[Senate Hearing 117-665]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                        S. Hrg. 117-665

                       IMPROVING INTERAGENCY AND
                     INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
                    OF PFAS FOR MICHIGAN COMMUNITIES

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

                             FIELD HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
               HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS


                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             AUGUST 1, 2022

                               __________

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                       Printed for the use of the
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
        
        
        
        
        
        
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
51-541 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        

        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
              Chelsea A. Davis, Professional Staff Member
 Mike Stoever, Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Gary C. Peters
  Eric E. Keller, Regional Director, Office of Senator Gary C. Peters
Joci C. McMichael, Mid-Michigan Regional Coordinator, Office of Gary C. 
                                 Peters
                Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director
            Sam J. Mulopulos, Minority Deputy Staff Director
       Cara G. Mumford, Minority Director of Governmental Affairs
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                     Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk 
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     

                            C O N T E N T S

                                 ------                                
Opening statements:
                                                                   Page
    Senator Peters...............................................     1
Prepared statements:
    Senator Peters...............................................    49

                               WITNESSES
                         Monday, August 1, 2022

Patrick Breysse, Ph.D., Director, National Center for 
  Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
  Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. 
  Department of Health and Human Services........................     3
Bruno Pigott, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, 
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency...........................     6
Nancy Balkus, P.E. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
  (Environment, Safety, and Infrastructure), Department of the 
  Air Force......................................................     8
John Gillespie, Senior Subject Matter Expert, Environmental 
  Restoration, Air Force Civil Engineer Center...................     9
Abigail Hendershott, Executive Director, Michigan PFAS Action 
  Response Team..................................................    28
Breanna Knudsen, Tribal Environmental Response Program 
  Specialist, Planning Department, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe 
  of Michigan....................................................    30
Cheryl Murphy, Ph.D. Director, Center for PFAS Research, Michigan 
  State University...............................................    31
Lt. Col. Craig L. Minor, USAF (RET.) Former Resident, Wurtsmith 
  Air Force Base.................................................    33
Cathy Wusterbarth, Founder, Need Our Water and Oscoda Citizens 
  for Clean Water and Community Leader, Great Lakes PFAS Action 
  Network East Lansing, Michigan.................................    34

                     Alphabetical List of Witnesses

Balkus, Nancy, P.E.:
    Testimony....................................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    74
Breysse, Patrick, Ph.D.:
    Testimony....................................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................    51
Gillespie, John:
    Testimony....................................................     9
Hendershott, Abigail:
    Testimony....................................................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    84
Kidd, Richard:
    Prepared statement...........................................    67
Knudsen, Breanna:
    Testimony....................................................    30
    Prepared statement...........................................    91
Minor, Lt. Col. Craig L.:
    Testimony....................................................    33
    Prepared statement...........................................    97
Murphy, Cheryl:
    Testimony....................................................    31
    Prepared statement...........................................    92
Pigott, Bruno:
    Testimony....................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................    57
Wusterbarth, Cathy:
    Testimony....................................................    34
    Prepared statement with attachments..........................   106

                                APPENDIX

PFAS Contamination at the Former Wurtsmith Air Force Base: The 
  True Story NOW Report..........................................   120
Response to post-hearing questions submitted for the Record
    Mr. Pigott...................................................   134
    Mr. Kidd.....................................................   138
    Ms. Balkus...................................................   148
    Mr. Gillespie................................................   154

 
                       IMPROVING INTERAGENCY AND 
                     INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 
                    OF PFAS FOR MICHIGAN COMMUNITIES 

                              ----------                              


                             AUGUST 1, 2022

                                     U.S. Senate,  
                           Committee on Homeland Security  
                                  and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Detroit, MI
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:59 a.m., 
Michigan State University, Interdisciplinary Science and 
Technology Building, Room 1404 (766 Service Road, East Lansing, 
MI 48824).
    Present: Senator Peters

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\

    Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the 
Appendix on page 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First off, I would like to thank Michigan State University 
(MSU) for hosting us here today, and to thank each of our 
witnesses on both panels that will be before us, for being with 
us in East Lansing, and most importantly your dedicated service 
to the American people each and every day.
    Today's hearing will examine the Federal Government's 
efforts to address contamination from polyfluoroalkyl 
substances (PFAS), and identify potential solutions to build a 
more comprehensive approach to conduct research, assess the 
risks and effectively remediate the contaminated sites that we 
have here in Michigan, as well as all across the country.
    PFAS are man-made chemicals that are widely used in 
industry and consumer products due to their ability to repel 
water, oil, and heat; known as ``forever chemicals,'' because 
they do not break down naturally. These substances are used in 
everything from commercial products like food packaging, 
nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpet, and waterproof 
clothing, as well as firefighting foams. Despite their 
prevalence, the well-known health effects, PFAS are not 
currently regulated by the Federal Government. For the last 80 
years, they have been allowed to seep into our air, our soil, 
and even our drinking water. Prolonged exposure to these toxic 
chemicals can lead to serious health effects like cancer, liver 
and kidney issues, and reproductive and developmental issues.
    In Michigan, we have the highest amount of recorded PFAS 
contamination sites in the entire country, largely because 
Michigan is on the forefront of identifying these locations and 
actually looking for them. We know when you look for them, you 
will find them all over the country, as well, not just here in 
Michigan. But these chemicals continue to pose significant risk 
to our communities, and as of now, more than two million 
Michigan residents having been exposed to toxic chemicals in 
their drinking water.
    In particular, servicemembers, first responders and their 
families, and residents of communities surrounding military 
sites across Michigan have continued to face sustained exposure 
to PFAS. These folks, many of them who serve our country with 
honor and distinction, deserve a whole lot better. That is why 
as Chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee (HSGAC) I have pushed for Federal agencies 
responsible for PFAS contamination to take a more proactive 
approach to addressing what is indeed a crisis. In September 
2018, I convened the Senate's first hearing on PFAS 
contamination to examine the Federal role in addressing this 
crisis, as well as a field summit in Grand Rapids to hear 
directly from Michiganders about the impact PFAS contamination 
has had on their lives. Most recently, last December, I 
convened a hearing to examine the Department of Defense 
Inspector General (DOD IG) Report that showed that the 
Department of Defense (DOD) continued to use these chemicals 
despite knowing the harmful effects.
    Since these hearings, my colleagues and I have passed 
bipartisan infrastructure law, which invest in clean drinking 
water, and includes dedicated funding to address the PFAS 
contamination, and secured provisions in the 2019 National 
Defense bill that bans the Department of Defense from 
purchasing firefighting foams containing PFAS chemicals. I am 
also pleased to see the administration has taken important 
steps to address this crisis with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) PFAS Strategic Roadmap and new drinking water 
health advisories (HAs) for PFAS significantly lowering the 
lifetime drinking water health advisories for perfluorooctanoic 
acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and 
setting a new advisory level for GenX chemicals.
    However, Michiganders are unfortunately continuing to 
suffer the consequences of exposure to these hazardous 
chemicals, and government must do more to protect these 
communities. I am going to continue pushing Federal agencies 
that are responsible for PFAS contamination to take additional 
steps to help the communities that have been impacted by these. 
I am also working to pass legislation that I introduced earlier 
this year to prevent PFAS contamination in our communities, 
including my Preventing PFAS Runoff at Airports Act, which 
incentivizes commercial airports nationwide to purchase testing 
equipment that avoids spreading PFAS chemicals, and my Federal 
PFAS Research Evaluation Act, which will give us a more 
complete understanding of the impact of PFAS, and the impact it 
has on our health and environment so that we can more 
effectively deal with this contamination.
    I also plan to introduce new legislation in the coming 
weeks to improve intergovernmental coordination for PFAS 
contamination and facilitate a more comprehensive approach to 
cleaning up existing sites, as well as preventing future 
contamination.
    Today, our first panel will feature Federal officials who 
can speak about their agency's efforts on PFAS contamination, 
and discuss strategic action plans, as well as additional 
opportunities to improve the coordination for every aspect of 
PFAS response, ranging from research to remediation.
    Our second panel will feature Michiganders who have lived 
this crisis firsthand and look--I certainly look forward to 
hearing their perspectives and insights on how we keep our 
friends, our families, and our loved ones out of harm's way. I 
appreciate all of our witnesses for taking time to be here 
today and share more about the work that they have undertaken 
to address the PFAS exposure and to join in this what will be a 
very productive conversation on what more we must do to protect 
our communities, and our harmful chemicals.
    It is the practice of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee to swear in witnesses. If each 
of you would please stand and raise your right hands, please.
    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?
    Dr. Breysse. I do.
    Mr. Pigott. I do.
    Ms. Balkus. I do.
    Mr. Gillespie. I do.
    Chairman Peters. You may be seated.
    Today's first witness is Dr. Patrick Breysse, Director of 
the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) and Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prior to 
joining the CDC, Dr. Breysse worked at Johns Hopkins University 
as Associate Chair for Educational Programs within the 
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Program Director 
for the Industrial Hygiene Training Program, and as Co-Director 
of the John Hopkins Center for Childhood Asthma in the Urban 
Environment.
    Dr. Breysse, welcome to the field hearing, and you may 
proceed with your opening remarks.

  TESTIMONY OF PATRICK BREYSSE, PH.D.,\1\ DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES 
     AND DISEASE REGISTRY, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 
    PREVENTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

    Dr. Breysse. Thank you, Senator. As you heard, I direct the 
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; I will refer 
to them ATSDR, as well as the National Center for Environmental 
Health, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to 
discuss PFAS along with my colleagues from the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the Department of Defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Breysse appears in the Appendix 
on page 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since I was here last in 2018, we have learned much more 
about PFAS. We know people in the United States have been 
exposed to PFAS in their drinking water or via other pathways, 
and in many case, we have documented this. ATSDR conducted 
exposure assessments (EA) in ten communities, and they showed 
that participants who lived in places where aqueous film 
forming foam (AFFF) was used and where the water was 
contaminated had higher levels of PFAS in their bodies than the 
general U.S. population, and we think it is driven by that 
water exposures.
    As suspected, levels tend to be higher in older people and 
in men. Why, I think, because all the people have been exposed 
for longer period of time, and men have fewer excretion 
pathways than women. The EA suggested as not all PFAS in a 
person's body can be explained by the drinking water exposures, 
and at this point, we know that PFAS is everywhere, and so 
people get exposed to multiple routes. This suggestion is 
corroborated by research, and ATSDR is actively engaged in 
follow-up exposure investigations designed specifically to 
learn more about non-drinking-water exposures.
    There is expanding evidence on the human health effects of 
PFAS, and this is a priority for us. While health effects of 
many PFAS chemicals are well understood, ATSDR continues to 
make contributions to build a scientific evidence base. ATSDR 
has reviewed many studies that suggest the potential for an 
association between PFAS exposure and health impacts to many 
different parts of the body. We are conducting an ongoing 
national PFAS multi-site health study, looking at the 
relationship between PFAS exposure in multiple communities with 
contaminated drinking water across the country.
    We expect it will be a significant contribution to our 
understanding of the relationship between PFAS exposure and 
adverse health effects. We have seen the efforts to remove PFAS 
from commerce in manufacturing use and consumer products. We 
have seen that they are effective. The CDC's National 
Biomonitoring Program has measured PFAS in the blood of the 
U.S. population since 1999. This data strongly suggests that 
actions such as reducing PFAS have resulted in significant 
decreases in population levels of, in this case, PFOA and PFOS 
in the blood of the U.S. population. We have also learned that 
communities are effective partners in the pursuit of public 
health when they are empowered with up to date comprehensive 
scientific information.
    Our partnership with community groups and individuals 
across the country has demonstrated that we do better when we 
treat community members as equal contributors to the 
conversation. We are applying these lessons learned to our work 
at ATSDR across the country. In collaboration with State health 
departments, we are investigating exposures and health effects 
in more than 40 communities across the country today, including 
Michigan. The State of Michigan is leading in addressing PFAS 
concerns, as you heard the Senator say.
    The efforts undertaken by the Michigan PFAS Action Response 
Team (MPART) can bring together different State agencies as 
serving as a model for other States across the country. I am 
happy to say that Michigan is part of ATSDR's multi-site health 
study, and will evaluate exposures in Parchment and in the 
Belmont and Rockford areas. The Michigan Department of Health 
and Human Services (MDHHS) has a strong relationship with the 
community and has so far successfully enrolled and completed 
all study activities for 339 adults and 28 children. One of the 
challenges with the multi-site study (MSS) going forward is we 
are struggling to recruit children into the study, and I would 
be happy to discuss this in more detail, if you are interested. 
When I was here in 2018 I was able to visit the Wolverine 
Worldwide site where ATSDR, the Michigan Department of Health 
and Human Services and the Kent County Health Departments have 
collaborated for many years.
    The agencies are working to address concerns raised by the 
disposal of PFAS in the area primarily served by private well 
waters and many of which are contaminated with PFAS. In 
addition, ATSDR is providing support to Michigan's effort to 
address contamination at Camp Grayling, U.S. Army National 
Guard Base. ATSDR also recently updated public health 
assessment for the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base (WAFB) with 
current scientific knowledge about volatile organic compounds, 
but we are unable to focus on PFAS at this time.
    It is not an understatement to say that PFAS is a complex 
family of chemicals, but ATSDR is committed to working with all 
government levels to help address PFAS. We are collaborating 
with the EPA on PFAS studies and site work, provide technical 
support and guidance to State and local health departments, and 
we are participating in interagency scientific teams with the 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), EPA, DOD, Veterans 
Affairs (VA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA), among other agencies. These efforts acknowledge the 
need to coordinate and to ensure addressing PFAS in a 
systematic, harmonized approach.
    In closing, I would like to leave a few thoughts. Even 
though there is still some scientific uncertainty, we know 
enough to be concerned about the toxicity of these chemicals 
and their health impacts. ATSDR is committed to continue to 
study PFAS exposures and its health effects, and communities 
have spoken and we are listening. With their help, we can lead 
with science and better understand PFAS. Thank you again for 
the invitation to speak today, and I welcome any questions you 
might have.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Breysse. We 
appreciate your leadership on the issue and your testimony here 
today.
    Our next witness is Bruno Pigott, the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Water. Mr. Pigott has more than two decades of experience with 
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), 
where he served as Commissioner for five years.
    Mr. Pigott, welcome to the Committee. You may proceed with 
your opening remarks.

 TESTIMONY OF BRUNO PIGOTT,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 
     OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. Pigott. Good morning, Chairman Peters. I am Bruno 
Pigott, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water and the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you for the opportunity 
to testify today on the topic of per-and polyfluoroalkyl 
substances, and to do so alongside my colleagues at ATSDR and 
the Department of Defense. I am also excited to be here today 
at my alma mater, Michigan State University, and in a State I 
consider my home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Pigott appears in the Appendix on 
page 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today's hearing is focused on PFAS and ensuring effective 
interagency and intergovernmental coordination. In my prior 
role, as you mentioned, as Commissioner of the Indiana 
Department of Environmental Management, as well as my current 
role at U.S. EPA, I have experienced firsthand the critical 
importance of effective Federal and State communication and 
coordination.
    As you mentioned, PFAS have been manufactured and used in a 
variety of industry since the 1940s. As a result, EPA and 
others can find PFAS in surface water, groundwater, soils from 
remote rural areas to densely populated urban centers. Human 
exposure to PFAS can occur in a number of ways, as Patrick 
Breysse mentioned, including consuming it in drinking water, 
through the food we eat, through contact and handling of PFAS 
in industrial and manufacturing, and other ways.
    A growing body of scientific evidence shows that exposure 
at certain levels to PFAS can adversely affect human and 
ecological health. Under the Biden-Harris administration, the 
EPA has accelerated scientific research and policies needed to 
protect the public from PFAS. Now, to ensure effective 
coordination within our agency at U.S. EPA, one of 
Administrator Regan's earliest actions was to establish the EPA 
Council on PFAS to coordinate our agency-wide work.
    In October 2021, we released the PFAS Strategic Roadmap, 
which lays a whole-of-agency approach to safeguard communities 
from PFAS contamination. That roadmap, as well as today's 
hearing, demonstrates that a whole-of-government approach at 
the Federal, the State, and the local levels is absolutely 
critical. The roadmap sets specific timeframes for specific 
actions during the first term of the Biden-Harris 
administration. We are focused on three things; researching 
PFAS, proactively restricting PFAS, and remediating or cleaning 
up PFAS.
    Through the roadmap, EPA will hold polluters and other 
responsible parties accountable for cleaning up PFAS pollution. 
I wanted to highlight a few of the significant actions that EPA 
has taken since the release of the roadmap last October. On 
June 15th, EPA released drinking water health advisories for 
four PFAS compounds. EPA has also announced $1 billion in the 
bipartisan infrastructure law funding to address PFAS in 
drinking water, especially in small or disadvantaged 
communities. This is just the first of $5 billion in grant 
funding for those entities. In May, EPA added five PFAS to a 
list of risk-based values for site cleanups, which help EPA 
determine if further investigation or actions are needed to 
protect public health.
    Now, looking ahead, our top PFAS priority is to set 
enforceable national drinking water regulations, a step 
Michigan and other States have urged us to take for years. By 
the end of 2022, we plan to propose a rule that would set 
enforceable limits for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, require 
monitoring of public water supplies, and evaluate additional 
PFAS for regulation. We plan to finalize that rule by the end 
of 2023. EPA is working closely with our Federal agency 
partners here at the table, and those not with us today, 
including all of my colleagues as part of coordinated actions 
as part of the Biden-Harris administration's effort to combat 
PFAS pollution.
    We are collectively advancing research efforts, analytical 
methods, site cleanup, and other areas. Importantly, we are 
supporting States' ongoing efforts to tackle PFAS. EPA region 
five in Chicago works closely with the Michigan Department of 
Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) and the Michigan 
PFAS Action Response Team. Thanks to the efforts of Governor 
Whitmer, of my friend EGLE Director Clark, and MPART Executive 
Director Hendershott, Michigan has established an all-of-
government approach to tackling PFAS. Michigan has been a 
proactive leader. Michigan has been a model for other States 
and an example for us at EPA.
    To truly deliver the PFAS protections that communities 
deserve, we must all work together. Our ability to achieve the 
needed health and ecological protections depends on our 
coordination at the Federal, State, and local levels, and our 
collaboration, and I look forward to doing so, and appreciate 
the opportunity to talk today. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you and welcome back to your alma 
mater.
    Mr. Pigott. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. It is always good to be on the campus at 
Michigan State University.
    Mr. Pigott. It really is.
    Chairman Peters. I share that joy that we are here today.
    Mr. Pigott. Yes, thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Our next witness is Nancy Balkus, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for the Environment, 
Safety and Infrastructure. In her role, she provides executive 
leadership for plans, policies, programs and budgets for Air 
Force infrastructure, installation energy, and environmental 
safety, and occupational health programs.
    Ms. Balkus, welcome to the Committee, and you may proceed 
with your opening remarks.

 TESTIMONY OF NANCY BALKUS,P.E.,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
  OF THE AIR FORCE, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

    Ms. Balkus. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Peters. Thank 
you for the opportunity to discuss how the Department of the 
Air Force is addressing PFAS impacts from our military 
activities in Michigan, how we are working to improve our 
community outreach, coordinating with tribal, State, and local 
governments, and the importance of interagency and 
intergovernmental coordination, including with my Federal 
colleagues from U.S. EPA and ATSDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Balkus appears in the Appendix on 
page 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My name is Nancy Balkus, and I am the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Safety and 
Infrastructure. I have been in this position for four months. I 
am extremely proud of the initiatives led by my predecessor, 
Mark Correll, and the outstanding accomplishments of the entire 
Air Force team. The cleanup of PFAS impacts from military 
activities is very personal to me. As an Air Force veteran 
myself, along with my brother who retired from the Navy, we 
have lived and worked on or near Air Force and Navy 
installations for most of our lives. At all of our assignment 
locations, we drank the water.
    I am also an engineer with a passion for problem solving, 
and I am privileged to work with the Air Force's team of PFAS 
and environmental cleanup subject matter experts like John 
Gillespie, who is with me here today on the panel. To date, 
nearly $215 million has been spent for environmental 
restoration in the State of Michigan. $60 million has been 
focused specifically on PFAS cleanup. At Wurtsmith, $41.4 
million has been spent, and we have completed the initial 
preliminary assessment and the site investigation.
    Five interim removal actions have already been implemented 
to reduce PFAS, with three additional interim actions and a 
pilot project to take place before the end of calendar year 
2022. I am dedicated to transparency and sharing the cleanup-
related data, all of the work plans and the reports with 
Congress, with State officials, regulators, and our local 
communities. Meaningful community engagement and involvement 
are critical to the success of the cleanup program.
    I am committed to using and improving our public engagement 
tools, which include restoration advisory boards, community 
involvement plans, websites, community meetings, and 
installation commander outreach. I am always open to 
stakeholder feedback. Additionally, I am very much looking 
forward to working with EPA and DOD in the State of Delaware on 
the environmental justice project at Dover Air Force Base, and 
then applying those lessons learned. The Department of the Air 
Force is committed to continuously improving the responsiveness 
of our cleanup program, including addressing PFAS by 
incorporating advanced technologies, best practices, and 
validated science as rapidly as possible.
    While this program is both legally and technically complex, 
its underlying purpose is simple, to address the releases 
attributable to the Air Force in a manner that transparently 
protects the American people. The objectives of this hearing 
reflect that when it come to contaminants like PFAS, we are all 
active participants in the rapidly evolving scientific, legal, 
and regulatory environment.
    We agree that a holistic approach to PFAS research, risk 
and remediation will keep us focused on protecting human health 
and the environment. The Department of the Air Force is fully 
committed to responsible environmental management, which 
includes assuring our veterans, personnel, families, and 
surrounding communities are protected.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you today, 
and I look forward to your questions.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Balkus. Thank you for your 
testimony.
    Our final witness of our first panel is John Gillespie. Mr. 
Gillespie is an Air Force Civil Engineer Center senior subject 
matter expert for geology, hydrology, and hydrogeology related 
to environmental restoration. He has over 40 years of 
experience conducting environmental studies for Federal, State, 
and local governments.
    Welcome, Mr. Gillespie. You may proceed with your opening 
remarks.

  TESTIMONY OF JOHN GILLESPIE, SENIOR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, 
   ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER

    Mr. Gillespie. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Chairman 
Peters, and thank you for this opportunity to share details 
about the Air Force's progress at the former Wurtsmith and K.I. 
Sawyer Air Force Bases. My name is John Gillespie, and I am a 
subject matter expert in hydrogeology with the U.S. Air Force's 
Civil Engineer Center. My degree in geology and geophysics are 
from Michigan State University. My J.D. is from Thomas M. 
Cooley Law School, and I am a member of the Michigan Bar.
    Before taking my current position with the Air Force, I was 
the District Groundwater Specialist for the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) here in Lansing, Michigan. My ties to Wurtsmith 
and K.I. Sawyer predate my current role, and extend all the way 
back to 1975 when I reported for my first duty assignment at 
Wurtsmith Air Force Base. I worked four years in building 220, 
the telecommunication center, a one-story windowless building 
right next to the gym where Senator Peters held his 2019 Town 
Hall. In 1977, the base instituted a water conservation effort 
that severely restricted water use.
    I vividly remember a conversation at work one afternoon 
between two of the civilian switchboard operators in building 
220. They were mothers and military dependents that lived in 
on-base housing. They were discussing a rumor that it was water 
contamination that caused the shortages on base; the water that 
they and their families drank. It was the look of fear on their 
faces that has stuck with me over the years and is one of the 
motivations that led to my current career. Back then, cleanup 
information was not widely shared, as it is now.
    I remember a U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) 
construction trailer catty-corner to building 220. 
Occasionally, I would spot a baby-blue step van that would park 
right across from my building with small print that read ``U.S. 
Geological Survey.'' At that time, I had no idea what the Corps 
and the USGS were doing. After I was discharged from the Air 
Force and graduated from MSU, I was recruited by USGS and drove 
that same baby-blue step van to projects, including Wurtsmith 
and K.I. Sawyer. I also was the lead on a joint U.S. EPA-USGS 
project that helped define how contaminants would move to the 
upper Great Lake connecting channels. My USGS work at Wurtsmith 
included searching for a new water supply in a deeper aquifer 
in 1985, and learning how to construct a groundwater flow model 
at K.I. Sawyer. In 1988-89, I constructed new geologic sections 
and water table maps to support the development of a 
hydrogeologic conceptual site model (CSM) at Wurtsmith.
    The development and use of CSM's have proven invaluable in 
the hunt for PFAS at Wurtsmith and other sites across the 
country. The CSM combined the data collected by the Air Force 
during the site investigation and by the Michigan Department of 
Environment, Great Lakes and Energy allowed us to accelerate 
design, construction, and operation of groundwater pump and 
treat systems. The purpose of those systems is to intercept 
PFAS impacted groundwater before it enters surface-water bodies 
like Clark's Marsh, Lake Van Etten, Van Etten Creek, and 
eventually, the Au Sable River.
    As we speak, a new groundwater interceptor system is under 
construction and will be operational this year stopping the 
most concentrated PFAS plume entering Van Etten Lake. Another 
one will address an area to the northwest along Van Etten Lake, 
all before the investigation is completed. Together with your 
support, can accelerate our programs to address the 
uncontrolled release of PFAS with our four decade of knowledge 
base, our very experienced human resources across the agencies, 
and, of course, support from our communities.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Mr. Gillespie.
    Let us start the questions to get a little bit more detail; 
drill down. I appreciate all of your opening remarks, but we 
need to have a little bit more detail, if we could.
    My first question is going to be to Ms. Balkus and Mr. 
Gillespie, and we will probably start with you, Ms. Balkus. You 
have talked about the actions that each of you have been taking 
in these areas. But I would like you to both be real specific 
and detail the steps that you are taking to actually coordinate 
these efforts with State, local and tribal governments. How are 
you working together? Be as specific as you can. Give the 
Committee and I some ideas.
    Ms. Balkus. Chairman Peters, I think we are doing extensive 
collaboration in the area, but there is always room for 
improvement. What we are currently doing is we regularly 
coordinate with both the State and our Federal partners. We are 
in contact on a weekly basis. We use collaborative software to 
post and share draft documents for State regulatory review with 
EGLE, and those documents are posted on the online Air Force 
administrative record that is available to government agencies 
as well as the public. We engage with our State regulators, or 
EGLE partners, through the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 
Cleanup team, where Air Force and EGLE State regulator 
representatives have open and frank conversations about the 
environmental cleanup strategies, our pre-decisional draft 
documents to address comments or questions between the 
agencies, and facilitate the investigation and cleanup process.
    We also discuss planned field work and the subsequent 
results to ensure we have a common understanding of the work, 
and to minimize any data gaps. With regard to tribal 
coordination, the Air Force is looking forward to expanding our 
consultation opportunities to include access and coordination. 
Our installations work on a government-to-government basis with 
our tribes if actions are needed on their land, and we seek 
their permission to access their land and to carry out our 
cleanup actions.
    I have regular meetings at my level with U.S. EPA in 
Washington D.C. on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) side, and in fact, I 
spoke with Greg Gervais last week. I am personally engaged in 
that collaboration in the four months that I have been in the 
job, and our broader team through the Air Force Civil Engineer 
Center and the BRAC Cleanup Team have additional details that I 
am happy to let Mr. Gillespie fill you in on.
    Chairman Peters. All right. Mr. Gillespie.
    Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir. I work in the technical branch, of 
course and I want to hit your point, sir, on two levels. One is 
on the broader level; we work closely with U.S. EPA and other 
government agencies on trying to really find new technologies 
that will address PFAS.
    We have a very good history, although it took 40 years to 
really kind of wrap up the Trichloroethylene (TCE) issue that 
started at Wurtsmith Air Force Base here in Michigan and that 
was the first place in the inventory to get hit with TCE. So we 
are almost there with new technologies coming out. We are field 
testing a lot of technologies with different partners. We are 
about three to five years out to get the next level of 
technologies online. Of course, the technologies we are using 
right now, which are off the shelf, is the GAC units and the 
resins.
    On a different focus on how do we get these projects done, 
I have worked projects across the United States. One thing we 
can do a better job of here in Michigan, particularly 
Wurtsmith, is I see a lot of meetings that we have, technical 
get-together, a lot of it is contractual talk, scheduled talk, 
things like that. I am a little disappointed we do not have 
that face to face, just technical. People enter the room, put 
their policies aside, and let's talk technical. 'Cause what we 
owe the public is we owe them that we understand the subsurface 
infrastructure. We have to agree on that. If we, the 
stakeholders, do not agree on the subsurface infrastructure, 
what that geology looks like, then we are always going to be 
arguing. I think we could do a better job on working with our 
regulatory stakeholders in technical meetings and have those 
more administrative meetings at a different time.
    Second, I think we can do a better job with the public. 
There is a lot of people, particularly at Wurtsmith, that are 
very astute on technology, on hydrogeology, and I think they 
are more yearning for that type of information. I asked the 
people who are doing the work at Wurtsmith, including our 
contractors, and they said, ``Well, we do that, but it was a 
poster session and people would come in and look at the posters 
or whatever.''
    But I think what the people want--at least this is what I 
heard--is they would really like just meet at the library, 
spend at least two, three hours, and we could explain to them 
where we are coming from--both EGLE and Air Force, in our 
understanding of the subsurface and how that water moves, sir.
    Chairman Peters. That sounds great. Do you think this is 
something we should do to improve the process. Why has that not 
happened, and how can we put in some action steps to make that 
a reality?
    Mr. Gillespie. I think we can make it happen, sir. It is 
done at other bases. Twenty five years ago, the biggest 
environmental issue for the Air Force was the Massachusetts 
Military Reservation (MMR), and we threw the kitchen sink at 
it, and now it's a stabilized program, although PFAS has showed 
up there, too. However, that was a big program with a lot of 
problems.
    Chairman Peters. OK. We will follow up with you to make 
that.
    Ms. Balkus, how can we improve collaboration? You mentioned 
actually, in your response, ``we can do better.'' So elaborate 
on what Mr. Gillespie said, and go beyond that, if you have 
other ideas, please.
    Ms. Balkus. Yes, sir, Senator Peters. I think a couple of 
areas where we can improve--and I am willing to commit today 
that we indeed set up a community meeting where I can bring 
John and a couple of our other experts.
    I have Kate Leness here with me in the audience today who 
is my executive director for PFAS, in particular. She also is 
from Michigan. Two locals that completely understand the 
environment here, the communities here, grew up here, I think 
would be better than me, a policymaker, trying to share the 
technical details.
    That is my commitment, is to bring our experts in, have a 
meeting, go through the level of detail that John is familiar 
with and can articulate very easily, allow anyone that has 
interest to come into that meeting; there is no requirements; 
there is no specificity. Just make it at a location where 
everyone can get access to it. That is my commitment that I 
would make here today.
    Chairman Peters. That is great. I love commitments being 
made today. Thank you.
    This is a good conversation. Just keep going.
    We are on a roll here with commitments. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Pigott, you are clearly a leader in PFAS response, and 
I would like you to elaborate on EPA's plans to help our State 
agencies use the best practices and empower local folks to be a 
part of the decisionmaking process. That is something that has 
been lacking. We need to do a better job. How can we do that? 
What are you doing? You are free to make any commitments you 
would like, as well.
    Mr. Pigott. First of all, I wanted to say we are committed, 
and I am happy to commit to continued coordination with the 
State of Michigan and particularly our partners in EGLE. When 
we issued the health advisories, we made a commitment to 
reaching out to the States and the communities and the 
organizations that would be affected by this, to both explain 
the basis for those health advisories but also to follow up and 
say, ``Given this, what we know now, how can we chart a path 
forward to ensuring that we cleanup PFAS?''
    We have made a commitment at EPA to put in place drinking 
water regulatory tools to propose it by the end of this year 
and then finalize them next year. We have been working in a 
number of areas, specifically with Michigan. Particularly with 
our technical folks, we have worked to characterize fume 
suppressants at chromium electroplating facilities throughout 
the State of Michigan, managed to characterize those.
    Because of our partnership with EGLE, they have used that 
information to work with those facilities to help reduce the 
PFAS at those facilities by, it is my understanding, 90 
percent. It is that kind of upstream work that will help 
deliver on our commitment to ensure that we restrict PFAS from 
entering our water bodies in the first place. In addition to 
that, we have been developing methods to characterize and 
analyze PFAS in the foams that we see in lakes around Michigan. 
How much PFAS is in those foams, and how can we characterize 
it? We have been working with our partners in Michigan to do 
that, and that is part of the effort. If we are going to really 
commit to do this, we have a Federal partnership as well, and 
have been working in a number of areas.
    I cannot say enough about the ATSDR relationship with EPA 
and the funding they provided to conduct studies to get tools 
in place to ensure that we understand the toxicological profile 
of these pollutants, and then collaborate on chemical class-
based evaluations. As you know, the PFAS are a large group of 
chemicals. It may be easier to deal with them and regulate them 
in a way that approaches them by class, and we have been 
committed to working together, all of us, to do just that, and 
to explore ways to do that.
    We have been working with DOD and collaborated to put in 
place testing methodologies that resulted in the 1633 testing 
methodology, and worked with U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) to 
ensure that we accurately characterize the PFAS that is in fish 
tissue. We are concerned both about working with our 
communities at the State level, working with our Federal 
partners to better understand PFAS and remediate it, and then 
also address it and prevent it from getting in the environment 
in the first place.
    Chairman Peters. Right. Thank you.
    Dr. Breysse, the ATSDR is currently working with State 
partners and investigating exposure in about 30 communities 
across the country, including areas here in Michigan; Camp 
Grayling, the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base, and the former 
Wolverine World Wide tannery. My question for you is could you 
please detail the collaboration that you are working with the 
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and how that 
collaboration is going, and kind of the results of this 
partnership? Bottom line, what do you think are the most 
significant results?
    Dr. Breysse. Yes, so thank you very much for that question. 
First of all, I want to recognize that as you said in your 
introductory remarks, Michigan has identified such a large 
number of sources of exposure because they have looked. We 
would actually like to see that model be adopted more 
universally across the country right away, because the more you 
look, the more you find. The more you find, the more you have 
to understand kind of what the source of exposure is, and where 
that comes from. We work with the State of Michigan to try and 
understand what those pathways are.
    Now, we do that at very specific sites where there is a 
known source of exposure, there's a known pathway, and there is 
a large enough population to be of concern, and I enumerated 
some of those sites in my comments at the beginning. The State 
of Michigan is a crucial partner in conducting those sites, 
specifically investigations.
    In the investigations, we go to the site, like Wolverine, 
and we look at, where does the exposure come from, what are the 
pathways it gets to people, how many people are exposed, and 
what the health risks are. We write a report tying to find that 
primarily to inform the communities about what their risks are, 
and also to inform cleanup efforts, because we do this work in 
partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency. The ATSDR 
and EPA work side by side when we do these investigations going 
forward.
    Now, perhaps the most important collaboration ongoing right 
now is the collaboration with our multi-site health study, so 
that is a very unique effort. As many of you know, there was a 
large health study conducted at the DuPont site in Ohio and 
West Virginia, the so-called ``C8 study.'' What we are trying 
to do is just build on that study by a national study, the 
first ever national study, looking at drinking water exposures 
and human health effects across the country. I am happy to say 
that the State of Michigan is one of the collaborators on that 
study, going forward. It is one of the sites that have been the 
most successful at recruiting people for that study. 
Unfortunately, we do not have any results to share right now. 
These things take time, going forward. We are very excited 
about the opportunities that the multi-site health study 
provides, and the leadership role that the State of Michigan 
plays in that.
    Chairman Peters. All right. You talked about some 
collaboration, and just as I asked our other panelists, are 
there things that can be improved when it comes to State, 
local, tribal governments? Are there areas that we can 
strengthen collaboration, in your mind?
    Dr. Breysse. Absolutely. We can always do more, as you 
heard already. What we need to do is now help the State and 
local health departments try and understand the rapidly 
evolving signs, and the multiple new assessments that are 
occurring and what it means from them. We need to help them 
understand--what does it mean now with the new health 
advisories? How do we incorporate that into our decisionmaking? 
What does it mean now with the new advice that is coming out of 
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 
(NASEM) when we have new guidance about clinical guidance for 
communities affected, including a recommendation that community 
members who think they have been exposed at significant levels 
should get their blood tested. Those are new challenges. I also 
mention that the sciences is changing even as these new 
guidances come out, so keeping up on the science is a 
challenge. Primarily, I think we need to work with State and 
local health departments to translate that information into 
actual changes in what we do on the ground. How do we 
incorporate that into the decisions that we make at the local 
and State level? That is a big challenge.
    Chairman Peters. It is. I actually want to pick up on the 
recommendation--because I think its great--to Mr. Pigott.
    How is the EPA now that we have these advisories, how is 
the EPA communicating that with State, local, tribal, and 
working to ensure that we are actually moving forward in a 
dynamic and forceful way?
    Mr. Pigott. Mr. Chairman, as you know, communication is not 
something you just do and it is over with. One of the things we 
realize at EPA is that communication has to be continual, and 
that as we do more scientific work, we are going to learn more 
about these PFAS chemicals. As we learn more, it will be 
incumbent upon us as agencies of the Federal Government to work 
closely with our State partners, but also to communicate on a 
regular basis with citizens in the country to better understand 
where we are at. That was an example of the PFAS health 
advisories. You remember in 2017 when the U.S. EPA came out 
with the 70 parts per trillion (ppt) health advisories. It was 
not until this year, where we had the latest science, where we 
have discovered that the health effects of PFAS occur at much 
lower levels than what we previously understood--it is 
communicating that information on a real-time basis.
    One of the questions we are asked often is, ``Well, so why 
did you communicate these health advisories now?'' It is our 
responsibility at EPA, as protector of human health in the 
environment, to ensure that when we have the latest information 
about the health effects of chemicals that we release them to 
the public, because it is important.
    Whether it is the Federal Government and the panel here 
today, or the State government in its effort to protect 
drinking water in the States, or the communities themselves, 
that they have the latest information that allows them and the 
individual to take action as they see fit. Our health advisors 
are not regulatory; they are not enforceable. That is why we 
realize if we are going to work further, not just to 
collaborate and communicate regularly, but to take action to 
remove this from the environment, we have work to do. Some of 
that work involves putting in place drinking water regulatory 
mechanisms, and that is what we call our drinking water maximum 
contaminant levels (MCLs). We are working to do that, as well.
    But the communication about this stuff must happen not just 
once, but on a regular basis, and that is why we meet with a 
group of States, from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, of 
course, and North Carolina, places where States have great 
concerns, to talk with them on a regular basis in conjunction 
with all of our Federal employees to say, ``OK. Here is what we 
know today. What actions are you taking in your State to help 
address this?'' That is vitally important if we're going to 
tackle this PFAS challenge.
    Chairman Peters. There is no question. I think it is 
important to remind everyone that the health advisory levels 
show that there is no safe amount of exposure.
    Mr. Pigott. That's right.
    Chairman Peters. That is a pretty big deal, ``No safe 
exposure.'' When you say we need to move forward to phaseout 
chemicals, and hold people accountable for cleanup and 
remediation, that is a whole-of-government approach, not just 
State, local, and tribal with the Federal government. You 
talked about it is not regulatory right now. Clearly, we have 
to have a national drinking water standard. You alluded to that 
in your answer. So give us an update on where you are in terms 
of establishing national drinking water standards for PFAS. 
Then bottom line, what is the time line? We have to get this 
done. You expressed a sense of urgency. Where are we in a time 
line?
    Mr. Pigott. Yes. For years now, States have been in the 
lead of this.
    Chairman Peters. Right. Absolutely. Michigan has been a 
lead in it.
    Mr. Pigott. Yes and Michigan, in particular, both 
identifying sites that have PFAS, but also in putting in place 
standards and regulatory mechanisms. For better or worse, there 
was a gap previously. Now we are working really hard to ensure 
that we put in place these regulatory standards that allow us 
to take action in the drinking water arena, and we are going to 
propose those standards by the end of this year. We are going 
to have the public response to that. Then by the end of next 
year, we are going to finalize those standards and have them in 
place. That is one area we are working in.
    Another area is to designate PFAS chemicals as hazardous 
for our CERCLA program, or what we know as ``Superfund.'' Why 
is that important? It is important because if we are to take 
action in terms of ensuring that polluters and responsible 
parties that actually put this stuff in the ground actually 
clean it up, we have to have leverage. Designating these 
compounds as hazardous for CERCLA will help us do that. There 
are a number of areas we have to do it, and that is an 
impending decision; that is coming up really quickly. I expect 
that we will have that designation in place, which will help us 
leverage those opportunities, and then we will use our current 
enforcement tools, as well.
    As you well know, we have a variety of mechanisms we can 
use when polluters should be held responsible to take 
enforcement action, and we are going to engage in that as well. 
First step is the regulatory standards for drinking water. We 
are going to get that done by the end of next year. Second step 
is hazardous designation for PFAS and PFOA in our CERCLA 
program. Then the third step is to continue our efforts in 
enforcement to address this pollution.
    Chairman Peters. The first step is by the end of next year?
    Mr. Pigott. Correct.
    Chairman Peters. The second step by when?
    Mr. Pigott. The hazardous designation is impending. I 
expect in the next month or so.
    Chairman Peters. OK, great.
    Mr. Pigott. Yes, and then enforcement along the way.
    Chairman Peters. Great.
    Ms. Balkus, in light of the new drinking water health 
advisories that we have been talking about, what steps is the 
Air Force prepared to take now, and quickly, as we have heard 
the sense of urgency here from Mr. Pigott, to deal with our 
former bases that we have, Wurtsmith and K.I. Sawyer, as well 
as Selfridge Air National Guard Base, and other military 
facilities that we have across the State. How is the Air Force 
responding to that, and what actions are you taking 
immediately?
    Ms. Balkus. Thanks for asking, Chairman Peters. The Air 
Force is using the new regional screening levels that EPA 
issued in May of this year to implement our interim actions, 
those things that we can do today even before we get to the 
remedial investigation step in the CERCLA process. This is 
going to help us be more protective of human health and the 
environment, and then define the nature and extent of the 
contamination. The interim health advisories that Mr. Pigott 
was explaining helps complicate the designation of PFAS and 
PFOA as hazardous substances, because almost any water source 
will then be unable to used for drinking water. The second 
dilemma I would highlight is that the interim health advisories 
are set currently below any method that we can use to detect. 
It is very difficult to determine a clean water source if it's 
below four parts per trillion, which is today's analytical 
method to be able to identify PFAS compounds.
    They are based on draft analyses, which as Mr. Pigott 
mentioned, are undergoing review by the EPA's scientific 
advisory board. They are below those detectable limits, and 
they are non-regulatory at the moment, so we too, from the Air 
Force, are hand-in-hand with the EPA and are looking forward to 
having a regulatory standard so that we have that maximum 
contaminant limit. But what are we doing about it? That is 
probably the crux of your issues, sir.
    Chairman Peters. It is.
    Ms. Balkus. I want to introduce to you two individuals that 
I invited to join us here today, sir, from Battelle Memorial 
Institute, Jeff Rose and Amy Dindal are sitting on the front 
row, sir. They are attending here today at my invitation 
because they are evaluating a technology demonstration project 
at Wurtsmith this fall, and it could demonstrate two of their 
technologies. Battelle has identified what they are calling 
``Battelle Signature,'' which is to characterize PFAS compounds 
related to AFFF, or firefighting foam, but also non-AFFF 
sources. They will couple that with a small-scale demonstration 
of the Battelle Annihilator technology, and that will show that 
they can, in fact, destroy PFAS in impacted groundwater.
    That is very similar to a project that they have already 
conducted earlier this year, just a few months ago in March, in 
Grand Rapids, Michigan, where they were able to show 99.99 
percent reduction of PFAS on landfill leachate that was at a 
wastewater treatment facility, this being operated by Heritage 
Crystal Clean.
    There was fairly significant news coverage of this great 
technology, and we are looking forward to partnering with them 
at Wurtsmith. The Annihilator is the first to market for this 
total solution for PFAS destruction. The supercritical water 
oxidation technique that was demonstrated is one of the first 
that can guarantee a 99.99 percent in the total PFAS, and none 
of the harmful byproducts that are associated with some of the 
other means of destruction.
    I thought it was important to highlight one of the things 
that we are actually doing in addition to the interim actions, 
that I mentioned in my opening comments.
    I wanted to make sure that the audience here knows both 
Jeff and Amy, and they are happy to answer any additional 
questions about their technology. But bringing that here, they 
have already demonstrated it in Grand Rapids, and we are going 
to put another demonstration at Wurtsmith.
    Chairman Peters. If I could continue with you, a question. 
One of the advantages that Michigan has in addressing this PFAS 
contamination problem is that we do have the standards, as was 
mentioned, that we put in in the State. I think it is well 
documented, though, that the Department of Defense and the Air 
Force have not publically committed to meeting those standards 
in some of the sites here in Michigan, and so my question is 
pretty straightforward.
    Do you have any updates or information you can provide, 
whether the Air Force will commit? We will be on that commit-
track. We already got you going on that starting at the 
beginning here. If you will commit to meeting the State of 
Michigan's PFAS standards here in the State of Michigan?
    Ms. Balkus. Chairman Peters, yes. I am happy to commit, and 
let me be clear on what I am committing to.
    Chairman Peters. That is always a good thing, all on the 
record.
    Ms. Balkus. The Air Force is fully supportive of 
incorporating Michigan's standards into our cleanups. In fact, 
the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on our 
cooperative agreements under CERCLA addresses how, in fact, 
State standards are used in determining the levels to be 
attained during cleanup. An important recent change that has 
happened is in December 2021, the Department of Defense--so 
above me in the Department of the Air Force--the Department of 
Defense issued a new policy that allows the evaluation of State 
promulgated standards to be used in short-term removal actions, 
as well as in the final remedy that comes after the remedial 
investigation and feasibility study. This is really important.
    It is a slight adjustment to the interpretation that we 
have been using. But short answer with the long explanation is 
``yes,'' we are fully supportive of using the Michigan 
standards in the cleanup phase, and also in our upcoming 
interim remedial actions.
    Chairman Peters. You mentioned the studies and the ongoing 
studies, and all this happens at the conclusion of that. In 
terms of Wurtsmith, I think we are in the 13th year now of a 
study, of an investigation. After 13 years of investigation, 
there is still no cleanup plan in place? The Air Force has 
indicated that it is going to take another two to five years 
before such a plan is adopted? I think I speak for everybody 
who lives around that area, that this is simply unacceptable to 
have that kind of time line. It is time to get to work after 
all of that time line. We have talked about how we want to 
accelerate this, and certainly, we have heard that from the 
panelists. What is the Air Force doing to bring a more urgent 
and timely action, including any efforts to coordinate with 
State and local that are obviously very engaged in this issue? 
How can we speed this up? You are free to make any commitments, 
again.
    Ms. Balkus. Chairman Peters, we are doing a lot of work at 
Wurtsmith, and I have to also follow the law and to be a good 
steward of taxpayer dollars. Within those boundaries, we are 
taking very aggressive action to implement cleanup processes 
before we get to the remedial investigation and feasibility 
study stages of CERCLA, which is a law that we must follow.
    Let me give you a few examples of what we have done. Only 
one well so far has been found to have concentrations on 
Wurtsmith that were above the 2016 health advisory levels. In 
that case, the Air Force immediately provided bottled water to 
the resident, and then arranged for a connection to the 
municipal drinking water system. In addition, since the 
remedial investigation started in July 2020, we are well along 
the way. John can certainly go into more detail about where we 
are in the remedial investigation, but we have already 
conducted five different interim removal actions.
    Let me be a little more specific about where they are. So 
at fire training area No. 2, we installed a pump and treat 
system near Clark's Marsh; number two, at Arrow Street, which 
is SS-21; at Benzene, which is site No. 6; and at Mission 
Street, which is OT, number 24. We expanded those already 
existing pump and treat systems to add PFAS and PFOA treatment 
at those three locations that were already addressing those 
other contaminants.
    Then No. 5, we have removed over 24,000 cubic yards of PFAS 
impacted soil that was beneath the fire training area near 
Clark's Marsh. There are three more that we are going to do in 
addition to Battelle's commitment to do additional action in 
the fall. The fire training area at Clark's Marsh, which I 
mentioned, we are going to further expand that pump and treat 
system, and it goes online next week. Second, Van Etten Lake at 
Ken Ratliff Memorial Park, we have installed a pump and treat 
system there, and it is scheduled for completion next month.
    Third, the aircraft apron AFFF waste site at Van Etten Lake 
near Pierce's Point, we will also be installing a pump and 
treat system. Finally, a pilot project that we are preparing to 
award in September will be a pilot using FLUORO-SORB material 
that will treat PFAS in storm water, and then it is in the 
Three Pipes ditch, which ultimately discharges to the Au Sable 
River. Combined with what Battelle Memorial Institute is doing, 
I am very proud of all of these initiatives that are ongoing 
now, today, showing that we are taking action and reducing 
PFAS. We are not only studying, sir, we are also doing cleanup 
and removal.
    Chairman Peters. You mentioned in the beginning that these 
were standards in 2016. Now with the new advisory, with the 
State law, how has that changed? How does it change what you 
are doing?
    Ms. Balkus. We will have to go back to some of our sites to 
look at the data we already have to verify if there were 
detections below that 70 parts per trillion.
    Chairman Peters. Which is likely.
    Ms. Balkus. I will agree on that point.
    Chairman Peters. When were you going to go back and do 
that?
    Ms. Balkus. We are in the process of doing that right now. 
We are already looking at the data we already have, and then we 
will follow it up with additional field sampling to be able to 
verify what those detections are.
    Chairman Peters. How long does that take?
    Mr. Gillespie. I would imagine probably in the next few 
months. We already have the infrastructure in place across the 
country. There are installations where we went out and we 
looked at if we had a really good hydrogen CSM, we knew where 
the groundwater was leaving the base, and we also knew where 
the surface water would either come off the base or bypass the 
base and maybe pick up some PFAS. We sampled those areas using 
the 2016 health advisory, and we would go out until we got half 
of the HA, so 35.
    Right now we are doubling up our efforts, and we are going 
out further. We are looking at the information we have with the 
standard of analysis we have, which we can measure down to 
four--and now we are going out further, past that area. Some 
areas it was not very far off base before it really dropped 
off, other areas it could go out two, three miles, and in one 
area, it went down--we chased it down a river system 15 miles. 
That is what we are doing right now, sir. We are really gearing 
up to go back out and resample around all our installations.
    Chairman Peters. You said that takes several months?
    Mr. Gillespie. I would say, to get all the bases done, sir, 
yes, it is going to take a few months; yes, sir. I would like 
to say one thing, a question too, is we look at our entire 
portfolio across the Air Force. Wurtsmith does have the most 
interim remedies of any installation we have. Thanks to you, 
sir, we got a plus upright. The RI was awarded back in July 
2020, and I am not going to sit here and make excuses for 
contracting, why it takes, after that is awarded, a year to get 
out in the field. We have to figure that one out; right? But so 
have we been studying PFAS for 13 years at Wurtsmith? I would 
not say it was that long, sir.
    Thanks to EGLE, really, who was forward leaning on this, we 
were able to have a lot of information to make the decisions we 
have made with those interim measures before we even started 
our RI. The interim measure we are doing now, which really I am 
very happy about cause it is kind of personal to me in two 
ways. One, Ken Radcliff loaned me the money to buy my first car 
when I was 18. He retired from the Air Force and worked at the 
Wurtsmith Federal Credit Union.
    Second, though, where that enters Van Etten Lake is after 
we discovered TCE when I was there in 1977, we switched the 
well field over to that area. Unbeknownst to anybody, that is 
the area that was probably being impacted, wells four and five, 
by PFAS. When I looked at the well fields at K.I. Sawyer, wells 
four, five, nine, and ten, they did not appear to be impacted 
by PFAS at all over the years.
    Chairman Peters. OK. We have to stay on it, clearly.
    Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Peters. And not just stay on it, but accelerate 
it. I think that is part of your commitment, is we are going to 
accelerate that going forward.
    Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir, and if I may say something, sir, 
these interim measures--and I think we state it pretty clearly 
in all our documents--this is just a tourniquet on the patient 
right now.
    Chairman Peters. OK.
    Mr. Gillespie. That is all it is.
    Chairman Peters. Right.
    Mr. Gillespie. We have a lot of work to do on the interior 
of that base.
    Chairman Peters. Right.
    Mr. Gillespie. But right now, let us get the tourniquets on 
so we can stop the PFAS, the uncontrolled release of PFAS from 
our installations.
    Chairman Peters. Then remediate it.
    Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Peters. Absolutely.
    Dr. Breysse, although we know an awful lot of the impacts 
of PFAS on human heath, there is still a whole lot we do not 
know. What more needs to be done to achieve a more complete 
understanding of the impact of PFAS on our health and our 
communities?
    Dr. Breysse. Sure. If you follow the literature on PFAS, it 
is quite remarkable, actually, how much is being published on 
PFAS every month. There are literally dozens of papers, if not 
more, every month, so that is the degree to which the data on 
the health effects are accelerating. Not all those publications 
are on health effects but many of them are. However, most of 
the data comes from studies in toxicology in animals and the 
cell systems. I think the big need for PFAS is human 
epidemiology.
    We need the evidence in humans, in particular, so we can 
understand what we would call an ``exposure-response 
relationship.'' How much in the water, how much in the body 
results in how much disease? That information can be used to 
more effectively set the safe standards and safe levels going 
forward. What we think is needed is expansion in the effort in 
human epidemiology, looking at the health effects in people.
    Now, that is going to be a big effort, because that would 
be a study to look at a thyroid disorder. It is not the same 
thing as to look at cancer risk; it is not the same thing to 
look at cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease. All 
these different end points would require different designs, 
different approaches going forward. We are calling for an 
increased emphasis in the human epidemiology to support our 
understanding of the relationship between the exposure and the 
disease.
    Chairman Peters. You said the literature is increasing. We 
have to probably coordinate to make sure that we are actually 
answering all the questions that have to be asked instead of 
focusing on one or two. As important as those are, you need to 
have a better picture. If you could give me a sense of what 
work the ATSDR is doing with other Federal agencies, States, to 
look at the impacts on health, the human health, as you 
mentioned, but particularly the long-term. Because these are 
going to have to be long-term studies. Give me a sense of where 
we are; where we need to go.
    Dr. Breysse. Yes. The other two principal agencies that are 
involved in research on the human side of things are the 
Environmental Protection Agency, because they are experts at 
measuring how much is in the environment. The National 
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH), also funds a lot of 
external research organizations to do research on that, and 
then ourselves. We all work closely to try and understand the 
types of projects that are being funded, the type of work that 
is being done. We are collaborating now with NIEHS on a health 
study. We are collaborating with the EPA on an expanded 
exposure study, so we understand the different routes that 
people might get exposed to.
    Even in a situation where there is principal water 
exposure, there is still other things that are contributing to 
that exposure. Understanding what those are are important also, 
in part so we can look at the complex exposure as we try and 
relate that to disease, but also so we understand what is the 
biggest opportunity for reducing exposure.
    We want to tackle all those routes where they are possible 
there, and especially those that we think are associated with 
exposure. There is a broad interest across the Federal 
Government on the human health side of things, and principally, 
it is ourselves, the EPA, and NIEHS focusing on that.
     Chairman Peters. Given the new advisory where any level is 
harmful, and given the levels that we are seeing in PFAS in 
some of our lakes and rivers and streams here in Michigan, how 
concerned are you about the fish in the Great Lakes region?
    Dr. Breysse. So that is not principally our responsibility 
at ATSDR other than we follow closely what the State and local 
advisories are for consumption, which rely heavily on data that 
I think the EPA and other environmental agencies produce in 
terms of contamination going forward. What we would do is we 
try and follow those, we identify them, and where they are 
present, we incorporate them in all our community outreach 
materials, and when we have our community outreach meetings, we 
talk about what those advisories are, and why they are 
important, and why they should be followed.
    Chairman Peters. So have those advisories been adjusted 
given the new levels we are talking about, that basically any 
level is unsafe?
    Dr. Breysse. I would be surprised if they had been at this 
point.
    Chairman Peters. Exactly, yes.
    Dr. Breysse. Those advisory levels are pretty recent.
    Chairman Peters. There would be some concern there?
    Dr. Breysse. Absolutely. As far as contamination, I think 
we worried about that. Other animal species, as well, can get 
contaminated based on grazing experiences and stuff, so it is 
not just fish that are potentially a concern.
    Chairman Peters. Across the board. You are shaking your 
hand, Mr. Pigott?
    Mr. Pigott. Yes, I agree.
    Chairman Peters. Elaborate.
    Mr. Pigott. Yes, if it is OK, I would just love to add 
because of the concerns about the aquatic life, one of the 
things we have done is release aquatic life criteria. We have 
been working in conjunction, of course, with ATSDR on the 
scientific, and in terms of all the things you mentioned. But 
also we have been working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife to 
determine how do we characterize the fish tissue analysis.
    As EGLE does in all the States, you collect fish, and you 
take a core sample from the fish and analyze it to determine 
well, what are the levels of pollutants in that fish and are 
they of concern. That is one of the things we have been working 
on why we establish water quality criteria, to ensure that not 
only are we protecting the vitally important drinking water 
that we all consume, but also that the aquatic life that we are 
covering is protected, as well.
    The way that happens is that we establish water quality 
criteria which States then can use to develop their own 
criteria and limits they put on wastewater treatment plants to 
ensure that we not only get the PFAS out of our drinking water, 
but also remove it from our wastewater that goes into our 
waterways. Those criteria are really critical, and that fish 
study is really vital to determining those levels.
    Chairman Peters. I appreciate you brought up that criteria, 
and that was actually a question that I was going to ask 
related to criteria for PFOA and PFAS. What specifically would 
you recommend Michigan and other States do to be in a position 
to actually implement these recommendations that you just 
talked about?
    Mr. Pigott. In terms of the criteria, one of the things 
that we look forward to the States doing is adopting the 
criteria in the State regulatory process. That is one 
recommendation we have, is we have the criteria out there; they 
are helpful, and then Michigan can use them to adopt them into 
their regulatory mechanisms, and then include monitoring 
provisions in their wastewater permits around the State to 
ensure that we know what is coming out of the wastewater 
treatment plant, and then we can treat for that.
    Right now, Michigan has been far and away in the lead in 
terms of determining what is in their drinking water and 
looking at the different sources. I do know, in fact, that 
Michigan not only has looked at ``Well, what's come out of our 
wastewater treatment plant? But where is it coming from that 
gets to our wastewater treatment plant?'' They have conducted 
an extensive study upstream of different industrial 
contributors to determine where it is coming from. I think that 
is another vital part that actually other States in the country 
could do, and are not doing currently, to ensure that we know 
and we treat for the PFAS that is coming out of our wastewater 
systems.
    Chairman Peters. I am going to continue this line of 
questioning with you--that as the States are working to do 
that, and to implement it, and you are working with it, it is a 
resource issue and always a challenge. But as you know, and I 
think you actually alluded to it in your opening comments, that 
the infrastructure law that we passed just recently had $5 
billion in grant funding for States to address PFAS and other 
emerging contaminants, as well. But certainly, PFAS is a focus 
of that in terms of a drinking fund.
    Could you describe, for the Committee's benefit, what steps 
the EPA is taking to ensure that the grant funding actually 
aligns with the on-the-ground needs, and follows the guidance 
that you are putting forward?
    Mr. Pigott. Absolutely.
    Chairman Peters. What should we expect, and when should we 
expect it?
    Mr. Pigott. Right. Such a great question, Senator Peters. 
The money that comes to the States from the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law is being run through the State revolving 
fund programing in each State. Michigan's receiving, I think, 
$22 million for PFAS work this year. Then the States put 
together what they call ``intended use plans'' that identify 
the communities that they are going to distribute those dollars 
to.
    We are standing up technical assistance to work with those 
communities to ensure that they A, know about the money that is 
out there; B, have the appropriate technical tools necessary to 
apply for those dollars, and then get them, especially for the 
disadvantaged communities, in the form of grants. The States 
are a critical partner in ensuring that we get the money out to 
our communities.
    Michigan has been devoted, not only with PFAS, but also 
with lead service line replacements, to ensure that dollars go 
out to the disadvantaged communities that so desperately need 
them to ensure that we protect our drinking water, whether it 
is lead or PFAS. That money is distributed by the Federal 
Government, and we are constantly in touch and examine the list 
of communities that those dollars go out to to ensure that they 
are properly distributed in the way that was intended under the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Chairman Peters. Right. We want to get regular 
communications about how that is going, and how we can 
facilitate all of that.
    Mr. Pigott. Yes. We look forward to that.
    Chairman Peters. Please, continue to work with us on that.
    Mr. Pigott. I am happy to do so.
    Chairman Peters. I appreciate that. Ms. Balkus, as we wrap 
up this panel, you have been in such a great mood to commit, I 
have a few commit questions for you here. This has been about 
improving interagency cooperation and coordination, and you 
have certainly committed to that, which I appreciate as we move 
forward. I have a few specific questions, though, that folks 
want to have answers to. First, can you explain why Oscoda 
community members can no longer attend base closure team (BCT) 
meetings at the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base?
    Ms. Balkus. Chairman Peters, I would be happy to answer 
that question. The BRAC Cleanup team meetings are intended to 
be a regulator and regulatee meeting, so it is not open to the 
public. That is to enable us to have those very frank and 
honest conversations about what the geology is showing us, what 
the groundwater flow is doing, what our proposed plans are with 
the sampling is showing us, et cetera. In that format, it is 
between the Air Force and the State of Michigan, or the EGLE 
Team. Not that I wanted to State this, necessarily, but I think 
it is important to say that we are following the Defense 
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) rules on that, so it 
is not something that the Air Force came up with on our own. It 
is our policies and practices.
    However, we do highly encourage our community to be 
involved in the environmental restoration process through the 
Restoration Advisory Board (RABs) meetings, and the one that's 
at Wurtsmith is phenomenal. They are actively involved. They 
are passionate advocates for their community, and they provide 
great insights to what we are doing and what we could do moving 
forward. Additionally, those BRAC Cleanup team meetings are 
summarized in Restoration Advisory Board meetings, and 
sometimes those BRAC Cleanup team members are also members of 
the RAB.
    There is an opportunity for community members to interact 
with the BRAC Cleanup team members in that open forum. All of 
that to say, the BRAC Cleanup team is regulator and regulatee, 
and our community members are invited to every Restoration 
Advisory Board meeting and, as I committed earlier today to 
you, Chairman Peters, we will do a community meeting where I 
will bring in experts as many times as we need to until we are 
able to answer all of the community's questions.
    Chairman Peters. You mentioned some of the hurdles to be in 
the base closure team meetings. Do you see a way that there 
could be more involvement despite the issues that you raised?
    Ms. Balkus. Sir, I think the BRAC Cleanup team needs to 
remain between the regulators and the Air Force. That is where 
we need to be able to discuss policies, practices, plans, and 
procedures.
    Chairman Peters. So there is no way to find some way for 
the public opinion, or the residents' opinion in the area?
    Ms. Balkus. There is plenty of ways for the public to 
provide their opinion.
    Chairman Peters. Within that meeting? I am sorry. Within 
that meeting?
    Ms. Balkus. Not in the BRAC Cleanup team, sir. But, yes, in 
community meetings and Restoration Advisory Boards.
    Chairman Peters. You are going to take full public--or 
opportunities for the public to have input on a remedial 
investigation work plan, or have already committed to that.
    Ms. Balkus. Yes.
    Chairman Peters. You are going to take that kind of input 
on a regular basis?
    Ms. Balkus. Yes, absolutely. In fact, one of the things 
that I would propose that we do is to do earlier release of our 
draft remedial investigation documents so that they are not 
waiting until it becomes final. That is a premier way for 
community members to have a voice earlier in the process.
    Chairman Peters. Well, part of having a voice is you have 
to have access to some documents and data, clearly, so you can 
comment on that. Oscoda community members have learned that the 
DOD regularly provides documents and data to State regulators 
via a publicly inaccessible portal. My request for another 
commitment is would you be committed to making this information 
more readibly available to the impacted communities so that 
they can make a thoughtful comment based on documents and data?
    Ms. Balkus. Yes. That is one of the initiatives that we are 
planning to implement. The reason that it is a secure website 
between the regulated and the regulator parties is so that we 
can reach agreements on what needs to be done. But in the 
interim, going forward, our intention is to make sure that 
those remedial investigation work plans are available and 
accessible to the communities. I will see if Mr. Gillespie 
would like to elaborate.
    Mr. Gillespie. Yes. I stayed up pretty late last night 
reading all the community's comments.
    Chairman Peters. Good.
    Mr. Gillespie. On the last interim measure we are taking, 
and they were very good. I think 30 days is not enough--I agree 
with Ms. Balkus--is not enough to give our community members 
input on that. Maybe a little bit longer, but it was not much.
    Chairman Peters. Now I have to pick up on that comment, 
that they were good comments that you had.
    Mr. Gillespie. Yes.
    Chairman Peters. [continuing]. Public comments. As you read 
them late last night, what stood out to you, or like ``Wow, 
this is really great comments. These are the kinds of things I 
am glad I am hearing here tonight or reading?''?
    Mr. Gillespie. Yes. Sir, I think one of the things we have 
not done a great job with at Wurtsmith is there has been so 
many maps put out there by either the EGLE, the Air Force, or 
by somebody else, that over the years--that show these plume 
blobs--right?--and the Air Force would answer back to the 
community members, saying, ``How come your map does not match 
with EGLEs?'' What version is it they are talking about. What 
is the latest plume map.
    I am old school. I do not want a machine to contour my 
groundwater table, and I do not want a machine to contour my 
plume maps. I want a professional to do that. I do not know 
whether EGLE does that or the Air Force contractor did that, 
but as I interject myself as a technical person to our BRAC 
team, that will stop. I would hope my EGLE counterparts--a lot 
of them graduated from this great university too; right? I hope 
they are not using some program to contour maps either.
    Chairman Peters. OK. In other comments you read last night, 
anything that stood out?
    Mr. Gillespie. That was one of them, and then a lot of them 
where people were, using lawyer-speak ``Hey''--one thing about 
these interim remedies is you get another bite at the apple; 
right? In other words, this is not the final remedy. As I said 
before, this is a tourniquet that we are putting on this 
uncontrolled release of PFAS from our installations. We have a 
lot of work to do on the internal plumes yet. I think part of 
the disappointment with the community is we did not do a lot of 
work on the internal plumes.
    For example, I would call it the ``old Air Force beach 
plume,'' now Ken Ratliff Park--but I am not going to use Ken's 
name and match it up with a plume. That plume is very well 
defined where the mass is, about 3,000 feet in from the 
lakeshore. However, when I look at the well spacing then--and 
it is really good on the lakeshore, the definition where they 
are putting in the extraction wells. But I had 1,000 feet of 
space where we have massive plume, plume enters Lake Van Etten. 
I had 1,000 feet between two points, so we need more 
information there. I think that is what we were trying to get 
across in some of the comments. I did not address those 
comments, but I think that is what we were trying to get 
across.
    We got a ways to go before we start plume busting on the 
internal part of that plume. Let us stop it going into the 
surface water bodies, but now let us start thinking about the 
technologies that we have off the shelf and that are coming on 
the shelf soon so we can start learning how we are going to cut 
up that plume.
    Chairman Peters. Good. The conversation will continue, 
although with all four of you. Thank you to all four of our 
witnesses here today. Thank you for your work on this issue. I 
know you are passionate on the issue. This is not a problem 
going away anytime soon, so we are going to be talking an awful 
lot in the months and years ahead as we work together. We 
appreciate your willingness to be a part of the solution and 
working diligently to get to that point where we can get to the 
other side of this crisis.
    We are going to take about a 10-minute break. We have a 
second panel coming up. But as we have all been sitting here 
for an hour and a half, we probably want to stretch our legs. I 
will take a 10-minute recess. Then as our second panel of 
witnesses can go to the table, that would be great. We will be 
adjourned for a brief recess.
    [Recess.]
    The Committee will come back to order.
    I would like to first start off by thanking our second 
panel of witnesses to join us for this field hearing. Each of 
you has experienced firsthand the impact of PFAS exposure and 
unfortunately suffered the consequences of Federal delays and 
incessant inaction to address this crisis. There is no question 
that PFAS has caused irreparable damages to the health and 
well-being of our communities for many years, and government 
must take decisive action so that families and communities do 
not have to endure the struggle for decades more. We have 
waited far too long already for decisive action.
    The second panel before us here today features both current 
and former Michigan residents that will speak to their 
experiences and provide critical suggestions on how the Federal 
Government can best work with the State of Michigan and local 
communities on the removal, treatment, and destruction methods 
for PFAS substances, as well as efforts to transition to a 
potentially and hopefully safer alternatives.
    While the Federal Government must take greater measures to 
address this crisis, we are lucky that Michigan is home to one 
of the most successful PFAS responses in the nation, the 
Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, which I believe can serve 
as a model for the rest of the Nation. We are also lucky to 
have a powerful network of advocates who are willing to work 
together to raise awareness and push for substantive solutions 
to address PFAS contamination. Again, thanks for each of you to 
be here, taking time out of your day, and we anxiously await 
your testimony, an important part of the record that we need as 
we take action on this crisis.
    It is the practice of this Committee to swear in witnesses, 
so if you would please stand 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?
    Ms. Hendershott. I do.
    Ms. Knudsen. I do.
    Dr. Murphy. I do.
    Lt. Col. Minor. I do.
    Ms. Wusterbarth. I do.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. You may be seated.
    Our first witness on this panel is Abigail Hendershott, 
Executive Director of the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team. 
Ms. Hendershott is a 30-year veteran of the Michigan Department 
of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, and she has led a team 
responsible for Michigan's largest PFAS contamination response 
to date.
    Welcome to the Committee, and you are now recognized for 
your opening comments.

   TESTIMONY OF ABIGAIL HENDERSHOTT,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
               MICHIGAN PFAS ACTION RESPONSE TEAM

    Ms. Hendershott. Thank you, Chairman Peters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Hendershott appears in the 
Appendix on page 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Let us try this again. Thank you, Chairman Peters, for 
inviting Michigan to provide testimony regarding the ongoing 
work of our Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, to address per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances issues across our State. I will 
acknowledge that I am also a Rockford citizen, and a graduate 
of MSU. So go green.
    As you said, my name is Abigail Hendershott.
    I am the Executive Director for MPART, and I am pleased to 
share with you the Michigan perspective on the need for a more 
coordinated Federal response to PFAS contamination and explore 
the interagency and intergovernmental policy solutions that 
holistically address PFAS risk, remediation, and research.
    The Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, initially created 
in 2017, was established as an enduring body in February 4, 
2019, by Governor Gretchen Whitmer to address the threat of 
PFAS contamination in Michigan, protect public health, and 
ensure the safety of Michigan's land, air, water, while 
facilitating interagency coordination, increasing transparency, 
and requiring clear standards to ensure accountability.
    Since 2017, MPART has solidified its role as a national 
leader in identifying and addressing PFAS contamination by the 
coordinated activities of seven different State agencies. This 
coordination and collaboration have allowed Michigan to 
effectively leverage the actions of all agencies to swiftly 
identify and respond to PFAS in our communities. These 
departments include the Departments of Environment, Great 
Lakes, and Energy, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR); 
Transportation (DOT); Agriculture and Rural Development (USDA); 
Health and Human Services (HHS); the State Fire Marshal (SFM); 
and Military and Veterans Affairs, all of which have staff 
dedicated to continuously address PFAS issues.
    MPART is encouraged by the actions laid out in the EPA PFAS 
Strategic Roadmap and the goals for coordinated and cooperative 
cross-agency efforts to develop and improve tools to address 
PFAS as announced by the Biden Administration in October 2021. 
However, more can and must be done to coordinate and 
collaborate on the tough issues that PFAS presents to not only 
our Nation, but to the world.
    Let me give you an example of how MPART's strategic 
coordination has benefited the citizens of our State. Starting 
in 2018, Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and 
Energy conducted pioneering work to trace PFAS in wastewater 
back to industrial facilities. At one location, these results 
led to the halt of land application of heavily impacted 
biosolids on farmland. Sampling efforts revealed that crops and 
cattle on the farm had been impacted by the industrially 
contaminated PFAS-containing biosolids. Determining the next 
steps at the farm required thoughtful collaboration with the 
State DNR, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Health 
and Human Services.
    The Federal Government's lack of a unified approach and 
standards meant that Michigan could not obtain written guidance 
or advice from our Federal agencies regarding acceptable levels 
of PFAS in beef, resulting in Michigan conducting its own 
public health evaluation and risk determination. Similar 
situations in Maine and New Mexico highlight the need for 
national research and standards for food and crops, and for 
enhanced Federal coordination to provide clarity and assistance 
for our farmers and our States.
    In fact, there are still many PFAS issues that would 
benefit from coordinated efforts at the Federal level, such as 
food testing and standards for PFAS in the food supply, further 
study and better understanding of the transport and deposition 
of airborne PFAS, continued research to find effective 
fluorine-free replacements for firefighting foams, 
collaboration and research to advance our toxicological 
understanding of PFAS and the human health effects, and better 
public notification and transparency so that our citizens can 
be better informed about PFAS risks.
    An important piece of the collaborative MPART model is our 
Citizens Advisory Work Group (CAWG), which make up of residents 
from around the State who have been directly or indirectly 
affected by PFAS in their communities. The CAWG allows our 
citizens to have a way to directly provide input to MPART on 
PFAS topics. Their voices have reinforced the MPART mission to 
collaborate among the departments and be transparent in our 
efforts. The CAWG has also stressed the importance of notifying 
the public when PFAS has been found in communities, especially 
for residential drinking water well owners who may be 
potentially at risk.
    MPART has collaborated with the CAWG and several agencies 
to develop successful measures to inform the public in 
Michigan. Nationally, a toolbox of potential notification 
protocols would be helpful for other States. Being able to 
share that data with the public would help communicate PFAS 
information nationally. Federal agencies should work together 
to share their data and provide consistent messaging about PFAS 
so that people can make sound decisions as to how to reduce the 
risk for themselves and their families.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss Michigan's 
leadership on the cutting edge of PFAS mitigation policy at the 
State level, and to discuss the need for a national MPART-like 
structure of collaboration and coordination moving forward.
    I welcome hearing from the other witnesses today and look 
forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Hendershott.
    Thank you for your testimony, and also welcome back to 
campus. We have a real trend going here. A lot of folks on 
these panels know this place very well. Good to see you.
    Our next witness is Breanna Knudsen, the Tribal 
Environmental Response Program Specialist for the Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan. Previously, she served as 
Brownfield Specialist for the Little River Band of Ottawa 
Indians.
    Ms. Knudsen, welcome to the Committee, and you may proceed 
with your opening remarks.

TESTIMONY OF BREANNA KNUDSEN,\1\ TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE 
 PROGRAM SPECIALIST, SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE OF MICHIGAN

    Ms. Knudsen. Good Morning and thank you, Chairman Peters 
for inviting us today. My name is Breanna Knudsen, and I am the 
Environmental Response Program Specialist for the Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, speaking today on behalf of 
the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan. The Tribe is 
appreciative of the opportunity to testify at this field 
hearing and we were nominated to do so by the United Tribes of 
Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Knudsen appears in the Appendix 
on page 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Historically, the Saginaw Indian Chippewa Tribe lived 
primarily in the Eastern region of what is now Michigan. 
Between 1795 and 1864, a total of sixteen treaties were made 
between the U.S. Government and the Tribe. The main Ceded 
Territories of the Tribe were designated specifically in the 
Treaties of 1855 and 1864, which also established the Isabella 
Reservation. Over 130,000 acres were allotted to the 
Reservation. The Tribe also maintained a second satellite 
Reservation area in Standish, and owns additional properties in 
Arenac and Iosco Counties.
    Within the Isabella Reservation of the Saginaw Chippewa 
Indian Tribe of Michigan, there are three sites; two defunct 
landfills, and an old refinery known to be sources of PFAS 
contamination. Within Ceded Territory boundaries, there is the 
Wurtsmith Air Force Base, a known source of PFAS contamination 
as well. In Clark's Marsh, near that airbase, previous testing 
for PFAS revealed extremely high levels of PFAS in the tissues 
of fish caught in that marsh.
    CERCLA provides to Tribal nations the rights to enforce 
cleanup and remediation of contamination on tribal lands. 
However, the Tribe cannot pursue cleanup actions in these sites 
until the Federal Government officially classifies PFAS as 
regulated hazardous substances under CERCLA designation. 
Without this classification, there can be no cleanup standards 
created to achieve and enforce. Without cleanup standards to 
achieve and enforce, there can be no legal instrument to hold 
responsible parties liable for contamination by remediating and 
restoring these sites. Thus, to clean up PFAS from their lands, 
the hands of the Tribe are tied without official classification 
of PFAS as regulated hazardous substances under CERCLA. I am 
glad to hear that it is soon coming.
    It must be noted that statements made by the Saginaw 
Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan do not and should not be 
construed as representative of the other eleven federally 
recognized tribes in Michigan. The Tribe has previously 
facilitated inter-tribal and inter-agency efforts to address 
PFAS issues in Michigan, and looks forward to continued 
cooperation to resolve PFAS contamination on tribal lands. 
Thank you for your time.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Knudsen.
    Our next witness is Cheryl Murphy, a professor in the 
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and the director for the 
Center of PFAS Research at Michigan State University. Dr. 
Murphy was recently awarded a $1.9 million grant from the 
Department of Defense to develop a toxicity testing framework 
for PFAS mixtures and assess the risk that PFAS poses to 
animals.
    Dr. Murphy, welcome to the Committee. You may proceed with 
your opening remarks.

  TESTIMONY OF DR. CHERYL MURPHY,\1\ DIRECTOR, CENTER OF PFAS 
              RESEARCH, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Chairman Peters, and thank 
you very much for this opportunity to submit testimony related 
to Improving Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination on 
PFAS for Michigan Communities, which is a really timely and 
important issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Murphy appears in the Appendix on 
page 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My name is Cheryl Murphy, and I am a Professor in the 
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State 
University, and an ecotoxicologist. But I also serve as 
Director, and I feel privileged to work with a lot of really 
talented people at the MSU Center for PFAS Research.
    For several decades, PFAS compounds have infiltrated and 
accumulated in our drinking water, ecosystems, our atmosphere 
and food supplies. Despite this, they are still being 
manufactured in lots of different ways, and used for many 
different processes. There are more than 5,000 of these man-
made chemicals that are really resistant to degradation. They 
remain in the environment and in organisms for many years. We 
know PFOS and PFOA are two of the most commonly produced PFAS 
compounds that have toxic effects, and they bioaccumulate in 
organisms, but we know very little about the rest.
    I provide much more background in my written testimony. 
There was just this recent Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) report on July 28th, called, ``Persistent Chemicals: 
Technologies for PFAS Assessment, Detection, and Treatment,'' 
that details a lot of these issues.
    Because this PFAS issue is not only pervasive in Michigan 
communities, but also throughout the United States and the 
world, and is a problem that affects multiple aspects of our 
daily lives, we at MSU, in the true spirit of the first land-
grant institution, sought to determine how we could respond to 
this emerging crisis. We quickly realized that effective 
research solutions could only come from this very 
multidisciplinary focus.
    In some ways, we followed the model performed by the State 
of Michigan in forming MPART, but we also thought a center 
would make it easier to coordinate with them, as well with our 
Federal agencies, our international partners, and to liaison 
with communities, and to engage with industry on safer 
replacements. Coordination would also avoid duplication and 
more efficient progress toward solutions. We formed our center 
to unite several colleges and schools to attract other 
researchers with much needed skills that have not been focused 
on PFAS yet, ranging from social scientists to engineers.
    While we have been successful at acquiring specific 
research grants from Federal agencies--Senator Peters mentioned 
the DOD as one--we found that there seems to be no funding 
mechanism that would provide larger overall support for an 
initiative as broad and as comprehensive as the one that is 
required to address the PFAS problem and to address it quickly. 
Much of the research has been on drinking water, which is 
really important; I am not saying that. But it is also in our 
food supplies and our natural resources, and we cannot measure 
most of them, and we do not know their toxicity.
    Interagency coordination would be of considerable benefit 
and help broader center initiatives that will allow for things 
like cohesive data collection, and storage and sharing, and an 
efficient investment into infrastructure needs, such as 
equipment and facilities that could be used by many 
researchers. For example, we are finding contaminated farms, 
livestock, and fish, but we do not have facilities specifically 
built that could assist in determining how the chemicals 
accumulate their toxic properties. We need these to develop 
mitigation strategies so that we do not consume more PFAS, and 
provide immediate solutions to farmers and fishermen in our 
communities. We also need to invest in technology to be able to 
measure these chemicals quickly in all sorts of different 
matrices, and we need to develop high throughput toxicity 
assessment platforms and other tools that can be used for PFAS 
and are validated for risk assessment.
    Land-grant institutions would be ideal places to host such 
research centers because of the breadth of expertise and the 
focus on solutions related to food systems, natural resources, 
and agriculture, and our outreach and extension into our 
communities. This investment would help us train the next 
generation of scientists and engineers so that they are 
prepared to tackle these issues and some of these problems for 
future generations.
    In summary, a larger investment from coordinated Federal 
agencies would enable the development of a number of focus 
research hubs across the United States that would contribute to 
solving key problems. We feel that the time to deal with these 
compounds as isolated and independent cases is long past, and 
we need to change our focus from delegating the 
responsibilities to single agencies and specific researchers to 
more collaborative, united collectives of vastly different but 
complimentary disciplines to prioritize needs, focus on the 
rapid development of solutions to these problems. This 
initiative should be led by the Federal Government so that we 
do not duplicate efforts, develop appropriate infrastructure, 
and can respond quickly to the emergency issues like 
contaminated food supplies that impacts other communities.
    Thank you very much for this opportunity.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Dr. Murphy.
    Thank you for your testimony here today.
    Our next witness is Lieutenant Colonel Craig Minor. Col. 
Minor is a retired Air Force officer who used to serve at 
Wurtsmith Air Force Base. He and his family's exposure to PFAS 
chemicals during his service on base has unfortunately led to 
some significant health challenges. His family was cast in the 
``No Defense'' documentary, and he is the coauthor of 
``OVERWHELMED, A Civilian Casualty of Cold War Poison.''
    Col. Minor, pleasure to have you here. You may proceed with 
your opening remarks.

  TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. CRAIG L. MINOR, USAF (RET.)\1\ FORMER 
               RESIDENT, WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE

    Lt. Col. Minor. Thank you, Chairman Peters, for this 
opportunity, and my family thanks you, and veterans from 
Wurtsmith and their families thank you as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Lt. Col. Minor appears in the 
Appendix on page 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are here because we know PFAS is harmful to people. In 
fact, people are the number one reason we care about PFAS at 
all. We want our ground and surface water cleaned up because we 
do not want people to drink, eat, touch, or breathe this 
poison. The priority is clear, people. No agency or person 
would support a one-sided PFAS strategy that states or implies 
``we ignore past harms and only focus on preventing future 
harms.''
    My testimony today is to highlight a significant past harm, 
which requires your immediate leadership. From 1982 to 1997, 
Wurtsmith Air Force Base citizens drank egregious amounts of 
PFAS in the tap water; daily and for 10 years.
    Beginning in 1982, Wurtsmith firefighters began to 
routinely dispose of PFAS-laden AFFF along the grassy edge of 
the operational apron near the fire station. The AFFF dump site 
was only 500 yards upstream in the aquifer from the main 
drinking water wells. Dumping AFFF on the ground was never an 
approved disposal practice. A 1982 ``3M Product Environmental 
Data Sheet'' clearly states: ``DISPOSAL OF PRODUCT: Bleed to a 
wastewater treatment system in accordance with local 
regulations.'' Because of the known toxicity of AFFF, Air Force 
and Navy research documents from this period stated the same. 
Had excess firefighter foam been disposed of in a wastewater 
treatment facility and not dumped on the ground, I would not be 
testifying in front of you today.
    When Wurtsmith military operations ended in 1993, base 
officials labeled the operational AFFF dump site ``SS-60.'' 
According to Air Force documents, the practice of dumping AFFF 
at site SS-60 ended in 1992. For 10 years, from 1982 to 1992, 
AFFF with PFAS was dumped directly on the ground, entered the 
groundwater, and was drawn into the main water wells supplying 
all Wurtsmith's potable water via the water tower. After 1992 
until 1997, smaller amounts of PFAS-ladened water continued to 
enter the base water system from the PFAS saturated aquifer. In 
1997, a local municipal water system was replaced and replaced 
those wells.
    The amount of PFAS entering the wells was not trivial. The 
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), would 
discover, 25 years later, that the PFAS concentrations in the 
groundwater at site SS-60 were over 43,000 parts per trillion. 
Further, MDEQ measured high PFAS concentrations from SS-60, 
stretching to the historical water wells. The MDEQ also 
discovered trapped water in abandoned fire hydrants, a hot 
water heater, and water softener from when Wurtsmith was 
active. As expected, all trapped water contained various 
concentrations of PFAS, and the highest concentration was 
roughly 7,500 parts per trillion.
    My wife Carrie and I worked and lived on base from 1985 to 
1990. In October 1989, our son Mitchell was born at Wurtsmith 
with severe cerebral palsy and microcephaly, and he passed 30 
years later, two weeks after filming his story in the ``No 
Defense'' documentary. In 1989, I was hospitalized on base for 
an unidentifiable prostate issue. In addition, I had a large 
tumor removed from my back. Two years after our profoundly 
handicapped son was born, Carrie miscarried our next child. We 
did not discover PFAS was in the Wurtsmith water until 2019; 
two weeks after God prompted us to write ``OVERWHELMED,'' which 
added, ``A Civilian Casualty of Cold War Poison.'' Go to 
``mitchellsmemoir.com'' to learn more. In 2019 my overall blood 
PFAS levels were 3.5 times higher than the national average, 
and my perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) levels, a signature 
component of AFFF, was nearly 20 times higher than national 
exposure levels. Today, my liver and spleen are enlarged, and 
my kidneys are low functioning, and this is just the beginning 
of the list. I have met another veteran with similar blood 
results and health issues.
    It is now 40 years since Wurtsmith citizens began drinking 
PFAS from AFFF in egregious amounts, and it is time for local, 
State, and Federal leadership to officially recognize this 
event. To start, governments and applicable agencies need to 
cut through the red tape and add this poisoning event to the VA 
Presumptive List until Congress can organize a more 
comprehensive solution to care for all the U.S. citizens that 
were poisoned. The DOD should be the loudest voice, taking lead 
to triage its Cold War battlefield casualties. Why DOD? Because 
we leave no one behind. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Col. Minor. Thank you for 
sharing intensely personal story, as well.
    Final witness is Cathy Wusterbarth, founder of Need Our 
Water (NOW), and Oscoda Citizens for Clean Water. Through her 
work, she serves as a reliable resource and catalyst for 
education and for communication while advocating for long-term 
health and environmental welfare plans on behalf of those 
impacted by the water contamination from the former Wurtsmith 
Air Force Base in Oscoda, Michigan.
    Ms. Wusterbarth, thank you so much for being here, and you 
may proceed with your opening comments.

TESTIMONY OF CATHY WUSTERBARTH,\1\ FOUNDER, NEED OUR WATER AND 
  OSCODA CITIZENS FOR CLEAN WATER AND COMMUNITY LEADER, GREAT 
                   LAKES PFAS ACTION NETWORK

    Ms. Wusterbarth. Chairman Peters, thank you for the 
opportunity to be here today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Wusterbarth appears in the 
Appendix on page 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am Cathy Wusterbarth, a founder of Need Our Water, Oscoda 
Citizens for Clean Water, a community leader with Great Lakes 
PFAS Action Network, and a member of our local restoration 
advisory board. I am a registered dietitian, clean water 
advocate and a native of my beloved town of Oscoda, Michigan. I 
was a competitive swimmer and young lifeguard on the U.S. Air 
Force Base beach, which we know now is highly contaminated with 
PFAS. Little did I know that the cancer and immunological 
disease I developed a few years later in my 20s may have been 
due to the drinking water and lake water exposure from 
performing that lifeguarding job as a civilian employee for the 
U.S. Air Force.
    To this day I continue to battle these diseases, much like 
my mother, my father and both sisters who have lifetime 
illnesses potentially associated with their PFAS exposure. 
Unfortunately, our family in Oscoda is not unique. Military 
personnel, their families and our neighbors are reporting the 
same conditions. Sadly, some cases have led to preventable 
death.
    I am proud to be part a community that supported the former 
Wurtsmith Air Force base functions and continue to be proud of 
the mission of the Department of Defense to provide combat 
credible military forces needed to deter war and protect the 
security of our Nation.
    However, at the same time as providing these important 
services to our national security, toxic PFAS has been flowing 
essentially uninterrupted for decades from the former Wurtsmith 
Air Force Base through the groundwater. This toxic PFAS 
contamination is bleeding into nearby Van Etten Lake, Clark's 
Marsh and the AuSable River, all of which carry that toxic 
water to the drinking water source for hundreds of thousands of 
people in the Great Lakes region. In 2015 and 1916 testing of 
the Lake Huron municipal water system revealed 4.2 parts per 
trillion average of PFAS and PFOS combined for the sampling. We 
have had health advisories throughout our community due to this 
uncontrolled spread of PFAS, including foam, fish, venison, and 
all animals living in Clark's Marsh, which used to be a popular 
fishing and hunting destination and is still used by 
subsistence hunters and anglers to gather their food.
    Because it is odorless, colorless and tasteless, we 
unknowingly were subjected to these toxic PFAS chemicals for 
decades, and continued to be exposed for decades after, but 
PFAS manufacturers and the military knew PFAS chemicals were 
harmful to human health. Shockingly, we now have that visual 
evidence in the PFAS-laden foam forming on our waterways and 
Lake Huron. After over a decade of knowing PFAS chemicals were 
impacting our health and community, the past exposure we 
experienced still has no comprehensive corrective measure. We 
must live the best we can with the harm caused and must do so 
while enduring a lack of transparency, accountability, and 
collaboration from the Air Force and the Department of Defense 
as part of the cleanup process.
    Through Need Our Water's continued partnership with the 
Wurtsmith site experts, some of whom are here today, The 
National Wildlife Federation, community members and Wurtsmith 
veterans, such as Craig, I was involved with creating a 
document that summarizes the timeline of PFAS exposure and 
actions at Wurtsmith. Starting in the 1970s, it details the DOD 
actions that are inconsistent with the known severity of the 
problem, false promises and endless delays. This well 
researched, clearly detailed, and thoughtful document was 
submitted by me at the September 2021 Restoration Advisory 
Board meeting. During the meeting, when I asked for a formal 
response to this document, the U.S. Air Force leadership asked 
me why I would want a response to a public document. As part of 
my testimony, I will submit this document for the Committee to 
review.\1\ This incident is an example of the shift that needs 
to occur in the U.S. Air Force and the DOD approach. 
Communities have vital information to provide, and we should 
not be dismissed when it is presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The document referenced by Ms. Wusterbarth appears in the 
Appendix on page 120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Through my advocacy I have learned to study the actions of 
those doing this work before me, such as the late author of 
``Silent Spring,'' Rachel Carson. She said, which ironically 
could be posed to the DOD in literal terms today, ``Man's 
attitude toward nature is critically important simply because 
we have now acquired a fateful power to alter and destroy 
nature. But man is part of nature, and his war against nature 
is inevitably a war against himself. We are challenged as 
mankind has never been challenged before to prove our maturity 
and our mastery, not of nature, but of ourselves.''
    Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Wusterbarth. I thank you 
for the personal story, and the document that you referenced 
will be entered into the official record of the committee.
    Ms. Hendershott, at the State level, Michigan clearly has 
focused on improving in interagency collaboration on PFAS to 
get kind of a robust and coordinated response to the crisis. If 
you could explain to the Committee, and describe lessons that 
you have learned in this approach, and how the Federal 
Government can use this as a model, how we can effectively 
address PFAS around the country.
    Ms. Hendershott. That is a great question. I think the 
biggest thing that we have learned is that there is not one 
agency that can truly unravel and solve the complex PFAS issues 
that present themselves. It takes the entire team. It requires 
a team approach; it requires an agency approach, and it 
requires some strategy.
    All of these different agencies, whether at the Federal 
level, the State level, all have different authorities and 
different regulatory policies that have to be meshed together 
to be able to provide strategic responses.
    That strategic plan has to be holistic; it has to be 
comprehensive to adequately protect public health, promote ways 
to inform and educate our public, as well as actually provide 
effective communication. The MPART collaboration structure 
really works, though, because of the authority given to the 
team by the Governor for the State of Michigan. That response 
and the executive directive--or Executive Order (EO) actually 
gives us the authority then to require coordination and 
collaboration by all of our departments with the frequency that 
gives us a unified and streamlined approach.
    It does not come easily, and it is many hours of hard work 
by our department staff. But you can see the efforts that it 
pays off for our citizens when we do this.
    I think the other thing that I would say is that when we 
are working through PFAS issues, whether it is sampling useable 
drinking water, or working through site-specific projects like 
Wurtsmith or Wolverine, sampling surface water and fish, all of 
these point to the need for constant communication. The 
information, as you heard from the previous panel, is changing 
so rapidly, there is so much research going on that it is very 
important to be able to stay in constant communication and 
sharing of information and the research.
    I think that is the biggest lesson learned, is that 
collaboration has to be done quickly, constantly, and 
effectively to ensure that the public has really good, sound 
messaging, because it can be very convoluted very quickly if we 
do not apply a unified approach.
    Chairman Peters. All right. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Knudsen, could you speak to the Saginaw Chippewa Indian 
Tribe's experience working directly with the Federal Government 
to keep your community safe from PFAS contamination?
    Ms. Knudsen. At Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, 
we have had effective support from the State of Michigan and 
our EGLE partners in addressing our PFAS issues, such as 
assistance with testing of fish tissues and river areas. EGLE 
consistently invites the Tribe to participate meaningfully in 
relevant PFAS discussion, planning, and remedial action 
planning. EGLE and the State of Michigan have created PFAS 
cleanup standards to enforce, and thus are an actionable 
partner. The Federal Government don't have any PFAS cleanup 
standards to work with. Until the Federal Government classifies 
PFAS as regulated hazardous substances under CERCLA, the Tribe 
is ultimately limited in our ability to partner with the 
Federal government to address these PFAS issues on our tribal 
lands.
    Chairman Peters. Have you reached out to the EPA or any 
agency just for some advice and counsel, or you do not have any 
dealings with them at all?
    Ms. Knudsen. We do work with the EPA with many of our grant 
programs, include the grant that I work under, the R128(a) 
CERCLA Grant.
    Chairman Peters. Right.
    Ms. Knudsen. The EPA is a very good partner with us. In 
this particular issue, we cannot really do much without those 
cleanup standards to enforce.
    Chairman Peters. Ms. Hendershott, if you could have given 
some examples in your previous question, but kind of some 
examples of proactive State-level leadership in Michigan that 
the Federal Government, specifically, might be able to emulate, 
and devise some more effective policies, what recommendations 
would you give?
    Ms. Hendershott.
     When it comes to proactive Federal, Obviously, as Ms. 
Knudsen said, having actual Federal standards is the first 
step. The approach that the Federal Government needs to be able 
to take has to start with a regulatory approach that has 
authority. Starting with the MCL's--as Mr. Pigott said, 
starting with the MCL's is a vital, crucial piece to starting 
that process, working down to a CERCLA designation for PFOS and 
PFOA will be a next step, but there is many other steps and 
pieces that require the different programs to have regulatory 
authority.
    I think that is going be the first piece that we would like 
to see from EPA, and that their leadership is going to be 
necessary for. As far as other Federal regulatory programs, 
there is many other ones that we intersect with, whether it 
comes from USDA for food testing, FDA for additional food 
testing, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife, et cetera.
    There is many different agencies that have authorities that 
we would like to be able to get their advice for the technical 
expertise, and for the research that they are doing on PFAS. 
Because there is a lot of research going on for PFAS. But the 
States do not always have the resources to be able to do that 
kind of research ourselves. But at least in Michigan, we do 
have our own authority for regulations.
    Chairman Peters. Michigan has their own authorities. We are 
waiting for the EPA to set standards, which we talked about in 
the previous panel. But we do have a health advisory that is 
out. Do you see anything changing, or the landscape changing, 
anyway, with that advisory, or do we have to wait for the 
standard to come out?
    Ms. Hendershott. I think that we are going to learn quite a 
bit from the EPA's health advisory. In Michigan, we will 
continue to use our enforceable standards until EPA has their 
MCL's that become officially promulgated. But I think it is 
more than that.
    Having ATSDR at the table, and being able to look at the 
science that they are reviewing, understanding the inputs, the 
toxicological assumptions, the endpoints, all of that is really 
important to our Department of Health and Human Services as 
they take a second look at what we are looking at for our 
State.
    In this point, we will continue to use our enforceable 
standards until EPA actually sets those drinking water 
standards, and that they do not become just an interim health 
advisory, but actually become an enforceable maximum 
contaminant level that we can actually use.
    Chairman Peters. Right. Thank you.
    Ms. Knudsen, certainly PFAS contamination impacts all 
communities. But are there some unique impacts in the 
Indigenous community here in Michigan?
    Ms. Knudsen. Yes. Every Indigenous community here is 
unique, and again, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe cannot speak 
for the 11 other federally recognized tribes in Michigan. 
Specific to us, though, PFAS contamination prevents the full 
exercise of our hunting, gathering, and fishing rights, as 
designated in those 16 treaties with the Federal Government.
    There are now various PFAS consumption advisories for fish 
caught in water bodies near our reservations and in our ceded 
territories, including bluegill, sunfish, smallmouth bass, 
largemouth bass caught in Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay areas. 
There have also been PFAS consumption advisories for other 
wildlife, including for deer within five miles of the Wurtsmith 
Air Base. Thus, the Tribe's rights to sustenance, fishing, 
gathering, and hunting in ceded territory areas, as were given 
in the treaties, are being impeded by PFAS contamination and 
its subsequent bioaccumulation in wildlife.
    Chairman Peters. You mentioned the different advisories. I 
know the rainbow smelt up in Lake Superior recently was put on 
advisory. Do you believe you are getting adequate support from 
either the State or the Federal Government to address these 
concerns with wildlife and your abilities to hunt and to fish, 
and what more could we do?
    Ms. Knudsen. Saginaw Chippewa has previously hosted PFAS 
listening sessions in the fall of 2018. All levels of 
stakeholders were invited, including the EPA water division 
staff, EPA staff in region five and headquarters, EGLE, MDHHS, 
the area district health department, and local municipalities. 
These communications have thus far been effective. Again, 
without that CERCLA designation of those hazardous substances 
for PFAS on our trust lands, we are unable to further our 
efforts to remediate those issues.
    Chairman Peters. All right. Thank you.
    Dr. Murphy, as I mentioned in my opening comments, and you 
referenced as well, I was certainly pleased to see that 
Michigan State University was awarded a $1.9 million grant for 
the Department of Defense's Strategic Environmental Research 
and Development Program, which will basically develop a 
toxicity testing framework for PFAS, and assess the risk that 
these chemicals pose to animals. Could you explain the 
importance of strengthening and expanding research on these 
dangerous chemicals at the Federal level?
    Why we need to continue to do this, and if we need to 
continually do it, provide additional resources?
    Dr. Murphy. Yes, for sure. So these PFAS compounds, they 
exist not as single entities.
    In the environment, they are mixtures, and so we do not 
really have a good handle on starting to get a good handle on 
two of them; PFAS and PFOA, but there is 5,000, and they are 
all occurring in these different types of mixtures out there, 
and so we do not really have good testing frameworks to tackle 
this complexity. As a result there is a lot of different 
standards, and there is a lot of moving targets.
    What I think right now is we have been throwing tools at it 
that we know work for other contaminants, but we are getting 
this really incomplete picture. We are wasting valuable 
resources and time by duplicating efforts and not developing 
appropriate tools to handle the PFAS issues. As a result, I 
think we have been tackling some of the low-hanging fruit, and 
there is a lot more complexity that needs to be addressed.
    In order to do that, we really do need this 
interdisciplinary approach.
    We need engineers, social scientists, toxicologists, 
ecologists, computer sciences, policy expert, risk assessments, 
and several more; I cannot list them all.
    But we have to be working together with the State and 
Federal partners, and with our communities, and also industry, 
to come up with other solutions. This has to be navigated at 
the Federal level. I do not see any other way to do that.
    Chairman Peters. Yes. Speak to me a little bit more about 
that, 'cause clearly you have a lot of moving pieces here. You 
mentioned it has to be interdisciplinary.
    Dr. Murphy. Yes.
    Chairman Peters. You have to collaborate to go.
    We know there are a lot of studies that are out now, which 
we have heard testimony. Yes, and the amount is increasing. But 
you just feel that there is not a coordination, that some body 
is saying, ``We have ten studies on this subject, and we are 
leaving this one behind. We really should maybe do five here 
and five there, and make sure we are covering the ground?'' Is 
that what you are describing, is that there needs to be----
    Dr. Murphy. Yes. It has to be nimble, too. We have to be 
able to get the new science, coordinate it all, assess it 
quickly, and then redirect, because we do not know exactly what 
the main issues are with most of these chemicals.
    Chairman Peters. Who should do that, and how?
    Dr. Murphy. The Federal Government. If you created large 
research opportunities, center hubs, that coordinated well, I 
mean, funding opportunities that had mandates to coordinate 
with the local communities and the Federal agencies.
    We all have them, but you need a lot of investment in that, 
because we need all of these other people to sort of switch 
their focus and get focused in on the PFAS issue so that we can 
tackle it. Does that make sense?
    Chairman Peters. Yes.
    Dr. Murphy. Yes? Sorry.
    Chairman Peters. The National Academies of Science and 
other organizations----
    Dr. Murphy. Yes, something like that would be great.
    Chairman Peters. That would be a great way to move 
forward----
    Dr. Murphy. Yes. National Academy of Science would be 
awesome.
    Chairman Peters. Yes, and others. I was going to say, I do 
have legislation to address that issue and I certainly 
appreciate your testimony here.
    We have heard from the food chains, and Ms. Knudsen talked 
about it as well, you have contaminated cattle, you have 
wildlife, the smelt. Talk to me more about the food chain. How 
concerned are you about what is happening in the food chain? 
Clearly, we have to do a lot more research?
    Dr. Murphy. Yes.
    Chairman Peters. Maybe paint a picture for us, a little bit 
of some of the things that keep you up at night as you think 
about what could be happening.
    Dr. Murphy. A lot keeps me up at night.
    Chairman Peters. What keeps you up? I do not want get into 
all of that.
    Dr. Murphy. I mean, the PFAS issue, and then----
    Chairman Peters. Oh, OK.
    Dr. Murphy. It was actually, I think, long before we 
started focusing on drinking water here in the United States, I 
think Canada was focusing on the food web, and finding it in 
concern with what they were finding; right? As a result, they 
took that information and went to the Stockholm Convention on 
Persistent Organic Pollution (sic), tried to declare some 
global sort of policy toward these compounds. Yes, I am very 
concerned about it, because we just do not know. As Ms. Knudsen 
had presented, it is showing up in smelt, for example, and that 
is not a typical place where we would find large quantities of 
contaminants; right?
    We do not know why it is showing up in smelt in such high 
levels. Usually we would find it in something that is a top 
predator. We do not know how it is moving.
    We do not know how it is bioaccumulating. If there is 
species specific differences, or it is the way that they are 
living, or what they are eating, about why they are 
accumulating. As a result, it is just open. We have to throw 
all sorts of new tools at it that we just do not have right 
now.
    Chairman Peters. Yes. You noted in your comments that only 
two of the PFAS contaminants have really been studied for 
decades; PFAS and PFOA. But we know this is a class of 
chemicals with thousands of those chemicals.
    Dr. Murphy. Yes.
    Chairman Peters. What recommendations would you have as to 
where we might start to go beyond those two chemicals, and how 
we focus?
    Dr. Murphy. Yes, so there has been a lot of effort with the 
EPA with this ToxCast program and high-throughput testing. I 
think more of that has to be developed specific to PFAS. But it 
has to be validated, and so it has to be a lot of investment in 
actually, like, seeing if we have all these cells and receptors 
and stuff being triggered by PFAS, but does that translate to 
whole organism responses? Does it translate to whole 
accumulation in the actual organism?
    In order to do that, we need to start to develop new 
technologies, new instruments, and approaches for the PFAS. We 
are finding it operates a lot differently than most of the 
typical contaminants, and so we have to cater our instruments 
to be able to do that.
    Chairman Peters. How does it work differently?
    Dr. Murphy. They have a lot of very different properties. 
But the thing is, it is like a polar side and a hydrophillic 
side, and it binds the proteins, and inserts itself into 
membranes; it does all these kind of strange properties. I 
think it acts kind of like a general messer-upper. It hits a 
whole bunch of different systems. It does not have a single 
mode of action. That makes it harder.
    Chairman Peters. I do not like general messer-uppers. So 
clearly we have to deal with this.
    Dr. Murphy. Yes.
    Chairman Peters. That is the technical term from your 
scientific record.
    Dr. Murphy. There you go.
    Chairman Peters. But it explains it very accurately. Thank 
you for sharing that. Col. Minor, as a Wurtsmith veteran, you 
have a very personal experience, which you have already shared 
with the Committee, with the PFAS contamination.
    But what do you think would be helpful for the Federal 
Government to know to ensure that other servicemembers and 
their families do not face some of the barriers that you 
clearly faced in trying to get help, and the assistance that 
you need to get through this very difficult situation you are 
in?
    Lt. Col. Minor. First off, we have not even arrived at the 
point to where we can talk about barriers. Because I read in a 
letter from the Air Force, I guess this past February, that 
said there is no evidence that anybody drank PFAS water in any 
real amounts at the base. I read something else that said, ``It 
has been so long now, it is not even in their blood''; false on 
both. We wrote a book, obviously, been in the ``No Defense'' 
documentary, we are here today.
    I have not had one contact with anybody in the Air Force 
DOD, not one call. As a matter of fact, is there anybody 
representing DOD here today? Yes. So the barrier is that we 
first have to acknowledge that we exist. I would say that if we 
can get through that barrier, then we can start having 
meaningful conversations to help other veterans. I do see other 
veterans that I have heard from Wurtsmith; I have read their 
submissions to the VA, for example, and basically, they are 
rebuffed because it is not a presumptive site.
    There is a mother-may-I process, as you know, and so over 
to you, and your colleagues, and then DOD, and I am willing to 
talk to anybody. I am probably one of the three or four people 
from Wurtsmith who actually have all the historical knowledge 
on the mechanism of how veterans were contaminated; not only 
veterans, but our families, and not only our families, but 
unborn children, not only that, but all the civilians that were 
working there. We are talking upwards of 50,000 people-plus 
from 1982 to 1997.
    I know we are all looking forward to talking about it being 
in fish and all that kind of stuff. But we have to turn around 
and look back at what is left over of that tsunami, and that is 
actual people that are devastated, and the ones that are still 
alive that are having difficulty getting through life.
    Chairman Peters. We did have someone from the Department of 
Defense confirmed to be on the first panel. Unfortunately last 
night, we found out they had Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-
19), so they were not able to attend.
    Lt. Col. Minor. Oh, OK.
    Chairman Peters. Obviously we will continue to work closely 
with them. We had the Department of Air Force here, as you 
know, earlier as well. But you are absolutely right. We need to 
be focused on the past as well. It is an effort we are 
undergoing.
    Right now, we have before the Senate legislation to deal 
with the toxic burn pits that many of our servicemembers dealt 
with in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and unfortunately it is taken 
this long to get to where we are, but we are going to make some 
real positive steps to help those veterans. We need to do the 
same with these other substances as well. This is an important 
step.
    Your story is incredibly important, and I am sad to say 
there are many stories like yours that are out there as well. 
But we have to make sure those are heard, and that that we take 
quick and effective action. You have my commitment we are going 
to continue to do that.
    But looking back, what would you recommend as ways to 
better serve veterans and servicemembers and their families? 
What would you like to see happen?
     Lt. Col. Minor. The first step needs to be the Air Force 
step up and own what happened on the Cold War battlefield. This 
is what this is. We need to take care of our people in the 
military, and our Air Force or DOD can't step behind the EPA or 
ATSDR, or any other organization, to begin to help the veterans 
that are laying all over the place, and so that would be the 
first step.
    Somehow the Air Force or DOD needs to engage the Veterans 
Administration to, at least at the beginning of this thing, put 
it on the presumptive list. If we wait for this whole CERCLA 
process, and if we wait for epidemiological studies to ripen to 
when everybody feels great--we do all those things, and the 
years have passed, and no one is left, so we may as well not 
bother to have this conversation.
    We have enough knowledge now to know how bad this chemical 
is. As a matter of fact, it was so bad that the very chemical 
that I was exposed to from the firefighter foam was 
discontinued 20 years ago. They did not discontinue it, a great 
profit-maker, because all of a sudden it was not making money; 
they did it because they discovered it was hurting people. When 
you do epidemiological studies, you need people to actually be 
harmed by this stuff. We do not want to have people get 
poisoned by PFAS.
    All this to say is that the next step I think is the VA 
needs to get engaged. They can come talk to me.
    I have spent a lot of time with them. I will share the 
information that I have. Let us get this on the presumptive 
list, just like Camp Lejeune, let us get this on some 
congressional funding to take care of also the civilians, and 
all the veterans' families, because we know the VA's mechanism 
is only going to take care of folks like myself. The burn pit, 
that happened after the PFAS, of course.
    Chairman Peters. Right.
    Lt. Col. Minor. Yes. The burn pit was on foreign soil, and 
Agent Orange was on foreign soil, but this is on American soil. 
We need to do something.
    Chairman Peters. Yes. I totally agree.
    Agent Orange was a long struggle, as you know.
    Lt. Col. Minor. Yes.
    Chairman Peters. Actually, this legislation dealing with 
the burn pits also has some additional provisions for Agent 
Orange, which happened a real long time ago. We need to step up 
and make sure that we continue to move forward, and we will do 
everything we can to make that a reality, particularly as 
people become more aware of the devastating impact that this 
has on families like yours and others similarly situated.
    Lt. Col. Minor. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Peters. Ms. Wusterbarth, unfortunately you have 
also faced this in very close-up and personal terms. As a 
resident of Oscoda, the impact in your family, it is a story 
that you shared already, it is incredibly important. Thank you 
for doing that. But if you could tell the Committee about how 
it affected the overall community. You have mentioned that. But 
if you could tell us in a little bit more detail. People need 
to put a human face on this crisis.
    Certainly we have your story and the Colonel's stories, and 
others, to do it. But it does not impact those directly 
impacted; it is an entire community, one way or another. Could 
you talk a little bit about the impact on the Oscoda area, 
whether it is economic, the health issues, clearly the 
environmental issues? There is so manyissues. What are the 
people saying on the ground in Oscoda?
    Ms. Wusterbarth. I really appreciate you asking.
    Thanks. As you might suspect, people think that maybe their 
property values are affected. We are a tourism city. We have, 
lakes and rivers surrounding us.
    It is a beautiful place to be, but we have foam forming on 
those shores, so it is pretty scary for everyone involved.
    Those are some of the, I would say, initial reactions. But 
when you go to your doctor's office, and you are told you have 
cancer, that is when it really hits home.
    Chairman Peters. Right.
    Ms. Wusterbarth. So many people in Oscoda, in that area, 
are being diagnosed with cancers. You know that when that 
happens, your livelihood is affected, your income is 
threatened, your daily life is changed. We live in a rural 
area. That means we have to travel for miles to receive 
adequate treatment, and this could go on for months or years 
even, or a lifetime. People are hurting because they are 
dealing with the health issues related to this exposure. That 
is the bottom line.
    Chairman Peters. Yes, absolutely. You have been dealing 
with the Air Force for a long time. You heard testimony here 
today about actions that are being taken, but it has been many 
years. What would you like the Air Force to start doing now?
    Ms. Wusterbarth. I appreciate you asking that, too. It is 
very difficult for us as community members to hear once again, 
today, that there will be some commitments.
    We are very doubtful. If you might be able to understand 
that we have been at this for a very long time, and very little 
of the promises that were made have come through. I did think 
about this a little bit, and the first thing would be to open 
those portals of information that I had had been talking about 
earlier with the State. Then expanding opportunities for public 
input on the plans and responses on that input in a timely 
manner.
    For instance, the Department of Defense did engage with the 
National PFAS Contamination Coalition for some quarterly 
meetings with some leaders throughout the Nation.
    We posed them questions, such that Craig was referencing 
one of the answers earlier, in terms of were, ``Were people 
drinking out of that well?,'' or ``Were they affected by the 
PFAS out of that well?'' Well, that particular meeting, it took 
them three months to answer those questions by those community 
members. That is not a timely response for a community 
engagement.
    Now, unfortunately, I suspect the attorneys had to look at 
that, all of those responses, because they tread lightly when 
dealing with us in determining what their answers are. But 
those sorts of things are what we would like to see, more 
readily available, is those responses to our questions. Last, 
and most importantly, we want inclusion of the local leaders at 
the base closure team meetings, which, by the way, has been 
done in the past, and is allowable through the CERCLA process, 
but they would not indicate that that was the case today.
    Chairman Peters. Yes, we did not get that commitment today. 
We got some other commitments.
    Ms. Wusterbarth. No, we did not.
    Chairman Peters. We will keep working on that.
    That does not mean we give up. We keep working to move it 
forward. When you hear of their discussion about communication 
in the past versus what they promised, give me a sense of the 
past communication, your experience of the Air Force over these 
last few years in terms of working with the community.
    Ms. Wusterbarth. So communication, of course, has been 
difficult, because we have a new site manager about every two 
years. If you think about how long we have been through this, a 
U.S. Air Force type manager. It is up to the community members 
to reeducate the U.S. Air Force every time one comes in, and 
that is what we have taken on ourselves, and we are trying to 
be patient with them. But we do have to reeducate them on what 
the expectations are. I would like to explain, just a little 
bit farther, as a community, we stood beside the DOD while the 
base was in operation, and we continue for them to reciprocate 
through a shift in how they approach the water crisis.
    But it is our expectation to be respected for our voices 
and our stories, and for our real suffering from toxic PFAS 
contamination, and to be heard and learned from, and from our 
expertise as residents to be valued. Now, we are fortunate that 
I think I am accurate in saying that we have a dream team in 
Oscoda. We have two former site managers working with us. We 
have multiple attorneys; we have veterans; we have community 
members that live in the area and have experienced these 
things, and we can critically look at those plans, and we want 
to be heard.
    We have valuable information, and it should be used 
immediately and through those remedial investigations.
    We should have that information. We should be able to give 
that feedback, just like John was saying that he noticed.
    Chairman Peters. As we wrap up, I always like to ask folks 
who have all had the experiences that you have had, if there is 
one suggestion that you would want to make to the Federal 
Government, this is an opportunity to do that on the record. 
You have a lot of suggestions; we heard a lot. But it is always 
kind of like prioritizing.
    What is the first thing, top of mind, that we should know--
--
    Ms. Wusterbarth. All right.
    Chairman Peters. [continuing]. We would hopefully be able 
to as the MP, you can reiterate something someone else says as 
well. Then I know that is really an issue if I have more than 
one person saying, ``This is the No. 1 issue.'' But what would 
you like to tell the Federal Government right now, and on the 
record, and in an open forum, that--``Please get this done. 
This is something that is really important if we are going to 
deal with this crisis''? We can start wherever, yes.
    Ms. Wusterbarth. Yes, if you do not mind, I would----
    Chairman Peters. No, I know you want to answer that one so 
I am going to----
    Ms. Wusterbarth. There is new leadership in the Department 
of Defense, so first and foremost, I would like them to take 
the opportunity that will establish the former Wurtsmith Air 
Force Base as a model, or a kitchen sink project, I think was 
mentioned today; right? So we have, they need to take that 
opportunity at Wurtsmith sothat it can be replicated to the 
hundreds of other military installations throughout the U.S., 
and I encourage theirefforts to do that. I also want them to 
monitor and support the health of those affected by the 
Department of Defense's PFAS contamination; monitor health. Get 
blood tests.
    Regardless of whether we can do anything about it at this 
point, get those blood tests, like Craig did. Then last, create 
true partnerships with communities starting fresh, I would say, 
with an apology from the Department of Defense to communities.
    Chairman Peters. Very good. Whoever wants to be next. 
Colonel?
    Lt. Col. Minor. Yes. I would say quit ghosting your 
military folks from the past. This contamination happened, and 
we need to have the Federal Government step up and do whatever 
it takes to start taking care of the people that are affected 
by this. I want to say that our family, we do not want 
anything; there is not a thing we want. It has taken care of us 
exceeding well.
    But I know, and I have talked to veterans out there, just 
amazing struggles that you would not believe, and you look at 
the struggles that they have, and they line right up with what 
we already know is PFAS health problems. They need help. Come 
talk to me, and let us get this done. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Dr. Murphy.
    Dr. Murphy. I would suggest that we would need to coalesce 
and coordinate our efforts at both the State and Federal 
levels, create research hubs across the country with 
researchers collected for specific areas. We need to entice 
researchers with other skills into studying PFAS, because we 
need their expertise to solve the problem. Coordination will 
allow us to quickly respond to emergency research needs.
    For example, contaminated food supply, or a farm, or a 
drinking water issue. But it would also maintain focus so that 
we can continue to make headway on developing the new tools and 
technologies and knowledge for these chemicals to find 
solutions quickly. We want to be able to have these research 
clubs--hubs, so that they coordinate and work collaboratively 
instead of competitively.
    Chairman Peters. Wonderful. Ms. Knudsen.
    Ms. Knudsen. I would like to ask that the Committee take 
the time to speak to the other 11 federally recognized 
sovereign tribes in Michigan. We do work with the Federal 
Government on a Nation-to-Nation basis. EveryIndigenous 
community is unique. But I think you would find that a lot of 
Indigenous communities in Michigan are facing similar issues 
with the impedance on our Treaty Rights for our sustenance, 
fishing; those are real, legal issues. I would encourage you to 
speak to the other tribes as well.
    Chairman Peters. Very well. Ms. Hendershott.
    Ms. Hendershott. Thank you. I think the biggest thing that 
I would like to say to the Federal Government is that the 
science is going to continue to evolve, but the public needs to 
know that the polluters are going to be held accountable, and 
the public health is being prioritized with standards to 
enforce the State and Federal--if there becomes Federal 
regulations. How do we do that? Going forward, what I would 
like to ask for is that the Federal Government set up an MPART-
like structure.
    Let the States be a part of that structure. Let the States 
have a seat at the table with the Federal Government to discuss 
these collaboration and coordination issues that are going to 
directly effect the States. I would also like to be a part of 
the conversations as they go to set standards, because these 
are very complicated, complex issues that have broad-reaching 
effects.
    Setting a CERCLA designation is going to have far-reaching 
effects for many of our sites in the State, as well as other 
cleanup efforts. We really need to be a part of those 
conversations, and so I would ask that we be able to 
participate and have a seat at the table with the Federal 
agencies as they go to set up this new structure.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Very good. Thank you.
    Thank you, and thank you to all of our witnesses.
    Thank you for your testimony here today, and for 
contributing to today's discussion. Clearly it is a discussion 
we are going to continue to have for months and years in the 
future, and your active involvement really will make a 
difference, so thank you for that.
    It is clear that the scope and the scale of the PFAS 
contamination here in Michigan, as well as across the country, 
is going to require a whole-of-government approach, and fully 
addressing this problem will require both at the Federal level, 
we are going to have to have both interagency, 
intergovernmental cooperation, and the information that we got 
here today will be essential for us to get that effective 
policy response.
    Be most assured what I have learned here today will go back 
to Washington D.C. We will inform legislation that we have 
before us in the Senate now and we will hopefully move through 
the full Congress, as well as others that will be drafted. It 
is also about pushing our Federal agencies to keep working hard 
and to create the sense of urgency with them that this crisis 
demands, as we have heard here loud and clear. But we will not 
give up. We are going to keep the fight. The people in our 
communities deserve the attention of the full force of the 
Federal Government, and our government to address this issue.
    The record for this hearing is going to remain open for 15 
days, until 5 p.m.. on August 16, 2022, for the submission of 
statements and questions of the record. I will be entering into 
the record ``PFAS Contamination at the Former Wurtsmith Air 
Force Base: The True Story,'' will be entered into the official 
record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The statement referenced by Senator Peters appears in the 
Appendix on page 120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With that, this hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]