witnesses. Have you lived on any of the sites that are now
determined to have PFAS present, and if you have families,
would you let your children drink the water? Yes or no.
Mr. O'Donnell. No.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. Roark.
Mr. Roark. I can walk to Fort Belvoir from my house. I can
see it out my window. I am very close there and I do not know
if Fort Belvoir is on the list, but I do drink the water at my
house.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Mr. Kidd.
Mr. Kidd. So the answer is yes and yes. There is no
community in America that has drinking water above EPA lifetime
health advisory levels where the known source can be traced to
the Department of Defense. We surveyed over 500 drinking water
systems on and off installations and took immediate action to
address any PFAS that was above the EPA's health advisory
levels.
Senator Padilla. Ms. Macaluso.
Ms. Macaluso. No, I have not lived on an installation, and
I guess it would depend whether on an installation or not about
the water, I would do my due diligence and make that decision.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Padilla.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT
Senator Scott, you are recognized for your questions.
Senator Scott. Thank you Chairman Peters and Ranking Member
Portman for having this important hearing today. I have
questions for the record regarding the recent funding for PFAS.
I have something else, just a simple question, a couple
questions I want to ask the Acting IG at DOD, Mr. O'Donnell. By
the way, thank you all for your testimony, and I think it is a
tough issue to try to figure out the right answers. I know each
of you are trying to be as forthright as you can, so I want to
thank you for that.
Mr. O'Donnell, I want to ask about the Afghanistan
withdrawal, which left 13 American servicemembers dead, many
wounded, and contrary to what the President promised
unfortunately Americans were left behind and are still left
behind.
The first question for you is, has your office started an
investigation on the reckless Afghanistan withdrawal strategy
and decision to pull our resources out before we ensured all
American citizens are out?
Mr. O'Donnell. Senator, the Department of Defense Office of
Inspector General has undertaken a number of reviews with
respect to the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I think chief and
most noteworthy among them is the quarterly report that the
Department of Defense, and myself as lead Inspector General, do
with the Department of State OIG and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) OIG regarding overseas
contingency operations.
Our most recent quarterly report discussed, I think in
great depth, what we were seeing on the ground for that last
quarter, which was up through September, and then we also gave
a little bit of a look-back to see how we got there, was this
truly a surprise, what was the reporting that we were seeing
through our Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) reports, and
also, Senator, in our classified reports.
I expect that the next quarterly report--and these are
pretty quick oversight products--will start to address some of
the questions that you asked. We are looking at a number of
projects related to that. I think noteworthy among those is the
use of civilian airlines, the planning and use of civilian
airlines to evacuate personnel and Afghan evacuees from
Afghanistan. We are also doing an evaluation, an independent
evaluation of the drone strike in Kabul that resulted in the
death of seven children.
That is the beginning. I think there is a lot more
oversight that we will be conducted as facts become more
available.
Senator Scott. Were there any key findings that have
already come out?
Mr. O'Donnell. Our quarterly reports are not in the
traditional sense an audit or an evaluation. They speak to what
the Department, the three areas that are involved most heavily
in Overseas Contingency Operations are seeing. But I think if
there was a theme that came through, and we see it, frankly,
Senator, with Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), is that perhaps
we underestimated, I think pretty clearly, our partner's
capabilities. We reported that most recently in our OIR report.
I think that is sort of the immediate takeaway.
Senator Scott. All the reports that I have left so far is
that we have left billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded
military equipment and gear behind enemy lines. Is what you are
reviewing, are you auditing that to see exactly how much was
left behind and then why?
Mr. O'Donnell. Yes. As part of the lead IG effort in the
Overseas Contingency Operations we work with not just the other
two OIGs but also with Special IG for Afghan Reconstruction
(SIGAR). And so we are collaborating within our group to see
who is best situated to do that. Obviously it is difficult. No
one is there on the ground. We no longer have personnel on the
ground. SIGAR no longer has personnel on the ground. But it is
certainly an area of concern. I believe that our next OCO
report will start to address some of those questions, Senator.
Senator Scott. The intelligence community (IC), or elements
of the State Department on the ground advised that the Afghan
government and its military might fall pretty rapidly, enough
to put our evacuation plans in danger. So have you, in part of
what you are going to be doing or have you already done, have
you looked at why we did not evacuate American citizens
earlier?
Mr. O'Donnell. We have not done a comprehensive look at
that question yet, Senator.
Senator Scott. Is that something you will be looking at?
Mr. O'Donnell. I think it is certainly an issue of concern
and is on the table for us and our partners to look at.
Senator Scott. Do you feel any obligation to try to defend
the actions of the Department of Defense withdrawal from
Afghanistan in your role?
Mr. O'Donnell. I think one of the most important
responsibilities and tools at the disposal of an Inspector
General is to tell the story so that the American people
understand. Sometimes that story is not pretty, it is not good
news. Sometimes it is good news. That is how we see it at the
Department of Defense OIG.
Going forward what you will hear from us is transparent
truth and, if you will, the story, the what happened with
respect to that. Again, I think you start to see that in our
quarterly reports on Operation Freedom Sentinel.
Senator Scott. Last question is, in what you have reviewed
so far, it did not appear that there was a priority to get
Americans out. Even with the briefings we have received so far,
where we talk about how many people were evacuated, it was not
like Americans were our priority. It seemed like the priority
was getting just as many people out. So is that what you have
seen, or is there anything that you have done so far that you
would know that?
Mr. O'Donnell. I do not think we have analyzed that
question yet, Senator, but it is certainly one that we can meet
with your staff with and discuss further, so we get a better
understanding of your concern and perhaps for future work.
Senator Scott. Thanks. Thank you, Chairman Peters.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Scott.
We have our next panel coming up. Before I do that, just a
couple of quick questions, I think some follow-up from what we
have been hearing.
The DOD IG report recommended that the Department of
Defense develop a plan to track and analyze blood test results
of firefighters throughout the Department, which is already
happening, pursuant to Department of Defense written policy
Instruction 6055.05. Ms. Macaluso, why didn't the Department of
Defense monitor and analyze firefighter PFAS blood levels at a
DOD-wide level?
Ms. Macaluso. As I mentioned, we started the testing for
the blood samples in October 2020, and one of the challenges is
when the firefighters come in for their annual occupational
medical health exams and the blood is taken there is not a lot
of information that can be shared with the firefighters because
the scientific evidence is not available yet. So you do not
know what to tell the firefighter based on their level because
you do not know what the level means yet.
We are trying to be proactive as possible in analyzing the
information, but we are challenged until we understand what
concerning levels are, so that we can inform the firefighters
at that point, when we have more information.
We are looking at blood samples--mean, median, mode,
statistical analysis, areas that we can. But as I just
mentioned, we are limited until we get more scientific-based
evidence about what health effects could be and what the
standards, how what levels they are at.
Chairman Peters. Mr. Roark, what are the impacts of failing
to do so, to have these DOD-wide level screenings?
Mr. Roark. In our report we noted that if this is not done
we may not know the extent to which PFAS exposure among
firefighters exists across the DOD. We feel like doing this
analysis will give the DOD an opportunity to come up with
comprehensive data, which could be used in the future to study
some of the long-term effects that could be associated with
PFAS exposure.
Also, we feel like this is an important way that we could
communicate with health care providers, servicemembers and
their families, and DOD civilians about the long-term health
effects that could be associated with PFAS exposure.
Chairman Peters. Ms. Macaluso, I understand that the
Department is saying it is going to take four years to
implement this plan. Why is it going to take four years?
Ms. Macaluso. I am told that they estimate it will take 4
years. I do not have a scientific background but I know one
example they provided was that was the timeframe it took to
understand lead and the lead exposures. However, we do
anticipate having health effect information correlated to the
blood levels for certain PFAS in the next two years, and
therefore we would be able to accelerate our analysis of the
blood levels.
Chairman Peters. Let's hope you can accelerate it.
One final question and we are going to go to the next
panel. Mr. Kidd, what is the Department of Defense doing to
ensure that fish and wildlife impacted by PFAS contamination
from military sites is not going to pose either an imminent or
substantial health threat to the hunters and anglers through
consumption and subsistence hunting and fishing practices
surrounding these areas?
Mr. Kidd. Senator, thank you. We note the work of your home
State in sort of propagating issues in terms of response to
PFAS getting out there into the wildlife. Right now, as I say,
we do not have clear standards. We are working ourselves in
terms of ecotoxicology to understand how these chemicals move
through the environment and whether or not they concentrate. We
are also, again, cooperating and relying on the expertise of
other Federal agencies.
Chairman Peters. We have to keep accelerating this work.
Time is of the essence for people, as all of you know.
I want to thank each of our witnesses from the Department
of Defense for providing their critical perspectives, and I
would now like to invite to the witness table a second panel of
witnesses. If you could take your seats at the desk we would
appreciate it.
Ranking Member Portman, you are recognized for comments,
and I understand you have a witness you would like to introduce
as well.
Senator Portman. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going
to make a few brief comments and then I would like to introduce
one of the witnesses on the second panel. I know this is
running a little longer than people expected so we will move
quickly here.
We have talked about today there are more than 4,700
identified PFAS chemicals, and these chemicals have been around
for a long time, since the 1940s, found in everything from
firefighting foams to food wrappers to cleaning products, even
clothing. They have been used in manufacturing for decades to
make products that are resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease
and water.
But with increasing awareness of potential PFAS exposures,
particularly from drinking water systems, I share the concerns
of a lot of my constituents in the State of Ohio and
communities across the country about the impact PFAS
contamination has on their health and the health of their
families.
In 2016, EPA established lifetime drinking water health
advisory levels for two of the most prevalent and widely
researched PFAS chemicals--that is PFOA and PFOS--based on
scientific studies that indicated exposure could result in
adverse health effects. Although these chemicals were
voluntarily phased-out of production in the United States,
their persistence in the environment remains a serious cause
for concern, including, in our case, at the Wright Patterson
Air Force Base.
According to the CDC, National Institutes of Health (NIH),
and EPA, research is still ongoing regarding the impacts
exposure to PFAS chemicals can have on human health. As I
talked about earlier, we need to move up this research,
accelerate it as quickly as possible. It will help ensure that
we have a coordinated, effective Federal effort to address and
minimize PFAS contamination, so we know the scope of the
problem and so we can provide our communities accurate
information if risks are present. As we consider new options
for addressing PFAS through policy and regulation, it is
imperative that our approach be informed by science and by
evidence.
It is equally important that the Federal Government
maintain strong partnerships with our State and local actors
who are the first line of defense with regard to all health
hazards in our communities. To that end, I am pleased the
bipartisan infrastructure legislation that is now law provides
an historic commitment to strengthen and upgrade our nation's
water infrastructure, including $10 billion to help States
address PFAS in drinking water.
Talking about the States, I am pleased to introduce one of
our witnesses on the second panel. Mark Johnson from Ohio EPA
is with us. Mark is the Deputy Director of Business and
Regulatory Affairs (BRA) and has been an instrumental figure
behind the State of Ohio's efforts I talked about earlier to
develop and implement a statewide action plan on PFAS.
Ohio has taken an effective approach, in my view, to
identifying and helping to address PFAS contamination within
the State. Mark will bring a valuable perspective to our
hearing today. We look forward to hearing from you, Mark. Thank
you for joining us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman.
Senator Hassan, would you like to introduce your witness,
and then I will introduce a witness, we will take an oath, and
then we will get right into the questions.
Senator Hassan. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is,
in fact, my pleasure to introduce Andrea Amico from Portsmouth,
New Hampshire. Mrs. Amico is the Co-Founder of Testing for
Pease, a community action group that aims to educate and
advocate for residence impacted by the water contamination at
the former Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth.
Mrs. Amico was rightfully concerned when media reports
began to surface that an emergent contaminant called PFAS had
gotten into the water that her children drank at their daycare
center. Fearing for their health and the health of her
neighbors, Mrs. Amico began her critical advocacy. From her
initial efforts to raise public awareness and get blood tests
for those who had been exposed to PFAS at Pease to the work
that she continues today to advocate for the Pease community
and communities across the country impacted by PFAS
contamination, Andrea has helped bring widespread attention to
this important issue, and she has even been honored by the
Environmental Protection Agency for her community advocacy
work.
In New Hampshire, we bring an all-hands-on-deck spirit to
solving our problems, and Mrs. Amico brings that to her work
every day, rolling up her sleeves and bringing her community
together to address PFAS contamination. I am pleased that Mrs.
Amico is in front of the Committee today, and not for the first
time. I joined with many of my colleagues here today when we
held first-ever PFAS hearing in the Senate and heard from Mrs.
Amico, and I am glad to welcome her before the Committee again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hassan. Before I
introduce our third witness it is the practice of this
Committee to swear in witnesses. So if the three of you would
please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony that you will give before
this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Spaniola. I do.
Ms. Amico. I do.
Mr. Johnson. I do.
Chairman Peters. That is the affirmative from all three.
You may take a seat.
Our first witnesses is Tony Spaniola. Mr. Spaniola serves
as the Co-Chair of the Great Lakes PFAS Action Network, where
he works to prevent and cleanup toxic PFAS contamination.
Mr. Spaniola became a leading national PFAS advocate after
learning that his family's lake in Oscoda was impacted by PFAS
contamination from the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base, the
first reported PFAS contaminationsite in Michigan and the first
reported U.S. military PFAS-contaminated site in the world.
In his current role, he educates decisionmakers and ensures
accountability for comprehensive and equitable solutions to
PFAS contamination for people all across the Great Lakes region
by providing tools and resources for communities grappling with
PFAS contamination, holding polluters responsible and seeking
clean-up solutions for the contamination.
Mr. Spaniola, I would like to thank you for all the work
that you have been doing in our State to bring attention to the
harm that is caused by PFAS, but also that protect Michiganders
from these toxic chemicals.
With that you may proceed with your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY M. SPANIOLA,\1\ CO-CHAIR, GREAT LAKES PFAS
ACTION NETWORK
Mr. Spaniola. Thank you. Chairman Peters, Ranking Member
Portman, and honorable Members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Anthony
Spaniola. I am Co-Chair of the Great Lakes PFAS Action Network
and a founding member of the Need Our Water community action
group in Oscoda, Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Spaniola appears in the Appendix
on page 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a business attorney in suburban Detroit. My wife and I
also own a home on Van Etten Lake in the small northern
Michigan community of Oscoda. Our lake home in Oscoda was
gifted to us by my wife's late father, a distinguished Marine
Corps veteran of the Korean War who survived some of the
fiercest combat in U.S. military history. Our home in Oscoda
has served as a cherished family gathering spot to honor his
memory. It is surrounded by the splendor of the Huron National
Forest, beautiful inland waterways, Lake Huron, and spectacular
wildlife.
Our home is also near the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base,
a Strategic Air Command facility that closed in 1993. In 2010,
Wurtsmith became the first U.S. military installation in the
world at which PFAS contamination was publicly reported.
Because it is the first, Wurtsmith is a precedent-setter for
DOD activities at hundreds of other PFAS-impacted military
sites across the Nation. It is where DOD developed its PFAS
playbook.
Like many other military and host community families, we
trusted DOD and initially believed its promise to implement a
proactive PFAS game plan. That trust was seriously misplaced.
More than 11 years into its investigation, the Air Force has no
overall plan in place to clean up the PFAS contamination from
its Wurtsmith operations, and estimate that it could be another
two to five years before such a plan is finalized.
Meanwhile, PFAS continues to flow largely unchecked into
miles of public waterways in our community. As a result, our
community is subject to five separate public health warnings,
for unsafe drinking water, for unsafe fish, for unsafe venison,
for unsafe small game and wildlife, and for unsafe shoreline
and surface water foam.
The ongoing PFAS contamination has placed an enormous
burden on our community. Our local government has had to go
into debt to fund municipal waterline extensions that will take
years to complete. Homeowners like me face the choice of paying
expensive hookup fees or drinking bottled or single tap-
filtered water. Signs warning of unsafe fish, wildlife, and the
foam itself dot our forests and waterways, negatively impacting
our tourism industry, and more importantly, the health of low-
income individuals for whom nature is their primary source of
food.
Instead of attacking these problems, DOD passes the buck.
It blames Congress for insufficient funding, even though
Congress consistently appropriates more funding than DOD
requests. It blames the CERCLA process for endless delays but
ignores CERCLA's requirement of immediate interim action to
clean up imminent and substantial hazards. It blames
insufficient data while suppressing existing data and ignoring
that the DOD itself is in charge of the data collection.
In truth, DOD has broad and unchecked powers to administer
its PFAS clean-up program, and it has abused those powers, in
Oscoda and across the Nation. Information is tightly controlled
by DOD and too often kept from the public. Decisions impacting
local communities are made in private and announced to the
public for after-the-fact input. State regulators are
threatened with loss of DOD grant funding, a tactic known as
weaponizing the grant, should they attempt to challenge DOD
actions.
The DOD PFAS program is bureaucracy run amok. New Mexico's
Attorney General has described it as corrupt and un-American.
It has forced the city of Dayton, Ohio, to sue DOD after
exhausting all possibilities. Mr. Chairman, you have accurately
described it in Oscoda as unproductive at best.
As a member of a military family it saddens me deeply to
report that DOD is actively harming the people and communities
that it is supposed to protect. On behalf of the hundreds of
communities like mine across the Nation I call on Secretary
Austin and current new DOD leadership to implement sweeping and
fundamental reforms within the PFAS program, and I urge this
Committee and others in Congress to exercise vigorous oversight
to assure that Americans across this nation receive the
protection that they deserve. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Mr. Spaniola.
The next witness is Ms. Amico. You may proceed with your
opening comments.
TESTIMONY OF ANDREA AMICO,\1\ CO-FOUNDER, TESTING FOR PEASE
Ms. Amico. Thank you Chairman Peters, Ranking Member
Portman, and Members of the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify in front of you today. My name is Andrea Amico and I
am a PFAS community leader from New Hampshire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Amico appears in the Appendix on
page 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My family has been directly impacted by PFAS-contaminated
water from the former Pease Air Force Base located in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. My two older children were exposed
to high levels of PFAS at their daycare center that was located
at the old air base, which has now been redeveloped into a
large industrial park called the Pease Tradeport. My husband
was exposed to the same contaminated water while working for a
business right next door to their daycare.
When I toured the daycare center on the Pease Tradeport in
2010, when I was pregnant with my first child, I thought I did
everything right. I asked so many questions of the daycare: Is
your staff CPR certified? What is your curriculum? What is your
teacher-to-child ratio? But I never once questioned the quality
of the water. Back then I was like many Americans, who assume
when you turn on the tap clean, safe drinking water came out.
So you can imagine the devastation I felt in May 2014, when I
learned that high levels of PFAS were detected in the drinking
water where my two kids and husband were every day for work and
daycare.
As a result of my family and my community being
contaminated with PFAS from a former military base, I have
worked tirelessly to advocate for PFAS action and change at the
local, State, and national level. I founded a community action
group called Testing for Pease in 2015, and in 2017, I helped
to found the National PFAS Contamination Coalition to bring
together PFAS community leaders from all over the country,
working to address PFAS. I have also worked collaboratively
with my local, State, and Federal elected officials to address
PFAS.
My family's PFAS exposure came from aqueous film-forming
foam used by the U.S. Air Force when Pease was an active base.
My community is not unique, and the DOD has contaminated
hundreds of communities with PFAS from firefighting foam across
this Nation, and even some communities around the world.
I was troubled when I read the DOD Inspector General report
that included the findings that people and the environment may
have been exposed to preventable risks from PFAS in AFFF. One
of the questions raised in the letter from Members of Congress
when requesting the IG review DOD's use of PFAS at military
sites is when did the DOD first know PFAS was harmful. That
question was never addressed in the IG's report but it is one
that has kept me awake for many sleepless nights since 2014.
As a mother, I live with so much pain, guilt, and anxiety,
knowing my kids drank contaminated water at a daycare center
located at a former Air Force base. I have asked myself
countless times, how could this have happened? When did the Air
Force know PFAS and AFFF was harmful to humans and the
environment? Why did the Air Force not test the drinking water
at Pease and many other current or former military sites for
PFAS before 2014? Could something have been done sooner to
prevent my family's exposure, and the exposure to millions of
civilians, servicemembers, and local community members?
The DOD IG did not address that question in his report.
However, publicly available Navy and Air Force documents dating
back as far as the 1970s show DOD knew that AFFF was toxic. To
give you some perspective, I was born in 1982. I have a hard
time accepting that the Air Force knew of the harms from AFFF a
decade before I was born and did nothing to stop its use, and
now my children, who were born in 2011 and 2013, have been
impacted by PFAS.
DOD's role in causing widespread contamination of toxic and
persistent forever chemicals is not one we can whitewash or
gloss over. There are serious failures in responsibility and
accountability from DOD over the last several decades on PFAS,
and we need a deeper dive into what went wrong so we can make
sure a public health and environmental devastation on this
scale can never happen again.
We also need accountability and full responsibility taken
from current DOD leadership to quickly address the issue and
prevent ongoing harm and exposure to impacted communities,
servicemembers, and their families.
I will conclude by saying one major issue I see is that
there is a historical lack of leadership from DOD to seriously
prioritize the PFAS issues they have caused across our Nation.
Congress and the Administration need to address this historical
neglect and begin treating this environmental and public health
issue with a sense of urgency. The IG report was one step in
the right direction in identifying the shortcomings of DOD's
role in the PFAS crisis our nation is facing, but it did not go
far enough to thoroughly identify the significant missteps and
inaction taken by our largest and most powerful department in
this country.
If we do not dive deeper in the past to fully understand
the mistakes made that has contaminated millions of Americans
in this country we are doomed to repeat them again, and if we
do not hold the DOD fully responsible for their role in this
crisis DOD will continue to erode community trust and undermine
their civilian respect for the military throughout the country.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share my story. I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Amico.
Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for your opening comments.
TESTIMONY OF MARK JOHNSON,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS AND
REGULATORY AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, STATE OF
OHIO
Mr. Johnson. Thank you Chairman Peters, Ranking Member, and
the honorable Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony today to share Ohio's
perspective on the challenges and opportunities associated with
addressing PFAS contaminants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Mark Johnson and I am the Deputy Director of
Business and Regulatory Affairs for the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency. I assisted in the development of Ohio's PFAS
Action Plan for Drinking Water, which was implemented under the
direction of Governor Mike DeWine.
Recognizing the need to take a closer look at PFAS risks in
Ohio, in September 2019, Governor Mike DeWine announced the
establishment of an interagency workgroup to address the
emerging issue of PFAS for the protection of natural resources
and public health. In his announcement, he directed the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency and Ohio Department of Health
to develop a statewide PFAS action plan to gather data to
assist in identifying, responding to, and communicating PFAS-
related drinking water risks in Ohio.
During 2020, under the action plan, Ohio EPA coordinated
sampling at almost 1,550 public water systems that supply
waters to cities, mobile home parks, schools, and daycares. In
total, these systems provide water to approximately 90 percent
of Ohio's population. Sure that Ohio was prioritizing the most
vulnerable populations during our sampling efforts,
approximately 240 schools and daycares were included in our
first phase of sampling.
It was important for Ohio to be both transparent in our
efforts and to keep the public informed. To accomplish this,
all sample results were made available on Ohio's PFAS webpage.
Data is still available and accessible through an interactive
map on our website. We are also proactive in communicating the
results of our sampling, particularly in situations where
samples revealed PFAS detections, as I will touch on later in
this testimony.
The sampling initiative was a significant undertaking and
took close to a year to complete. The good news is, though,
that through these efforts Ohio EPA determined that nearly 94
percent of the public drinking water systems tested revealed no
detection of PFAS compounds.
Two public water systems had detections above Ohio's action
levels, both of which implemented immediate measures to ensure
safe drinking water for their consumers. One system has
permanently connected to an alternate source of public drinking
water as a long-term solution. The second system is currently
in the process of connecting to alternate source of drinking
water as a long-term solution.
We did identify low levels of PFAS compounds in six percent
of the systems. However, these levels were well below the
current U.S. EPA health advisory levels and Ohio's action
levels established in the action plan. Ohio EPA is working
closely with these systems to collect additional data to
monitor the levels of PFAS and ensure that appropriate response
measures are taken by these systems to minimize public health
risks.
With the completion of the statewide sampling initiative we
believe that Ohio now joins the ranks of only a handful of
other States that have taken on such a comprehensive approach
to analyze public drinking water systems. We now have very
important data that can help us as we work with our public
water systems to ensure that they can continue to provide safe
drinking water to their customers and prepare for compliance
with future regulations.
We not only greatly appreciate the leadership and support
from Governor Mike DeWine but we also appreciate your
leadership in recognizing the importance of supporting States
and their efforts to address emergent contaminants such as
PFAS, including the appropriation of infrastructure dollars to
support PFAS contamination in Ohio. We believe it is important
to have strong Federal regulatory framework that provides
consistent standards that States can look to when developing
their PFAS programs.
While our efforts under Ohio PFAS action plan have been
focused on ensuring safe drinking water, we certainly recognize
that it is important to develop national standards and a
regulatory framework to address PFAS contamination in other
areas, including setting standards for clean-up and
remediation. To this end, we would also like to thank you for
the funding support that has been provided to the nation's
defense installations to help identify and address legacy PFAS
contamination.
We are very much appreciative of the opportunity to share
our work on PFAS in Ohio as part of today's testimony. We will
continue to stay engaged on this very important topic and look
forward to the continued dialog as we work together in
addressing our PFAS challenges.
I am happy to answer any questions you have at the
conclusion of testimony from the panel.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Ranking Member Portman, you are recognized for your
questions.
Senator Portman. Great. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I
appreciate you being here. As I said earlier, I think Ohio has
a good system in place in terms of testing, transparency, and
making sure we are communicating this clearly to stakeholders.
You mentioned the infrastructure legislation having $10
billion to address PFAS. This is an historic investment. As you
know, it is going to flow to the States through the Clean
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (CDWSRF) as well as
through the Small and Disadvantaged Community Grant Program.
Can you talk a little about how that is going to impact
what you are doing back home? How will that help, this PFAS
funding in the infrastructure bill, to address and prevent PFAS
contamination, particularly in drinking water?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. Thank you for your question. We
very much appreciate the funding support that is being provided
through the infrastructure bill to help address PFAS challenges
in Ohio.
As mentioned in my testimony, going through the process of
collecting the sample data from our public water systems under
the action plan has provided us with very important information
that we can use in putting these dollars to work. We look
forward to developing a plan for potential uses for this
funding, and also we will be working with our stakeholders,
including public water systems, to get their thoughts and ideas
on how to best use this money.
One area where we can see this funding being applied is in
helping our systems that have low level of PFAS detections
upgrade their treatment systems or make other infrastructure
improvements that both reduce PFAS risk and best prepare them
for future regulations related to PFAS in drinking water. In
addition, Ohio EPA will look to explore additional testing and
planning for addressing PFAS contamination.
The availability of this funding will allow public water
systems to install treatment or potentially develop alternate
sources of drinking water quickly, and will help reduce the
financial burden on its customers and the public water systems
itself.
Senator Portman. I am pleased to see that you have a plan,
and it sounds like it is a very constructive one to deal with
our needs in Ohio, at least, and I hope other States have
similar plans. We are going to be following up on this, making
sure that this legislation is properly implemented. It is a lot
of money, and properly used I think it can make a huge
difference in terms of PFAS.
The other aspect we talked about earlier is the research,
and although we have some research on some of these chemicals,
of the over 4,700 chemicals, I think the Federal Government can
do a better job there. Would it be helpful for you to have
better research, and Federal research in particular, with
regard to the health impacts of some of these chemicals?
Mr. Johnson. It absolutely would. Certainly the State
relies on the Federal Government and their expertise in this
area, and relies on the Federal Government to conduct the
needed research and develop technical guidance. It is critical
for the States to implement these types of regulations,
especially with the complexity of PFAS.
Most States lack that resource to conduct this work on
their own, and on top of including the regulation of all of our
regulatory programs. The development of these regulatory
standards, you know, most States heavily rely on the Federal
Government, and we certainly understand the importance of that.
Senator Portman. Great. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman.
Mr. Spaniola, you talked about this certainly in your
opening comments, but I would like you to share with the
Committee a little bit more in depth as to how this PFAS
contamination has impacted the Oscoda community, whether the
economic impacts, the environmental impacts, certainly the
human health impacts. So give us a sense of what folks are
saying on the ground, what they are feeling on the ground, and
how has the Department of Defense's slow walking of this issue
impacted the community?
Mr. Spaniola. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you for your leadership on this issue and for your
support of our efforts in our community.
This issue has been one that pervades a lot that has gone
on in our community. It concerns people from a health
perspective. As Ms. Amico mentioned earlier, the questions
arise, how long have we been drinking water that has not been
safe? How long have people been eating fish that have not been
safe? How long have we been exposed to foam and other wildlife?
How many veterans actually were exposed to what we know are
extremely high levels of drinking water at the base? We have
done testing going back to see that and to find that out.
I think one of the things it has done is it has brought the
community together, because the Department of Defense was
initially viewed as a partner of ours, and after a while it
became pretty clear that they were not interested in partnering
at all.
It has been an immensely frustrating process for the
community and has left the community, and I think a lot of
communities around the country--I am involved in the National
PFAS Contamination Coalition--it has left communities around
the country with a sense of serious distrust of the Department.
Unfortunately, the testimony that we heard this morning did not
do much to calm that down.
We know that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
instructed Fort Carson, Colorado not to use firefighting foam
back in 1991 or 1993. When we hear things about 2011 and 2016
and 2008, it underscores what we have seen in Oscoda year after
year after year, false statements and misleading statements
that are made by the Department. And so it has been a serious
battle.
Chairman Peters. It certainly has been, and certainly
everybody's patience is wearing very thing, as it should be,
with this long battle.
Mr. Spaniola, could you speak about some of the examples of
proactive, State-level leadership that we have seen in Michigan
to address PFAS contamination? Perhaps the Federal Government
can learn from some of the actions taken by the State of
Michigan. What is your assessment, and could you tell the
Committee more about what is happening?
Mr. Spaniola. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. I
think that there are probably a handful of things that the
Federal Government could learn from what is going on in
Michigan.
The first is the establishment of the Michigan PFAS Action
Response Team, which was actually an idea of Robert Delaney, a
Michigan DEQ scientist who appeared before your field committee
hearing back in Grand Rapids a few years ago. I think that the
all-of-government approach is what is really needed for this
chemical, and Michigan took the lead in doing that. And that
has been a bipartisan effort. I think it is very critical to
emphasize that.
Another thing that I think is really important, as I sit
here and I talk to so many people within the beltway, is
getting the citizen perspective, because what you hear from the
Department bubbles up from the bottom and it is not reflective
of what is going on on the ground. What our Governor, Gretchen
Whitmer, did at the start of her administration was to create a
citizens advisory workgroup that meets with the State
bureaucracy to bring those concerns to the State and to help
the State react and respond. I think that is a very critical
aspect that is missing. It is a perspective that is missing.
As we talked earlier, citizens are left out of this
process. Decisions are made without citizen input. In the real
world the citizens are the ones who live with the results and
who actually have, many times, the best ideas for resolving
them. So Michigan has done a marvelous job in setting up that
approach.
Last I would mention, again, under the leadership of our
Governor Whitmer, the creation of the maximum contaminant
drinking water limits for our State, which is one of the few
States in the country that has done that.
Chairman Peters. Mr. Spaniola, I authored a provision that
was included in the 2020 National Defense Authorization, to
allow a State Governor to request a new or amended cooperative
agreement that would require the Department of Defense to
comply with State pollution laws if they are more stringent. In
March of this year, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer informed
Secretary Austin that she was invoking this provision, seeking
a commitment from the Department of Defense to meet or exceed
Michigan standards for PFAS in its site remediation work plans.
According to my provision, the Department of Defense now
has one year to reach an agreement with the State of Michigan,
and if it does not they must explain why to Congress and offer
a timeline for reaching one.
So my question to you, sir, is can you speak to the
importance of taking action to ensure that the Department of
Defense actually meets the strictest possible standards when
remediating these PFAS-contaminated sites?
Mr. Spaniola. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. It
is of utmost importance. In Oscoda, we have been asking for
this for years, and in fact, the Department of Defense
originally told us that if there were just State laws in effect
that applied across the board to private industry and the
government that they would comply, and they have walked that
back.
In our community, if they actually do comply with State
law--and they are not; they are violating it for miles and
miles of public waterways--if they actually do comply with
State law then they will have to clean things up. And so I
commend you and thank you for including that provision, and
hope that the DOD will comply with State law everywhere. They
are not doing that, and that is a problem.
Chairman Peters. Do you believe that the current approach
that the DOD is implementing will address off-base migration of
these PFAS contaminants?
Mr. Spaniola. Thank you for your question. I am deeply
concerned. In Oscoda, we have seen that that has not been the
case. First of all with respect to migrating groundwater, they
have taken a very narrow view and have attempted to try to say
they are not responsible when there is no other responsible
parties in Oscoda. It is trees and water and the Air Force
base.
That is one thing, and then another, they were involved in
a number of activities to put fires around the community,
including a fire at the K-12 educational complex. They are
refusing to accept responsibility for any of that. That is a
serious problem.
Chairman Peters. We need to continue to focus on it. We
appreciate your testimony here today. I certainly do appreciate
that.
I am going to need to step away briefly. We have another
Committee hearing that I need to go to ask question. I will
pass the gavel to Senator Hassan, who will now chair the
Committee, unless I return. But at least for now she will chair
the Committee. Senator Hassan.
Senator Hassan [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr. Chair,
and we are doing these musical chairs so I can keep track of
whether anybody else, any other Senators will attend virtually.
I want to thank this entire panel for your work and for
your testimony. Mrs. Amico, I am going to direct my questions
to you. Thank you again for coming to testify before our
Committee.
You have been instrumental in bringing the PFAS
contamination at Pease Air National Guard Base in our State of
New Hampshire to the forefront of the national conversation,
and it is important that Pease was one of the locations
reviewed in this Inspector General's report. Over the course of
your efforts you have worked extensively with the Department of
Defense. Can you share your recommendations for how the
Department of Defense can better communicate and share
information with communities impacted by PFAS contamination?
Ms. Amico. Thank you for the question. Yes, I have a few
suggestions for the Department of Defense and how they can
engage with communities more effectively. The first is I want
to first recognize that Mr. Kidd from our first panel has
started offering community engagement sessions, and we have had
two so far. But one of the drawbacks to that format is that it
has been Mr. Kidd speaking to the communities quite a bit and
not listening, not giving us the opportunity to speak to him.
I would really encourage the Department of Defense to host
routine listening sessions with DOD leadership officials and
with impacted PFAS community leaders.
I would also like to recommend that the Department of
Defense improve transparency in releasing comprehensive data on
PFAS to communities, not just regulated compounds or the EPA
health advisories. We know that AFFF is a mixture of PFAS
chemicals, so often when they are testing water and soil and
other things they are finding multiple PFAS, but many times
they are only sharing the data on just PFOA and PFOS. For
communities to have a real sense of how extensive the
contamination is, it is important that we know all of their
findings. So that would also be critically important.
Impacted communities would like to see improved
relationships with local Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) and
Restoration Advisory Committees (RACs), focused on trust and
collaboration. Through the National PFAS Coalition we certainly
have heard feedback from many military sites that the RABs and
RACs are not a productive or effective way to bring DOD and
communities together. They are often hostile, and there is a
lot of mistrust.
I was very happy to hear Mr. Kidd say today they are going
to increase training for those RABs, and one suggestion I would
have for him is to include some impacted community members as
part of that training, and to give DOD some guidance on how to
best work with communities. I know many PFAS community leaders
would be happy to offer that expertise to him.
Last I will say that PFAS community leaders have requested
a meeting with Secretary Austin and Deputy Secretary Hicks of
DOD, and I think it would be critically important for those
officials to meet with PFAS community leaders to hear from
people that are most affected by the problem as to what our
needs are and what solutions we need from DOD. Thank you.
Senator Hassan. Thank you for those recommendations.
I want to follow up on now on a topic that Senator Peters
and Mr. Spaniola were talking about. As you know, in the
absence of comprehensive Federal standards for safe levels of
PFAS in drinking water a number of States, including our own of
New Hampshire, have acted to set science-based safety
thresholds of their own. The Defense Department has provided
alternative water sources such as bottled water or water
filtration systems to some communities and households around
contaminated sites, including the communities surrounding
Pease.
However, the Defense Department appears to only have done
so in instances where PFAS contamination is above the EPA
thresholds, but not for those communities or households that
test below EPA thresholds but above State thresholds. So can
you tell us how the disparate treatment affects the health of
our communities and the relationship between the Defense
Department and local communities?
Ms. Amico. Thank you for the question. Yes, in New
Hampshire we have experienced where DOD, they have taken a lot
of responsibility for PFAS contamination and have spent over
$65 million to address PFAS, and I am deeply grateful or that.
But one issues that continues is there are some private wells
surrounding the former base that do have PFAS levels above New
Hampshire's MCLs but below the EPA health advisory, and the DOD
will not provide alternative water to those homes, despite
advocacy from the local community, our New Hampshire Governor,
as well as our New Hampshire congressional delegation.
And that is a problem because, first and foremost, that
does not protect public health. New Hampshire set these MCLs to
protect public health, and so for the DOD to be able to pick
and choose what rule they follow when it comes to public health
is not acceptable.
Second, it erodes trust with the community. They are at
Pease trying to do a lot of work to clean up the contamination,
but when they do not fully cleanup the contamination or fully
address impacted communities that is eroding trust and it
undermines their mission of protecting this country.
Senator Hassan. Thank you, and I would agree with that, and
it is something we have to continue to work on.
You have been involved since the beginning in the effort to
secure testing for PFAS exposure and contamination around
Pease. The fiscal year 2022 National Defense Bill establishes a
2-year deadline for the Defense Department to complete testing
for PFAS at military installations and also requires the
Department to make testing results available to the public.
How should the Department work with community leaders like
you to meet the 2-year deadline?
Ms. Amico. Thank you for the question. I first want to say
I appreciate the deadline that is being put on DOD because I
think we heard today, they have known about this problem for
quite a while, and they did not take the action they needed to
do this testing and identify the bases that have significant
issues.
But I think what we need to see is that DOD deploy a
significant amount of resources to test effectively and
efficiently, and we also need to see them share the data in a
comprehensive way. Again, when they get results they need to
share that quickly with impacted communities and they need to
share all of the PFAS data, not just PFOA and PFOS.
I think, last, we will likely need to see other deadlines
put on them for clean-up as well, once those results are back.
That is a critically important next step. Thank you.
Senator Hassan. Yes. Deadline is really important. So thank
you.
It is now my understanding that we do not have any
additional Senators who are going to ask questions, so I am
going to close out the hearing with great thanks to this group
of panelists as well as to our first panel. But just to note
that to all three of you, the work you are doing on behalf of
your State, in Ohio's case, and the two of you as citizen
advocates in our States of Michigan and New Hampshire, makes a
really important and true difference, and we are really
grateful for the work that you do.
The hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until
December 24th, at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and
questions for the record.
And the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]