    [Senate Hearing 118-774]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-774

                     EXAMINING THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF
                                 PFAS EXPOSURE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHEMICAL SAFETY,
                    WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,
                            AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                                December 5, 2024
                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    63-017                 WASHINGTON : 2026

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

                   Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                                  ----------

       Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental
                       Justice, and Regulatory Oversight

                         JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Chairman
                   MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma, Ranking Member

    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex           Virginia (ex officio)
        officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                DECEMBER 5, 2024

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........     1
    Mullin, Hon. Markwayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma..     3
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Schaider, Laurel, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Environmental
      Chemistry And Engineering, Silent Spring Institute.............     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Fenton, Sue, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Human Health and
      the Environment, Professor of Biological Sciences, North
      Carolina State University......................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Larranaga, Michael D., Ph.D., P.E., President and Managing
      Principal, R.E.M. Risk Consultants.............................    52
        Prepared statement...........................................    55
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Merkley and Senator Mullin.......................    62

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Reports:
        Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Uses (PFAS) Federal
          Research and Development Strategic Plan (August 2024) from
          the Executive Office of the President of the United States.    23
        Critical Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Uses (August
          2023) from the Department of Defense.......................    71
    Letter to Senator Merkley and Senator Mullin from:
        SEMI Global Advocacy Office..................................   103
        National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA).........   115
        AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc..................................   118

                     EXAMINING THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF
                                 PFAS EXPOSURE

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2024

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
             Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management,
               Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Merkley, Mullin, Carper, Markey, Wicker.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Senator Merkley. Good morning, and welcome. This hearing of
    the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Chemical
    Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice and Regulatory
    Oversight is now underway. The topic is Everyday Exposure:
    Examining PFAS Pollution and its Impacts on Human Health.
        In 1980, when President Carter signed the Superfund into
    law, he said we had created in this Country great prosperity
    and a leadership of the entire world with our chemical industry
    and with the energy industries. But we have neglected to pay
    part of the cost of that development, and now, of course, we
    must face that responsibility.
        Today, we are here to discuss facing that responsibility,
    to understand the class of chemicals known as PFAS. Many folks
    know of PFAS chemicals from brands such as Teflon and Scotch
    Guard. But there are estimated to be thousands of PFAS
    chemicals in the use to resist water, stains, and grease. Some
    of these products include frying pans, furniture, food
    packaging, work boots, rain coats, microwave popcorn bags,
    pizza boxes, shampoos, cosmetics, contact lenses, toilet paper,
    firefighting foam, and the list goes on and on.
        In other words, it is impossible to avoid PFAS. The
    chemicals are so useful for consumer products, because they are
    durable and they are resistant to typical environmental
    processes including by water and bacteria. But those very
    qualities make them an environmental disaster. After decades of
    use, scientists are finding forever chemicals everywhere.
        Rubbing salt into the wound, they are concentrated into
    biosolids generated by wastewater treatment facilities and
    subsequently spread on crops as fertilizer, putting PFAS back
    into the water and food we consume.
        The more we learn about various PFAS chemicals, the clearer
    it becomes that any level of exposure is significant and
    dangerous. Estimates are that at least 45 percent of U.S.
    household tap water contains one or more PFAS chemicals.
        Two of the best understood PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS,
    the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded there is no
    safe level in drinking water. PFAS has been linked to
    devastating health problems, breast cancer, testicular cancer,
    liver damage, thyroid disease, colitis, fertility problems,
    high blood pressure, low birth weight, developmental delays,
    high cholesterol. So this is a public health challenge, and we
    want to understand it better.
        These chemicals were first developed in the 1940's. By the
    1960's, manufacturers like 3M and DuPont knew their products
    were toxic. In fact, in 1981, DuPont removed female employees
    from working with PFAS chemicals after eight women gave birth
    to babies with severe birth defects. But these corporations
    kept these dangers secret for decades. The public didn't learn
    about them until they were revealed by a landmark lawsuit in
    the 1990's. PFAS manufacturers only began phasing out PFAS
    chemicals in the 2000's after public outcry.
        Today, scientists and researchers are revealing the dangers
    of these chemicals, underscoring the necessary ubiquity of
    their use, and identifying pollution hotspots that need to be
    contained or cleaned up. But we need extensive monitoring data
    to understand the scope, the severity, and the urgency of the
    problem, and understand how Congress and Federal agencies can
    protect the public from exposure to these chemicals. Avoiding
    PFAS poisoning cannot and should not be the responsibility of
    individual consumers.
        Thankfully, we have a panel of experts to help us
    understand this problem here today. Dr. Laurel Schaider is a
    senior scientist at the Silent Spring Institute, where she
    works to understand the health effects of PFAS exposure. As a
    result of her research, in 2022, New York State banned PFAS in
    food packaging, including pizza boxes, pastry boxes, sandwich
    wrappers, soup cups, and more. Since then, similar bans have
    passed in 12 more States.
        Joining her is Dr. Sue Fenton from North Carolina State
    University, who specializes in understanding how disease
    develops from PFAS. Her research is among the most cited
    toxicology work on PFAS exposure, and she was the first to
    identify how PFAS affects breast feeding. She previously worked
    for the Environmental Protection Agency and the National
    Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at the National
    Institutes of Health.
        And we are joined by Michael Larranaga, President and
    Managing Principal of R.E.M. Risk Consultants. He served on the
    Board of Scientific Counselors for the National Institute of
    Occupational Safety and Health, and a member of First
    Responders Advisory Group for the Department of Homeland
    Security.
        Thank you all for being here to share your expertise today.
    Now I would like to turn this over to our Ranking Member,
    Senator Mullin.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.

        Senator Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
    all of our witnesses here. Thank you for your time, and I do
    appreciate your expertise.
        I would like to thank first of course the committee that
    spent a lot of time doing this. A lot of times we get the
    credit, but we really know it is the staff that is doing most
    of the work, right?
        I would also like to take the opportunity to introduce and
    welcome Dr. Larranaga, who received his undergraduate degree
    from Oklahoma State University. I have to put a plug there, I
    have a couple of boys going to school right there, and
    wrestling. Of course, I also have one at OSU wrestling, too, so
    I am kind of house divided there.
        He also later served as department head of the School for
    Fire Protection Safety. Almost everyone at some point in the
    past few years has heard about PFAS, unless you live underneath
    a rock, which is OK, because likely you would be in a lot
    better mental health if you did. For those who have not heard
    of PFAS, those acronyms refer to a group of chemicals first
    discovered almost 90 years ago that provided immense
    durability, strength and resilience, which is why PFAS is so
    commonly used in manufacturing markets today.
        Several thousands of PFAS have been manufactured and are
    used in a variety of industries around the world, including
    electric vehicle batteries, military and civilian aerospace
    equipment, semiconductors, linings for piping, surgically
    implanted medical devices, inhalers, water filtrations, foam
    touch streams, which all of us use today, solar panels,
    coatings for steel and concrete bridges, and you name it, they
    are pretty much involved in it.
        So, with so many different types of PFAS used in so many
    applications, blanketed banning PFAS without fully
    understanding the risks, the differences between the chemicals,
    would not only suffocate our economy, it would halt innovation.
    But it would also disproportionately impact low-income and
    rural communities who already face many other challenges.
        One thing I want to make clear is that although it is not
    nearly as impossible to show that all PFAS directly causes
    negative health conditions in humans, several studies have
    shown that significant exposures to certain PFAS can cause
    adverse health effects. However, as Congress considers PFAS
    regulations, we must also work to avoid unintentionally harming
    technological advancements and national security.
        I will pause here for a second and say, one thing that
    Congress seems to do is we overreact. I want to get it right. I
    live and walk in this world just like everybody else. I have
    six kids that are growing up in this world. And I expect to be
    around for a long time and I want my kids to be around and I
    want my grandkids to be around. So overreaction is not want I
    want to do here.
        But looking for a direction, a healthy direction, and
    moving in the right path is why you guys are here today.
    Hopefully you can incite wisdom, leave emotion out of it and
    put facts in place. And you can help steer us in the right
    direction.
        So once again, thank you for your time. With that, Mr.
    Chairman, I will yield back.
        Senator Merkley. Now I would like to turn this over to the
    Chairman of the entire committee, Senator Carper, and I believe
    this may be his last hearing.
        Senator Carper. Don't say that.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Saving the best for last.
        Senator Merkley. Your last hearing while serving as Chair,
    and we are delighted to have you here.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thank you. It is wonderful to serve with
    you and our colleagues on this subcommittee.
        One of the things we get to do as we come to the end of our
    tenure in the Senate, we get to give a farewell address. Later
    this week, actually next week, I have the opportunity, a week
    or so from today, to give a farewell address. I am going to
    talk for 3 hours about PFAS that day. Not really.
        But I am going to talk a bit next week when I give my
    farewell address about all that we have accomplished in this
    room with this committee, with the involvement of the two
    gentlemen to my right. There are a couple of big issues that we
    have not been able to resolve. One of those is before us here
    today.
        I like to say, the key to success in life is you just don't
    give up, never give up. This is an important issue; it is an
    important issue for us to find common ground and something that
    is fair and reasonable, but actually provides the protection
    that we need.
        So I am delighted that the last hearing is on one of the
    toughest issues that we face. I would just urge both of you to
    make sure that in the next Congress, we don't quit, we find a
    way to yes. Thanks so much.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Chair Carper.
        We will now turn to our witnesses' testimony, starting with
    Dr. Laurel Schaider.

        STATEMENT OF LAUREL SCHAIDER, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST,
        ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY AND ENGINEERING, SILENT SPRING
                               INSTITUTE

        Ms. Schaider. Good morning, Chairman Merkley, Ranking
    Member Mullin, and members of the committee. My name is Laurel
    Schaider. I am a senior scientist at Silent Spring Institute,
    an independent non-profit research organization investigating
    links between everyday chemicals and health. We are leaders in
    researching women's health and breast cancer prevention.
        Since 2009, I have led research on how PFAS moves through
    the environment, how people are exposed and how these chemicals
    affect our health. Thank you for the invitation to testify
    today.
        PFAS, or forever chemicals, have polluted every corner of
    the globe. They have been found in the blood of nearly every
    single American whose blood has been tested. My colleague, Dr.
    Fenton, will tell you about the many serious health effects
    associated with PFAS. I am here to tell you why that is very
    bad news.
        Exposures to PFAS are widespread. They are in our water,
    our food, consumer products, even in the air and dust in our
    homes. Although all of us have PFAS in our bodies, some
    communities and individuals have much higher levels than
    others.
        My main point is this: we need comprehensive strategies to
    address PFAS contamination, identify and reduce exposures,
    support impacted communities, and ultimately eliminate
    unnecessary uses of these harmful communities.
        PFAS are used in a wide range of everyday products, like
    non-stick cookware, stain resistant carpets, and cosmetics. My
    own research has shown that PFAS are widespread in food
    packaging and consumer products, like dental floss and
    children's clothing and furnishings. We have shown that PFAS
    can migrate out of products and end up in our bodies.
        Infants can be highly exposed, since PFAS can cross the
    placenta and contaminate breast milk. PFAS have also
    contaminated our environment. Millions of people in the U.S.
    are drinking tap water containing PFAS, according to testing by
    the U.S. Geological Survey in 2023.
        The most severe contamination is found near industrial
    facilities and military bases, airports and other locations
    where aqueous film forming foam, or AFFF, was used. In many
    other communities, PFAS contamination comes from wastewater
    treatment plants, landfills, septic systems, and sewage sludge
    used to fertilize farm land.
        Earlier this year, the EPA set standards for six PFAS in
    drinking water. These standards were set in the low parts per
    trillion range, much lower than for most other contaminants,
    underscoring their extreme toxicity. These new standards will
    go a long way to reducing exposures.
        However, they only apply to six individual PFAS, a drop in
    the bucket compared to the more than 14,000 chemicals
    classified as PFAS. And they do not protect the 44 million
    Americans who rely on a private well for their drinking water.
        The health and economic costs of PFAS are not evenly
    distributed. Public water systems serving small communities,
    particularly in rural areas, need more financial and technical
    support for testing and treatment. Our research has found that
    communities with higher proportions of Hispanic and Black
    residents are more likely to be exposed to PFAS through their
    drinking water. And PFAS can buildup in fish and shellfish, so
    tribal communities and subsistence fishers may be especially
    vulnerable.
        PFAS contamination takes a toll on communities. I have
    heard from anguished parents who feel guilt for having
    unwittingly exposed their children during pregnancy and breast
    feeding. I have heard from farmers who have lost their
    livelihood because their land and livestock were contaminated.
        And I have heard from too many people who have lost loved
    ones to cancer or other diseases that they suspect were caused
    by PFAS. They face a lifetime of worry about long-term health
    effects.
        Our health care systems have not caught up with this public
    health crisis. We need better access to PFAS blood testing, as
    recommended by a 2022 National Academies report. We need more
    resources to educate clinicians, such as those developed by our
    NIH-funded PFAS-REACH study as models for how PFAS blood
    testing can improve clinical care. New Hampshire now requires
    insurers to cover the cost of PFAS blood tests, and similar
    policies are needed nationwide.
        To protect public health and the environment, we need to
    turn off the tap on unnecessary uses of PFAS and develop safer
    alternatives. Many everyday uses of PFAS are not essential.
    PFAS in products such as cosmetics, dental floss, and home
    textiles have no real health or safety benefit. For some other
    uses, like firefighting foam, safe and effective alternatives
    already exist.
        In 2019, an international panel of experts from the fire
    engineering industry concluded that fluorine-free foams, which
    don't contain PFAS, meet the same performance standards as AFFF
    without long-term pollution risks.
        We will never solve this problem if we attempt to address
    PFAS one at a time. We need comprehensive strategies to address
    all PFAS, including fluorinated polymers as a class. Production
    of PFAS can expose workers and nearly communities, and products
    containing PFAS can contaminate the environment after their
    disposal.
        We need to stop assuming that chemicals are innocent until
    proven guilty. We are still dealing with costly messes from
    chemicals manufactured years ago, like DDT and PCBs.
    Fortunately, we also know that legislation can lead to
    significant improvements, like substantial declines in
    children's blood lead levels, and recovery of bald eagles from
    DDT in recent decades.
        We need to act now to address the current PFAS
    contamination crisis, prevent additional contamination, and
    protect future generations.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Schaider follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Doctor.
        Now we will turn to Dr. Fenton. Thank you.

      STATEMENT OF SUE FENTON, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR
       HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL
               SCIENCES, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

        Ms. Fenton. Good morning, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member
    Mullin, Chairman Carper. I am honored to be here for your last
    round.
        Two decades ago, my EPA colleagues and I discovered that
    newborn mice exposed to PFOA during pregnancy were dying. PFOA
    caused a dose-dependent decrease in birth weight of mouse pups.
    But even those that appeared healthy at birth died several days
    later.
        We reported a few years later, for the first time, that
    PFOA caused deficits in lactation, was transferred across the
    mouse placenta, was present in the breast milk of mice and
    women exposed to PFAS, and induced obesity and persistent
    breast developmental abnormalities during puberty from just a
    pregnancy exposure.
        Around that same time, PFAS and PFOA were voluntarily
    phased out of the market by the manufacturers. But by then,
    most Americans had it in their blood. Most of us here today,
    and I have looked at the room, have been exposed to PFAS as
    young adults. But a lot of the people sitting behind me were
    exposed in utero. They may have received up to 40 percent of
    their mom's body burden of PFAS.
        Today, it is likely that all U.S. children are born with a
    PFAS body burden and we have evidence of that from the CDC
    testing that is shown in Figure 1 on the screen. For several
    reasons, children are more vulnerable to the effects of PFAS
    than adults. Body burdens in children are higher, because they
    are breast fed. In America, human breast milk levels of PFAS
    and PFOA are at or above ATSDR's children drinking water
    screening level for these PFAS.
        We don't have a crystal ball to predict the severity of the
    health effects for this prenatally exposed generation. But
    scientists like myself are very concerned.
        In general, health effects associated with PFAS exposure
    include many of the things that Senator Merkley described in
    his opening remarks, and are really nicely summarized in the
    two documents that I have provided to the committee in your
    documents, the PFAS report to Congress and a highly cited paper
    by myself and other PFAS experts.
        Senator Merkley. Without objection, we will have those
    entered into the record. Thank you.
        Ms. Fenton. Although pregnant women and children are more
    vulnerable to the effects of PFAS, the 2022 National Academy
    report only provided clinical guidance for adults. Many new
    papers have emerged since this guidance was published,
    including alarming data indicating increased risks of fatty
    liver disease in children associated with PFAS exposure.
    Children don't usually have fatty liver disease.
        Due to the shorter half life in humans and rodents, GenX
    was offered by industry as a safer alternative to PFOA.
    However, my own studies in pregnant mice exposed to equivalent
    doses of PFOA and GenX finds they have similar health effects,
    especially fatty liver disease and metabolic disease.
    Therefore, GenX is not a safer alternative for PFOA.
        These toxicities in studies are super important for the
    people living in contaminated counties of North Carolina who
    were exposed to GenX in their drinking water and other
    perchloro ethers for decades. They will likely suffer health
    effects later in their life.
        NC State faculty are engaged with these communities and
    their families, and they deserve to be followed for health
    effects, just like the science panel study on the health
    effects of PFOA many years ago.
        Today, women of reproductive age were born between
    approximately 1992 and 2004, when PFAS and PFOA were at their
    highest levels in human blood. So the body burdens of these
    legacy chemicals are high. But these women, of the age that are
    in this room, are also exposed to emerging chemicals that we
    know very little about. We can't wait 20 more years to
    determine the health effects of PFAS exposures that are
    currently being passed from one generation to the next.
        Ongoing studies at federally funded labs across the U.S.
    are evaluating the effects of replacement PFAS, comparing those
    to known effects of legacy PFAS. While many studies can be
    done, we know enough today to say that replacement PFAS are not
    safe replacements.
        I ask this committee to promote the following suggestions
    to protect public health. Develop new and support current
    legislation to limit PFAS production and use as much as
    possible. Require health insurance companies to pay for PFAS
    testing for susceptible populations, like tribal communities,
    pregnant women and children.
        Empower the National Academy to update clinical guidance on
    PFAS to include children and pregnant women. Commit NIEHS and
    NC Cancer Moon Shot funds to develop a longitudinal health
    study on replacement PFAS exposure communities, especially
    those that may have been prenatally exposed. Oppose efforts to
    weaken CERCLA.
        Phase out PFAS-containing fire foam. Require companies to
    provide standards in any purified forms of any PFAS they
    produce. Fund innovative developmental methods to remove
    replacement PFAS from drinking water. And require PFAS
    producers and not taxpayers to fund the development of safe
    destruction methods that fully capture, mineralize and destroy
    PFAS.
        Please continue to move forward with our efforts to keep
    PFAS out of our environment. Remember, once it gets there, it
    takes billions of dollars and decades or generations to get rid
    of it. Our taxpayer dollars can go to better purposes than PFAS
    cleanup stemming from lucrative industries.
        I do want to say that the current rules that are in place
    are really a win-win. They are not only removing PFAS, but they
    are also removing other contaminants that are commingled.
        I want to thank you for your time and your influence.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Fenton follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        I am going to defer to Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much. I will just take another
    minute, if I could. There are a number of other committees that
    are meeting right now, with hearings. It is not like they are
    postponing everything until the last day or the last week,
    there is just a lot of important stuff that we need to be
    dealing with. This is certainly one of them. I am going to slip
    off to be at my other committee and try to participate in those
    hearings.
        The words of my father, as I sit here, come back to mind.
    My dad used to say the hardest things to do are sometimes the
    most important things to do. This is a hard thing to do, but it
    is also a really important one. My mother used to say, if you
    think you can, or you think you can't, you are right. If you
    think you can or you think you can't, you are right.
        A couple of years ago, at a hearing right here in this
    room, sitting, Michael, where you are sitting, was a fellow
    named Rob Wallace, a close friend of Senator John Barrasso from
    Wyoming. He was here for a hearing. He had been nominated by
    Donald Trump for a senior position in the Department of
    Interior. Rob Wallace said to us that day in his testimony, the
    bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. Bipartisan
    solutions are lasting solutions.
        So I would just say, as I prepare to weigh anchor and set
    sail into the sunrise in a week or so that I hope that Senator
    Mullin, you and Chairman Merkley can somehow do what the rest
    of us have been unable to do, and that is to come to the right
    solution here. If you think you can or you think you can't, you
    are right. And I think you can.
        Thank you all very much.
        Senator Merkley. Senator Carper, thank you for the many
    quotes you have instilled in our minds. That is certainly one
    of them: if you think you can or you think you can't, you are
    right. Another is, it is not that hard, just do more of what
    works and less of what doesn't.
        Senator Carper. Find out what works and do more of that.
    There you go.
        Senator Merkley. And if you want to go fast, go alone. If
    you want to go far, go together. So thank you for these words
    of wisdom over the years.
        Senator Carper. I will be gone but not forgotten. That is a
    plus.
        Senator Merkley. That is right.
        Dr. Larranaga, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. LARRANAGA, PH.D., P.E., PRESIDENT AND
              MANAGING PRINCIPAL, R.E.M. RISK CONSULTANTS

        Mr. Larranaga. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member
    Mullin, and Chairman Carper.
        I am testifying here today on behalf of the American
    Industrial Hygiene Association, the association for scientist
    professionals committed to preserving occupational and
    environmental health in the workplace and community.
        One of the headlines I want you to remember from my
    testimony today is that the use of PFAS chemicals is vital to
    the critical infrastructure of the United States. We must
    manage these chemicals responsibly and balance their use
    against the risk of using proposed alternatives.
        The use of PFAS is indeed critical, not only in the sense
    that our critical infrastructure provides a backbone for the
    U.S. Government to ensure our security, but also in the sense
    that our critical infrastructure is vital to maintaining the
    American way of life. For example, PFAS as described earlier in
    this hearing are used in the manufacture of semiconductors and
    electronics, medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, herbicides,
    insecticides, plastics, airplanes, automobiles, buildings, and
    thousands of other applications that we rely on every day.
        One aspect of my job is to assist companies in identifying
    alternatives for PFAS-containing firefighting foams. This is no
    easy task, as the PFAS containing aqueous film forming foam, or
    AFFF, is by far the best firefighting foam available. Companies
    are spending millions of dollars, sometimes per facility, to
    transition away from AFFF to fluorine-free foams. And the U.S.
    Government is doing the same.
        Our critical infrastructure stakeholders are replacing
    their AFFF fire suppression systems at great cost with less
    capable fluorine-free foams. It is important to note that the
    historical legacy AFFF foams using long-chain PFAS, you may
    have heard of these as CA foams, are no longer produced, sold
    or imported into the United States. We as a country are no
    longer recklessly disposing of mass volumes of chemicals
    containing PFAS directly into the environment.
        Modern AFFF formulations that meet the 2019 military
    specification contain trace amounts of PFOA of PFOS. Just to
    put that into perspective, the 2019 Intercontinental Terminals
    Fire in Deer Park, Texas, released 132, almost 133 pounds of
    air emissions per hour during the first 24 hours, eventually
    releasing more than 16 million pounds of toxic air emissions.
    Responding fire departments attempted to extinguish the fire
    with fluorine-free foams, and the fire burned for 51 hours.
        During the 51st hour, PFAS-containing AFFF was applied, and
    the fire was extinguished 13 hours later. During those 13 hours
    of AFFF application, the use of the modern military spec AFFF
    foam would have resulted in about 30 ounces of PFOA or PFOS
    introduced into the environment, or about two and a half of
    these coffee cups.
        So the risk versus reward calculation here is this: is it
    better for the environment and surrounding communities to be
    exposed to 16 million pounds of toxic air emissions, which is
    30 ounces of PFOA or PFOS? Had MilSpec AFFF been applied
    initially, the fire would have likely only burned for a couple
    of hours, if that, and we could have avoided releasing millions
    of pounds of toxic emissions into the air, most likely with a
    couple of ounces of long-chain PFAS released.
        According to Dwight Williams of the industrial firefighting
    team that extinguished the fire, the fire could not have been
    extinguished without the use of AFFF. In addition, there were
    51 hours of fluorine-free foam application and fluorine-free
    foams are not without their own toxicological drawbacks, being
    more toxic to certain types of aquatic life than AFFF.
        Another examples is the chemical fire in Rockton, Illinois.
    It was brought under control in 3 hours with the use of AFFF,
    when officials required the fire department to stop the
    application of AFFF for environmental concerns. The chemical
    fire then burned for another eight and a half days, generating
    21 million pounds of air emissions which could have been
    avoided.
        The fluorine-free foams are simply not as effective at
    attacking complex fires that occur in industrial facilities,
    onboard ships, or during an airplane crash, for that matter.
    Major airports are transitioning away from AFFF to fluorine-
    free foams, and the Department of Defense is doing the same in
    all but the most critical applications.
        I am sitting here today to tell you that if my family and I
    are aboard a jetliner that crashes, please soak us in AFFF.
    Why? Because jetliner fires are dangerous. Fire moves
    exceedingly fast and AFFF is simply superior at putting out
    fires.
        It is important to recognize that AIHA and I recognize the
    toxicological properties inherent in these PFAS, and in no way
    encourages the improper use or disposal. AIHA supports the
    responsible management of these chemicals. However, we
    recommended a balanced and commonsense approach to chemical
    management and regulation, whereby the implementation of the
    risk versus reward calculus includes the assessment of the
    consequences of requiring the use of alternatives, removing
    these chemicals from the marketplace, and regulating these
    chemicals as an entire class instead of health and risk-based
    frameworks.
        In summary, the use of PFAS chemicals is vital to the
    critical infrastructure of the United States. We must manage
    these chemicals responsibly and balance their use against the
    risk of alternatives.
        On behalf of myself and the AIHA, thank you all for the
    opportunity to provide feedback on this important topics.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Larranaga follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. We are delighted to have you share that
    information on foam, and I almost feel like we need a separate
    hearing to examine the complexities of the risk-reward that you
    have referred to.
        Today, we are primarily focused on consumer products that
    people come in contact with. I want to start simply by, when a
    lot of people hear about PFAS, they hear Teflon. The most
    common thing in our homes that has Teflon, as far as I am
    aware, are no-stick pans like this one. Is it correct, I will
    direct this to you, Dr. Schaider, is this PFAS? And is this a
    simple case of, we could just simply retire these pans? Does
    some of this forever non-stick Teflon get into our blood and
    our children's blood when we use these pans?
        Ms. Schaider. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Yes,
    there are still frying pans that are made with Teflon. Teflon
    is a long polymer, PFAS. In the production of Teflon, smaller
    PFAS molecules are used and put together to make the long
    polymers and other PFAS are used as processing aids.
        So frying pans are what I would consider a non-essential
    use of PFAS. We certainly have other ways to make cookware
    without the use of these toxic chemicals for everyday uses.
    There are concerns about PFAS exposures through the use of
    cookware, because the smaller PFAS molecules can come off of
    that cookware and expose people. There are also concerns about
    the life cycle. So in communities where Teflon is manufactured,
    with local environmental contamination and exposures among
    workers. Then at the end of a product's useful life span, those
    PFAS ultimately can end up in landfills or emissions from
    incinerators.
        Senator Merkley. So we have various agencies that evaluate
    the risk to our citizens of different products. If this is non-
    essential and it presents a health risk, why do we still have
    Teflon coated pans being sold to the public?
        Ms. Schaider. I think that is a great question. I think
    because industry has been able to make the case that newer PFAS
    are less bio accumulative in peoples' bodies, that they are
    still acceptable to use. But I would argue that the newer
    replacement PFAS that are in use, as Dr. Fenton described, are
    not safe. And in cases like cookware, we should find
    alternatives to PFAS, because they are simply not an essential
    use.
        Senator Merkley. Dr. Fenton, you referred in your testimony
    to GenX. People listening to that hear ``Generation X.'' But
    that wasn't at all what you were referring to. You were
    referring to a chemical replacement. Can you explain a little
    bit about that?
        Ms. Fenton. Sure, I would be happy to. I am talking about
    HFPO-DA. It is a dimer acid, affectionately called GenX. There
    is more than one, multiple chemicals. The one thing really
    important about the GenX work that we have done is that when we
    saw the health effects in the animal studies that we have done,
    we couldn't measure it in their blood anymore. But we know we
    gave it to them.
        So at early life stages, or right before birth, we know we
    could measure it in the blood of the animals. But the people
    living in the areas that have been affected by GenX for
    decades, you can't measure it in their blood either anymore. We
    know that if you are exposed, the health effects can still
    happen.
        Senator Merkley. When you referred to the mice studies that
    you were looking at, those were PFAS studies. But there have
    been similar studies on GenX?
        Ms. Fenton. Yes, there are, Jane Hoppin, for example, at NC
    State University, and others, are doing biomonitoring studies
    to look at many of the replacement PFAS that are known to be in
    the water in the Cape Fear River Basin, and have been there for
    decades, like I said.
        Senator Merkley. Dr. Schaider, I have read in the past that
    microwave popcorn packages, like this one here, have non-stick
    surfaces, but that it's PFAS. Is that true? Is there PFAS in
    our microwave popcorn packages?
        Ms. Schaider. Thank you for the question, Senator. Testing
    that Silent Spring Institute led in 2017 found that PFAS are
    common, were common in fast food packaging. Other studies found
    that microwave popcorn bags also contained PFAS as a grease-
    proof agent.
        In the meantime, some States have put in place bans on PFAS
    in food packaging. Then most recently, earlier this year, the
    FDA announced that PFAS are no longer allowed in paper food
    packaging as grease-proofing agents. So my understanding is
    that microwave popcorn and other paper-based food packaging
    should no longer have PFAS. I am not sure about imported food
    packaging, and how much testing and enforcement there is for
    imported food packaging.
        Senator Merkley. So in these cases where PFAS has been
    replaced, what has it been replaced by, and is that equally
    dangerous?
        Ms. Schaider. In some cases, the solutions to PFAS in food
    packaging are a simple replacement. In our study of fast food
    packaging, we found about half of wrappers did contain PFAS and
    half did not. I would be happy to provide some additional
    information about what the replacement chemicals are.
        But my understanding is that the replacements, other non-
    PFAS food additives would not be as persistent or pose the same
    health risks.
        Senator Merkley. I have heard that paraffin, palm oil wax,
    and coconut wax are often used as a replacement for PFAS in
    food packaging. Are those dangerous to our health?
        Ms. Schaider. Those would be safer alternatives than PFAS.
        Senator Merkley. In the States that have--I see I am over
    my initial time here. I am going to yield to my colleague, but
    we may have time to go through several rounds of questions.
        Senator Mullin?
        Senator Mullin. Thank you so much. It is not like we have a
    lot of people waiting in line, so I wasn't too worried about
    you going long on that. But I do appreciate you looking at the
    time.
        Ma'am, we were talking about what is in food packaging, in
    the popcorn and the non-stick pans, which, the consumers are
    the ones who want to buy those pans, because cast iron is hard
    to deal with. For a guy that doesn't cook at all except Spam, I
    know how that sounds, but yes, I am the guy that likes Spam,
    OK? I am the one that buys that stuff, because it is the only
    thing I cook at my house up here in D.C.
        I also want to bring to everybody's notice, it is also on
    all of our touch screens, right? PFAS is in everyone's. So by
    using our touch screens, by using our phones, which everybody
    here has, and every one of our schools are giving them out for,
    that is how they are doing their homework now and doing their
    work at school. Is this contaminating our kids, too, every time
    they use the phone, every time they do their work at school?
        Ms. Schaider. Thank you for that question, Senator. I am
    not aware of studies that have looked at the extent of PFAS
    coming off of phones and touch screens. I wonder about that
    with my own children as well.
        But I do worry about the potential for PFAS to come off of
    products and end up in people's bodies.
        Senator Mullin. I bring that up because the pan, you are
    talking about the food, but the Teflon is designed to stay
    there. I mean, these, if you look at my phone, which you can't
    see, I don't even replace it every time I crack my phone,
    because I know I am going to drop it the next day. But it
    cracks up, we see them crack up, it is constantly on our head,
    it is constantly on our fingers, we are constantly using our
    fingers.
        So I don't know how this isn't the same as using the pan. I
    mean, I am serious. If you are talking about contamination, how
    does it transfer from one place to the next if it is not
    transferring by touch? And I say that because we don't know.
    And so when we are moving forward to put a ban on PFAS, one,
    what are we going to replace it with? I don't think coconut wax
    is going to replace these touch screens, right?
        When we start talking about insulating cups, I will leave
    the names out of them, but my kids drive me nuts with all these
    stupid insulating cups every time they get in my truck. It is
    like some fad that they carry. And it drives me nuts. But
    everyone one of those insulated cups for the most part have
    PFAS in them, right?
        Ms. Schaider. Yes.
        Senator Mullin. So what is it, at what level do we stop,
    and what level is it contaminated, which level is it isn't? Is
    it just on the disposable side of it, that we are not disposing
    of it right?
        These are questions that we need to talk about. Because it
    is something that we use in our everyday life that we have to
    be careful about. Yes, ma'am, go ahead.
        Ms. Fenton. If I might, Senator Mullin, I want to suggest a
    couple of things here. Yes, these are all ways that we could be
    exposed. We do know that PFAS can be dermally absorbed, so,
    through your skin. Some can be dermally absorbed. They are
    water soluble. So they are going to go into your skin.
        But this may not be the most prominent way that we are
    being exposed. I want to suggest that we do spend some time
    talking about PFAS in foods, foodstuffs, drinking water.
    Because those are major pathways of ingestion and exposure for
    all Americans.
        So there are some new work coming out of East Carolina
    University and NC State showing that produce grown in our State
    is contaminated with PFAS, just because of the soil that they
    are being grown in. Now, that is a shame. I hope that we can
    get to a place where we can get rid of the PFAS in the ground
    that the dairy cattle may eat the grass from that ground and
    our children could eat those blueberries.
        But making sure we have clean drinking water and food that
    is not contaminated with PFAS is a really major win.
        Senator Mullin. I would ask on, what exactly are we talking
    about with the health risks that it is exposing to? Because
    most of that which you are talking about, because plumbing is
    my background, and I also carry a C license, operating license
    for water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants.
        Most of it is delivered through the water system from
    irrigation. But what we actually don't know is what harm it is
    actually causing, what is the long-term effects. We are
    identifying PFAS as there, but it is like we are putting the
    cart before the horse. We are saying that it is there, so it
    must cause some type of issue.
        But there is not enough study to actually say it is causing
    these issues. I just want to be cautious. I don't want to
    overreact. And I am not getting into all my questions, because
    I want to talk about semiconductors, too, sir, but I am running
    out of time. We will circle back on this.
        The whole point I am trying to make right here is, we all
    see that it is everywhere. It is everywhere. But I don't think
    we are even close to knowing the exact studies of if it is
    harmful and if it is, which direction is it harmful? At what
    point is it harmful? Is it just at the manufacturing stage? Is
    it in the raw form in itself? And so, yes, ma'am, you can
    finish, and I will go over my time.
        Ms. Fenton. I actually have a good answer for that. Many of
    the PFAS that we are talking about today don't change form. So
    it would be whatever, the PFOA, for instance, if you are
    exposed to PFOA, that is what is in your blood, and that is
    what stays in your blood. It is not easily removed from the
    body.
        We do know that many, a good handful of PFAS, we do know
    the health effects. I have put on the docket two really good
    reviews of the health effects of PFAS. One was written by
    Federal employees working across the entire base of the Federal
    Government, anybody who worked with anything with PFAS was on
    this committee that wrote the PFAS Report to Congress. Numerous
    health effects, both in humans and toxicology studies and
    ecology studies, are in there.
        Also, some colleagues of mine wrote specific, targeted
    areas that have the biggest weight of evidence for health
    effects of PFAS. And those do include cancer, birth weight
    reduction of newborn infants. So specifically for the newborn
    infant issue----
        Senator Mullin. I am sorry, I am almost 2 minutes over
    time. I apologize.
        Ms. Fenton. So for the newborn infants, we can estimate the
    amount of decrease in their birth weight by the amount of
    increase in the PFAS in the mom's blood. There is a direct
    correlation.
        Senator Mullin. I am over time. We will get back to you, we
    will circle back around.
        Senator Merkley. We are going to turn to Senator Wicker.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. I am intrigued by the
    pronunciation of this substance. So since the last witness says
    PFAS, I will say PFAS. Some people say PFAS.
        I want to nail something down, if I can. Is there a
    category of PFAS, and I will ask this to you, Dr. Larranaga,
    that is not harmful as compared to a type of PFAS that is? And
    here is where I am going. There is a rather far-reaching
    definition of PFAS as ``any compound containing at least one
    fully fluorinated carbon atom.''
        I am told by some people that this combines a type of PFAS
    that is OK, and not harmful, with a type that is. And that the
    type of PFAS that is not harmful is used in 95 percent of our
    ammunitions, and a number of very, very important things to our
    economy, not to include national defense. So if the panel,
    starting with Dr. Larranaga, would discuss that, I would
    appreciate it.
        Mr. Larranaga. Thank you, Senator. It is my understanding
    that the fluoropolymer substances like PTFE, for example, that
    is used in many of our defense systems, 95 percent of our
    ammunition has a similar type of polymer chemical, almost all
    of our weapons systems have these types of chemicals. And that
    the PFAS of concern did not come out of those, for
    bioavailability, so they aren't available to the body for
    absorption.
        Senator Wicker. Although they do contain one fully
    fluorinated carbon atom?
        Mr. Larranaga. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. They do not propose, they do not comprise a
    harmful substance?
        Mr. Larranaga. That is correct. One of the issues is, that
    could be caused if you are heating them. If you are heating
    them far above the temperature that they are rated for, that
    could happen.
        Senator Wicker. For example?
        Mr. Larranaga. For example, a pan. That is a complete use
    where we could remove that from the marketplace without any
    adverse effect to our infrastructure or defense.
        Senator Wicker. OK, so are we, should we be concerned that
    certain domestic suppliers will not be able to meet the demand
    for very important products as they continue to fight over this
    definition?
        Mr. Larranaga. Yes, sir. If we were to ban as a country all
    PFAS chemicals with a broad brush, it would affect our supply
    chain that would lead directly to our military, public health,
    and all these critical infrastructure sectors. One example is
    the guidance systems on airplanes and ships and a lot of other
    drones and things like that use semiconductors that, in which
    PFAS was used to create those semiconductors. In addition, the
    wiring, the insulation on the wiring has PFAS-containing
    chemicals as insulators to the wiring.
        If we were to broadly brush these into a regulator where we
    couldn't use them anymore, airplanes would have to get heavier,
    they would carry less people, they would carry less cargo, and
    they would become a lot heavier. So what that would mean is, we
    would be burning a lot more carbon to move the same amount of
    cargo or people.
        Senator Wicker. And public health would not be any better
    off?
        Mr. Larranaga. Public health would not be better off,
    because you would be increasing the amount of air pollution
    that you put into the environment, which ends up in our oceans
    anyway.
        Senator Wicker. OK, well, let me ask, Mr. Chairman, to at
    this point enter into the record a report on critical per and
    polyfluoroalkyl substance use.
        Senator Merkley. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Wicker. Thank you. If other members--my time has
    expired but I am sure other members of the panel would like to
    respond.
        Senator Merkley. I think that is an invitation, if anybody
    else wanted to followup on his question.
        Ms. Schaider. Thank you for your question, Senator Wicker.
    To my knowledge, there are no PFAS that I would consider
    completely safe. Different PFAS have different chemical
    structures and different toxicity. We know a lot about PFOS,
    PFOA, and a handful of other PFAS chemicals that are frequently
    found in drinking water supplies, and in people's blood. There
    are newer PFAS replacement chemicals that are more mobile in
    the environment. We have been studying them for a shorter
    amount of time, but as Dr. Fenton said, they raise many of the
    same health concerns.
        When we talk about fluorinated polymers, like PTFE, those
    are large molecules and they are less likely to enter our cells
    and may not have the same type of toxicity. As Dr. Larranaga
    said, if you overheat those, though, they can produce toxic
    fumes. For instance, in your home, if you overheat a Teflon
    pan, those fumes can be really toxic for pet birds. I can't
    imagine that they are good for our health, either.
        I would add another important point, though, that
    fluorinated polymers don't occur by themselves. Polymers are
    produced from shorter PFAS chemicals that are stitched
    together, and products containing a fluorinated polymer also
    contain a mixture of different PFAS chemicals. So we never are
    exposed to just one PFAS at a time.
        So even fluorinated polymers raise concerns about exposures
    among workers and fluoropolymer production facilities and in
    the communities, for instance, in North Carolina, that Dr.
    Fenton described, in the communities around those facilities
    where drinking water, soil, sediment can be contaminated.
        Then at the end of a product's useful life span, there are
    concerns about disposal, what happens to those PFAS after we
    throw away products that contain PFAS. If they are incinerated,
    there are concerns about air emissions and what that might mean
    for communities around incinerators that are often
    environmental justice communities. Or putting them in a
    landfill could lead to slow release from landfills over time as
    well.
        In terms of the different types of uses of PFAS, I would
    point to the essential uses framework, which I think provides a
    really nice path forward for identifying where we can start
    making reductions in PFAS use now. It is certainly easier to
    take PFAS out of a Teflon pan.
        Another common use I would point to are dental flosses.
    Oral-B Glide dental floss, which is made with Teflon, we are
    putting Teflon in our mouth. To me that is a non-essential use
    that we could absolutely do away with right now. If we are
    talking about critical infrastructure, cell phones,
    semiconductors, those might take longer to find alternatives to
    phaseout their use.
        Senator Wicker. That statement is very much appreciated,
    the last sentence.
        It seems that I have mispronounced your name, Larranaga?
        Mr. Larranaga. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. OK, I have done better.
        Mr. Larranaga. Thank you. First of all, Teflon dental floss
    is absolutely necessary. My teeth are packed so tight that that
    is the only thing I can get in there.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Larranaga. We agree that we shouldn't improperly
    dispose of PFAS-containing materials. But let me give you an
    example of how important PFAS chemicals are. The firefighting
    foams that we are replacing the PFAS-containing AFFF with
    contain fluorinated polymers.
        So if we were to remove these chemicals from the
    marketplace with a broad brush, we would be left without the
    ability to fight these large fires, even if we have to fight
    them in a compromised fashion, because these new foams are not
    as effective as AFFF.
        Ms. Fenton. Can I comment, please?
        Senator Wicker, I read just last night a document from the
    Federal Aviation Administration that there are two MilSpec
    AFFF, they are on the QPL, right now. We do have safe
    replacements. I know at least they have listed two, and they
    were considering a third one.
        So although it seems ominous, especially for the defense
    systems, some of the microcomputers, things like that, to
    replace something that seems essential, we are being successful
    at it. Someone, in fact, one of the companies that makes the
    QPL PFAS-free foam is a company that made AFFF foam. So they
    are doing it. They are still making money, they are still
    building their industry, and they are using their imagination
    and their experts to make a safer product.
        So I do think it is doable, and it is happening already. I
    just want to leave you with that impression.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that
    indulgence, and perhaps witnesses can supplement their answers
    for the record.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator.
        I want to go back to a point you made, Dr. Fenton, about
    understanding the major pathways of human contamination. There
    are probably plenty of places where PFAS is, and it may be the
    insulation on wires, that may have a very low impact on human
    health, especially if they are hidden behind a wall on an
    aircraft.
        But as I understand it, the main things you are identifying
    are PFAS that is in our food and in our water. On the food
    side, the mention was about biosolids, and what we are talking
    about is in the human waste that is then repurposed as
    fertilizer. So it is interesting that when some PFAS goes
    through our bodies and doesn't stay in our blood, it finds its
    way back into our food. And maybe the second time around, it
    has an impact.
        So I really want to focus on those major sources of
    contamination that affects our health. You noted one aspect of
    that, studies that really focused on holding other factors
    constant. There is lower birth weight in humans who have a
    higher exposure to PFAS. I assume this is by taking blood
    samples.
        Ms. Fenton. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. So does this hold constant, all the other
    factors, like cigarette smoking is associated with lower birth
    weight, is this an area that we really have a pretty clear
    understanding of an impact?
        Ms. Fenton. Yes, sir, thank you for the question.
        There are dozens of studies that have shown consistent
    effects from PFAS-associated decreases in birth weight. Those
    are epidemiological studies that take into consideration all
    the things that you were just mentioning, smoking, poor
    nutrition, socioeconomic status, even the BMI of the mother.
    They take those many variables into consideration when they do
    the analysis in the studies. They are controlled for, so those
    are things that they control for.
        Senator Merkley. OK, so we sese this in human studies. But
    then you also mentioned mice studies. In the mice studies, they
    show the same thing. You mentioned mice that, I think you
    called them pups, is that the correct term?
        Ms. Fenton. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. And that we have seen the same effects. So
    we have both the human studies and the laboratory studies
    reinforcing each other?
        Ms. Fenton. Correct. In fact, the University of California
    San Francisco did a systematic review of all the studies that
    had shown birth weight outcomes in mouse studies, and at the
    time, all the studies that had shown birth weight outcomes in
    human studies. They reviewed them both altogether.
        So when I say a systematic review, that is all the
    information that is available in the literature.
        Senator Merkley. So lower birth weight can be an indication
    of other things, but maybe not the immediate highest concern.
    But it is an indication of something that is going on. But you
    mentioned some very specific things, like breast development
    abnormalities. Is that in humans or is that in mice, or both?
        Ms. Fenton. I first reported it in mice, and since then,
    there have been nine studies in women showing that PFAS and
    PFOA specifically and a few other handful of other PFAS are
    associated with women not being able to nurse their children.
    So they have a shorter duration of lactation, is the specific
    term they are using in these papers.
        And this is not just in the U.S. Several of these studies
    are from other countries. Several are from the U.S. They are
    showing very consistent----
        Senator Merkley. I want to keep this moving. How about
    other diseases where the studies have shown a significant
    correlation? For example, you mentioned fatty liver disease. I
    don't even know what that is, but maybe you are about to tell
    me. Also, are there other things? Do they show higher cancer
    rates, for example, for breast cancer or prostate cancer?
        Ms. Fenton. Yes. So some of the things that we have in
    common are thyroid disease. Definitely changes in fatty liver.
    Fatty liver is when, and you can tell if a person has fatty
    liver from their clinical enzymes. When you go to the doctor
    and they say they are going to do a liver panel on you, you can
    tell if you have some adverse outcomes in your liver based on
    those clinical, easy to acquire outcomes. You do a blood draw
    and they can tell you then.
        But the fat that is accumulating in the liver can lead to
    non-reparable damage to the liver. That would be like
    steatosis, when the liver can become fibrous. Once that
    happens, it is not reversible. Whereas fatty liver is
    reversible.
        Senator Merkley. So if you were to name the top four health
    concerns, would they be the ones you have just mentioned? Or
    what would the top four health concerns be that there is clear
    studies associated with higher PFAS?
        Ms. Fenton. Birth outcomes, one. Metabolic disease.
        Senator Merkley. Birth outcomes, meaning miscarriages?
    Meaning stillborn? Or simply the lower weight?
        Ms. Fenton. Smaller birth weight. And there is really good
    evidence that links smaller birth weight to long-term adverse
    health outcomes. There are thousands of papers that link it to
    that. This is not just a PFAS issue. Anything, like poor
    nutrition, cigarette smoking, anything that causes lower birth
    weight can lead to adverse outcomes later in life, long-term.
        So definitely birth outcomes. The thyroid disease is a big
    deal. Immune suppression I would say is one of the biggest
    issues. And we do know that PFAS suppresses the ability of the
    body to properly respond to a vaccination. This is really
    important in our children. And if children are given PFAS in
    their breast, from their mom, this really brings home a very
    important point. We want moms to breast feed their babies
    because they provide to the baby immunoglobulins in the milk
    that help the little infant develop their immune system. But if
    PFAS are inhibiting that proper production of a proper immune
    system, this can lead to long-term immune problems for the
    person.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Senator Mullin?
        Senator Mullin. How many different forms of PFAS is there?
        Ms. Fenton. A lot.
        Ms. Schaider. The number seems to keep changing. The most
    recent----
        Senator Mullin. Thousands?
        Ms. Schaider [continuing]. estimate by EPA is over 14,000.
        Senator Mullin. OK, so I just, I know, have we ever been
    able to identify which PFAS is causing this problem? Just yes
    or I don't know.
        Ms. Schaider. Yes.
        Senator Mullin. So we can specifically look at those and
    maybe be able to separate those from the other ones. Because I
    mean, when you are talking about immune shots, right, every
    needle out there has Teflon on it. That's what the plunger is
    able to slide up and down in. And so when they are getting
    injections, you are getting shots, it is Teflon. I am just
    saying that it is literally everywhere. And I don't know how
    you can possibly think we are going to ban PFAS if we don't
    look for what the alternative is going to be. And there is
    14,000 and counting different forms of PFAS.
        And I go back to my original statement, is, at which form,
    because you are creating it, so it is a chemical that you are
    creating, at which form or which deterioration does it become
    harmful? Where is the curve? Is it at the final product or the
    curve going down?
        I know you have a lot to say about it, but I have to move.
    I am just bringing the question to mind, because we are talking
    about the effects but we are not talking about when it actually
    takes place.
        I want to talk about semiconductors, and I need to send
    something for the record. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit
    for the record a letter emphasizing the critical role certain
    PFAS play in manufacturing for the semiconductor industry.
        Senator Merkley. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Mullin. Dr. Larranaga, is that close?
        Mr. Larranaga. Yes, sir.
        Senator Mullin. OK. Given your experience in leading risk
    assessments in the semiconductor industry, what are the
    potential impacts of blanket regulatory ban on PFAS in this
    sector?
        Mr. Larranaga. So there are several impacts in this sector,
    one being the fabs which are tremendously expensive that build
    semiconductors would have to retool. In order to do precision
    manufacturing at the nano scale, at least currently with the
    technologies we have, PFAS are required. There is no way to do
    it without PFAS with the level of precision that is necessary
    to make a semiconductor chip.
        If we were not to be able to make those semiconductor
    chips, a couple of things would happen. One, our chips would
    have to become larger. Two, they would be less efficient and
    less capable as well as being less durable. Meanwhile, our
    competitors, China and other countries, would be increasing
    their computing power at the same time we would be decreasing
    our computing power.
        So from a semiconductor perspective, it is very important
    that we are able to use PFAS in this industry.
        Senator Mullin. So basically what I am hearing is that it
    could greatly disrupt the supply chain?
        Mr. Larranaga. It would tremendously disrupt the supply
    chain, yes, sir.
        Senator Mullin. Pointing out to other things that are
    involved with PFAS, many life-saving medications containing
    PFAS substances are antidepressants, autoinflammatory drugs,
    certain essential cancer treatments, and even Lipitor contains
    PFAS. I just point that out once again, it is literally
    everywhere.
        Sir, do you agree that this indicates that not all PFAS
    have the same impact on human health and therefore should be
    treated differently based on each chemical's properties and
    risk profile?
        Mr. Larranaga. Yes, sir, I do believe that the different
    PFAS chemicals will have different chemical properties and that
    we should look at them individually based on health risk
    frameworks.
        Not only medications, but actually medical instruments,
    like the semiconductors, they would have to get larger. Imagine
    a pacemaker inserted into someone's chest would have to become
    larger, also, because the PFAS chemicals that are used in the
    circuitry or on the wiring and in the actual chips that are
    used, the brain of the pacemaker. So those would have to become
    larger as well.
        So it has these--banning these as an entire class has these
    long-reaching effects that would affect our public health and
    health care at large.
        Senator Mullin. So what we are searching for here is
    instructions or direction on as we are looking for policy, how
    do we approach regulating it? And I think that is the question
    that we could tackle to some degree, if you have thoughts,
    short, because I am a little over time. But for all of you
    guys, what is the best way for us to tackle this?
        I know, Chairman Merkley, he is being thoughtful in this
    direction, which I appreciate. We understand not one size fits
    all, in my opening statement. We want to make sure that we
    don't overreact. So just really quickly if you could, what are
    your thoughts?
        Ms. Fenton. Senator, if I could, I think that there are
    essential uses, potentially. And potentially, we are not
    exposed to the products very often. But we may be exposed to
    the waste. I want to just mention that.
        Proper disposal of the waste in these industries is super
    important. Because if you think about it, think about how few
    people may actually ever touch a semiconductor or put their
    fingers on the wiring that my colleague is talking about. But
    the waste coming from the industries that make them go into
    water bodies, go into the air that we all breathe.
        Senator Mullin. So focus on the waste. I think that was
    kind of a point I made before, at which level does it become
    harmful.
        Ms. Fenton. Yes. And to your point earlier, when you think
    about the classes of PFAS that might cause health effects, the
    current regulation that is in place from the EPA will remove
    the compounds that cause, that we know already cause some of
    these health effects. So if we can keep that regulation in
    place, it will take those PFAS out of water, out of air.
        Senator Mullin. The problem is that some of those
    compounds, it is taking away from the critical needs that we
    already have. Some of the compounds to which they are referring
    to, the EPA, it is, what is it taking out of the industry that
    we are using every single day that is critical of our life.
        And so to some degree, I do feel like the EPA, not some
    degree, the EPA in its direction I think overreacted. Do I have
    time to look for that response, too, sir? You are the chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Why don't we come back after Senator
    Markey?
        Senator Mullin. Oh, sorry, sir. I didn't know you were
    here. I will yield back.
        Senator Merkley. Senator Markey?
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    having this very important hearing.
        Dr. Schaider, thank you for your years of service in
    women's health space. My wife was a two-star admiral in charge
    of all women's health in America. So I appreciate your service.
        Recent reports and studies show that soils examined show
    that hazardous waste incinerators have elevated levels of PFAS.
    These incinerators are disproportionately in disadvantaged
    communities. Toxic PFAS emissions get into the atmosphere when
    they can hurt children, pregnant women, agriculture soil, air.
        Can continuous monitoring of any air emissions protect our
    communities from being exposed to PFAS coming from hazardous
    waste incinerators?
        Ms. Schaider. Thank you for that question, Senator Markey.
    I think the concerns about incineration of PFAS are really
    critical to consider. I appreciate your raising concerns about
    environmental justice and the communities that live around
    incinerators.
        There are new, improving methods for how we measure PFAS. I
    think it is important if there is going to be incineration of
    PFAS-containing materials that we are carefully monitoring for
    the full suite of PFAS that are there.
        But I have concerns about incineration and what that might
    mean for exposures among people living in this communities. I
    think those kinds of life cycle issues are really why we need
    to be really judicious when we are creating these highly
    persistent chemicals that really don't break down.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        Dr. Schaider, firefighters protect us from harmful fires.
    But we need to help protect them from being harmed by the gear
    they wear, which is full of PFAS. So firefighters are just
    walking around covered in PFAS. We need to protect our
    protectors from cancer clusters in firehouses.
        Dr. Schaider, is it true that PFAS in firefighters' turnout
    gear and firefighting foams can harm their health?
        Ms. Schaider. Thank you for that question as well. There is
    a huge concern right now among firefighters about their
    exposures to PFAS. As you said, that can come from the
    firefighter turnout gear, which has typically had a PFAS Teflon
    layer.
        Senator Markey. Are there alternatives?
        Ms. Schaider. There are alternatives, and actually, our
    State of Massachusetts just instituted a ban on PFAS in
    firefighter turnout gear. So I am proud of our State for
    advancing that. I think it is an example of when we set a goal
    to reduce exposures and protecting firefighters' health, it is
    critically important that new research and development can
    provide solutions, so that we are keeping our protectors safe
    but also not exposing them to toxic chemicals.
        Senator Markey. I agree. And I think it is something that
    we should think about on a national level, because, well,
    obviously so many of our firefighters do die from cancer. We
    want to make sure that we give them the protections which they
    deserve.
        The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
    conducted an exposure assessment in Westfield, Massachusetts,
    one of the 10 cities included in the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention's PFAS Exposure Assessment. While random
    households were invited to participate, the data collected was
    not fully shared with the public.
        Dr. Schaider, do you agree that more data transparency
    would be helpful to allow the public to understand their
    exposures, risks and pathways?
        Ms. Schaider. Thanks for that question. I know that the
    ATSDR has released summary statistics for the results of blood
    testing that they conducted in Westfield. I am not familiar
    with the specifics.
        Senator Markey. Should that be made fully available?
        Ms. Schaider. Certainly the summary statistics of how
    people, in the blood levels that they tested in Westfield
    residents, how those compare to the general population, what is
    the median level, what is the 95th percentile, those summary
    statistics have been made available. I am not familiar with the
    specifics of the extent of data released.
        Senator Markey. Yes.
        Ms. Schaider. But I in general think that having more
    information about exposures among the general population and
    exposed communities is helpful.
        Senator Markey. Yes, we would want to ensure that there is
    total access to the information about the safety of
    breastfeeding for PFAS-exposed mothers, especially considering
    the potential health risks to children. So it would be, I
    think, a very important thing that we could do.
        The EPA's updated draft PFAS disposal guidance document
    acknowledges that performance and testing data are needed to
    validate PFAS, destruction by incineration as opposed to other
    novel ways of getting rid of PFAS in our environment.
        Dr. Fenton, do you believe that attempting standard
    incineration of PFAS can lead to more dangerous PFAS compounds
    released into our environment?
        Ms. Fenton. Thank you for the question, Senator. We
    certainly know that incineration can lead to release into the
    environment. What I suggested earlier in my comments was that
    funding innovative ways to mineralize these compounds, or re-
    use what is being released from the incineration might be
    useful down the road. I do think there is a place that we can
    fund innovation yet, and work toward a place where we are not
    releasing fluorine carbon compounds into the environment.
        Senator Markey. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Merkley. Go ahead.
        Senator Markey. Dr. Fenton, do you believe that the failure
    of PFAS manufacturers to provide reference standards to the EPA
    has hindered the agency's ability to establish accurate
    drinking water standards for PFAS? Has this lack of cooperation
    hurt communities across the United States?
        Ms. Fenton. Sir, it has affected how quickly and how
    efficiently we can provide strong data, high quality data, on
    health effects. It has affected me personally; it has affected
    my colleagues. The confidential business information in some of
    the PFAS mixtures has really hindered our progress in
    understanding the health effects.
        That is probably the No. 1 issue that I have had to deal
    with, is the inability to get standards for some of the new
    compounds that we would like to study in North Carolina, in
    particular.
        Senator Markey. Thank you. It is absolutely critical.
        I had my first date with my wife 40 years ago, in two more
    months, Mr. Chairman. And she was explaining to me, her mother
    had died from breast cancer. And she was explaining to me that
    her interest in medicine was driven by that, and having to go
    to the Stanford Hospital day after day, it was a girl with her
    mother for the treatment.
        But what she explained to me was this, that Japanese women
    contract breast cancer at only one-third the rate of American
    women. But Japanese women contract breast cancer at the same
    rate as American women in the first generation that they live
    in America. Meaning that we are doing something to ourselves
    with our environment, what we put into our food, what we put
    into our water, what we put into the air. We do it to
    ourselves. And it causes a much higher level of cancers in our
    society.
        So we just can't deny these statistical realities when we
    compare ourselves to the rest of the world. While manufacturers
    might want to just continue business as usual, the impact has
    been felt by the families, the women, the children, in our
    society, the firefighters who get exposed and ultimately
    succumb to the diseases.
        I thank you so much for this very important hearing.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator.
        I notice that when we have a conversation about, and
    testimony about, well, PFAS in our food and water is causing
    bad health effects, often the response is, oh, but wait, it is
    on other things in our environment like insulated wire in an
    airplane or coating a solar panel, to try to distract us,
    essentially, from the fundamental question of the pathways in
    which we are affected, and how it can be removed in those
    pathways that are affecting human health.
        So this is not a conversation about banning a class of
    chemicals. It is a conversation about finding the ways that we
    are affected and eliminating those effects to improve human
    health.
        I think it is a very good point you made, however, Dr.
    Fenton, that the waste that happens from other portions of the
    industry may well find its way back into our bodies, even if
    the initial product is not one where we are touching or around.
    One of those products is stain-resistant carpet. I remember
    when the ads came out about, oh, you can drop all kinds of
    things on the carpet and it just beads up, and so forth. Is
    that a PFAS treatment? I am thinking about our little babies
    crawling around on the carpet. Is that a risk to our babies'
    health?
        Ms. Schaider. I would say absolutely yes. We do know that
    stain-resistant carpets treated with Scotch Guard or
    Stainmaster contain PFAS. And there is ample evidence that the
    chemicals don't stay in the product. There have been studies
    that have made links between people who have stain-resistant
    carpets in their house and levels of PFAS in their blood.
        Also I have concerns about children who are more
    vulnerable, spend more time close to the ground, spend more
    time with their hands in their mouth. We know that PFAS can get
    through our skin, but also can be transferred by hand to mouth
    contact in children who are more vulnerable to those harmful
    health effects.
        So we know that having these products in our home increases
    our exposure. And I think one point that is important to keep
    in mind, and Senator Mullin had asked about all these different
    ways that we can be exposed, all those cumulative exposures add
    up. We can be exposed from food and water and consumer
    products.
        Some pathways of exposure are easier to turn off now, and I
    think we should grab that low-hanging fruit and reduce
    exposures where we can. Other pathways may be more challenging.
    But we should work, in general, to reduce our exposures to PFAS
    and reduce our reliance on these problematic chemicals.
        Senator Merkley. I have kind of been assuming that areas
    where you have higher abrasion may produce more particles that
    find their way into our bodies. Maybe that is wrong. But for
    example, I think about carpets, we are walking on them, there
    is abrasion, there is carpet dust. That carpet dust, those
    fibers that have PFAS on them because they are stain resistant
    or spill resistant now are easily breathed in and therefore
    have a pathway to get into our bodies.
        I have thought about the Teflon pans, and I have seen many
    Teflon pans where the coating has essentially been worn off
    from stirring things in the pan. And of course, you noted that
    heat can be a factor as well.
        It seems a lot more of a risk than, say, a coating on my
    phone, where one, I can put a plastic cover over that coating,
    so I am not touching it. But even if I am, there is not the
    abrasion involved and I am guessing that the transfer of PFAS
    through my thumb might be far lower.
        So our goal here is to figure out and understand better
    where the highest levels of transfer, as you call it, low-
    hanging fruit, that can have am impact. But my assumption about
    abrasion, is that a reasonable way to think about some of this?
        Ms. Schaider. I think that is one. One way to think about,
    I think a lot about how we actually get exposed to the PFAS and
    how do the chemicals and the products get into our bodies. So
    certainly, abrasion of products and fibers ending up in dust,
    we don't think about dust as a harmful chemical exposure
    pathway. But the dust in our homes is one way that we can be
    exposed to toxic chemicals. It is sort of a repository for
    toxic chemicals in homes.
        Also, there are certain PFAS chemicals that are volatile.
    So some of the PFAS that we are talking about in water are
    polar, they tend to stay in water. But other PFAS chemicals,
    like fluorotelomer alcohols are volatile, so they can actually
    come off of products and end up in the air in our homes. Then
    we breathe them in.
        Fluorotelomer alcohols are an example of a precursor. So we
    think of PFAS, PFOA, those chemical structures basically don't
    change unless you heat them at very high temperatures. Other
    chemicals like these fluorotelomer alcohols are what we call
    precursors. So in our bodies, over time and in the environment,
    they can be transformed into PFAS or PFOA or these other very
    stable PFAS.
        So that is another way we can be exposed, is through these
    volatile PFAS, that we do measure in indoor air and we do see
    that homes with PFAS-containing products have higher levels in
    air and dust.
        Senator Merkley. So the question we might be asking when we
    hear that there is PFAS on our cell phone is, is that a
    volatile version. I will ask that for the record. I will have
    my team followup.
        I want to note that you all mentioned cosmetics. Why would
    cosmetics contain PFAS? And cosmetics certainly produce dust,
    if you will, that we breathe in. Is there any rational reason
    to have PFAS in cosmetics?
        Ms. Fenton. They do it for waterproofing. It is like
    waterproof mascara and waterproof foundation that you would put
    on your face. It is meant to last all day.
        Senator Merkley. Is that absorbed through the skin? Because
    now you are applying something directly to a significant area
    of skin. Is that a much higher risk than some other sources?
        Ms. Fenton. Like all sources, it is how often you are
    exposed to it. So if you are wearing it every day as an
    individual, yes, you probably would have substantial exposure
    from that. But you can make personal choices, like you can make
    a personal choice not to have Scotch Guarded upholstery or
    mattresses or carpeting or cosmetics.
        Senator Merkley. But the thing is, Dr. Fenton, that
    citizens assume when they don't see a warning on it, it doesn't
    say, this carpet has Scotch Guard that will reduce your stains
    but also beware that your children may breathe in a whole lot
    of PFAS that may have health impacts. They don't put warnings
    on them. This is where we are relying upon every citizen to be
    educated, like each of you have doctorates, and make individual
    choices. That is why we have public policy, and that is why we
    are struggling with this.
        Of course, I have never used stain-resistant mascara--what
    did you call it?
        Ms. Fenton. Waterproof mascara.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Merkley. I have never used mascara. I had no idea
    there was PFAS in it. But I am sure I can see a reason for
    that. Do we have studies that show cosmetics as you are
    describing, incorporating these water-resistant qualities,
    result in PFAS in the blood? Is it a pathway of concern?
        Ms. Schaider. I am not aware of specific studies that have
    looked at that question. But I think we know enough about how
    these chemicals can come out of products. As Dr. Fenton
    mentioned, they can be absorbed through our skin.
        I don't know that we need to do a study for every single
    product to show what percent of that PFAS ends up in our blood.
    I would take more of a precautionary approach, because we know
    that if chemicals are in products, at least some portion of
    that will end up in our bloodstream. And if we are talking
    about waterproof mascara, that is really not an essential use.
    I think that is an easy one to point out.
        We often say that you shouldn't need a chemistry degree to
    go shopping for products for your family. I think it is unfair
    to expect that consumers will know all the different types of
    harmful chemicals that they should avoid. As the mother of a
    `tween daughter who is getting into makeup, it is impossible to
    think that every person needs to know about these toxic
    chemicals. I think people rightfully expect that the government
    is protecting their health.
        Senator Merkley. That not always is the case.
        So my last question is really about the April EPA drinking
    water regulations for six PFAS chemicals. I think these are the
    regulations that were being referred to before. The level that
    they set is very, very low, like parts per trillion. I am used
    to parts per million or billion, but I have never seen a parts
    per trillion before.
        But now imagine that you are providing the water to a
    municipality. And you test and you go, oh, gosh, we have our
    water, the groundwater is contaminated with PFAS, we are
    pulling it out of the ground or whatever. Is it possible to
    really, is there any real cost-effective way to pull this PFAS,
    the parts per trillion, out of our drinking water?
        Ms. Fenton. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. OK, tell us about that.
        Ms. Fenton. Granular activated charcoal systems, large
    volume systems, have been implemented in multiple cities across
    the United States already. Because as you know, 11 States
    already had PFAS regulations on the books, only 11. So this
    Federal law now protects all States at a level that is safe.
        So 11 States have already figured out how to do this, and
    they are doing it. Some of them are doing it without increasing
    the water bill to their constituents.
        Senator Merkley. So we have a cost-effective way to get
    this out of our water.
        Ms. Fenton. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. Since water, you have all mentioned, is a
    major pathway, that is a real positive to accomplish that.
        Ms. Fenton. Right.
        Ms. Schaider. It is cost-effective, but there are economies
    of scale. So that works really well when you are a large water
    system, the cost per person decreases. But for small water
    systems with a small customer base, these systems are hugely
    expensive.
        For instance, on Hyannis, on Cape Cod in Massachusetts,
    where we have been studying PFAS for a number of years, there
    are only 14,000 customers. All of their public wells were
    contaminated by PFAS and they have had to spend tens of
    millions of dollars to install granular activated carbon to
    remove the PFAS. I don't think it is fair for the ratepayers to
    foot that bill. I would like to see more pathways for the
    chemical industries who created the chemicals and profited from
    them to be responsible for the cleanup.
        Senator Merkley. Polluter pays, is your principle.
        Ms. Schaider. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. Well, this is a really interesting and
    important conversation that we are having. Obviously, it is a
    very complicated one. So I really appreciate your bringing your
    expertise to bear, and hopefully it will cause others who are
    listening go, oh, we need to explore this further and think
    about how do we capture that low-hanging fruit.
        Should we be labeling things that warn individuals about
    the effects? Should we simply be, in certain products, and
    maybe it is the stain-resistant carpet saying no, that the
    health risk far outweighs any value, or so forth?
        There is a lot to followup on. I really appreciate your
    contributions and expertise.
        Ms. Fenton. Senator, could I suggest for the record that
    what you brought up about the policies on the labeling would be
    enormously useful to all Americans. If we knew which consumer
    products had PFAS in them, we could make better choices. We
    could change things. We could have some say by ourselves in our
    exposures.
        Senator Merkley. Let's followup on that question. Because
    one of the things that is in my head is I heard about lots of
    things that have PFAS I had no idea about, whether it is
    medical equipment or a screen of a cell phone. But there may be
    categories where that labeling is more important because the
    pathways of contamination are more significant. Maybe it is
    cosmetics, maybe it is carpet, I don't know.
        We will look to your expertise to help guide us. My team
    will keep wrestling with it. So thank you for that point.
        In closing, thank you again. We have heard that the
    scientific community is deeply concerned about the public's
    exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals. We have heard about the
    impact, both observed from human studies and from studies on
    mice, that the health effects are very significant, and
    therefore a topic we should continue to explore how to reduce
    this risk dramatically for our citizens.
        I ask unanimous consent from all my colleagues who are
    still at the table here to approve submissions for the record
    that they might like to make, including any letters they would
    like to submit or articles or other material.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. And if any of them wish to submit written
    questions for the record, that is allowed through the close of
    business on December 19th of this year. We will compile those
    questions; we will send them out to you all. And your replies,
    if you can get them back to us by January 9th, it would be very
    helpful, so it can be timely and close out the record.
        So without hearing any objection to that, that is the plan.
    This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                      [all]