[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]