U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–935 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 116–35 

EXAMINING LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS 

THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PER- AND 

POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 22, 2019 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIKE BRAUN, Indiana 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, 

Ranking Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 22, 2019 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 2 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 179 

WITNESSES 

White, Kimberly Wise, Ph.D., Senior Director, Chemical Products and Technology, American Chemistry Council ................................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 14 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 17 

Senator Capito ........................................................................................... 20 

Daniels, Lisa, Past President, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, and Director, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection .............................................................. 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 41 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 43 

Senator Capito ........................................................................................... 48 

Faber, Scott, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Environmental 

Working Group ..................................................................................................... 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 68 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 68 

Senator Capito ........................................................................................... 71 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 71 

Mehan, G. Tracy III, Executive Director, American Water Works Association . 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 91 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 95 

Senator Capito ........................................................................................... 100 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Text of legislation submitted for the record: 

S. 638, To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous 

substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and for other purposes ................... 180 

S. 950, To require the Director of the United States Geological Survey 

to perform a nationwide survey of perfluorinated compounds, and for 

other purposes ............................................................................................... 182 

S. l, To improve and coordinate interagency Federal actions and provide 

assistance to States for responding to public health challenges posed 

by emerging contaminants, and for other purposes ................................... 189 

Page

IV 

—Continued 

S. l, To encourage Federal agencies to expeditiously enter into or amend 

cooperative agreements with States for removal and remedial actions 

to address PFAS contamination in drinking, surface, and ground water 

and land surface and subsurface strata, and for other purposes .............. 207 

S. l, To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to set maximum contaminant levels for certain chemicals, and for other purposes ................. 215 

S. l, To include certain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

in the toxics release inventory, and for other purposes ............................. 218 

(1) 

EXAMINING LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THE 

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PER- AND 

POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2019 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:47 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Boozman, Braun, 

Ernst, Cardin, Markey, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, and Van Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today we are going to continue the Committee’s work examining 

the risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or 

PFAS. PFAS are a large class of chemicals known for their resistance to oil and water. Since the 1940s, PFAS has been used in a 

broad array of industrial, commercial, and consumer applications, 

including non-stick cookware, waterproof clothing, stain resistant 

fabrics, food packaging, and firefighting foams. Scientists have 

found that these chemicals break down very slowly, if at all, in the 

natural environment. They have also found that some accumulate 

in the human body. These chemicals travel through water, air, and 

soil. Humans ingest them, inhale them, and absorb them through 

their skin. It is estimated that 90 percent of Americans have detectable concentrations of PFAS in their blood. 

Some of these chemicals are associated with a number of negative health effects. To date, scientists have detected pollution from 

these chemicals all over the world and in nearly every State. It appears to be concentrated in communities located near or downstream from military bases, airports, firefighting facilities, and 

chemical manufacturing and processing facilities. 

In March, this Committee heard from four witnesses representing the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of 

Health and Human Services, and the Department of Defense in 

order to learn what steps the executive branch is taking to addresses the risks associated with PFAS. Today we are going to examine 

six bipartisan bills which have been introduced to address these 

risks. They include S. 638, introduced by Ranking Member Carper 

and Senator Capito; S. 950, introduced by Senators Stabenow and 

2 

Rounds; S. 1251, introduced by Senators Shaheen and Portman; S. 

1372, introduced by Senators Stabenow and Rubio; S. 1473, introduced by Senators Gillibrand and Capito; and S. 1507, introduced 

by Senators Capito and Gillibrand. 

Addressing this pollution is a priority of this Committee. That is 

why we included provisions to help public water systems address 

emerging contaminants, including PFAS, in America’s Water Infrastructure Act. It is also why I intend to negotiate and report a bipartisan legislative package addressing PFAS pollution this Congress. 

I can’t support some of these bills as currently written. For example, I am concerned about sidestepping the rulemaking process 

used to assess the risks associated with chemical compounds under 

our Nation’s bedrock environmental laws. Congress established 

these rulemaking processes decades ago. It believed that Federal 

agencies are better positioned to evaluate the science behind the 

regulation of chemicals. 

In addition, I question whether we should treat all PFAS as if 

they posed the same level of risk to human health and the environment. These chemical substances vary widely. While much more research is needed, the risks these chemicals pose does seem to vary 

as well. Some of these compounds are used in medical devices, like 

pacemakers. Others are used as inhalers. It is critical that we acknowledge the differences among these chemicals. 

I also have concerns about Congress imposing Superfund liability 

on parties that use these substances in good faith. For example, 

our Nation’s airports, refineries, and others used firefighting foam 

containing PFAS in order to protect their workers and the public 

at large. Others, like metal finishers, used these chemicals as a 

means to successfully reduce air emission and workers’ exposure to 

cancer causing heavy metals. All these entities were either following regulations or the industry’s best practices. Still others, like 

wastewater treatment facilities and landfills, are often unknowing 

recipients of PFAS. 

Congress has a critical role to play in ensuring that the Federal 

Government responds to the risks associated with these chemicals 

in a timely manner. Today’s hearing is an important step in identifying how we should proceed on this issue. 

I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us; nice to see you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing, and for 

the collaborative way in which you and your staff have approached 

our Committee’s work on addressing a lot of issues, but particularly the contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, 

otherwise known as PFAS. Thank God for acronyms. I have never 

been a fan of acronyms, Mr. Chairman, but on this subject, I am 

definitely one. 

I suspect that just about every member of our Committee has 

heard from their constituents with concerns about PFAS contamiVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:58 Aug 14, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36935.TXT SONYA
3 

nation in their respective States. PFAS can be found nearly everywhere, from non-stock cookware to microwave popcorn bags to 

cleaning products and stain-resistant fabrics to firefighting foam 

used at military bases and airports across the country. 

Forty-six years ago this spring, Mr. Chairman, I was a young 

naval flight officer stationed at Moffatt Field Naval Air Station. We 

operated P–3s out of there, out of Hunt for Red October, and did 

a lot of missions off the coast of Vietnam and Cambodia during the 

Vietnam war. 

But in April 1973, I was driving into work one morning, didn’t 

have to fly right away. I was a couple miles out from Moffatt Field, 

where we shared a base with NASA. They had some big planes 

there, and we had our Navy P–3s, which are not small planes, by 

any stretch of the imagination. 

But as I drove to work on a sunny April morning, I could see 

from a distance, several miles away, a large black plume of smoke 

arising from the air station while I was some distance away. A 

large NASA Convair jet had been cleared to land on the same runway and at the same time as a Navy P–3 aircraft. Literally, the 

larger plane squashed the smaller plane. 

It took over an hour for firefighters to control the blaze. Later 

that day we would learn that 16 people had died, I think the entire 

crew of the NASA Convair and all but one crew member on the P– 

3. I understand that the use of the chemicals that were used that 

day, fighting that fire, trying to save lives, has supported our military readiness and saved lives. But the cruel irony is that when 

PFAS ends up in a glass on a kitchen table or in this glass of water 

those same chemicals can endanger lives, not save them. 

Our colleagues in the industry often remind Congress that PFAS 

chemicals are used in everything from medical devices to solar panels. I think I can speak for just about everyone when I say that is 

not a really good point. We want PFAS chemicals to stay in the 

solar panels and not in our drinking water. That is really why we 

are here today. 

These highly persistent and ubiquitous chemicals are threatening 

the drinking water of millions of people in our country, and I am 

sure, outside of our country, too. In the southwestern corner of 

Delaware, for example, the people in the small town of Blades, 

right outside the slightly larger town of Seaford, were told last year 

or maybe 2 years ago to stop drinking the water there because 

PFAS chemicals were found to be present at nearly twice the Federal health advisory level. Just up the road at the Dover Air Force 

Base, roughly 50 miles away, more than half the groundwater wells 

tested there show dangerously, dangerously high levels of PFAS 

and PFOA. 

I have a map here, a map of our country. This recently released 

map shows that more than 600 locations in 43 States are contaminated. Those are just the known locations. My hope is that the witnesses, all of you before us today, will work constructively with our 

Committee as we seek to forge a consensus approach to addressing 

this complex problem. My hope is that we all leave here today in 

strong agreement that Congress must take action sooner, rather 

than later, because this is an issue that deserves a sense of urgency. 

4 

One might think that the extent of this problem would lead the 

Environmental Protection Agency to respond with a sense of urgency. But sadly, that has not been the case, at least not yet. First, 

EPA’s 2019 PFAS action plan largely includes commitments to consider, to consider whether to regulate PFAS contamination, steps 

that Scott Pruitt—and that is almost a year earlier, second Administrator—really, really refused to commit to setting a drinking 

water standard for PFAS until public and congressional outcry 

forced him to reverse course before he was confirmed. Finally, EPA 

weakened its draft guidance for cleaning up contaminated PFAS 

sites following pressure from the Defense Department. 

So it is no surprise that many States are taking matters into 

their own hands and setting their own drinking water and cleanup 

standards. Neither is it a surprise that many elected officials have 

concluded that Federal legislation is needed to more urgently and 

decisively address this challenge. 

Six pieces of bipartisan legislation that seek to do just that are 

the subject of today’s hearing. Among other things, these bills seek 

to designate PFAS as a hazardous substance under the Superfund 

law, to compel EPA to establish a safe drinking water standard for 

PFAS within 2 years, inform the public when the PFAS chemicals 

are being released into the environment, as well as create faster 

cleanups and more interagency coordination and research and monitoring technologies. 

While some of the bills before our Committee today propose to 

regulate every single PFAS chemical, and there are a lot of them, 

as you know, others have concluded that all of these chemicals do 

not pose the same safety and risks, a point raised by the Chairman 

in his statement. People have raised some implementation concerns 

about immediately regulating every single PFAS chemical at once. 

One approach to addressing this concern lies in the PFAS Release Disclosure Act, authored by Senator Capito, on which my 

staff and I were proud to work and co-sponsor, along with Senator 

Gillibrand. That bill, our bill, would immediately add about 200 to 

the 602 PFAS chemicals currently in commerce to the Toxics Release Inventory, so that the public would be informed when those 

chemicals are released into our environment. 

This bill does so by acknowledging the EPA’s authority under the 

Toxic Substances Control Act to find that these specific PFAS 

chemicals do pose a risk. Thus, there is no need to do more research or spend more time before adding these chemicals to the 

Toxics Release Inventory. 

The bill also ensures that in the future, whenever EPA finds that 

additional PFAS chemicals pose a risk, these chemicals will also be 

included in the Toxics Release Inventory. I am especially interested 

in our witnesses’ views on this particular approach. 

In the Navy, where I spent 23 years of my life, actually 27 years 

of my life, but when faced with an especially challenging mission, 

we would call for all hands on deck, even if we were not on a ship, 

we would call for all hands on deck. Today, we need a different 

kind of all hands on deck. But we do need one, nonetheless. When 

our Committee, this Committee, overhauled TSCA a couple of years 

ago, we did so with a partnership that included all of us, EPA, industry, and many environmental and public health organizations. 

5 

We need those same partners to pull together again now in order 

to support our Committee’s work to expeditiously develop legislation and improve legislation already introduced to address the 

PFAS contamination problems that we face in communities as we 

saw from this map across the country. A growing number of Americans are counting on that, to do just that, and we can’t let them 

down. 

So Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for this important hearing. 

I will be here for part of it, but I have to slip over to another meeting at the White House on infrastructure. I will download with you 

later, maybe after lunch. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much; thanks, Senator Carper. 

We do have a wonderful group of witnesses today. We are going 

to hear from them now. We are joined by Dr. Kimberly Wise White, 

who is a Senior Director in the Chemical Products and Technology 

Division at the American Chemistry Council. 

Thank you for being with us. 

We also have with us Lisa Daniels, who is the Past President of 

the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, and is 

currently the Director of the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water at the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. We have 

Scott Faber, who is Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at 

the Environmental Working Group. And finally, G. Tracy Mehan, 

who is the Executive Director of Government Affairs at the American Water Works Association. 

Welcome to all of you. I want to remind you that your full written testimony will be made part of the official hearing record today. 

So please try to keep your statements to 5 minutes, so that we will 

have time for questions. I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

With that, we can start with Ms. White. 

STATEMENT OF KIMBERLY WISE WHITE, PH.D., SENIOR DIRECTOR, CHEMICAL PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY, AMERICAN 

CHEMISTRY COUNCIL 

Ms. WHITE. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, and members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Kimberly 

Wise White, and I am a toxicologist with the American Chemistry 

Council. 

My work has focused mainly on supporting scientific research 

and chemical risk assessment practices focused primarily on up to 

date scientific knowledge and the most relevant scientific approaches. 

I appreciate this opportunity to provide a scientist’s perspective 

on several of the legislative proposals before the Committee today. 

Addressing concerns regarding potential public health risks of 

PFAS and ensuring safe access to drinking water for all Americans 

is critically important. ACC shares this Committee’s commitment 

to identifying ways to address and where warranted, mitigating the 

risk, of PFAS chemistries. The chemical industry supports a comprehensive approach to managing these substances, including specific measures to prioritize, evaluate, regulate, innovate, and monitor PFAS chemistries. Having science at the forefront of regulatory 

approaches allows for the most relevant data on hazard and expoVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:58 Aug 14, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36935.TXT SONYA
6 

sure, validated methodologies, and relevant, issue specific expertise 

to underpin decisions. 

Let me take this opportunity to highlight four points which illustrate the important role science has in any chemical management 

strategy. First, today’s PFAS chemistries play an essential role in 

modern life. PFAS is a term that describes a wide and diverse variety of substances in a broad range of applications that provide 

strength, durability, stability, and resilience. For example, today’s 

PFAS are used in medical devices, the development of semiconductors, and applications in energy and fuel efficiency. Taking an overly broad approach to addressing PFAS chemistries that lacks a scientific foundation will make it difficult to implement effective regulatory policies. 

Second, application and adherence to the administrative process 

is critical for PFAS chemical management. The Administrative Procedures Act governs the process by which Federal agencies develop 

and issue regulations. Circumventing the regulatory process by developing legislation that does not provide for public input and does 

not allow those Federal agencies to utilize their specific expertise 

undermines the process and may lead to regulatory decisions that 

lack a sound basis and which do not focus on the priority issues. 

Third, science based approaches should be the foundation of any 

legislation and regulation. A robust body of science demonstrates 

the vast differences among individual PFAS, and peer reviewed 

data shows that fluoropolymers, for example, and several other 

PFAS chemistries do not present a risk to human health or the environment. Given this information, it is not appropriate to treat all 

PFAS chemistries the same. This includes when establishing drinking water levels, cleanup levels of lifetime safe exposure limits. 

To be scientifically credible, proposed legislation seeking to develop maximum contaminant levels for drinking water should be 

consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Similarly, scientifically credible and meaningful cleanup levels should use directly 

relevant scientific information to determine if it warranted designation as a hazardous substance or the establishment of cleanup levels. Most importantly, the leadership of Federal agencies with a 

primary mission to protect human health and the environment is 

critically important to any successful implementation of a regulatory approach. 

Finally, a single class approach to evaluating PFAS is not scientifically justified. As I have mentioned, no two PFAS substances 

have the same hazard or environmental profile. This is critically 

important in evaluating specific chemical information. 

Last week, the National Academies evaluated the same question 

of whether a single class approach could be applied to evaluating 

another set of chemistries, and they concluded that it was not scientifically appropriate. Instead, the National Academies suggested 

the identification of subclasses using chemical structure, chemical 

physical properties, toxicological information, and bioactivity to 

make determinations. ACC believes that a similar approach could 

be taken for addressing PFAS. 

In summary, ensuring that up to date, high quality data, and 

science based approaches underlie regulatory decisionmaking is 

critical to protecting human health and the environment. This can 

7 

be achieved by recognizing that a one size fits all approach is not 

appropriate. Understanding and prioritizing PFAS chemistries will 

be critical to this Committee’s effort to maximize Federal resources 

and focus on priority issues. This also allows technologies that are 

not a threat to human health or the environment to continue to 

achieve their intended purpose, which is advancing innovation. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony, and I look 

forward to addressing your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:] 

8 


36935.001

Kimberly Wise White, Ph.D. 

Senior Director 

American Chemistry Council 

Dr. Kimberly Wise White is a Senior Director in the Chemical Products and Technology 

Division at the American Chemistry Council. In this position she works with multiple 

stakeholders to conduct scientific research that informs human health hazard 

assessments and implement approaches to improve the chemical risk assessment 

process. Dr. White received a BS and MS in Biology and a PhD in Environmental 

Toxicology from Texas Southern University. She is a member of the Society of 

Toxicology, serves on the Board of Directors for the Toxicology Forum and is a member 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board. Dr. White has a 

diverse background having worked as a laboratory researcher focusing on neurotoxicity, 

an environmental sustainability and compliance manager and as a scientific advisor to 

the petrochemical industry. For the past 7 years at ACC, she has been actively involved 

in supporting scientific research and chemical risk assessments that are firmly based on 

up-to-date scientific knowledge and are evaluated in accordance with the most relevant 

scientific approaches. Dr. White has also coauthored publications on adverse outcome 

pathways, weight of evidence frameworks, problem formulation in chemical assessment 

and understanding potency information associated with human exposures. 
9 


36935.002

merican· 

Chemistry 

ouncil 

Written Statement of 

Kimberly W. White, Ph.D. 

Senior Director 

Chemical Products and Technology Division 

American Chemistry Council 

Before the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) 

Regarding a Hearing to Consider Six Bipartisan Bills, Which Would Address the Risks 

Associated with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 

May22, 2019 

American Chemistry Council 

700 2nd Street, N .E. 

Washington, D.C. 20002 
10 


36935.003

Summary 

Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and members of the Committee. My 

name is Dr. Kimberly Wise White. I am a toxicologist and have worked with the American 

Chemistry Council 1 (ACC) for the past seven years. My work at ACC has focused mainly on 

supporting scientific research and chemical risk evaluation processes that are firmly based on upto-date scientific knowledge and are evaluated in accordance with the most relevant scientific 

approaches. I appreciate this opportunity to provide a scientist's perspective on several of the 

legislative proposals before this Committee today. Addressing concerns regarding potential public 

health risks of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PF AS and ensuring access to safe drinking 

water for all Americans is critically important. The application of science-based approaches and 

policies to evaluate and manage potential risks are imperative for ensuring public confidence and 

trust in the regulatory process. 

ACC shares this Committee's commitment to identifying ways to address and, where warranted, 

mitigate risk associated with PFAS chemistries. A holistic strategy is needed to coordinate overall 

efforts and focus resources toward immediate issues and areas of public concern. For this reason, 

the chemical industry supports a comprehensive approach to managing these substances, including 

specific measures to prioritize, evaluate, regulate, innovate, advance best practices, and monitor 

PFAS. ACC has worked with this Committee over the years to advance broad chemical regulation, 

which included passage of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), an 

overwhelmingly bipartisan achievement. In those amendments, Congress established a process to 

reinforce public confidence in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) evaluation of 

new and existing chemicals, requiring that the Agency use risk-based information, based on best 

available science, to evaluate chemicals and make affirmative regulatory decision on chemicals, 

in an open and transparent way. Having science at the forefront allows for the most relevant data 

on hazard and exposure, validated methodologies and relevant issue specific expertise to underlie 

decisions. 

As Congress considers the issue of PFAS substances, I will focus my testimony on four areas that 

highlight the important role science has in any PF AS chemical management strategy. 

I. Today's PFAS Chemistries Play an Essential Role in Modern Life 

Fluorinated chemicals or PFAS, is a term that describes a wide and diverse array of substances 

characterized by the strong bond between fluorine and carbon. Because of this strong bond, PFAS 

provide strength, durability, stability, and resilience in a broad range of applications. These 

properties are critical to the reliable and safe function of a spectrum of products that are important 

for industry and consumers. For example, today's PFAS are used in: medical devices; the 

development of semiconductors in electronics; and applications in renewable energy and fuel 

efficiency. Multiple industries depend on today's high-performance PFAS substances because 

they provide unique properties that often cannot be replicated with non-fluorinated alternatives. 

1 The American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry. 

ACC members apply the science of chemistry to make innovative products and services that make people's lives 

better, healthier and safer. ACC is committed to improved environmental, health and safety performance through 

Responsible Care®, common sense advocacy designed to address major public policy issues, and health and 

environmental research and product testing. 

Page 12 
11 


36935.004

For example, fluoropolymers, which consist of a carbon-only polymer backbone with fluorines 

directly attached, are used in roof coatings to enhance durability and provide energy savings 

through solar reflectance and reduction of heat transfer into buildings. Fluorinated surfactants, are 

another example. These chemistries can be used in adhesives, sealants and caulks to strengthen the 

bond to surfaces and help prevent infrastructure failures caused by corrosion and weather. Taking 

an overly-broad approach to addressing PF AS chemistries that lacks a scientific foundation will 

make it difficult to implement effective regulatory policies. It will also impact an extensive swath 

of the economy, including a broad range of industries and businesses, as well as critical public 

entities like airports, hospitals, drinking water utilities, towns and municipalities. For these 

reasons, different PF AS substances require different regulatory approaches. 

II. Application and Adherence to the Administrative Process is Critical for Effective PFAS 

Chemical Management 

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs the process by which federal agencies 

develop and issue regulations, including for example, regulations in chemical management 

under TSCA, drinking water regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and 

clean-up levels under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Importantly, the APA includes requirements for public notice of 

proposed and final rulemaking, opportunities for public comment, and other elements to 

ensure adequate review and utility of proposed regulations. There is a robust regulatory 

system and established policies in place for managing chemicals in the United States. 

Circumventing the regulatory process by developing legislation that does not provide for 

public input and does not allow federal agencies to exercise their expertise undermines the 

process and may lead to regulatory decisions that lack a sound basis and which do not focus 

on priority issues. In any legislation under consideration to manage PF AS, Congress must 

employ the AP A process requirements for agency rulemaking and regulation in order to 

prevent arbitrary regulatory decisions. Further, agencies such as EPA must apply their 

statutory authorities and procedures to utilize the best available science in their regulatory 

decision-making. To support this process clear timelines should be established to ensure 

policy decisions and regulatory outcomes are completed and implemented in a timely fashion. 

III. Credible Science-Based Approaches Are Imperative for Proposed Legislation and 

Regulation 

Ensuring the safety of products and addressing the potential risks from exposure to PF AS are 

important objectives. Implementing an approach that incorporates current knowledge about 

chemical hazards and relevant human exposures must be the foundation for establishing 

regulations and legislation in order to provide meaningful benefit to public health. ACC 

supports strong chemical regulations that are protective of the safety of drinking water. 

However, regulation must be science-based and driven by objective and transparent 

approaches. This includes consideration of a substance's hazard characteristics, its use and 

actual levels of exposure in order to assess the potential risk of PFAS to determine the most 

appropriate risk management measures. These fundamental principles have unfortunately 

been lost in the current debate about PFAS. 

A robust body of science demonstrates the vast differences among individual PFAS, and 

peer-reviewed data shows that fluoropolymers and several other PFAS chemistries do not 

Pagel3 
12 


36935.005

present a significant risk to human health or the environment2•

3

•

4

•

5

• For example, 

fluoropolymers present no significant toxicity, are inert, and are not water soluble. Another 

substance from today's PF AS- perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)- has been found by French 

authorities6 to have a toxicity value significantly higher (meaning lower in toxicity) than 

another PFAS chemistry- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Given this information, it is not 

appropriate for any regulation or legislation to treat all PF AS chemistries the same. This 

includes when evaluating PF AS chemistries to establish drinking water levels, clean-up 

levels or lifetime safe exposure limits. For example, in making future regulatory decisions, 

section 1412(b )(3)(A)(i) of the SDW A outlines specific criteria for incorporation of science 

into the regulatory process. Subsequently, to be scientifically credible, proposed legislation 

that seeks to direct federal agencies to develop maximum contaminant levels for drinking 

water should be consistent with the SDWA requirements to: (a) utilize the best available and 

most relevant toxicology data for the PF AS substance to determine if it may adversely affect 

public health, (b) utilize available exposure and monitoring data for the PFAS substance to 

confirm that there is a substantial likelihood that it occurs in public water systems at a 

frequency and at levels of public health concern and (c) ensure that any proposed level will 

present a meaningful opportunity for public health risk reduction. 

Similarly, to develop scientifically credible and meaningful clean up levels, any legislation 

or regulation should ensure that it is utilizing directly relevant scientific information for a 

PFAS chemistry to determine if it warrants a designation as a hazardous substance. 

Additionally, establishment of relevant clean up levels should be based on the available 

science relevant for that chemistry in order to minimize any identified public health concern. 

Most importantly, in working to establish any regulatory actions, federal agencies are in the 

best position to identity, evaluate and manage chemical risk. For example, EPA has 

established processes, principles, and best practices which guide site remediation activities. 

Thus the leadership of agencies, with a primary mission to protect human health and the 

environment, such as the EPA, is critical to successful implementation of any regulatory 

approach. 

IV. A Single Class Approach to Evaluating PFAS is Not Scientifically Warranted 

A number of proposals suggest using a single class approach to addressing PFAS. However, 

PFAS encompasses a large variety of chemistries with differing characteristics, structures, 

physical and chemical properties, health and environmental profiles, uses and benefits. 

Evaluation of available scientific information to determine possible risks associated with 

exposure from PFAS must be a key focus. No two PFAS substances are exactly alike, thus it 

is critically important that chemical specific information be the foundation for any evaluation 

2 Anderson, 1. K., Luz, A. L., Goodrum, P., & Durda, J. (2019). Perfluorohexanoic acid toxicity, part II: Application of human 

health toxicity value for risk characterization. Regulatory Toxicology and Phannacology, I 03, 10-20. 

3 Luz, A. L., Anderson, J. K., Goodrum, P., & Durda, J. (2019). Perfluorohexanoic acid toxicity, part I: Development of a chronic 

human health toxicity value for use in risk a<;sessment. Regulatory Toxicology and Phannacology. I 03, 41 ~55. 

4 Henry, 8.1., Carlin, J.P., Hammerschmidt, J.A., Buck, R.C., Buxton, L.W., Fiedler, H., Seed, J. and Hernandez, 0., (2018). A 

critical review of the application of polymer of low concern and regulatory criteria to fluoropolymers. Integrated Environmental 

assessment and Management, l 4(3), pp.316-334. 

s OECD Synthesis Paper on Per and Polyfluorinated Chemicals. Wcblink: httos:l/www.oecd.org/env/ehs/riskmanagement!PFC Fl0JAL-Wcb.pdf 6 Development of Oral-Administered Treatment for TRY by Pert1uorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA). French Agency for Food, 

Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), Maisons-Alfort, France (20 17) (June) 

Page 14 
13 


36935.006

of potential human health or environmental risk. Arbitrarily making risk management 

decisions for a class of chemistries based on information that may not represent the attributes 

of all substances in the class lacks scientific credibility. Severe scientific limitations exist in 

treating all PF AS as a single class for hazard assessment, exposure assessment or risk 

evaluation purposes. Two notable issues include: (a) finding a basis for consistently defining 

relative toxicity and potencies across chemicals within the PF AS class (e.g., even those PF AS 

chemicals affecting the same apical endpoint may do so by different modes of action) and (b) 

defining the patterns of interaction at different exposure levels when dose-response patterns 

differ and when complex interactions are possible. 

A one-size-fits-all approach is at odds with what scientists and other experts continue to 

determine. Notably, the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) 

empaneled a Committee to evaluate the question of whether a single class approach could be 

applied to evaluate the potential hazards from another set of chemistries - organohalogen 

flame retardants. As a result of their review, the NASEM Committee concluded 7 that a singleclass approach was not scientifically credible. Importantly, instead of a single class approach 

NASEM suggested the identification of subclasses using information like chemical structure, 

physical and chemical properties, toxicology data and predicted biologic activity to facilitate 

decision-making for hazard characterization. ACC believes that a similar approach should be 

taken in addressing PFAS and notes that EPA's Office of Research and Development 

currently is engaged in an effort to develop subclasses ofPFAS for the purposes of prioritizing 

the Agency's review of these chemistries. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, ensuring that up to date, high quality data and science-based approaches underlie 

regulatory decision-making is critical to protecting human health and the environment from any 

potential risk that may be associated with PF AS chemistries. Congress has consistently recognized 

the importance of science as the foundation for regulatory decisions and codified scientific 

standards in the 2016 amended TSCA legislation to ensure the EPA's activities are guided by high 

quality, reliable and relevant scientific information. A one-size-fits-all approach to chemical 

management and assessment ofPFAS is not scientifically based. Without a scientific basis, any 

legislation or regulation lacks credibility which in turn undermines the public's confidence in the 

government's actions to regulate chemicals to protect health and the environment. Additionally, 

Federal agencies with the responsibility for chemical regulation must play a vital role in 

developing and implementing approaches. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony. ACC looks forward to working with the 

Committee to ensure that science-based approaches are the foundation for regulatory decision 

making associated with PF AS. !look forward to addressing your questions. 

7 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Class Approach to Hazard Assessment of Organohalogen 

flame Retardants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10. 17226/25412. 

Page 15 
14 


36935.007

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Examining legislation to address the risks associated with per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)" 

Hearing Date: May 22,2019 

Responses to Questions for the Record 

Responses to Chairman Barrasso's Questions: 

Question 1: During the hearing. you testified that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) "does 

support EPA's activities to review and determine whether or not PFOS and PFOA should be 

designated as hazardous substances under the [Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation. and Liability Act (CERCLA)]." You explained that "it has to be a science-based 

process that outlines and follows the science and the data." You also said ''[s]o as long as it is a 

science-based process, ACC absolutely supports EPA's review and would like to see that expedited, 

so we can make a determination." 

a. Does ACC support Congress specifically designating, in legislation, one or more PFAS 

compounds as "hazardous substances" under CERCLA? 

Response- ACC supports a science-based process for evaluating whether specific PF AS 

should be designated as ''hazardous substances" under CERCLA. There is a robust 

regulatory system and established policies in place for managing chemicals in the U.S., 

including PFAS. The government should utilize these frameworks to ensure consistent, 

science-based regulatory approaches that also ensure transparency, broad stakeholder 

input and enforceable regulations. ACC does not support direct designation by Congress. 

Any evaluation should include adequate and transparent review and assessment of the 

scientific information to make a determination regarding if a PFAS should be considered 

a "hazardous substance.'' 

b. Would ACC support legislation, which would establish a deadline by which EPA must 

make a determination whether or not to designate certain PF AS as "hazardous substances" 

under CERCLA? 

Response ACC supports establishing timely deadlines for EPA to assess the available 

scientific information and make science-based determinations regarding whether to 

designate specific PFAS as "hazardous substances" under CERLA. Clear timelines can 

be established to ensure policy decisions and regulatory outcomes are completed and 

implemented in a timely fashion. 

Question 2: During the hearing, Ms. Daniels said the following: "EPA talks about [the Toxic 

Substances Control Act] being the gatekeeper. Right now. I think the gate is wide open, and I am 

not even sure where the key is. So I think if we can take a look at the authorities under TSCA and 

see if anything else can be done to get some of that up-front work first done, before these chemicals 

are already out in the environment and potentially in drinking water.'' Mr. Mehan said "we need to 

get TSCA in the game more vigorously.·· 

Page 2 of9 
15 


36935.008

Is there more EPA can do to address PFAS pollution with its existing authorities under TSCA? If 

so, what are those actions? 

Response- The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) affords EPA considerable authority to evaluate 

and regulate chemicals. The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which passed Congress with 

overwhelming bi-partisan support, enhanced TSCA and significantly modernizes the way chemicals 

are regulated in the U.S. This includes new requirements for an affirmative safety determination of 

new chemicals before they can even be brought to market. Specifically, it mandates that EPA conduct 

risk-based reviews for all new and existing chemicals in commerce. EPA has the authority to require 

manufacturers to perform additional testing on chemicals if the Agency believes more data is needed 

to make a safety determination. EPA also has a full range of risk management options if it determines 

that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. 

It is important to recognize that PFAS are already being managed through significant, existing policies 

and regulations. In particular, newer PFAS chemicals had to undergo rigorous testing and regulation 

before they could be placed on the market and there are broad new regulations in place for new 

chemicals. Policy makers and the public should have confidence that an effective regulatory 

framework is in place to manage new PFAS. A few specific actions that EPA could expedite regarding 

PFAS include: finalizing Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) to address imports of long-chain 

PFAS; developing and finalizing validated methods for detecting and quantifying PFAS analytes; and 

developing a peer-reviewed science-based framework for determining subclasses or categories of 

PFAS in order to accelerate the evaluation of human health, environmental and exposure information 

for risk-based regulatory decision-making. 

Question 3: During the hearing. Ms. Daniels said the following: "The challenge with PFAS, it is 

everywhere. It is everywhere. It is everywhere. I don't know that I have quite seen a contaminant like 

that, where you have to be so concerned when you are taking a sample, about cross-contamination. If 

you have deodorant on, if you have put lotions on that day, you have the potential to cross-contaminate 

that sample. So when I think about PFAS, there absolutely has to be focus on an incremental reduction 

of getting those chemicals out of commerce because we can'tjust solve this as a drinking water issue:' 

Does ACC agree that chemical manufacturers and processors should incrementally reduce the usc of 

PFAS in commerce? If so, what steps can ACC members begin to take? 

Response PFAS are a diverse family of chemistry that includes a broad range of substances with 

different characteristics, chemical profiles and uses. It is neither scientifically accurate nor appropriate 

to suggest that all PFAS present a risk to human health or the environment or to recommend 

restrictions on the entire family of PFAS without data demonstrating an unreasonable risk. Any 

regulatory action to limit the use of a PFAS should be risk-based. 

Most of the attention on PFAS to date has focused on a handful of long-chain substances that are no 

longer produced in the U.S., Europe or Japan. Historically, industry manufactured, used, and sold 

certain long-chain PF AS chemicals, such as PFOA and PFOS, into various products. Working closely 

with EPA and other regulators, starting in the early 2000s, industry voluntarily phased out long-chain 

PFAS products. As a result of these actions, blood levels of PFOS and PFOA in the U.S. population 

have declined dramatically according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and EPA, 

Page 3 of9 
16 


36935.009

which found consistent reductions since 1999 of 85% and 70%, respectively. Recent monitoring 

conducted by several states has demonstrated that the vast majority of water systems showed no 

detections for any of the monitored PFAS, even at extremely low levels. 

In conjunction with the phase out of long-chain PFAS products. industry developed new short-chain 

PFAS chemistries. These new PFAS products must meet relevant environmental, health and safety 

regulatory standards and have to undergo significant regulatory scrutiny before being brought to 

market, including substantial testing requirements. In the U.S., these substances have been reviewed 

under the TSCA new chemicals review program with specific testing requirements related to cancer, 

reproductive/developmental factors, systematic toxicity, bioretention, ecological endpoints, 

environmental fate, transport and other factors. Additional more detailed information can be found 

in EPA's New Chemicals Program Review of Alternatives for PFOA and Related Chemicals 

(webpage: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chcmicals-under-tsca/new-chemicalsprogram-review-alternativcs-pfoa-and). 

Today, multiple industries depend on high-performance short-chain PFAS. including aerospace, 

alternative energy (e.g. solar), automotive, building and construction, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, 

electronics, healthcare, oil and gas, outdoor apparel and equipment, and semiconductors. Today's 

PFAS are used in a wide array of products and play a vital role in everything from designing 

automobiles with lower emissions and improved safety, reliability and fuel-efficiency to 

manufacturing semiconductors, solar panels and high performance electronics. One key type ofPFAS 

in use today are fluoropolymers, a type of specialty plastic. Because of their physical characteristics, 

fluoropolymers are not water soluble and not considered toxic. Fluoropolymers provide products with 

chemical resistance. thermal stability, resilience and are essential to electronics, cell phones, and 

medical devices. Another major type ofPFAS in use today are fluorotelomers, which are well-studied 

and meet relevant regulatory standards for the protection of human health and the environment. 

Fluorotelomers provide oil repellency and soil resistance for textiles (including first responder gear 

and medical garments), carpeting, and specialized paper. They are also critical to ce11ain fire fighting 

foams and many paint and coating applications. 

Question 4: During the hearing, Ms. Daniels stated that "it is absolutely necessary that we get more 

information out to both the public and the States in terms of where these chemicals are.'' She explained 

that "as a State, we filed multiple [Freedom of Information Act] requests in preparation for our 

sampling plan, because we wanted to know where the highest risk was." She said that "[n]obody 

could tell us where these chemicals were being used. So right now, there is a lack of information." 

How can ACC help federal and state agencies understand where PF AS compounds are being used? 

Response- A considerable amount of information is available on how today's PFAS compounds are 

being used. For example, the following website, https://tluorocouncil.com/, has a wealth of 

information regarding the uses and applications of PFAS chemistries. It is important to note that 

newer PFAS chemistries have undergone rigorous testing and regulation before they were placed on 

the market in order to demonstrate that they do not present significant health or environmental 

concerns. Additionally, there has also been a shift toward best practices in both manufacturing 

facilities and downstream users to help minimize emissions. 

Page 4 of9 
17 


36935.010

Responses to Ranking Member Carper's Questions: 

Question 5: EPA has issued several Significant New Usc Rules (SNURs) for PFAS using its Toxic 

Substances Control Act authority. 

One 1 of these SNURs was issued for perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (like PFOS), and was added to at least 

once. EPA said that it had promulgated the SNUR because "these chemical substances may be 

hazardous to human health and the environment," saying further that they added these chemicals 

because "EPA believed the action was warranted given the similarity of these chemicals to those 

currently included in 40 CFR 721.95822 and the strong likelihood of similar health and environmental 

concerns, as discussed in Unit Ill of the March 10, 2006 document" and that "EPA has concerns 

regarding adverse human health and environmental effects of PFAS. It is highly persistent in the 

environment, it tends to bioaccumulate, and it is toxic. In its voluntary phase-out of perfluorooctane 

sulfonate (PFOS) and PFOS-related products, the 3M Company, which had been the sole U.S. 

manufacturer of the chemicals, committed to stop production of all perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acid 

products with alkyl chain lengths of C8 or greater. 3M completed its phase-out ofPFOS production 

in 2002, which led to a significant reduction in the use of all PFAS-related substances ..... As described 

in Unit lll of the prop'osed SNUR, EPA has concerns regarding the reproductive and subchronic 

toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulative potential of the chemical substances that are included in 

this SNUR. These concerns lead the Agency to believe that humans and the environment could suffer 

adverse effects from their use. Any use of these PFAS chemicals would continue to add to the 

reservoir ofperfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFASA) in the environment, resulting in additional human/ 

environmental exposure. There is evidence that PFAS-containing chemicals degrade to pcrfluoroalkyl 

sulfonic acids (PFASA), which exist in the anioni~ form in the environment, or to PFASA 

precursors.'' 

The second3 SNUR EPA issued was for long-chain pertluoroalkyl carboxylate substances, and was 

also amended at least once. This SNUR was for PFOA and PFOA-Iike substances. In the rule, EPA 

observed that "Pf'OA is persistent, widely present in humans and the environment, has long half-lives 

in humans, and can cause adverse effects in laboratory animals, including cancer and developmental 

and systemic toxicity (Refs. II, !2, 13, 14, and 15). PFOA precursors, chemicals which degrade or 

may degrade to PFOA, arc also present worldwide in humans and the environment and, in some cases, 

might be present at higher concentrations than PFOA and be more toxic (Refs. 16, 17, 18, 19, and 

20). Pf'OA higher homologues are chemicals with carbon chain lengths longer than Pf'OA. Available 

evidence suggests that toxicity and bioaccumulation appear to be higher for chemical substances with 

longer carbon chain lengths compared to those with shorter chain lengths (Refs. 21, 22, 23, and 24)." 

EPA has also issued two draft health assessments proposing safe thresholds of exposure for specific 

PFAS chemicals (GenX and PFBS) for public comment, 4 stating that "the available oral toxicity 

studies show that the liver is sensitive to GenX chemicals, and the kidney and thyroid are sensitive to 

1 h ttps :1/www. gavin fo. gov Icon ten t/p kg/F R-2007-10-09 /pdf /E7 -19828.pdf 2 h ttps ://www. gavin fa. gov I co nte nt/p kg/CF R-20 11-titl e40-vol31 /pdf I CFR-2 011-ti tl e40-vol31-s ec 7 21-9 582. pdf 3 h ttps :1/www. govinfo. gov (co nten t/p kg/F R-2 0 15-01-21/pdf /2015-00636. pdf 4 h ttps :1/www. epa. gov I sites/prod u cti a n/fi I es/2 018-11/docu me nts/factsh eet pfbs-g enxtoxicity values 11.14.2018.pdf 

Page 5 of 9 
18 


36935.011

PFBS." In its draft toxicity assessment5 for GenX chemicals, EPA stated that it is working on five 

additional health assessments for PF AS that have not yet been released. 

EPA has the authority to list chemical substances or categories of chemical substances on the EPA's 

Toxic Release Inventory, when, in the Administrator's judgement, there is sufficient evidence to 

establish any one of the following: 

"(A) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant adverse 

acute human health effects at concentration levels that are reasonably likely to exist beyond facility 

site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases. 

(B) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans-

(i) cancer or teratogenic effects, or 

(ii) serious or irreversible-

(!) reproductive dysfunctions, 

(11) neurological disorders, 

(Ill) heritable genetic mutations, or 

(IV) other chronic health effects. 

(C) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause, because of-

(i) its toxicity, 

(ii) its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or 

(iii) its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment, 

a significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness, in the judgment 

of the Administrator, to warrant repot1ing under this section." 

a. In your opinion, do you believe that the range of concerns EPA determined existed for the 

PFAS chemicals that are subject to the provisions of the above-referenced SNURs also 

indicate that there is sufficient evidence to warrant TRI reporting? If not, please specifically 

explain why not. 

Response- Based on information gathered from the aforementioned SNURs, EPA should 

have sufficient information to evaluate each PFAS included in the SNUR and make an 

expedited determination regarding whether or not it warrants TRI reporting. 

b. In your opinion, do you believe that once EPA finalizes the health assessments for GenX and 

PFBS, EPA will have established that there is sufficient evidence to warrant TRI reporting? 

If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Response- Once EPA has finalized health assessments for GenX and PFBS it should have 

sufficient evidence to make an expedited determination regarding whether or not TRI 

reporting is warranted for these two substances. 

c. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), the Administrator has the authority to designate as a hazardous substance any 

"elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, and substances which, when released into the 

5 https :(/www. epa .gov I sites/production /fil es/2 018-

11/documents/genx public comment draft toxicity assessment nov2018-508.pdf 

Page 6 of9 
19 


36935.012

environment may present substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the 

environment." In your opinion, do you believe that the range of concerns EPA determined 

existed for the PFAS chemicals that are subject to the provisions of the above-referenced 

SNURs also indicate that these substances could be appropriately designated to be hazardous 

substances under CERCLA? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Response Based on information gathered from the aforementioned SNURs, EPA should 

have sufficient information to evaluate each PFAS included in the SNU R and make an 

expedited determination regarding whether or not it should be designated as a hazardous 

substance under CERLCA. 

d. In your opinion, do you believe that once EPA finalizes the health assessments for GenX and 

PFBS, these substances could be appropriately designated to be hazardous substances under 

CERCLA? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Response- Once EPA has finalized health assessments for GenX and PFBS, it should have 

sufficient evidence to make an expedited determination regarding whether or not these two 

substances should be designated as hazard substances under CERLA. 

Question 6: EPA has informed Congress that it intends to set a Maximum Contaminant Level for 

PFOA and PFOS6 under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and stated that EPA "is also gathering 

and evaluating information to determine if a SDW A regulation is appropriate for a broader class of 

PFAS." 

a. Do you agree that a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for perfluorinated 

compounds that at minimum includes PFOA and PFOS should be promulgated by EPA? If 

not, please specifically explain why not. 

Response - A risk-based review of the available PFAS data under a proposed National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulation would allow for assessing and setting appropriate 

science-driven standards and treatment techniques. 

b. Do you believe that, subject to the availability of appropriations, EPA should be required to 

include all PFAS chemicals for which there is an EPA-validated detection technology in its 

next Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) in order to determine whether and 

where these other PFAS chemicals might be found in drinking water 0 If not, please 

specifically explain why not. 

Response- EPA-validated techniques that provide meaningful information on the detection 

and quantification of specific PFAS analytes should be considered for inclusion in the next 

UCMR. 

c. Since each .jJCMR by statute cannot include more than 30 contaminants on its list for 

monitoring, would you support excluding the PFAS chemicals described in a) from that cap 

6 https://www.epw. senate.gov /public/ cache/files/1 /c/fc854d 2e-c57d-4e26-ace8-

e067fbdbde06/907052B84EFCDC96899D1240F07BEFFA.2019-02-15-epa-response-to-sen-carper-re-pfas-003-.pdf 

Page 7 of9 
20 


36935.013

in order to maximize occurrence data on PF AS without preventing EPA from requmng 

monitoring to be undertaken on other important potential drinking water contaminants? If 

not, please specifically explain why not. 

Response- PFAS (with EPA-validated techniques that provide information on the detection 

and quantification of specific PFAS analytes) that would be considered for inclusion in the 

next UCMR should be excluded from the 30 contaminant cap. 

d. Should EPA be provided with clear authority to regulate sub-classes of PFAS chemicals (for 

example, groups of PFAS chemicals with similar chemical structures and modes of action on 

the body) under the Safe Drinking Water Act? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Response- EPA should be afforded clear authority to establish a science-based process that 

includes chemical structure, physiochemical properties, biological activity, 

toxicology/mechanism of action, and exposure information to identify subclasses of PFAS 

and utilize that information to make risk-based regulatory decisions. 

e. Do you believe that EPA should be held to a statutory deadline for making regulatory 

determinations on whether to p1·omulgate National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for 

PFAS chemicals about which the Agency has both toxicity information and occurrence data 

in drinking water? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Response- EPA should be held to statutory deadlines for making regulatory determinations. 

Responses to Senator Capito's Questions: 

Question 7: My understanding is that ACC does not support a direct designation by Congress of 

any PFAS chemicals as a hazardous substance under CERCLA. Is that accurate and would ACC 

support some kind of process based off the recent NAS review on a similar question? 

Response- Any PF AS designation under CERLA should be risk-based and include an evaluation of 

the available science relevant for that specific PFAS under consideration for designation. PFAS are a 

diverse family of chemistry that includes a broad range of substances with different characteristics, 

chemical profiles and uses. ACC does not support direct designation by Congress. It is not 

appropriate to imply that all PFAS present a risk or to recommend a hazardous substance designation 

under CERLA on the entire family of PFAS without data demonstrating an unreasonable risk. The 

National Academy of Sciences, Engineer and Medicine (NASEM) approach includes information that 

would be helpful to inform the development of a subclass approach for PFAS. 

Question 8: The week before our hearing. the National Academies of Science found that certain 

flame retardants. OFRs, cannot and should not be regulated as a class. Peer reviewers of the report 

included EPA, academics, and industry representatives. The NAS found that a focus on hazard rather 

than like physical prope11ies should be the focus of evaluating and regulating .OFRs. Can this 

emphasis on hazard help inform a process for adding PFAS to the Safe Drinking Water Act and 

CERCLA that could be incorporated into statute? 

Page 8 of9 
21 


36935.014

Response- The National Academy of Sciences, Engineer and Medicine (NASEM) identified multiple 

parameters in their report titled "A Class Approach to !Iazard Assessment of Organohalogen Flame 

Retardants'' (weblink: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/2541 ~/a-class-approach-to-hazard-assessmentof-organohalogen-name-retardanls) that would be helpful to inform the development of a subclass 

approach for PFAS. This included utilizing structure, physicochemical properties, and biological 

information to determine similar substances for a subclass. then using available toxicological 

information to conduct a hazard assessment. It is important to note that exposure information is also 

a critical piece of information in determining human health risk. The NASEM committee's review 

was limited to evaluating data that would inform the hazard characterization phase of a risk 

assessment. 

Question 9: For CERCLA, would it be appropriate for such an approach to be triggered by the 

A TSDR's Minimum Risk Level reviews or some other similar review process? 

Response The development of an ATSDR Minimum Risk Level (MRL) review should not 

automatically trigger an action under CERLA. MRLs are intended to serve as screening levels and 

are not intended to define clean-up or action levels for A TSDR or other agencies. However. the 

information gathered from this type of review or chemical assessment reviews completed by the EPA 

may provide relevant information for use in evaluating whether any action under CERLCA is 

warranted. 

Question 10: How can we link PFAS contamination at multi-use sites to particular industrial or 

government entities? For example, if a landfill has taken decades· worth of PFAS contaminated 

materials, from consumer and industrial sources, how should liability be considered -whether in 

statute or by the courts~ 

Response In the past, federal agencies have utilized existing regulatory frameworks to identify 

contaminated sites, evaluate potential human health and environmental risk, and make risk 

management decisions regarding site contamination. Similar approaches should be applied to making 

risk management decisions associated with PFAS. 

Question 11: Are there adequate analysis technologies to identify particular PFAS chemistries to 

link contamination back to a particular industrial or government actor? If so, how many PFAS 

compounds have test methodologies adequate to identify a single compound or subclass of 

compounds out of the broader class of all PFAS? 

Response - ACC supports federal agency efforts to develop, finalize and utilize validated methods 

for detecting and quantifying PFAS analytes. These methods provide critical information to improve 

understanding regarding the levels of PFAS chemistries in the environment and can directly inform 

regulatory decision-making. 

Page 9 of9 
22 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Dr. White. We appreciate your testimony. 

Now, Ms. Daniels. 

STATEMENT OF LISA DANIELS, PAST PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS, AND 

DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SAFE DRINKING WATER, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Ms. DANIELS. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting 

me to speak today. 

My name is Lisa Daniels. I am the Past President of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, whose members include the 50 State drinking water programs, five territorial programs, the District of Columbia and the Navajo Nation. ASDWA 

members have primary oversight responsibility for implementing 

the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Our members and their staff 

provide technical assistance, support, and oversight of drinking 

water systems which is critical to ensuring safe drinking water. 

I am also the Director of the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water 

within the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

Today, I will discuss ASDWA’s perspective on gaps in existing 

Federal laws and regulations and how the proposed legislation and 

strengthened Federal actions can more effectively address PFAS. 

PFAS had been a growing concern for the drinking water community for more than a decade. The solubility, mobility, and bioaccumulative properties of PFAS continue to heighten concerns 

about potential adverse health effects. States, water systems, and 

the public need national leadership to address this growing public 

health problem. 

ASDWA believes the question is not whether to regulate PFAS, 

but how and when, using sound science. ASDWA’s key issues include the following. No. 1, coordinated Federal leadership is needed 

to effectively address PFAS. States are at different stages in their 

knowledge and implementation of PFAS measures. While some 

States have the authority and the technical and financial resources 

to develop their own standards, many do not. EPA’s PFAS action 

plan is a step in the right direction, but without firm timelines and 

commitment, many are looking to States to take the lead on PFAS. 

In my own State of Pennsylvania, we have announced steps to 

move forward with setting an MCL. To support this effort, we are 

coordinating statewide sampling to generate occurrence data, we 

are contracting for additional toxicology services, and we are gearing up to be able to analyze for PFAS in our State lab. It is important to know that this will be the first time that Pennsylvania has 

set its own MCL, and these actions have been and will continue to 

be a challenge due to limited resources. We estimate that at least 

$1.5 million annually will be needed for us to be able to move forward and set this proposed rulemaking. 

Twelve other States have taken some action to set the State 

standards or advisory levels, which has led to a patchwork of regulations which pose significant challenges in terms of risk communication and certainly a burden on these States in terms of resources. 

23 

No. 2, ASDWA believes that PFAS must be addressed using a 

multi-media and cross-statutory approach. To fully address PFAS, 

actions under CERCLA, TSCA, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe 

Drinking Water Act should be evaluated and strengthened where 

needed to remediate legacy PFAS and reduce or eliminate the introduction of these chemicals into the environment, and most importantly, make the manufacturers responsible for those costs. 

ASDWA also advocates for regulation as a class or classes, rather 

than one contaminant compound by compound basis. 

No. 3, ASDWA supports the development of a national priority 

framework and research agenda for PFAS and other emerging contaminants. Additional occurrence data is needed to quantify the extent of PFAS in water. Increased availability of toxicity and human 

health data is also necessary to support policy decisions. Other related needs include a total organic fluorine method for screening 

purposes, additional PFAS analytical methods for other matrices 

like wastewater and soil. Increased lab capacity is a real concern 

across the State, and treatment efficacy, design and construction 

standards for treatment. 

No. 4, additional funding for EPA, the States, and water suppliers is essential. At present, State primacy agencies are diverting 

resources from core drinking water programs, including inspections 

and plan reviews, to address PFAS. Without additional funding, 

both the core program and the work to address PFAS will suffer. 

Increased funding is needed for EPA to support the development of 

treatment technologies, laboratory methods, and really help with 

lab capacity issues. 

Certainly, alternate funding sources are going to be needed for 

our public water systems to deal with treatment costs when a responsible party cannot be identified. We will not be able to identify 

a responsible party in all cases. And SRF programs, although they 

can provide loans, do not have the subsidy to address the big issue 

of PFAS and continue to deal with other important issues, like 

lead, for example. 

So in conclusion, ASDWA applauds Congress for moving the ball 

forward and introducing several bills in both the House and Senate 

that gives us a much broader perspective on PFAS. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Daniels follows:] 

24 


36935.015

Testimony of Lisa Daniels 

Past President, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) and 

Director, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

to the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated with Per· and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 

ASDW~ Association of State Drinking 

Water Administrators 
25 


36935.016

Executive Summary 

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) have been a growing concern for the drinking 

water community for more than a decade. The solubility, mobility, and bio-accumulative 

properties of PFAS continue to heighten concerns about potential adverse health effects. 

States, water systems, and the public need national leadership to address this growing public 

health problem. ASDWA believes the question is not whether to regulate PFAS, but when and 

how, using sound science and following the robust regulatory development processes in the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and other environmental statutes. States are each at different 

stages in their knowledge, evaluation, and implementation of the appropriate PFAS risk 

management measures. While some states have the authority and technical and financial 

resources to develop and implement their own standards, many do not or cannot. The 

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) PFAS Action Plan 1 is a step in the right direction but 

without firm timelines and commitments, it has left many states to continue to take the lead on 

PFAS risk management. 

ASDWA applauds Congress for advancing PFAS management with the introduction of several 

bills in both the House and the Senate. ASDWA believes that PFAS must be addressed using 

sound science and a holistic, multi-media approach using cross-statutory authority. Much of the 

focus on PFAS has been around occurrence in water, but the burden of addressing PFAS 

should not fall solely to water utilities and the state drinking water programs that oversee them. 

Actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and SDWA 

should be evaluated so that PFAS are removed from or prevented from entering the whole 

environment, not just drinking water, through efforts that are coordinated across all contributing 

1 EPA, EPA's Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Action Plan, February 2019, available online at 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-02/documents/pfas action plan 021319 508compliant 1.pdf 

2 
26 


36935.017

media. ASDWA also advocates for regulation as a class or classes rather than approaching 

regulation on a compound-by-compound basis. 

Six PFAS(perfluorooctanesulfonic acid [PFOS], perfluorooctanoic acid [PFOA], 

perfluorononanoic acid [PFNA], perfluorohexanesulfonic acid [PFHxS], perfluoroheptanoic acid 

[PFHpA), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid [PFBS]) were included in the UCMR 3 testing under the 

SDWA2, however, with new analytical methods that include additional PFAS and lower detection 

limits, collecting additional occurrence data to quantify the extent of PFAS presence in water is 

critical to better inform regulatory decisions. Increased toxicity and human health effects data 

on PFAS and other emerging contaminants of concern is necessary to solving this growing 

problem. With over 40,000 chemicals in commerce, developing a holistic approach to protecting 

the environment and public health is critical. Developing a national agenda for contaminants of 

emerging concern will support policy and regulatory decisions through robust data. 

Additional funding to EPA and the states, for both existing and new programs, is essential to 

adequately address PFAS. At present, state primacy agencies are diverting resources from core 

drinking water programs (including inspections, technical assistance and training, 

permitting/plan approvals, and compliance/enforcement) to address PFAS. Without additional 

funding, both the core program and the additional work to address PFAS will suffer. Funding 

and technical assistance is vital to support the development and approval of treatment 

technologies, laboratory methods for all applicable media, and the development of lab capacity 

across the country. 

2 EPA, The Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3): Data Summary, January 2017, 

available online at: https:l/www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 17 -02/documents/ucmr3-data-summarv-

!anuary-2017.pdf 

3 
27 


36935.018

Testimony 

Good Morning Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee. 

Thank you for this opportunity to talk about how we can best address public health protection 

issues associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) found in drinking water and 

the environment. 

My name is Lisa Daniels and I am the Past President of the Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators (ASDWA), whose 57 members include the 50 state drinking water programs, five 

territorial programs, the District of Columbia and the Navajo Nation. Our members have primary 

oversight responsibility, known as primacy, for implementing the Federal Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA). Our members and their staff are on the front lines every day, providing technical 

assistance, support, and oversight of drinking water systems, which is critical to ensuring safe 

drinking water and protecting public health. I am also the Director of the Bureau of Safe Drinking 

Water within the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

Today, I will discuss ASDWA's perspective on gaps in existing federal laws and regulations and 

how the proposed legislation and strengthened federal actions can more effectively address 

PFAS and other emerging contaminants and protect public health. ASDWA has not taken 

positions on all of the provisions in these bills but I will provide the state drinking water program 

perspective on six key issues/concerns, and potential impacts and outcomes from the 

implementation of such provisions. 

PFAS compounds have been a growing concern for the drinking water community for more than 

a decade. PFAS compounds have been found in ground water or drinking water in at least 38 

states. The solubility, mobility, and bio-accumulative properties of PFAS continue to heighten 

4 
28 


36935.019

concerns about potential adverse health effects. Hundreds of PFAS compounds have been 

approved for use in the U.S. and thousands more are being used worldwide and imported in 

goods. Despite increased awareness of these chemicals, there are many unanswered 

questions. Where are these compounds being manufactured and used in commerce? How 

widespread are they in the environment? What are their toxicity levels? How are they impacting 

the environment and public health? And much of this information has been confounded by 

federal agency silos and industry trade secrets. I would like to discuss ASDWA's perspectives 

on six key issues/concerns. 

1. Federal Leadership is Needed to Address PFAS 

ASDWA believes that federal leadership is needed to effectively and efficiently address PFAS. 

Without Federal leadership, states are left on their own to make the tough decisions on whether 

and/or how to address PFAS in drinking water and in other media. Some states have statutory 

or policy restrictions that prevent them from implementing a health advisory level (HAL) or 

setting their own state-level standard. Other states may face significant obstacles in setting 

state standards because they do not have the technical expertise or resources to dedicate 

towards the effort. The February 2019 EPA PFAS Action Plan3 is a step in the right direction, 

but without firm commitments and timelines it has left many states to continue to take the lead 

on addressing PFAS in the environment. 

For example, in my own state of Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection 

announced last month that we are taking steps to move forward with setting a state maximum 

contaminant level (MCL). In order to support this effort we are rolling out a statewide sampling 

plan to identify drinking water sources impacted by PFAS. The sampling plan will test water 

3 See supra note 1 

5 
29 


36935.020

from approximately 400 public water systems (PWS) including about 360 PWSs with increased 

potential for contamination, based on proximity to potential sources of PFAS, such as military 

bases, fire training sites, landfills, and manufacturing facilities, and 40 PWSs in primarily 

forested areas to determine background levels. The sampling plan will begin in a few weeks and 

last approximately 1 year. We are also contracting for additional toxicology services and gearing 

up to analyze for PFAS in our state lab. These efforts are being taken because the U.S. EPA did 

not commit to doing so in February 2019. This will be the first time that Pennsylvania has set a 

state MCL for a chemical contaminant rather than adopting standards set by the federal 

government and I can tell you that these actions have been and will continue to be a challenge 

due to limited resources. Regarding costs to the safe drinking water program in Pennsylvania, it 

is estimated that a minimum of $1.5 million annually will be needed to move forward with the 

proposed rule making. ASDWA is in the process of compiling data from states regarding the 

level of effort being directed at addressing PFAS and other unregulated contaminants and nonregulatory drivers. 

Currently, about a dozen states have taken some action to set state advisory or notification 

levels, or standards. However, these actions, in the absence of a federal regulation, lead to a 

patchwork of regulations that pose significant challenges for risk communication to the public 

and can be a burden to states in terms of implementation and for water companies operating in 

multiple states. 

2. National Priority Framework and Research Agenda is Needed 

ASDWA supports the development of a national priority framework and research agenda for 

PFAS and other contaminants of emerging concern (CECs). ASDWA along with their 

counterparts, the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), recently released a report 

6 
30 


36935.021

with recommendations for how state and federal agencies and other partners can more 

efficiently and effectively manage CECs in the water cycle. The recommendations include such 

ideas as addressing CECs through all federal statutes, not just those specific to water; exploring 

legislative or regulatory changes to increase chemical manufacturer sharing of toxicity 

information; development of a shared comprehensive dataset to facilitate better information 

sharing across states; development of a communications playbook to assist states with risk 

communication; and increased funding to federal programs that are charged with reviewing 

substances.' The final report is available and can be shared with any interested Member or 

their staff. PFAS is not just a drinking water issue- all sources of exposure should be 

considered and PFAS must be addressed in other media as well. In addition to the EPA, the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Geological Service (USGS), and the 

Department of Defense (DOD) also have roles to play. Therefore, states feel very strongly that 

PFAS must be addressed at the national level using a holistic approach. 

3. Consider Listing PFAS as Hazardous Substances 

One approach to address PFAS is by designating PFAS as hazardous substances under 

CERCLA The hazardous substance designation would ensure that PFAS use, releases or 

discharges, and disposal are properly tracked and regulated. Currently, none of these protection 

measures and right-to-know provisions are in place, which means states and water suppliers 

have no idea where PFAS are being used. The designation would also ensure that appropriate 

PFAS removal actions are taken and also allows EPA to enforce against potentially responsible 

parties. However, it is important to consider the implications or unintended consequences of a 

'ASDWA, ACWA and ASDWA Recommendations Report: Contaminants of Emerging Concern 

Workgroup, May 2019, available online at: https://www.asdwa.org/asdwa-acwa-report-on-contaminants-ofemerqing-concern-20 19/ 

7 
31 


36935.022

hazardous substance designation for disposal of water treatment plant residuals and biosolids. 

Since PFAS has already entered the water cycle, removal of the substances at the drinking 

water treatment plant or at the wastewater treatment plant will create media, brines, and/or 

biosolids that have high concentrations of PFAS. With a CERCLA hazardous substance 

designation, there could be unintended consequences that hold public utilities potentially liable 

for cleanup costs, particularly where biosolids from the treatment process containing PFAS have 

been beneficially land applied for their fertilizer value. Removing these chemicals from drinking 

water or from wastewater influent/effluent requires advanced treatment techniques such as 

granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange (IX) or reverse osmosis (RO). These treatment 

methods are prohibitively expensive for the volume of water that needs to be treated and it 

remains unclear how and where to dispose of the PFAS-contaminated concentrate generated 

from these processes. This could potentially limit drinking water treatment options and place a 

heavy burden on drinking water and wastewater systems, particularly small systems, for the 

responsibility of not only removing these chemical pollutants from the waters, but also disposing 

of the hazardous waste in accordance with federal law. It's important to consider the unintended 

consequences of such a designation. One way to address this would be to stagger the effective 

dates for various provisions, for example, right-to-know and monitoring and reporting 

requirements could go into effect in year one to better characterize the scope of the problem 

and provisions to address disposal issues could be deferred for an additional period of time. 

The Water Quality Standards (WQS) provisions in the CWA can be another tool to address 

PFAS. The WQS establish beneficial uses of a water body, including public and private water 

supply, and numeric and narrative criteria for hundreds of potential contaminants. These 

standards support source water protection and help address impacts of discharges upstream. 

8 
32 


36935.023

EPA has not developed WaS for PFAS, once again leaving states to produce these on their 

own. 

4. Strengthen TSCA Requirements 

Creating a hazardous substance designation under CERCLA, developing was under CWA or 

setting an MCL under SDWA, are all single approaches that can help remove existing or legacy 

PFAS from the environment but none of these actions will "solve PFAS" on their own. Reducing 

human exposure to PFAS will take multiple efforts through all applicable statutes. In order to 

fully address PFAS, actions under TSCA are needed to reduce or eliminate the introduction of 

these chemicals to the environment and place the responsibility on the manufacturers and 

producers of PFAS. Once these chemicals have been released to water or the broader 

environment, it is too late for states and water suppliers to take proactive and preventative 

source water protection measures. Instead, water suppliers are left to bear the burden of very 

costly treatment facilities. 

Some PFAS have been subject to risk management action under TSCA, including: 1) a 2002 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to require notification to EPA before any future manufacture 

(including import) of 75 PFAS chemicals specifically included in the voluntary phase out of 

PFOS by 3M that took place between 2000 and 20025

, 2) a 2007 SNUR on 183 PFAS 

chemicals believed to no longer be manufactured (including imported) or used in the United 

States6, and 3) a 2015 SNUR to require manufacturers of PFOA and PFOA-related chemicals 

and processors of these chemicals to notify EPA at least 90 days before starting or resuming 

5 Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 236, December 9, 2002; https://www.govinfo.gov/contentlpkg/FR-2002-12-

09/pdV02-31011.pdf 

6 Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 194, Tuesday, October 9, 2007; https://www.qovinfo.gov/contentlpkg/FR-2007-

1 0-09/pdf/E7 -19828.pdf 

9 
33 


36935.024

new uses of these chemicals in any products'- Additionally, the TSCA New Chemicals program 

reviews alternatives for PFOA and related chemicals before they enter the marketplace. 

However, there are authorities the agency could and should use under TSCA8 to gather 

information from industry that could inform a prioritization effort under the existing chemicals 

program and if deemed appropriate, initiate a risk evaluation on PFAS chemicals. EPA has the 

authority to require manufacturers or processors of chemicals and mixtures to conduct testing to 

evaluate the health and environmental effects of such chemicals. EPA can also require that 

manufactures and processors of chemicals keep records and report on the identity of those 

chemicals, their use, production volume, byproducts, health and environmental effects and 

exposure, and other data. EPA should use these mechanisms in TSCA to gather the data 

needed to initiate a prioritization process under the existing chemicals program, which under 

statutory process will prioritize PFAS chemicals that are stored near drinking water sources. 

Additionally, ASDWA recommends Congress direct EPA to organize existing data on PFAS 

collected under TSCA or other relevant statutes in a report and release it to Congress, States, 

and other stakeholders so that we can begin to fill the significant data gaps on health and 

environmental effects of PFAS. 

5. National Focus on Research and Data Needs 

In order to make sound regulatory decisions at the state and federal level to address PFAS, 

additional occurrence data is needed. Whether the data is collected through SDWA 

mechanisms or from another federal agency, such as USGS, any national study on PFAS 

occurrence in drinking water or ambient water must include a plan for risk communication to the 

7 40 CFR Part 721; https://www.regulations.gov/document?D-EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0225-0001 

'15 U.S.C. §2603 and 15 U.S.C. §2607 

10 
34 


36935.025

public and to water systems before, during, and after sampling. The communications plan would 

need to include protocol for communicating to the public when PFAS is found in a drinking water 

source so as not to cause widespread public panic or alarm and premature or unnecessary 

abandonment of drinking water sources. If PFAS is found at low levels, how should a state and 

a water system respond? Will treatment need to be installed? What if sampling finds significant 

occurrence for a substance with no existing or very little health effects data? The public will 

rightfully demand to know if the water coming out of their taps is safe to drink or in the case of 

ambient water, if they can safely use that water body for recreation or consume fish caught from 

waters with PFAS detection. These questions and any others are not a reason to cease work to 

identify PFAS occurrence in water, but they are important considerations that must be thought 

through before commencing a national or state-level PFAS sampling program. 

Aside from additional occurrence research, other needs include developing a total organic 

fluorine method for screening purposes and developing and approving laboratory methods for 

PFAS for drinking water, groundwater cleanup, discharges under the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and biosolids. There is a need to define and approve 

basic laboratory methods and a need to develop laboratory capacity for PFAS testing. 

Adequate, quality laboratory services are necessary to developing data sets for PFAS 

occurrence and conducting essential studies. Currently there is a lack of laboratory capacity and 

some regions do not have an accredited laboratory that can perform PFAS testing. Finally, a 

national monitoring program will require substantial funding. 

ASDWA supports the development of a National Task Force and Research Agenda for 

contaminants of emerging concern. Several significant data gaps include the lack of data on the 

exposure of the public to potentially harmful drinking water contaminants, the health effects of 

11 
35 


36935.026

such contaminants, lack of treatment technique efficacy, design, and construction standards, 

and a lack of analytical methods for such contaminants which creates significant challenges for 

states and federal agencies to make appropriate regulatory decisions on these contaminants. 

Under the SDWA, the timelines for data collection, research, analysis, stakeholder and public 

input, and regulatory or policy decision-making often take decades. This is not an efficient or 

effective process to address the emerging contaminants that are being detected at increasingly 

low levels. An effort to develop a work group to advance a national agenda for managing 

emerging contaminants in water supported by a national research agenda could help fill the gap 

in SDWA on rapidly emerging contaminants. ASDWA and ACWA, recognized this need in the 

industry which lead to the development of the previously mentioned report which includes an 

evaluation of federal points of involvement and possible intervention under existing federal laws 

for contaminants with potential exposure routes through drinking water and the broader 

environment. ASDWA would like to recommend that the potential work group should include a 

diverse group of state and industry stakeholders who are already doing this work on a state- or 

utility-level scale. Broadening the workgroup beyond federal agency representatives will ensure 

a stronger agenda that considers multi-level needs and actions. A diverse workgroup should 

include federal, state, and industry members that represent varied geographies, populations, 

and levels of engagement on emerging contaminant research and regulation. Any effort to build 

a national work group and research agenda needs to have additional funding authorized and 

appropriated. This work is important and would have a real impact on informing future policy 

and regulatory decisions that protect public health and the environment. This work deserves 

funding and federal collaboration. 

12 
36 


36935.027

6. Addressing Costs, Funding, and Additional Challenges 

Protecting public health and addressing PFAS comes at significant costs to states, water 

systems, and ultimately the public. Unregulated contaminants are having a significant impact to 

core activities in the state drinking water programs. State and territorial drinking water programs 

are chronically underfunded, which limits their ability to protect public health. Federal support for 

the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program and the set-asides from the Drinking 

Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) have remained flat for the past decade, forcing state 

funds and/or water systems fees to attempt to make up the difference. When accounting for 

years of flat funding, inflation, and increased non-regulatory demands such as PFAS, ASDWA 

estimates a total funding gap of up to $500 million or 73.3% between available and needed 

resources for comprehensive public water supervision programs across the United States9

• In 

the absence of EPA leadership and additional federal funding, states are having to divert FTEs 

away from essential and regulatory programs to work on PFAS related activities. 

There are also significant costs to water systems. Monitoring costs for PFAS are approximately 

$350 to $500 per sample. Recently, state sampling at a water system in Newberry Township, 

York County, PA cost $19,800 to collect and analyze samples from 10 wells and 6 entry points 

to the water distribution system. Sampling and analytical costs are extremely high for PFAS due 

to the limited number of accredited labs (approximately 121abs nationwide), and the high 

potential for cross contamination due to the prevalence of these substances in personal care 

products and in our environment (i.e., several quality assurance/quality control samples are 

required for each sampling site). Then there are the treatment costs, estimated to include capital 

costs of $500,000-$1 million per well for granular activated carbon treatment. A report 

9 ASDWA, ASDWA's Beyond Tight Budgets Report, 2018, available online at: https://www,asdwa.org/wpcontent/uoloads/2018/12/Beyond-Tight-Budgets-20 18.pdf 

13 
37 


36935.028

prepared for a large water system in North Carolina evaluating costs to install advance 

treatment for PFAS, including GenX, and other emerging contaminants estimated $99 million to 

install either reverse osmosis or ozone and additional filtration. For reverse osmosis treatment, 

operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, including replacement of membranes, were estimated 

to be $2.9 million annually (at a flow of 16 million gallons per day) and the 25-year net present 

worth of O&M costs to be $59 million10 • Ongoing O&M costs even for small systems that install 

carbon filtration could be $10,000 - $20,000 per year. 

During investigation and remediation of PFAS contamination, states have not and will not 

always be able to identify a responsible party. This means water suppliers and their customers 

will bear the cost of treatment. It has been suggested the Clean Water and Drinking Water State 

Revolving Funds (SRFs) can provide grants to water systems for PFAS treatment. EPA 

provides capitalization grants to states to finance state-level revolving funds, which, in turn, 

make loans for drinking water infrastructure projects. SRF dollars are intended to provide lowinterest loans to water systems to finance their water infrastructure projects. Water systems 

repay these loans to the state, and the interest from the loans ensures a revolving loan fund. 

Only a percentage of the funds can be provided as principal forgiveness or negative interest 

loans. Although it is important for states to have the ability to provide subsidy for disadvantaged 

communities or to use subsidies to encourage innovative or necessary projects, using large 

percentages of the capitalization grants for subsidy can impede program growth and impact the 

ability to borrow as a state DWSRF program. Every dollar that is used for subsidy is a dollar that 

is taken out of the state revolution forever. Additionally, there are competing priorities for the 

limited subsidy available at the states, such as lead and aging infrastructure. 

10 "Advanced Treatment Options for the Northwest Water Treatment Plant, Prepared for: Brunswick County 

Public Utilities, Brunswick County, NC by COM Smith; April 2018. Available online at: 

http:/lwww.brunswickcountync.govlwp-contentluploads/2018104/CDM-Smith-Brunswick-Finai-Report-April2018.pdf 

14 
38 


36935.029

Alternate funding sources for PFAS remediation in the environment as well as water treatment 

will be needed. In situations where no responsible party has been found or the determination of 

a responsible party is pending, it would be beneficial to have a funding source for rapid 

response to initiate clean up and mitigation in order to limit exposure without having to wait for 

the identification of a responsible party. There are existing programs this could be modeled 

after, such as funds in place for leaking petroleum storage tank removal and petroleum release 

cleanup or the Superfund Trust Fund. PFAS manufacturers, processors, and/or importers could 

pay into a fund through an excise tax or other fee and funds would then be available to address 

PFAS contamination. This fund could be used by states or individual water systems to tackle 

emerging contaminants without having to absorb those costs into traditional funding programs. 

Of the 52,000 community water systems in the United States, just 8 percent (4, 132) serve 82 

percent of the population 11 • Furthermore, 56 percent of the water systems are very small and 

serve fewer than 500 people. From a financial perspective, the median annual revenue of 

systems serving fewer than 500 people is about $25,000. Small water systems will likely face 

the biggest burden in addressing PFAS. Not only will their rate payers likely face significant 

increases in their water rates if filtration or advanced treatment is required to remove PFAS from 

drinking water, there is often a lack of technical and/or managerial capacity to address emerging 

contaminants at these systems. There is a need for small drinking water systems to have 

access to technology and expert personnel to address PFAS. Although partnerships to increase 

the technical, managerial and financial capacity of small systems and consolidation of systems 

to create economies of scale can be great options to overcome the barriers small and very small 

systems face, the fact is partnership and consolidations take years, even a decade, to develop 

11 EPA, National Characteristics of Drinking Water Systems Serving 10,000 People or Fewer, July 2011. 

Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/epa816r1 0022.pdf 

15 
39 


36935.030

and implement. Additionally, many of these systems are isolated and may be 10 to 20 or more 

miles to the next drinking water system and 50 to 100 miles to a water system that can be a 

technical resource. Consideration of small water system impacts will be important for any work 

to address PFAS moving forward. 

Conclusion 

ASDWA applauds Congress for moving the ball forward with the introduction of several bills in 

both the House and Senate. Ongoing PFAS research into health effects, analytical methods, 

occurrence, and treatment efficacy is essential. We must be mindful to base any decision for a 

regulatory approach or standard on sound scientific principles. ASDWA appreciates that 

introduced Senate legislation looks beyond developing an MCL and focuses on broader 

approaches to reducing PFAS in the environment. EPA must address PFAS in a holistic 

fashion. To accomplish this, more attention needs to be given to development of additional 

PFAS analytical methods for drinking water, wastewater, and other media which also requires 

greater lab capacity. We strongly believe that EPA must follow a deliberative and sound process 

to achieve a reasonable protective health level for PFAS. In order to accomplish this, it's vital 

that funding be authorized and appropriated to complete the work necessary to make accurate 

regulatory and policy decisions. At present, state primacy agencies are having to divert 

resources from core drinking water program implementation efforts (inspections, rule 

implementation and compliance, technical assistance and training, and supporting system 

infrastructure needs) to address all aspects of PFAS management- source identification, 

mitigation, research, and public messaging. In this era of flat funding, the additional demands on 

states' resources are impacting their core programs. ASDWA looks forward to continuing the 

PFAS dialogue with both Congress and our Federal agency partners to develop workable 

16 
40 


36935.031

solutions that respect the processes necessary for sound decisions on how best to solve the 

PFAS problem. 

17 
41 


36935.032

Attachment One 

Questions for the Record for Ms. Daniels from Chairman Barrasso 

1. In your testimony, you explained that ''[w]ith a CERCLA hazardous substance 

designation, there could be unintended consequences that hold public utilities potentially 

liable for cleanup costs, particularly where biosolids from the treatment process 

containing PFAS have been beneficially land applied for their fertilizer value." 

You stated that "[r]emoving these chemicals from drinking water or from wastewater 

influent/effluent requires advanced treatment techniques [that] are prohibitively 

expensive for the volume of water that needs to be treated and it remains unclear how and 

where to dispose of the PFAS-contaminated concentrate generated from these processes." 

You stated that ''[t]his could potentially limit drinking water treatment options and place 

a heavy burden on drinking water and wastewater systems, particularly small systems, for 

the responsibility of not only removing these chemical pollutants from the waters, but 

also disposing of the hazardous waste in accordance with federal law.'' 

You said "'[ o ]ne way to address this would be to stagger the effective dates for various 

provisions, for example, right-to-know and monitoring and reporting requirements could 

go into effect in year one to better characterize the scope of the problem and provisions to 

address disposal issues could be deferred for an additional period of time.'' 

Would you elaborate on your suggestion? 

Answer: Significant research will be needed to better understand the potential PFAS 

issues resulting from the ongoing appropriate disposal of biosolids and waste streams 

from water and wastewater treatment plants. The right-to-know and monitoring and 

reporting requirements could go into effect in the first year to better characterize the 

scope of the problem while this research is being conducted to evaluate treatment and 

biosolids disposal options. 

2. During the hearing, you said the following: "Specifically for PF AS, I do think we need to 

look at alternate funding sources. Because I do believe the incredible costs, so just to put 

GAC on one well, for example, could be anywhere from $500,000 up to $1 million. 

When you are talking about other advanced technologies for the shorter chain chemicals, 

like GenX, you are talking tens of millions of dollars. We are going to have to think long 

and hard about alternate funding sources for these systems. Because there arc already a 

lot of great needs within the [Drinking Water State Revolving Fund] program itself to 

deal with lead and some of the other problems that we have been talking about here." 

Would you please elaborate on the importance of providing funding for drinking water 

utilities in the event that EPA sets a national primary drinking water regulation for one or 

more PF AS compounds? 

1401 WILSON BLVD· SUITE 1225 ·ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

PHONE (703) 812-9505 ·FAX (703) 812-9506 · info@asdwa.org · www.asdwa.org 
42 


36935.033

Answer: If and when EPA sets a national primary drinking water standard for one or 

more PFAS compounds there will likely be hundreds or even thousands of water systems 

that will need to install additional treatment to remove the contaminant(s) and meet the 

maximum contaminant level (MCL). Water systems will encounter both monitoring costs 

(approximately $350 to $500 per sample, with samples needed for each water source and 

entry point) and treatment costs. This will not be cheap or simple, as in some cases this 

will require small or very small systems to install granular activated carbon (GAC) or 

advanced treatment such as reverse osmosis (RO). These projects will require not only 

upfront investments for installing the physical infrastructure, but continued operation and 

maintenance (O&M) as well as sufficient technical and managerial knowledge. A PFAS 

MCL will apply to all community and nontransient noncommunity water systems 

(includes schools, chi!dcare facilities and other small businesses). These costs will be 

borne by water systems and their customers when a responsible party for the PF AS 

contamination cannot be found. 

As outlined in my written testimony, treatment costs are estimated to include capital costs 

of$500,000- $1 million per well for granular activated carbon treatment plus ongoing 

operation and maintenance, including media replacement, estimated at $10,000- $20,000 

per year. A report prepared for a large water system in North Carolina evaluating costs to 

install advance treatment for PFAS, including GenX, and other emerging contaminants 

estimated $99 million to install either reverse osmosis or ozone and additional filtration. 

For reverse osmosis treatment, O&M costs, including replacement of membranes, were 

estimated to be $2.9 million annually and the 25-year net present worth of O&M costs to 

be $59 million. 

These are sobering numbers patticularly when juxtaposed with the ongoing struggle in 

the water industry to balance costs with affordable rates. Even when a water system takes 

advantage of low-interest loans through the SRFs the costs are passed on to the customers 

through the system's rates. An increase in capital and O&M cost will likely mean an 

increase in water rates, potentially creating affordabi!ity problems where there currently 

are none or exacerbating existing affordability issues in a community. 

It is vital that additional funding be made available tor water systems that need to install 

additional treatment to meet an MCL for PFAS. Augmentation of the state revolving loan 

funds (SRFs) is a good option, with some funding being made available as negative 

interest loans or grants to small and disadvantaged systems. At current funding levels, 

SRFs are likely not equipped to fund the needed infrastructure for installing treatment for 

PF AS, particularly with upcoming changes in drinking water standards such as lead and 

copper rule revisions and perchlorate also vying for funding. Drinking water 

infrastructure funding needs will be clarified through the 2020 Drinking Water Needs 

Survey. 

It's important to note that water system costs are only part of the funding consideration as 

there is a need for additional funding for EPA, state programs (for both drinking water 

programs to implement the MCLs and cleanup programs to provide remediation), and 

laboratories, as O\ltlined in my written testimony. 

1401 WILSON BLVD· SUITE 1225 ·ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

PHONE (703) 812·9505 ·FAX (703) 812-9506 · info@asdwa.org · www.asdwa.org 
43 


36935.034

Attachment Two 

Questions for the Record for Ms. Daniels from Ranking Member Carper 

I. EPA has issued several Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) for PFAS using its 

Toxic Substances Control Act authority. 

One 1 of these SNURs was issued for perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (like PFOS), and was 

added to at least once. EPA said that it had promulgated the SNUR because "these 

chemical substances may be hazardous to human health and the environment," saying 

further that they added these chemicals because "EPA believed the action was warranted 

given the similarity of these chemicals to those currently included in 40 CFR 721.95822 

and the strong likelihood of similar health and environmental concerns, as discussed in 

Unit Ill. of the March 10,2006 document" and that "EPA has concerns regarding adverse 

human health and environmental effects of PF AS. It is highly persistent in the 

environment, it tends to bioaccumulate, and it is toxic. In its voluntary phase-out of 

perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and PFOS-related products, the 3M Company, which 

had been the sole U.S. manufacturer of the chemicals, committed to stop production of all 

perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acid products with alkyl chain lengths of C8 or greater. 3M 

completed its phase-out of PFOS production in 2002, which led to a significant reduction 

in the use of all PFAS-related substances ..... As described in Unit Ill of the proposed 

SNUR, EPA has concerns regarding the reproductive and subchronic toxicity, 

persistence, and bioaccumulative potential of the chemical substances that are included in 

this SNUR. These concerns lead the Agency to believe that humans and the environment 

could suffer adverse effects from their use. Any use of these PFAS chemicals would 

continue to add to the reservoir of perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFASA) in the 

environment, resulting in additional human/ environmental exposure. There is evidence 

that PFAS-containing chemicals degrade to perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFASA), 

which exist in the anionic form in the environment, or to PFASA precursors.'' 

The second 3 SNUR EPA issued was for long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate 

substances, and was also amended at least once. This SNUR was for PFOA and PFOAlike substances. In the rule, EPA observed that "PFOA is persistent, widely present in 

humans and the environment, has long half-lives in humans, and can cause adverse 

effects in laboratory animals, including cancer and developmental and systemic toxicity 

(Refs. II, 12, 13, 14, and 15). PFOA precursors, chemicals which degrade or may 

degrade to PFOA, are also present worldwide in humans and the environment and, in 

some cases, might be present at higher concentrations than PFOA and be more toxic 

(Refs. 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20). PFOA higher homologues are chemicals with carbon chain 

lengths longer than PFOA. Available evidence suggests that toxicity and bioaccumulation 

appear to be higher for chemical substances with longer carbon chain lengths compared 

to those with shorter chain lengths (Refs. 21, 22, 23, and 24)." 

1 https ://www .govinfo .gov I con te nt/pkg/FR-2007 -10-09/pdf /E7 -19828. pdf 2 https :1/www .govi n fa .gov I content/pkg/CF R-20 11-titl e40-vol31/pdf /CFR-2011-title40-vol31-sec 721-9582. pdf 

'https:l/www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-01-21/pdf/2015-00636.pdf 

1401 WILSON BLVD· SUITE 1225 ·ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

PHONE (703) 812-9505 ·FAX (703) 812-9506 · info@asdwa.org · www.asdwa.org 
44 


36935.035

EPA has also issued two draft health assessments proposing safe thresholds of exposure 

for specific PFAS chemicals (GenX and PFBS) for public comment, 4 stating that "the 

available oral toxicity studies show that the liver is sensitive to GenX chemicals, and the 

kidney and thyroid are sensitive to PFBS.'' In its draft toxicity assessment 5 for GenX 

chemicals, EPA stated that it is working on five additional health assessments for PFAS 

that have not yet been released. 

EPA has the authority to list chemical substances or categories of chemical substances on 

the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory, when, in the Administrator's judgement, there is 

sufficient evidence to establish any one of the following: 

"(A) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant 

adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels that are reasonably likely to 

exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, 

releases. 

(B) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in 

humans-

(i) cancer or teratogenic effects, or 

(ii) serious or irreversible-

(!) reproductive dysfunctions, 

(II) neurological disorders, 

(III) heritable genetic mutations, or 

(IV) other chronic health effects. 

(C) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause, because 

of-

(i) its toxicity, 

(ii) its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or 

(iii) its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment, 

a significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness, in the judgment 

of the Administrator, to warrant reporting under this section." 

a. In your opinion, do you believe that the range of concerns EPA determined 

existed for the PFAS chemicals that are subject to the provisions of the abovereferenced SNURs also indicate that there is sufficient evidence to warrant TRI 

reporting? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Answer: Yes, there is sufficient evidence for TRI reporting. Additionally, the 

SNUR is helpful to ensure new chemicals do not come onto the market without 

the proper controls in place. But it does nothing to help states with the historical 

use of these chemicals- states have no idea where PFOS and PFOA have been 

used, which means we are operating in the dark regarding knowing where to 

sample or focus our remediation efforts. 

4 https:ljwww.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/factsheet pfbs-genxtoxicity values 11.14.2018.pdf 5 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-

11/documents/genx public comment draft toxicity assessment nov2018-508.pdf 

1401 WILSON BLVD· SUITE 1225 ·ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

PHONE (703) 812-9505 ·FAX (703) 812-9506 · info@asdwa.org · www.asdwa.org 
45 


36935.036

b. In your opinion, do you believe that once EPA finalizes the health assessments for 

GenX and PFBS, EPA will have established that there is sufficient evidence to 

warrant TRI reporting? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Answer: Yes, there will be sufficient evidence for GenX and PFBS for TRI 

reporting. 

c. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), the Administrator has the authority to designate as a hazardous 

substance any "elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, and substances which, 

when released into the environment may present substantial danger to the public 

health or welfare or the environment." In your opinion, do you believe that the 

range of concerns EPA determined existed for the PF AS chemicals that are 

subject to the provisions of the above-referenced SNURs also indicate that these 

substances could be appropriately designated to be hazardous substances under 

CERCLA? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Answer: Given the above information, and without additional research, ASDWA 

does not have the appropriate expertise to provide a definitive response to the 

question. ASDWA believes EPA must follow the science and should use any 

information they have to make a hazardous substance determination in an 

expedited manner. 

d. In your opinion, do you believe that once EPA finalizes the health assessments for 

GenX and PFBS, these substances could be appropriately designated to be 

hazardous substances under CERCLA? If not, please specifically explain why 

not. 

Answer: Given the above information, and without additional research, ASDW A 

does not have the appropriate expertise to provide a definitive response to the 

question. ASDWA believes EPA must follow the science and should use any 

information they have to make a hazardous substance determination in an 

expedited manner. 

2. EPA has informed Congress that it intends to set a Maximum Contaminant Level for 

PFOA and PFOS6 under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and stated that EPA 

''is also gathering and evaluating information to determine if a SOW A regulation is 

appropriate for a broader class ofPFAS." 

6 https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ cache/files/f/c/fc854d2e-c57d-4e26-ace8-

e067fbdbde06/907052B84EFCDC96899D1240F07BEFFA.2019-02-15-epa-response-to-sen-carper-re-pfas-003-.pdf 

1401 WILSON BLVD· SUITE 1225 ·ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

PHONE (703) 812-9505 ·FAX (703) 812-9506 · info@asdwa.org · www.asdwa.org 
46 


36935.037

a. Do you agree that a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for 

perfluorinated compounds that at minimum includes PFOA and PFOS should be 

promulgated by EPA? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Answer: EPA has committed to making a regulatory determination for PFOA and 

PFOS by the end of2019. If EPA has sufficient health effects, occurrence and 

other data to justify an MCL, then the agency should move forward with a 

proposed rulemaking in order to allow wider public comment on the issues. 

However, regulatory determinations are "In the sole judgment of the 

Administrator", and it is difficult to challenge or debate another person's 

judgment on challenging science policy issues. 

b. Do you believe that, subject to the availability of appropriations, EPA should be 

required to include all PF AS chemicals for which there is an EPA-validated 

detection technology in its next Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 

(UCMR) in order to determine whether and where these other PFAS chemicals 

might be found in drinking water? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Answer: Yes, all PFAS chemicals for which there is an EPA-validated method 

should be included. 

c. Since each UCMR by statute cannot include more than 30 contaminants on its list 

for monitoring, would you support excluding the PFAS chemicals described in a) 

from that cap in order to maximize occurrence data on PF AS without preventing 

EPA from requiring monitoring to be undertaken on other important potential 

drinking water contaminants? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Answer: Yes, however, cost considerations are an important component of the 

regulatory development process and should be evaluated as EPA develops 

UCMR5. 

d. Should EPA be provided with clear authority to regulate sub-classes of PFAS 

chemicals (for example, groups ofPFAS chemicals with similar chemical 

structures and modes of action on the body) under the Safe Drinking Water Act? 

If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Answer: Yes, EPA has regulated classes of disinfection by-products (DBPs) in 

the past, and from ASDWA's perspective, has the authority to regulated subclasses of PF AS. 

e. Do you believe that EPA should be held to a statutory deadline for making 

regulatory determinations on whether to promulgate National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations for PFAS chemicals about which the Agency has both toxicity 

information and occurrence data in drinking water? If not, please specifically 

explain why not. 

1401 WILSON BLVD· SUITE 1225 · ARLlNGTON, VA 22209 

PHONE (703) 812-9505 ·FAX (703) 812-9506 · info@asdwa.org · www.asdwa.org 
47 


36935.038

Answer: EPA has committed to making a regulatory determination for PFOA and 

PFOS by the end of20l9. If EPA makes positive determinations for PFOA and 

PFOS, then the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) has statutory deadlines for 

both proposing and finalizing the regulations, based on the date of the final 

positive regulatory determination. 

1401 WILSON BLVD· SUITE 1225 ·ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

PHONE (703) 812-9505 ·FAX (703) 812-9506 · info@asdwa.org · www.asdwa.org 
48 


36935.039

Attachment Three 

Questions for the Record for Ms. Daniels from Senator Capito 

I. Can you elaborate on your written testimony, which made the argument that the 

state revolving funds are inappropriate funding vehicles for addressing this 

challenges posed by PF AS contamination? 

Answer: To clarify, ASDW A does not believe that the state revolving loan funds 

(SRFs) are inappropriate funding vehicles for addressing PFAS. 

EPA has confirmed that the SRFs can be used to fund the installation of treatment 

to remove PFAS contaminants from drinking water. What I expressed in my 

testimony is that the SRFs are not equipped to provide grants to every water 

system for PFAS treatment. The SRFs are a loan fund, and although they provide 

zero interest and negative interest loans to qualified water systems, states cannot 

reserve all the available grant funding for PF AS treatment, as disadvantaged water 

systems have needs that may be of greater concern than PFAS. Most states 

already maximize the use of their SRFs without taking PFAS into account. 

Ultimately, the SRFs are a great option for helping systems to fund PFAS 

treatment, however, the funding will predominantly be in the form of low-interest 

loans, not grant funding. More importantly, without additional appropriations for 

the SRFs, the SRFs alone will not be able to fund the significant investment 

needed for water systems across the nation to install treatment for PF AS. 

2. What sort of program would be more helpful? 

Answer: Supplementing the drinking water SRF with additional funding for 

PF AS will certainly assist water systems that are monitoring for or installing 

treatment for PF AS in their drinking water. To compliment the SRFs, it would be 

helpful to have a funding source for rapid response to initiate clean up and 

mitigation in order to limit exposure without having to wait for the identification 

of a responsible party. As outlined in our written testimony, there are existing 

programs this could be modeled after, such as funds in place for leaking 

petroleum storage tank removal and petroleum release cleanup or the Superfund 

Trust Fund. 

3. Are there regulatory mechanisms that would be appropriate as an "on-ramp" 

towards an MCL, to ensure that the EPA acts in a timely fashion while also 

addressing your concerns about designating the entire class? 

Answer: Such a regulatory mechanism already exists within the Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA) the Six-Year Review. The intent of the Six-Year Review is 

for EPA to evaluate new health effects, analytical methods, occurrence and 

treatment data, and to determine if a revision to the existing regulation is 

warranted. If additional information, such as structural activity data, becomes 

1401 WILSON BLVD· SUITE 1225 ·ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

PHONE (703) 812-9505 ·FAX (703) 812-9506 · info@asdwa.org · www.asdwa.org 
49 


36935.040

available that EPA determines warrants adding sub-classes of PFAS to the MCLs 

that would be developed for PFOA and PFOS (based on the recently marked-up 

legislation), then the regulations could be revised. 

4. What is the state of testing technologies for "whole fluorine" monitoring of 

drinking water? 

Answer: The analytical methods using bulk organofluorine measurement to 

quantify the (yet) unidentified fraction of PFAS are still being developed and 

refined by research laboratories and are not yet commercially available. ASDW A 

contacted researchers at Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), who 

provided the recently published paper by McDonough, et al (Attachment Four) 

that summarizes the state of the science. Dr. Eric Dickenson at SNWA believes 

that work is still needed in developing an analytical method for total organic 

fluorine. Cun-ently, SNWA is working with the University of Nevada Reno on 

developing a time-of-flight (TOF) method using Combustion Gas Analysis. 

5. What challenges are raised by having the states develop their own MCLs and 

regulatory processes for PF AS in a piecemeal fashion? 

Answer: The challenges that occur when states develop individual MCLs cannot 

be overstated. The first challenge is setting the MCL. Many states do not have the 

funding, in-house expertise, processes in place, and, in some cases, authority to 

set their own standards. Setting drinking water standards is highly technical and 

resource intensive and traditionally has been completed by EPA, an agency that is 

designed to set these standards. Although many states may not have a prohibitive 

law or policy that keeps them from setting individual state standards, most 

drinking water programs have not set state MCLs and do not have the resources 

necessary to do so. 

In many situations, the few states that set their own MCLs do so because EPA did 

not find nationwide occurrence of a contaminant at levels that require a national 

response. States may decide to develop a state MCL to address a regional issue. 

However, once states begin to set individual MCLs for a contaminant like PF AS 

that has been found across the nation, a patchwork of regulation begins to emerge. 

Because states each have their own requirements for setting an MCL, states can 

reach different numbers for the limit. For example, some states do not have to 

incorporate a benefit-cost analysis as a part of their standard setting process, 

which typically means that state will have a different MCL than a slate that must 

include a benefit-cost analysis in their MCL development. 

The patchwork of regulations creates confusion and significant risk 

communications problems. The complexity ofMCL-setting is not widely known 

by the average citizen, and while industry and public health experts can 

understand why states may have different MCLs for the same contaminant, 

communicating this to the general public is difficult. Additionally, water systems 

1401 WILSON BLVD· SUITE 1225 ·ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

PHONE (703) 812-9505 ·FAX (703) 812-9506 · info@asdwa.org · www.asdwa.org 
50 


36935.041

that operate across state lines or operate multiple water systems in multiple states 

must comply with a myriad of rules, posing challenges to the business sector. 

1401 WILSON BLVD· SUITE 1225 ·ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

PHONE (703) 812-9505 ·FAX (703) 812·9506 · info@asdwa.org · www.asdwa.org 
51 


36935.042

Attachment Four 

Research Paper by McDonough, Guelto, and Higgins 

1401 WILSON BLVD· SUITE 1225 ·ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

PHONE (703) 812-9505 ·FAX (703) 812-9506 • info@asdwa.org · www.asdwa.org 
52 


36935.043

Available online at www.scienced!rectcom Current Opmwn m 

ScienceDirect Env~ronmental Sctence & Health 

ELSEVIER 

Measuring total PFASs in water: The tradeoff between selectivity 

and inclusivity 

Carrie A. McDonough 1

, Jennifer L. Guelfo2 and Christopher P. Higgins 1 

Abstract 

Millions of people around the world may be exposed to drinking 

water impacted by per- and polyf!uoroa!kyl substances 

(PFASs) at levels exceeding local or national advisories. Many 

studies indicate that the full extent of PFAS contamination is 

significantly underestimated when only targeted analytical 

methods are used. Here, we review techniques using bulk 

organofluorine measurement to quantify the (as of yet) un~ 

identified fraction of PFASs. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of specific approaches and their applicability to 

water analysis with a focus on the tradeoff between selectivity 

and inclusivity, and provide suggestions for a path forward to 

better characterize the wide array of PFASs present in environmental samples. 

Addresses 

1 Colorado School of Mines Civil & Environmental Engineering 

Department, 1500 l!!inois Street, Golden, CO 80401, USA 2 School of Engineering, Brown University, 1 84 Hope Street, Provi· 

dence, AI 02912, USA 

Corresponding author: Higgins, Christopher P. {ch1ggins®mines.edu) 

Cunent Opinion In Environmental Science & Health 2019, 

7:13-18 

This review comes from a themed issue on Drinking water 

contaminants 

Edited by Susan Richardson and Cristina Poatlgo 

For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial 

https:l/doi.orgf10.10161j.coesh.2018.08.005 

2468·5844ittl 2018 Elsevier 8. V. All rights reserved. 

Keywords 

Organic fluorine, PFAS, Drinking water, Nontarget analysis. 

Background 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl suhstances (PJ?A.Ss) are compounds whose potential for persistence /1 J. bioaccumulation ]2], and toxicity 13,41. coupled with 

documented global distribution in humans ! 5] and the 

environment ]6,7], has led to concern regarding exposure through routes such as drinking water ingestion ! K]. 

Millions of people in the U.S. may be exposed to PFASimpacted drinking water that exceeds state standards or 

national advisories issued by local regulatory agencies 

www.sc1encedirect.com 

(e.g. Vf, NJ) 19-12\ and the US EPA 111,12]. PFASs 

have been detected in human serum ! 13,14] and have 

been shown to bioaecumulate jZ, 15]. Toxicological 

studies of some PFASs have found associations with 

health impacts including hepatoxicity 1161. developmental impacts 117], and immunosuppression j1Hj. 

There arc several challenges to understanding Pl"ASs in 

drinking water and associated risks to human health. 

First, there are a large number of potentially relevant 

compounds. When polyfluoroalkyl transformation 

products are added to PftASs which arc or have been on 

the global market, more than 3000 PFASs may he 

environmentally relevant 119!. rib date, drinking water 

studies have focused primarily on perfluoroalkyl acids 

(PE'\As) IHI, which are a small subset of potentially 

relevant PFASs. Others have identified the presence of 

"new" PFASs such as GenX in drinking water 120.211. 

However, health impacts and widespread occurrence of 

many PFASs in drinking water are still poorly understood. Second, many products and applications utilize a 

proprietary (or unintended) mix of multiple PFASs, so 

release and occurrence in the environment and humans 

occurs in unknown mixtures 111.14.22]. Additionallv, 

after release, a single polyfluoroalkyl parent ca~ 

generate a mixture of related intermediate polyfluoroalkyl transformation products and tcrmi nal recalcitrant PFAAs I 23.241. Third, our understanding of 

sources and composition of PFAS releases to drinking 

water is hindered hy a lack of information regarding 

facilities associated with PFAS synthesis, use, and 

disposal IZ:il. 

Addressing these challenges requires analytical tools 

that are both selective (specific only for PFASs and no 

other organic or inorganic fluorine species) and inclusive 

(able to detect thousands of known and unknown PFASs 

with adequate recoveries). Targeted analysis using 

liquid chromatography (LC) with either high resolution 

mass spectrometry (HRMS, e.g. quadrupole time-offlight; Q~fOF) or tandem mass spectrometry (MS/ 

IVfS) can capture many known PFASs. Non-targeted 

HRMS can also be applied to identify many additional 

suspected or previously uncharacterized PFASs. However, for LC-MS/MS or LC-HRMS to be applied towards unequivocal PFAS identification and 

quantification, analytical standards must be available, 

and such standards are currently available for <100 of 

Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2019, 7:13-18 
53 


36935.044

14 Drinking water contaminants 

the 3000 + potentially relevant PFASs. A number of 

wchniques for measuring bulk organofluorine have been 

developed w address our need to study and quantify the 

unidentified fraction of PFASs in environmental samples, though the selectivity and inclusivity of these 

methods vary. In this review, we summarize these 

methods, discuss advantages and disadvantages, and 

provide suggestions for a path forward to improved 

analysis of PFASs in water. 

Techniques to quantify total PFASs in water 

Since the initial detection of "non-exchangeable fluorine" in human blood l26l, several methods have been 

developed to quantify bulk organofluorine in environmental and biological samples. 1'1ethods vary greatly in 

terms of sensitivity, selectivity, and applicability to 

different sample matrices. 

Combustion ion chromatography methods 

The extractable organic Ouorine (EOF) and adsorbable 

organic Ruorine (AOF) assays make use of combustion 

ion chromatography (CIC) to mineralize and measure 

organic fluorine. Samples are combusted at 900-

1000 oc to convert organic fluorine (and any residual 

inorganic fluorine not removed during sample preparation) to hydrofluoric acid, which is absorbed into a solution of sodium hydroxide. The total concentration of 

fluoride ion is then measured via ion chromatography 

(IC) after calibration with sodium fluoride. CIC docs 

not differentiate between organic fluorine and fluoride, 

nor does it offer any structural details about the 

25 

:v 20 

u 

~ 

~ 15 

Q 

Q 10 

ru 

.0 

5 

z 

EOF AOF 

detected compounds. Any selectivity in EOF and AOF 

assays is imparted by the choice of sample preparation 

approach used for isolation of the organofluorinecontaining fraction prior to CIC analysis. 

The EOF assay, also referred to as total organo8uorinecombustion ion chromatography (TOF-CIC) is a 

somewhat broad term describing methods in which the 

organic fluorine fraction is isolated by ion pairing 

methods and total fluorine is measured by CIC. The 

EOFassay is the most frequently used method for total 

organofiuorine measurements in environmental research 

literature, and it has been applied to a variety of 

matrices (Figure 1). EOF was first demonstrated for 

trace-level organofluorine in seawater [271 and human 

blood I 2R} and has since been applied to freshwater 

!291, sediments and soils 130-321, and biological materials such as protein pellets [JJI, fish tissue [J41, and 

liver tissue from marine mammals l JS I. 

The EOF fraction is operationally defined and methods 

for isolation and enrichment depend on the matrix 

considered. For water, weak anion exchange solid-phase 

extraction (SPE) is typically used to remove fluoride and 

other impurities from the sample before CIC analysis, 

selecting for anionic and neutral organofluorines [271. In 

some cases, total organic fluorine has been inferred by 

subtracting total inorganic fluorine from total fluorine 

1291. Additional extraction and fractionation steps can 

also be used to improve selectivity and separate organoftuorine fractions with different chemical characteristics IZ9,.l6j. 

TOP PIGE l9F NMR 

Organofluorine methods in Ht:erature. Number of journal articles presenting primary data in which each total organoftuorine method was applied 

(search only included articles written since 2000), separated into categories based on the sample matrix. Consumer products refers to solid materials 

including textiles, food wrappers, and paper. Biological materials encompasses blood, serum, various tissues, protein pellets, and cellular components. 

Journal search conducted using Google Scholar (search terms: ~extractable organic fluorine"; "total organic fluorine"'; "TOF~CIC"; ~adsorbable organic 

fluorine"; "total oxidizable precursor"; ~particle-induced gamma fluorine"; ~19F NMA organic Nuorine". 

Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2019, 7:13-18 www.sciencedirect.com 
54 


36935.045

The AOF assay. originally described by Wagner et at. 

1371, differs from the EOF assay in the way organofluorines arc extracted from the surrounding matrix. 

The sample is passed through canridges containing 

synthetic polysryrenedivinylbenzene-based activated 

carbon (AC), selecdng only for species that can be 

adsorbed to AC. Residual fluoride is removed with a 

sodium nitrate washing solution. The adsorbent is then 

analyzed by CIC. To date, /\OF has only been applied to 

water (Hgurc I). 137-4011o our knowledge, no study 

directly comparing organoftuorine content from EOF 

and AOF fractions in the same samples has been 

published. 

Nondestructive methods 

Particle-induced gamma ray emtsston (PIGE) spectroscopy is a surface analysis technique for quamificarion of elemental fluorine in which an accelerated beam 

of protons strikes the surface of the sample of interest, 

exciting 19F nuclei. Gamma rays emitted upon deexcitation provide a unique signature proponional ro 

the number of fluorine atoms on the surface. Previously 

used in biological and medical applications, PIGE has 

only recently been applied to the measurement of 

PFi\S-impacted samples. PIGE has been made quantitative by creating calibration standards consisting of 

textiles soaked in solutions of a known organoftuorine at 

a range of concentrations /41]. 

PIGE is a high-throughput, mostly non-destructive 

method for measurcmem of total fluorine with good 

sensitivity (13-45 nmol F/cm2

) 141 !. However. this 

technique can only measure fluorine content within a 

certain penetration depth (maximum of about 0.22 mm) 

l41j. 'Tb date, the technique has been demonstrated 

primarily for solid-phase samples, including textiles 

141-431, paper 141,4.11. and food packaging 1441. Water 

samples can be evaporated to dryness and the residue 

desiccated, pelletized, and mounted on a slide frame for 

analysis by PIGE 1451. However, due to the high f::Oncenrrations of fluoride in natural waters, this approach is 

unlikely to be useful in measuring total organic fluorine 

in water samples unless a means of separating the 

inorganic and organic fluorine in a manner compatible 

with PIGE is developed. PIGE has previously only been 

used to measure total fluoride in water I 451. 

Fluorine-19 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy 

e•F NMR) has been used for decades to identify and 

characterize organofluorine compounds 146] and can 

also be used to quantify total organic fluorine in a sample 

hy integrating multiple peaks associated with organofluorines. 19F NMR was developed into a more selective 

method for measuring total concentrations of PI-lASrelated compounds by Moody et al. 1471 By monitoring the chemical shift associated with the terminal 

CF3 peak, this method mainly selects for fluorinated 

surfactants, eliminating most interferences from 

www.sdencedirect.com 

Total PFASs in water McDonough et al. 15 

common classes of organofluorine pesticides or pharmaceuticals, as well as inorganic fluoride. Despite advantages associated with irs selectivity, this method is 

not often applied to water samples, most likely due to 

high detection limits (10 ~g/L for a 100 mL water 

sample) 1471. 

Total oxidizable precursors 

The total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay is the most 

selective of PFAS surrogate analytical methods, in that it 

selects only for compounds that can be oxidized to form 

targeted PFAAs. This method was developed by Houtz 

and Sedlak to infer and indirectly quantify the total 

amount of chemical "precursors" to PFMs in a sample 

by comparing the concentrations of specific PFAAs 

before and after oxidation of the sample by an excess of 

hydrox-yl radicals ! 4H 1. Sample preparation follows the 

same procedures as are traditionally used for targeted 

LC-W1S/MS analysis. Inclusivity is limited to compounds that oxidize to form LC-amenahle hydrm ... -ylradical resistant PFASs, and is dictated by the choice of 

which products to monitor. Any precursors that oxidize 

to unmonirored PFASs will be missed. Furthermore, low 

and variable recoveries may lead to false negatives, 

especially in samples that arc not heavily impacted i 4,1!. 

The TOP assay has been applied to urban runoff 1481, 

wastewater !491, and groundwater !50.51 L as well as 

solids [51,5Z], including commercial products [4.)]. It has 

also been used to investigate the mass balance ofPI-/\Ss in 

materials amended with aqueous film-forming foam mixtures (AFFF) after aerobic and anaerobic biotransformation [2.1,53!. This method is very valuable for assessing the 

potential of PEAS mixtures to eventually degrade into 

PFAAs. However, the identity of the precursors present in 

a mixture can rarely be deduced beyond general observations (i.e. "PFOA precursors"), as transformation processes are complex and nonspecific !4H !. 

Challenges for analysis of organofluorines 

in water 

One of the most chaHenging aspects of choosing: a 

method to measure tmai organofluorines in water is the 

tradeoff hetween selectivity and inclusivity. As shown in 

Figure 2, each method discussed here captures a unique 

fraction of the total fluorinated compounds pre~enr in a 

sample. \Vh.en dealing with drinking water or natural 

water samples, it is often desirable to remove fluoride 

interferences and to capture highly mobile short-chain 

PE'\Ss. Methods that may be too inclusive (for 

example, PIGE) do not allow differentiation between 

organic and inorganic fluorine, and so arc impractical for 

measuring PFAS-relatcd organofluorines in natural 

waters. In contrast, EOF has a distinct advantage, as its 

selectivity can be modified depending on sample preparation strategies and fractionation can be used to learn 

more about the nature of the organofluorines present. 

Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2019, 7:13-18 
55 


36935.046

16 Drinking water contaminants 

Figure 2 -------------------

Selectivity and inclusivity associated with total organofluorine methods. Methods for total organofluorine analysis and the fraction of total fluorinated 

species each method is associated with. Sizes of boxes are meant only to recognize more specific and more general fractions and do not represent the 

actual relative abundance of each fraction. 

Achieving sufficient detection limits is also challen~ing 

when considering drinking water and natural \Vater 

samples. The TOP assay is the most sensitive among 

surrogate:: methods (typically 0.1-0.5 ng/L for individual 

PFASs) [4Kj, as it relies on LC>""IS/MS of targered 

precursors. Among the more inclusive surrogate 

methods, EOF and AOF may be most well suited to 

achieve sufficient sensitivity to measure total Plif\Ss in 

natural waters (typical detection limits "Sl ~lg F/L) I 27 j. 

while 19F NMR would require extensive preeonccntration to achieve sufficient detection limits for nonimpacted sites. PIGE, while sensitive (detection limit 

of 0.1 !lg F/L) {4.5 !. suffers from aforementioned issues 

with fluoride interference. 

The TOP assay provides the best assurance that unidentified organoftuorines arc associated with Pl•AS 

contamination. However. this assurance comes at a cost, 

as the TOP assay is limited in its ability to screen for 

emerging PFASs of concern, .such as GcnX (HFPO-DA) 

and ADONA, that either do not oxidize or do nor oxidize 

to familiar Pl</\As. Expanding rhc list of targeted compounds for TOP assay analysis to include addirional 

oxidation products as they arc discovered will improve 

this method's inclusivity. Additionally, using the TOP 

assay in conjunction with LC-HRMS suspecr screening 

to monitor a wide range of suspected oxidation products 

can greatly improve inclusivity. Iiowcvcr. the 'I'OP assay 

is subject to the selectivity issues inherent in reversephase LC, meaning that short-chain compounds that 

arc not retained by traditional LC analytical columns 

Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2019, 7:13-18 

will he lost. Use of the TOP assay in combination with 

other less selective methods like EOE PfGE 1431, or 

AOF !,NAOl may hecome a popular approach to gain 

additional information about the nature of the unidentified fluorine fraction and its relevance as a source of 

PFAAs, while also acquiring information about geneml 

fluorine content. 

Conclusions 

Many studies indicate that the full extent of PFAS 

contamination at impacted sites is significantly underestimated when surrogate and/or nontargeted methods 

arc not employed, as many precursors, degradation/ 

transformation products, and other Pl''ASs with no 

analytical standards arc ignored ! .:1-tj. For assessment of 

AFFF'-impactcd waters, \ve recommend that bulk organofluorine measurements by EOF and/or the TOP assay 

be combined with HRMS as well as targeted analytical 

methods to obtain a comprehensive understanding of 

PFAS composition, sources, and health risks. Further, 

standard techniques for these approaches should be 

developed to facilitate routine application at sites. 

Acquiring additional information on the nature of organofluorincs detected by total fluorine methods is the 

critical next step ro improve our understanding of how 

to effectively rcmcdiate PI .. ~\S-impacted sites and prioritize specific Pl .. ASs for cleanup and regulation. As the 

wide array of PEA..Ss is increasingly recognized, more and 

more compounds arc being added w target analyte lists 

www.sciencedirect com 
56 


36935.047

for quantitative analysis. However, analytical standards 

for the majority of Plif\Ss remain unavailable, and the 

fraction of total organic fluorine accounted for by target 

analytes is typically low, especially in samples of natural 

waters from non-AFFF-impacted sites (about 40-100% 

in some studies) 127,29,3HI. The addition of HRMS for 

nontargeted and suspect screening analyses can offer 

valuable information about the unidentified fraction of 

organic fluorine. In one of the few studies to combine 

total organoAuorine measurements and nontargeted 

HRMS methods, D'Agostino and Mabury discovered 12 

novel and 10 infrequently-reported classes of PF'A.')s in 

commercial formulations [361. Future research should 

focus on improving our ability to provide semiquantitative data via HRMS screening. Using these 

techniques along with traditional targeted analysis and 

measurements of bulk organofluorines will pave the way 

to uncover the chemical composition of the vast unidentified fraction of bulk organofl.uorines in water. 

Conflict of interest statement 

Nothing declared. 

Funding sources 

\Vc acknowledge financial support from the Strategic 

Environmemal Research and Development Program 

(ER-2424), NIEHS grant 1 R21 ES029394-01, and the 

Superfund Research Program, NIEHS grant 2P42 

ES013660. 

References 

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, 

have been highlighted as: 

• of special interest 

~ * of outstanding interest 

1. Buck RC, Franklin J, Berger U, Conder JM, Cousins, IT, De 

Voogt P, Jensen AA, Kannan K. Mabury SA, van Leeuwen SPJ: 

Perfluoroalkyt and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the envi~ 

ronment: terminology, classification, and origins. Integrated 

Environ Assess Manag 2011, 7:513-541. 

2. Conder JM, Hoke R a, De Wolf W, Russell MH, Buck RC: Are 

PFCAs bioaccumulative? A critical review and comparison 

with regulatory criteria and persistent lipophilic compounds. 

Environ Sci Techno/2008, 42:995-1003. 

3. DeWitt JC: Toxicological effects of perfluoroalkyl and poly· 

fJuoroalkyf substances. Springer International Publishing; 2015. 

4. Lau C, Anitote K, Hodes C, LaiD, Pfahles-Hutchens A, Seed J: Perfluoroalkyl acids: a review of monitoring and toxicological 

findings. Toxicol Sci 2007. 99:366-394. 

5. Kannan K, Corso!ini S, Fatandysz J, Fil!mann G, Kumar KS, 

Loganathan BG. Mohd MA, Olivero J, Van Wouwe N, Yang JH, 

et aJ.: PerfluOTooctanesulfonate and related fluorochemicals 

in human blood from several countries. Environ Set Techno/ 

2004, 38:4489-4495. 

6. Giesy JP, Kannan K: Global distribution of perfluorooctane 

sulfonate in wildlife. Environ Sci Techno/2001, 35:1339-1342. 

7. Yamashita N, Kannan K, Taniyasu S, Horii Y, Petrick G, Gamo T: 

A global survey of perfluorinated acids in oceans. Mar Pollut 

Bul/2005, 51:658-668. 

8. US EPA: The third unregulated contaminant monitoring rule. 

2012. 

www.sctencedirect.com 

Total PFASs in water McDonough et al. 17 

9. Vermont Department of Health: Perf/uorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 

and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) Vermont drinking water 

health advisory. Vermont Department of Health; 2016. 

10. New Jersey department of environmental protection: Healthbased maximum contaminant level support document: perfluor· 

ooctanoic acid (PFOA). 2016. 

11. Guelfo JL, Adamson DT: Evaluation of a national data set tor 

insights into sources, composition, and concentrations of 

perw and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in U.S. drinking 

water. Environ Pollut 2018, 236:505-513. 

12. Hu XC, Andrews DQ, Lindstrom AB, Bruton TA, Schaider LA, 

Grandjean P, Lohmann R, Carignan CC, Blum A, Balan SA, eta!.: 

Detection of polyw and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in 

U.S. drinking water linked to industrial sites, military fire 

training areas, and wastewater treatment plants. Environ Sc1 

Techno/ Letr 2016, 3:344-350. 

13. Braun JM, Chen A, Romano ME, Calafat AM, Webster GM, 

Yolton K, Lanphear BP: Prenatal perfluoroalkyl substance 

exposure and child adiposity at 8 years of age: the HOME 

study: prenatal PFAS exposure and child adiposity. Obesity 

2016, 24:231-237. 

14. National health and nutn1ion examination survey. Centers for 

Disease Control; 2018. 

15, Higgins CP, Mcleod PB, Macmanus·Spencer LA, Luthy RG: 

Bioaccumulation of perfluorochemicals in sediments by the 

aquatic oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus. Environ Sci 

Tecflno/2007, 41:4600-4606. 

16. Loveless SE, Finlay C, Everds NE, Frame SA, Gillies PJ, 

O'Connor JC. Powley CR, Kennedy GL: Comparative responses of rats and mice exposed to linear/branched, linear, 

or branched ammonium perfluorooctanoate (APFO}. Toxicology 2006, 220:203-217. 

17. Lau C: Effects of perfluorooctanoic acid exposure during 

pregnancy in the mouse. Toxicol Sci 2006, 90:510-518, 

18. DeWitt JC, Copeland CB, Strynar MJ, Luebke RW: Perfluor~ 

ooctanoic acid-induced immunomodulation in adult C57BU 

6J or C57BU6N female mice, Environ Health Perspect 2008, 

116:644-650. 

19. Wang Z, DeWitt JC, Higgins CP. Cousins JT: A never-ending 

story of per~ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)? En vi· 

ron Sci Techno/2017, 51:2508-2518. 

In this Feature article, the authors highlight the wide range of fluorinated organics present in the environment that are often overlooked 

and provide a detailed summary of the structures of interest. as well as 

outlining analytical challenges and recommendations. 

20. Sun M. Arevalo E, Strynar M. Lindstrom A, Richardson M, 

Kearns B, Pickett A, Smith C, Knappe DRU: Legacy and 

emerging perfluoroalkyl substances are important drinking 

water contaminants in the cape fear river watershed of North 

Carolina. Environ Sci Techno/ Lett2016. 3:415-419. 

2~. Strynar M. Oagnino S, McMahen R, Liang S, Lindstrom A, 

Andersen E, McMillan L, Thurman M, Ferrer !, Ball C: ldentifiw 

cation of novel perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids 

(PFECAs) and sulfonic acids (PFESAs) in natural waters 

using accurate mass timewaf-flight mass spectrometry 

(TOFMS). Environ Sci Technol2015, 49:11622-11630. 

22. Kato K, Wong L-Y, Jia LT, Kuklenyik Z, Calafat AM: Trends in 

exposure to polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the U.S. Population: 

1999-2008. Environ Sci Techno/2011. 45:8037-8045. 

23. Harding-Marjanovic KG, Houtz EF, Yi S, Field JA, Sedlak DL, 

Alvarez-Cohen L: Aerobic biotransformation of fluorotelomer 

thioether amido sulfonate {lodyne) in AFFF~amended micro--

cosms. Environ Sci Techno/2015, 49:"1666-7674. 

24. Mejia Avendafio S, Liu J: Production of PFOS from aerobic soil 

biotransformation of two perfluoroalkyl sulfonamide de~ 

rivatives. Chemosphere 2015, ~19:1084-1090. 

25. Guelfo JL, Marlow T, Klein DM, Savitz DA, Fricke! S, Crimi M, 

Suuberg EM: Evaluation and management strategies for per~ 

and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in drinking water 

aquifers: perspectives from impacted u.s. Northeast com~ 

munities. Environ Health Perspect 2018, 126:505-513. 

Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2019, 7:13-16 
57 


36935.048

18 Drinking water contaminants 

26. Taves DR Evidence that there are two forms of fluoride in 

human serum [16]. Nature 1968. 217:1050-1051. 

27. Miyake Y, Yamashita N, Rostkowski P, So MK, Taniyasu S, 

Lam PKS, Kannan K: Determination of trace levels of total 

fluorine in water using combustion ion chromatography for 

fluorine: a mass balance approach to determine individual 

perfluorinated chemicals in water. J ChromatogrA 2007, 1143: 

98-104. 

28. Miyake Y. Yamashita N, So MK, Rostkowski P, Taniyasu S, 

Lam PKS, Kannan K: Trace analysis of total fluorine in human 

blood using combustion ion chromatography for fluorine: a 

mass balance approach for the determination of known and 

unknown organofluorine compounds. J Chromatogr A 2007, 

1154:214-221. 

29. D'Agos!ino LA, Mabury SA: Certain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances associated with aqueous film forming 

foam are widespread in canadian surface waters. Environ Sci 

Techno/2017, 51:13603-13613. The authors provide some of the first analyses of natural surface 

waters that aro not directly impacted by AFFF for a wide variety of 

PFASs, and fractionate extracts for extractable organic fluorine (EOF) 

analysis to !earn more about the properties of PFASs making up total 

organic fluorine. 

30. Yeung LWY, De Silva AO, Loi ElH, Marvin CH, Taniyasu S, 

Yamashita N, Mabury SA, Muir DCG, Lam PKS: Perfluoroalkyl 

substances and extractable organic fluorine in surface sedi· 

ments and cores from Lake Ontario. Environ lnt 2013, 59 

389-397. 

31. Codllng G, Vogt A, Jones PD. Wang T, Wang P, lu YL, 

Corcoran M, Bonina S, Li A, Sturchio NC, eta/.: Historical trends 

of inorganic and organic fluorine in sediments of Lake 

Michigan. Chemosphere 2014, 114:203-209. 

32. Wang P, Wang T, Giesy JP, Lu Y: Perfluorinated compounds in 

soils from Liaodong Bay with concentrated fluorine industry 

parks in China. Chemosphere 2013, 91:751-757. 

33. Rand AA, Mabury SA: Covalent binding of fluorotelomer unsaturated aldehydes (FTUALs) and carboxylic acids 

(FTUCAs) to proteins. Environ Sci Techno/2013, 47: 

1655-1653. 

34. Yeung LWY, Mabury SA: Bioconcentration of aqueous filmforming foam (AFFF) in juvenile rainbow trout (oncorhyncus 

my kiss). Environ Sci Techno/ 2013, 47:12505-12513. 

35. Yeung LWY, Miyake Y, Wang Y, Taniyasu S, Yamashita N, 

Lam PKS: Total fluorine, extractable organic fluorine, 

perfluorooctane sulfonate and other related fluorochemicals 

in liver of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) 

and finless porpoises (Neophocaena phocaenoides) from 

South China. Environ Pollut2009, 157:17-23. 

36. D' Agostino LA, Mabury SA: Identification of novel fluorinated 

surfactants in aqueous film forming foams and commercial 

surfactant concentrates. Environ Sci Techno/2014, 48 

121-129. 

37. Wagner A, Raue B, Brauch HJ, Worch E, Lange FT: Determination of adsorbable organic fluorine from aqueous environmental samples by adsorption to polystyrenedivinylbenzene based activated carbon and combustion ion 

chromatography. J ChromatogrA 2013, 1295:82-89. 

38. WiUach S, Brauch HJ, Lango FT: Contribution of selected 

perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances to the 

adsorbable organically bound fluorine in German rivers and 

in a highly contaminated groundwater. Chemosphere 2016, 

145:342-350. 

One of the seminal demonstrations of the use of the adsorbab!e 

organic fluorine (AOF) assay for measurement of organic fluorine in 

effluf.Jnts and natural waters. 

39. Dauchy X, Boiteux V, Bach C, Cohn A, Hemard J, Rosin C, 

Munoz JF: Mass flows and fate of per· and polyfluoroalkyl 

substances {PFASs) in the wastewater treatment plant of a 

fluorochemical manufacturing facility. Sci Totaf Environ 2017, 

576:549-558. 

40. Bach C, Dauchy X, Boiteux V, Colin A, Hemard J, Sagres V, 

Rosin C, Munoz JF: The impact of two fluoropolymer 

Current Opinkm in Environmental Science & Health 2019, 7:13-18 

manufacturing facilities on downstream contamination of a 

river and drinking water resources with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2017, 24: 4916-4925. 

41. Ritter EE, Dickinson ME, Harron JP, Lunderberg OM, 

DeYoung PA, Robel AE, Field JA, Peaslee GF: PIGE as a 

screening tool for Per- and polyf!uorinated substances in 

papers and textiles. Nuc/lnstrum Methods Phys Res Sect B 

Beam Interact Mater Atoms 2017, 407:47-54. 

One of the first demonstrations of the usage of Particle-Induced 

Gamma Ray Emission (PIGE) spectroscopy as a quantitative measure of fluorine on paper and textiles. 

42. Lang JR, Allred BMK, Peaslee GF, Field JA, Barlaz MA: Release 

of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) from carpet 

and clothing in model anaerobic landfill reactors. Environ Sci 

TechnoJ 2016, 50:5024-5032. 

43. Robel AE, Marshal! K, Dickinson M, Lunderberg D, Butt C, 

Peaslee G, Stapleton HM, Field JA: Closing the mass balance 

on fluorine on papers and textiles. Environ Sci Techno/2017, 

51:9022-9032. 

The authors used a powerful combination of approaches (GC-MS, LCMS!MS, the total oxidizable precursors (TOP) assay, and PIGE} to 

better understand what fraction of organic fluorine is accounted for by 

volatiles, LC-amenable compounds, and unknown precursors in 

papers and textiles, demonstrating the usefulness of combining multiple targeted and untargeted methods. 

44. Schaider LA, Balan SA, Blum A, Andrews DO, Strynar MJ, 

Dickinson ME, LunderDerg OM, Lang JR, Peaslee GF: Fluorinated compounds in U.S. Fast food packaging. Environ Sci 

Techno/ Lett 2017, 4:105-111. 

45. Hoque AF, Khaliquzzaman M, Hossain M, Khan A: Determina~ 

tion of fluoride in water residues by proton induced gamma 

emission measurements. Fluoride 2002,35:176-184. 

46. Guy WS, Taves DR, Brey WS: Organic fluorocompounds in 

human plasma: prevalence and characterization. In 

Biochemistry involving carbon·ffuorine bonds; 1976:117-134. 

47. Moody CA, Kwan WC, Martin JW. Muir DCG, Mabury SA: 

Determination of perfluorinated surfactants in surface water 

samples by two independent analytical techniques: liquid 

chromatographyttandem mass spectrometry and 19 F NMR. 

Anal Chern 2001, 73:2200-2206. 

48. Houtz EF, Sedlak DL: Oxidative conversion as a means of 

detecting precursors to perfluoroalkyl acids in urban runoff. 

Environ Sci Techno/ 2012, 46:9342-9349. 

49. Houtz EF, Sutton A, Park JS, Sedlak M: Poly- and perfluoroalkyl 

substances in wastewater: Significance of unknown precursors, manufacturing shifts, and likely AFFF impacts. 

Water Res 2016, 95:142-149. 

The authors used targeted LC-MS/MS and the TOP assay to analyze 

wastewater effluents and demonstrate thai manufacturing has shifted 

towards short·chain PFASs, including short-chain precursors indicated 

by the TOP assay, over time, 

50. Weber AK, Barber LB, Leblanc DR, Sunderland EM, Vecitis CD: 

Geochemical and hydrologic factors controlling subsurface 

transport of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, cape cod, 

Massachusetts. Environ Sci Techno/2017, 51:4269-4279. 

51. Houtz EF, Higgins CP, Field JA, Sedlak DL: Persistence of per 

fluoroalkyl acid precursors in AFFF·impacted groundwater 

and soil. Environ Sci Techno/2013, 47:8187-8195. 

52. Rich CD, Blaine AC, Hundal L, Higgins CP: Bioaccumulation of 

perfluoroalkyl acids by earthworms {Eisenia fetida) exposed 

to contaminated soils. Environ Sc1 Techno/ 2015, 49:881-888. 

53. Yi S, Harding·Marjanovic KC, Houtz EF, Gao Y, Lawrence JE, 

Nichiporuk RV, Iavarone AT, Zhuang W-0, Hansen M. Field JA, 

et al.: Biotransformation of AFFF component 6:2 fluorotelomer thioether amido sulfonate generates 6:2 fluorotelomer thioether carboxylate under sulfate-reducing 

conditions. Environ Sci Techno/ Lett 2018, 5·283-288. 

54. D'Agostino LA, Mabury SA: Aerobic biodegradation of 2 fluorotelomer sulfonamide-based aqueous film-forming foam 

components produces perfluoroalkyl carboxylates. Environ 

Toxicol Chern 2017, 36:2012-2021. 

www.sc1encedlrectcom 
58 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks so much for your testimony, Ms. Daniels. 

Mr. Faber. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT FABER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 

Mr. FABER. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, and Ranking Member Carper. 

Last week, Ken Cook, the President of EWG, and I had the opportunity to spend a day on Capitol Hill with Sue Bailey, who is 

a resident of Parkersburg, West Virginia, who was exposed to 

PFOA in the 1960s while she was pregnant, and with her son, 

Bucky Bailey. While we were meeting with Senator Carper, Senator Carper asked Sue, how would you address, how would you 

tackle the PFAS problem. 

Senator Carper, you remember what Sue said. She said, how do 

you eat an elephant? And of course, the answer is one bite at a 

time. 

I think this hearing really reflects the spirit of Sue Bailey, that 

while we won’t solve all of the challenges facing the PFAS contamination crisis by passing these six bills, these six bills will tell us 

much more about the extent of PFAS contamination. They will tell 

us much more about the sources of PFAS contamination. And they 

will begin to start the cleanup process and cleanup a mess that, 

frankly, has taken three generations to create. 

As you have heard, nearly all of us are contaminated with these 

forever chemicals. We are exposed to dozens of PFAS every day 

through our food, water, dust, clothing, carpets, even through our 

cosmetics. And exposure to even very low doses of PFAS are associated with very serious health risks. While the health effects of 

PFOA and PFAS are well understood, due in large part to what 

happened in Parkersburg, West Virginia, there is growing evidence 

that replacement chemicals, like GenX and PFBS and many others 

pose many of the same risks. 

So clearly, it is time to act. But as Senator Carper said, EPA’s 

proposed action plan really fails to treat this contamination crisis 

like a crisis, or as Senator Capito said at your hearing in March, 

EPA is not acting like this is personal. And for people like Sue Bailey or Bucky Bailey or people who live near F.E. Warren Airbase 

or Dover Airbase, this is very personal. And that is why today’s 

hearing is so important. 

Bills like S. 950, the PFAS Detection Act, will help us better understand just how extensive the PFAS crisis is. In addition, requiring water utilities to monitor for all detectable PFAS in the next 

unregulated contaminant monitoring rule is equally important. 

Bills like S. 1507, the PFAS Disclosure Act, will add hundreds of 

PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory, which is an important first 

step that will tell us much more about where PFAS pollution is 

coming from. 

Bills like S. 638 and S. 1372 will help us accelerate PFAS cleanup efforts, and in particular, S. 638, the PFAS Action Act, will kick 

start the PFAS cleanup process, and S. 1372, the PFAS Accountability Act, will ensure that Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, take responsibility for their legacy pollution. 

59 

S. 1473, the Protecting Drinking Water from PFAS Act, will require EPA to finally set a drinking water standard for water utilities. As you have heard, States are leading the way, setting tough 

science based PFAS drinking water standards. EPA standards 

should build on the progress being made in States like New Jersey 

and Pennsylvania. But you shouldn’t have to live in New Jersey or 

Pennsylvania to have clean water. 

So as Sue would say, we have to eat this elephant one bite at 

a time. But there are some other steps that Congress should also 

take to ensure that we don’t make the PFAS problem worse. First, 

we should address ongoing releases of PFAS into the air and water. 

Second, we should ensure that sewage sludge contaminated with 

PFAS is not being spread on our farm fields. And third, we should 

ensure that PFAS wastes are being properly disposed. 

Last year, Congress took steps to reduce the use of fluorinated 

foams at civilian airports. The bills that are the subject of today’s 

hearing, and the other steps I have just mentioned would help 

build on that progress. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faber follows:] 

60 


36935.049

Testimony of 

Scott Faber 

Senior Vice President 

Environmental \Vorking Group 

Before the 

Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Work.-,: 

On 

Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated with 

Per- and Poly- Fluoroalkyl Substances (P.'AS) 

May 22,2019 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf oft he Environmental \\rorking Group, a 

national environmental health organization which has sought to address the health risks posed by 

per- and poly- fluoroalkyl substances for hvo decades. 

To address the growing PFAS contamination crisis, Congress should address ongoing sources of 

PFAS contamination, measure the scope of existing PF AS contamination. notifY communities 

impacted by PFAS contamination. and dramatically aeceh::rate efforts to clean up PF AS 

contamination. More broadly. Congress should refom1 our federal environmental and public 

health laws to better address the threats posed by contaminants like PFAS. 
61 


36935.050

PFAS Chemicals Pose Serious Health Risks 

Nearly all of us are contaminated by PFAS chcmicals. 1 Americans are exposed to dozens of 

PFAS every day-- through our food, water. air. indoor dust. carpets. clothing and cosmetics. 

\Vhilc diet and dust are likely significant sources of PFAS exposure, even 10\v PEJ\S 

concentrations in drinking water can substantially increase our body burden. 2 

Exposure to very low doses of some PF AS chemicals is associateJ with serious health risks. 

including cancer. reproJuctive harm. developmental harm. damage to the immune system. 

hormone dismption, and liver and kidney damagc. 3 Because some PFAS chemicals have a long 

half-life in our bodies,4 some PFAS bi(Hlccumulate, or build up. in our blood serum and organs. 

Once released into the environment PFAS arc highly mobile and do not readily break down 

thus !eaJing to the designation of PF AS as "fOreYcr chemical;;;. 

While the health effects ofPFOA and PFOS art: \\'ell known. there is grmving evidence that 

replacement chemicals-- such as GcnX and PFBS --pose many of the same health risks.() Other 

PFAS chemicals linked to chronic health problems include PFHxS. PFNA. PFDeA. PFDoA. 
62 


36935.051

PFUA. PFIIxA. and PFBA.7 Short-chain PFAS can be equally persistent. more mobile in the 

environment. and also accumulate in the body. 8 

PFAS chemicals impact our health at all stages of life but pose unique risks to infants and 

childrcn. 9 As EPA addresses the health impacts ofPFAS. EPA should be directed to consider the 

impacts ofPFAS on infants as well as on breast-feeding women. should consider all health 

dTccts including damage to the immune system. and .should apply appropriate uncertainty 

factors. PFAS safCty standards which protect infants and which consider all health impacts. 

including harm to the immune system. range fi·om 8 ppt and 9 ppt for PFOS and PFOA. as 

proposed by Michigan 10 : to l3 ppt and 14 ppt for PFOS and Pf'OA. as proposed by Nev ... 

Jcrsey 1 1

: to a sum of 20 ppt for five and six PFAS. as proposed by Vermont 12 and 

Massachusetts 1

'. respectively. Other studies and public health agencies haYc recommended even 

lmvcr values. 14 Fortunately. some water treatment technologies can reduce concentrations of 

PFOA. PFOS. PFNA. PFHxS. GcnX and other PFAS chemicals to leYels below I ppt and 

address other contaminants of concern. 15 

7(-;xicological Proflh! fiw T'cr(luoroalkyls (2018) 
63 


36935.052

Congressional Action Urgently Needed 

In February, EPA released a PFAS Action Plan that failed to treat the PFAS contamination crisis 

\Vith appropriate urgency. 16 In particular, EPA failed to address ongoing PFAS releases into air 

and water. failed to add any PFAS chemicals to the Toxic Relca">c Inventory, fllilcd to expand 

efforts to monitor for PF AS. and took no concrete steps to dean up existing PFAS 

contamination. To reduce the risks posed by PFAS contamination. Congress should: address 

ongoing sources ofPFAS contamination: document the sources and scope of existing 

contamination: and dramatically accelerate etiorts to clean up existing PFAS contamination. 

Address Ongoing PFAS Contamination 

To address ongoing air and wate-r releases ofPFAS, Congress should subject industrial PFAS 

releases to Sec. 307 and Sec. 311 of the Clean \\later Act and Sec. 112 of the Clean Air Act. 

direct EPA to limit the application ofbio-solids containing PFAS. 17 and should. at a minimum. 

phase out non-essential uses ofPFAS in cookware. food packaging. textiles. cosmetics and other 

consumer products. 18 Congress should also address the management ofPFAS waste. and replace 

fluorinated fire-fighting foams with safe and ciiective alternatives. 
64 


36935.053

nocument the Scope of t>FAS Contamination 

Congress should also expand our ability to understand the scope ofPFAS contamination. In 

particular. Congress should improve our ability to detect PFAS in \Vater and soiL as proposed by 

S. 950, the PFAS Detection Act of2019. 19 S. 950 would authorize the U.S. Geological Survey to 

conduct nationwide sampling for PFAS and to develop nc\V PFAS detection rnethods.20 S. 950 is 

an important first step. Congress should also amend Sec. l445(a)(2)(B)(i)21 of the Safe Drinking 

\Vater Act to add all detectable PFAS to the next Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. 22 

In combination. monitoring ground and surface water. monitoring soil, and monitoring tap water 

will allow us to better characterize the full scope ot'PFAS contamination. Congress should also 

expand et1orts to monitor PFAS in household dust. food. and blood." and should ensure that 

communities impacted by PFAS contamination are notified, especially military families. as 

proposed inS. 1105, the PFAS Registry Act of20l9.24 

Congress should also improve our ability to identify the sources or PFAS contamination. Many 

PF AS chemicals currently in use can be reasonably anticipated to cause serious health risks. 

including GenX. PFBS. PFI!xS, and PFNA PFDeA. PFDoA. PFUA. PFHxA. and PFBA25 and 

many of these PFAS arc being detected in \Vater. 26 All PFAS that arc reasonability anticipated to 

19 The PFAS Detection Act of2019, S. 950. 116th Cong. (2019). 20 This month, EWG used publicly available data to document PFA.S contamination at 610 sites in 43 states. 

! 17 military installations. Sr:e Bill i\'ew Data Show 610 

Environmental 
65 


36935.054

pose cancer or other chronic health risks should be added to the Toxic Release Inventory. At a 

minimum. Congress should require that all industrial discharges of PFAS subject to a Significant 

New Use Rule27 be added to the TRl, as proposed inS. 1507. the PFAS Release Disclosure Act 

of2019. 28 Congress should also require that all PF AS for v.,rhich there are final toxicity values be 

added to the TRI, as proposed in S.l507. 29 Because PFAS pose health risks at low levels. 

Congress should direct EPA to use the same reporting threshold typically applied to chemicals of 

special concern.30 

Accelerate PFAS Clean-Up Efforts 

Congress should also dramatically accelerate effm1s to clean up PFAS contamination. To do so, 

Congress should designate PFAS as hazardous substances under Sec. I 02 of CERCLA. a.;; 

proposed inS. 638, the PFAS Action Act of201931 By designating PFAS as hazardous 

substances, Congress will trigger certain reporting requirements and remedial actions. What's 

more, designating PFAS as hazardous substances will also ensure that the costs ofPFAS 

remediation are shared by responsible pat1ies, including the Department of Defense. 32 Congress 

should also ensure that PFAS wastes are properly munagcd. 33 

Jong-dmill!Wrflw..ll\Ja!ky I 

covering 271 pl'rlluoroalk)! 

proposed 5:-..l}R on PF1\S. 5iee 

Substance:.: Siunificant Nc\\ Us~ 80 Fed. Rl'i!. (Jan 28 PF AS Relca~e Disclosure Act of20 19, S. 1507, }J6th Con g. {2019). 29 Congress should also require that any substantial risk submission made pursuant to Sec. 8(e). 15 U.S.C § 2607(e), 

oft he Toxic Substances Control Act to be automatically added to the TRI. 30 See Lower Thresholds Concern, 40 CFR § 372.28, 

Designating PfAS under Sec. 307(a) or J I l(b)(2)(A) 

of the Clean Water Act, Sec. I 12 of the Ckan 7 ofTSCA, or Sec. 1001 ofRCRA, would also add a 

substance to list of·'hazardous substances" subject to CERCLA. See 42 U.S.C. 960 I ( 14). 32 The Department Of Defense is a major source ofPFAS pollution. See Melanie Benesh & Audrey Lothspeich, 

Map pin~ PFAS Chemical Contamination at 106 U.S. Military Sites. Environmental Working Group (March 6, 

20 19), ~s:/ 1\\ W\\ .C\\g.or<,./research/p (fts-ghi¢J.ni£ill?-contam in.Q!~.!b~:ml!l!<!.rY::i~ 

33 In particular. Congress should designate PFAS as "hazardous substances" under Sec. 300 I (42 U.S.C. § 6921) of 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act, better known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA. At a 

minimum, Congress should direct EPA to quickly provide guidance for the management ofPFAS waste. 
66 


36935.055

To better address contamination caused by military installations and other federal facilities. 

Congress should direct federal agencies to develop cooperative agreements with states to monitor 

and remediate contaminated sites, as proposed inS. 1372. the PFAS Accountability Act of 

2019. 34 These agreements should require Pf AS cleanMup efforts to meet or exceed the most 

health protective standards, including state standards, as proposed inS. 1372. If a cooperative 

agreement is not finalized \Vithin a year of a state request. DOD and other federal agencies 

responsible for PFAS contamination should be required to alert Congress, as proposed inS. 

1372. 

Congress should also set a deadline for the development of a National Primary Water Drinking 

Regulation for PFAS. as proposed inS. 1473, tht' Protecting Drinking \Vater from PFAS Act of 

2019.15 Many states have established or proposed drinking water standards for PFAS which 

protect vulnerable populations, such as infants. and v ... ·hich address all of the health risks posed by 

PF AS. such as damage to the immune system. But, many states have not taken steps to reduce 

PFAS contamination in tap water, and EPA has consistently failed to address these threatsY' 

Drinking water standards developed by EPA, as proposed inS. 1473, should be required to take 

vulnerable populations and all health effects into account and should build upon the progress 

being made by states. 

To help water utilities meet these standards. Congress should help share the cost of effective 

Pf AS treatment technologies. 37 Designating PFAS as hazardous substances will help ensure that 

34 The PFAS Accountability Act of2019. S. 1372, I 16th Cong. (2019). 35 The Protecting Drinking Water from PFAS Act of20!9. S. 1473. I 16th Cong. (2019). 36 EPA ·s voluntary PFAS stewardship program was launched in 2006. See Environmental Protection Agency, Fact 

Sheet: 2010120 15 PFOA Stewardship Program, h!tps> \\\~~..c.~~~cssing-and-managin.,g:.£.1..1§111L~illi:ll~J:: 

tsca:'fil.ct-shcd-29_1020!5-p.!l)a-ste\\ardshi!l:.Q.!:S!&UiDl (page last updated Aug. 9, 2018): EPA's first Long-Chain 

Perfluorinatcd Chemicals Action Plan was released in 2009. Sec Environmental Protection Agency. Long-Chain 

Pe1jluorinated C'hemicals (Pf'Cs) Action Plan (Dec. 30, 2009), l:lJ.!l?~~~~~l!.:lli.12''sitc~tQillL<:;.n~~rE.Uies/20!6-

0 l id.Q..CJ!1ll£!lt~·pJ£s action plan l~l..iUl~m!f. The most recent PF AS Action Plan pledges to propose a regulatory 

detem1ination by the end of20 J 9, but does not commit to complete a National Primary Water Drinking Regulation. 

See Environmental Protection Agency, EPA's Per- and PolJfluoroalkyl Substanas (PF4S) Action Plan, at 3 (feb. 

14. 20 I £J), hUD~;C!i}_~~a.gnvi-;.ites!nroduction 'fi!cs:i/0 19M 

02ldocwm~nts/pfUs action plan 021 3!9 50.&.£!?1Iilllli!!!LLPJti: 37 For example, The Providing Financial Assistance for Safe (PfAS) Drinking Water Act of2019, HR. 2533, would 

provide $500 million in annual funding to implement PFAS treatment systems, and The Water Affordability, 
67 


36935.056

polluters share clcan~up costs. llowcver. Congress should also establish a tee system to ensure 

that companies \\·hieh have profited from PFAS pay their fair share. 38 

More broadly. Congress should reform our federal environmental and public health laws to better 

address the threats posed hy contaminants like PFAS. S. 1251, the Safe Drinking \Vater 

Assistance Act of 2019. 39 provides a first step hy creating a national research initiative to address 

the threats ~merging contaminants pose to our drinking \Vater supplies. As the GAO rt:pott 

referenced inS. 1251 noted. EPA has failed to keep pace with these threats:.w In particular. the 

GAO report r~fercnced inS. 1251 found ··EPA has made limited progr~ss in prioritizing drinking 

water contaminants on the basis of greatest public health concern" since the enactment of the 

1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking \Vater Act..f! 

E\VG is grateful for the opportunity to testif)'. and we look forward to working with you to 

continue to address the PFAS contamination crisis. Last year. Congress allowed civilian airports 

to use tire-fighting foams that do not contain PFAS. The bipartisan bills that are the subject of 

today's hearing S. 638, S. 950. S. l25L S. !372, S. 1473, and S. 1507-- will build on that 

progress by documenting the scope and sources of PFAS contamination and by accelerating 

efforts to clean up PFAS contamination. 

Transpan:ncy, Equity and Reliability (WATER) Act of20!9,H.R. 1417, would amend Drinking Water State 

Revolving Fund to provide grants to address Pl·'AS CNJtamination. 18 For example. H.R. 2750, the PFAS User Fee Act of20 19. would create a fee system to help share the cost of 

\Vater treatment. Available at bnns:'/\\\\w.oovtracku:>ICI)_t}g[~~-bi!ls' 116/hrJ.~ZQ.:.t~~ 

Drinking Water A:o.sistance Act of 2019. S. 125 L !16th Cong. (20 19) 

EPA Wlu:tha to 
68 


36935.057

Responses to Questions for the Record 

By Scott Faber 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Examining legislation to address the risks associated with per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)" 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I hope you will find these answers helpful. 

Chairman Barrasso: 

1. Is there a proven method of destruction for PFAS? 

a. Would published guidance from EPA on how best to dispose of or destroy PFAS 

be helpful to the public? 

b. If so, does EPA currently have sufficient information on PF AS to publish such 

guidance at this point? 

2. During the hearing, you explained that the Department of Defense (DOD) has "under 

the Superfund Amendments of 1986, a program, the Defense Environmental Restoration 

Program, that has helped finance some ... remediation." You went on to state that DOD 

has "funding that is annually appropriated to help clean up contaminated sites, munitions, 

burn pits and so on." However, "In Jot nearly enough money has been appropriated." 

In your opinion, what would be a sufficient level of annual appropriations for DOD's 

Environmental Restoration Program to address PFAS and other contamination? 

Ranking Member Carper: 

3. EPA has issued several Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) for PFAS using its Toxic 

Substances Control Act authority. 

One 1 of these SNURs was issued for perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (like PFOS), and was 

added to at least once. EPA said that it had promulgated the SNUR because "these 

chemical substances may be hazardous to human health and the environment," saying 

further that they added these chemicals because "EPA believed the action was warranted 

given the similarity of these chemicals to those currently included in 40 CFR 721.95822 

and the strong likelihood of similar health and environmental concerns, as discussed in 

Unit Ill. of the March 10,2006 document" and that "EPA has concerns regarding adverse 

human health and environmental effects of PF AS. It is highly persistent in the 

environment, it tends to bioaccumulate, and it is toxic. In its voluntary phase-out of 

perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and PFOS-related products, the 3M Company, which 

had been the sole U.S. manufacturer of the chemicals, committed to stop production of all 

1 h ttps: 1/www. gavin fo. gov I conten t/p kg/F R-2 007-10-09 /pdf /E7 -1982 8.pdf 2 h ttps: 1/www .govi n fo.gov Icon tent/p kg/CF R -2011-tit! e40-vol31/p d f I CFR -2 011-ti tle40-vol31-sec 7 21-9582. pdf 

Pagel of7 
69 


36935.058

perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acid products with alkyl chain lengths of C8 or greater. 3M 

completed its phase-out of PFOS production in 2002, which led to a significant reduction 

in the use of all PFAS-related substances ..... As described in Unit Ill of the proposed 

SNUR, EPA has concerns regarding the reproductive and subchronic toxicity, 

persistence, and bioaccumulative potential of the chemical substances that are included in 

this SNUR. These concerns lead the Agency to believe that humans and the environment 

could suffer adverse effects from their use. Any use of these PF AS chemicals would 

continue to add to the reservoir ofperfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFASA) in the 

environment, resulting in additional human/ environmental exposure. There is evidence 

that PFAS-containing chemicals degrade to perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFASA). 

which exist in the anionic form in the environment, or to PF ASA precursors.'' 

The second 3 SNUR EPA issued was for long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate 

substances, and was also amended at least once. This SNUR was for PFOA and PFOAIike substances. In the rule, EPA observed that "PFOA is persistent, widely present in 

humans and the environment. has long half-lives in humans, and can cause adverse 

effects in laboratory animals, including cancer and developmental and systemic toxicity 

(Refs. 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15). PFOA precursors, chemicals which degrade or may 

degrade to PFOA, are also present worldwide in humans and the environment and, in 

some cases, might be present at higher concentrations than PFOA and be more toxic 

(Refs. 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20). PFOA higher homologues are chemicals with carbon chain 

lengths longer than PFOA. Available evidence suggests that toxicity and bioaccumulation 

appear to be higher for chemical substances with longer carbon chain lengths compared 

to those with shorter chain lengths (Refs. 21, 22, 23, and 24 ).'' 

EPA has also issued two draft health assessments proposing safe thresholds of exposure 

for specific PFAS chemicals (GenX and PFBS) for public comment, 4 stating that "the 

available oral toxicity studies show that the liver is sensitive to GcnX chemicals, and the 

kidney and thyroid are sensitive to PFBS.'' In its draft toxicity assessmcnt5 for GenX 

chemicals, EPA stated that it is working on five additional health assessments for PF AS 

that have not yet been released. 

EPA has the authority to list chemical substances or categories of chemical substances on 

the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory, when, in the Administrator's judgement, there is 

sufficient evidence to establish any one of the following: 

"(A) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant 

adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels that arc reasonably likely to 

exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, 

releases. 

' h ttps :1/www .govi nfo .gov Icon te nt/p kg/FR-2 015-01-21/pdf /2015-0063 6. pdf 4 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/factsheet pfbs-genxtoxicity values 11.14.2018.pdf 5 https://www.epa.gov/sites/produclion/files/2018-

11/documents/genx public comment draft toxicity assessment nov2018-508.pdf 

Page 2 of7 
70 


36935.059

(B) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in 

humans-

(i) cancer or teratogenic effects, or 

(ii) serious or irreversible-

(!) reproductive dysfunctions, 

(II) neurological disorders, 

(Ill) heritable genetic mutations, or 

(IV) other chronic health effects. 

(C) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause, because 

of-

(i) its toxicity, 

(ii) its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or 

(iii) its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment, 

a significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness, in the judgment 

of the Administrator, to warrant reporting under this section.'' 

a. In your opinion, do you believe that the range of concerns EPA determined 

existed for the PFAS chemicals that are subject to the provisions of the abovereferenced SNURs also indicate that there is sufficient evidence to warrant TRI 

repot1ing? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

b. In your opinion, do you believe that once EPA finalizes the health assessments for 

GenX and PFBS, EPA will have established that there is sufficient evidence to 

warrant TRI reporting? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

c. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), the Administrator has the authority to designate as a hazardous 

substance any "elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, and substances which, 

when released into the environment may present substantial danger to the public 

health or welfare or the environment.'' In your opinion, do you believe that the 

range of concerns EPA determined existed for the PFAS chemicals that are 

subject to the provisions of the above-referenced SNURs also indicate that these 

substances could be appropriately designated to be hazardous substances under 

CERCLA '? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

d. In your opinion, do you believe that once EPA finalizes the health assessments for 

GcnX and PFBS, these substances could be appropriately designated to be 

hazardous substances under CERCLA '? If not, please specifically explain why 

not. 

4. EPA has informed Congress that it intends to set a Maximum Comaminant Level for 

PFOA and PFOS 6 under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA), and stated that EPA "is 

also gathering and evaluating information to determine if a SOW A regulation is 

appropriate for a broader class of PF AS.'' 

' httos:f/www .eow .senate .gov /oublic/ cache/files/f /c/fc854d2e-c5 7d-4e26-ace8-

e067fbd bd e06/907052 884 E FCDC9 6899 D 1240F07 BE FFA. 2 019-02-15 -epa -response-to-sen -carper -re-p fa s-003-. pdf 

Page 3 of7 
71 


36935.060

a. Do you agree that a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for 

pertluorinated compounds that at minimum includes PFOA and PFOS should be 

promulgated by EPA? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

b. Do you believe that, subject to the availability of appropriations, EPA should be 

required to include all PF AS chemicals for which there is an EPA-validated 

detection technology in its next Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 

(UCMR) in order to determine whether and where these other PFAS chemicals 

might be found in drinking water? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

c. Since each UCMR by statute cannot include more than 30 contaminants on its list 

for monitoring, would you support excluding the PFAS chemicals described in a) 

from that cap in order to maximize occurrence data on PF AS without preventing 

EPA from requiring monitoring to be undertaken on other important potential 

drinking water contaminants? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

d. Should EPA be provided with clear authority to regulate sub-classes of PF AS 

chemicals (for example, groups of PFAS chemicals with similar chemical 

structures and modes of action on the body) under the Safe Drinking Water Act? 

If not, please specifically explain why not. 

e. Do you believe that EPA should be held to a statutory deadline for making 

regulatory determinations on whether to promulgate National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations for PFAS chemicals about which the Agency has both toxicity 

information and occurrence data in drinking water? If not, please specifically 

explain why not. 

Senator Capito: 

5. On the question of CERCLA liability, how should Congress address the issue of 

stakeholders that either inadvertently processed materials contaminated with PFAS (e.g., 

paper recyclers processing waste food wrappers) or that were required by law or best 

industrial practices to utilize PFAS (e.g., airports that were required by the federal 

government to use aqueous film-forming foams containing PF AS)? 

6. How can we link PF AS contamination at multi-use sites to particular industrial or 

government entities? For example. if a landfill has taken decades' worth of PFAS 

contaminated materials, from consumer and industrial sources, how should liability be 

considered- whether in statute or by the courts? 

7. Are there adequate analysis technologies to identify particular PFAS chemistries to link 

contamination back to a particular industrial or government actor? If so, how many 

PF AS compounds have test methodologies adequate to identify a single compound or 

subclass of compounds out of the broader class of all PFAS? 

8. Can an emphasis on hazard help inform a process for adding particular PF AS to the Safe 

Drinking Water Act and CERCLA that could be incorporated into statute? 

Senator Sanders: 

Page 4 of7 
72 


36935.061

9. Do you believe the EPA's current response to nationwide PFAS contamination is 

sufficient? What specific steps could the EPA and Congress take to improve the federal 

response to PFAS contamination? 

I 0. Do you believe that the State Revolving Loan Fund should be extended to cover drinking 

water infrastructure needs created by PFAS contamination? If so. how could communities 

benefit fi·om such a policy change? 

II. Are there currently unmet needs in addressing PFAS contamination in rural areas? If so, 

what are the impacts of those shortfalls? Do you believe that rural communities could 

benefit from additional funding for technical assistance to assist with PF AS 

contamination response? 

Response: 

l. There are several PFAS remediation and disposal technologies that have been 

implemented or are being demonstrated at the field-scale or bench-scale. A summary of 

these technologies has been developed by the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council. 7 

EPA has sufficient information about these technologies to publish guidance, and EWG 

strongly supports Sec. 504 of S. 1507, which would require EPA to publish interim 

guidance on the destruction and disposal of PFAS. 8 EWG also supports Levin 

Amendment #352 to H.R. 2500, which will ensure that PF AS incineration is undertaken 

in a manner than does not release PFAS into the air. 9 

2. EWG strongly supports increased annual funding for the Defense Environmental 

Restoration Program. As you know, DERP receives about $3.6 billion in annual funding, 

and has projected that $27.3 billion is needed to complete environmental restoration 

projects. 10 However, this estimate docs not include the expected costs of PF AS 

remediation, or the costs posed by other emerging contaminants. To meet this growing 

backlog of environmental restoration projects, EWG has urged Congress to double DERP 

spending. 

3. EWG strongly supports the addition of PFAS subject to the SNURs to the Toxic Release 

Inventory. As you note, the substances covered by the SNURs clearly meet the standards 

Congress established the EPCRA because they known to be toxic, persistent, and tend to 

bio-accumulate. Furthermore, the draft toxicity assessments for Gen-X and PFBS 11 found 

that these PFAS chemicals have been linked to serious health problems and also meet the 

criteria established by Sec. 313(d). Section I 02 of CERCLA allows EPA to designate as 

hazardous substances, "substances, which when released into the environment, may 

present substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the environment.'' As you 

7 Available at bttps://pf3s~ 1 .itrcweb.org/wp-cgntcnt/uploads/20 l8iOJ_infJs tf!f.u;b~U~m~_diatiQXLL.ll_lRn9f 

8 Available at https://www.congress.govlll6/bills/sl507/BILLS·Il6s 1507rs.pdf 

9 Available at https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/LEVI\11 052 xml625 190951 09519.pdf 

10 Available at https:/!denix.osd.millderpiderp-home-documents/unassignedlfy20 17-fast-facts/ 

11 Available at https://www.epa.govlsites/production/tiles/20 18-llidocumentsrfactsheet rfbs-genxtoxicity values 11.14.2018.pdf 

Page 5 of7 
73 


36935.062

note, the substances covered by the SNURs and subject to draft toxicity assessments have 

exhibited characteristics that may present substantial danger to public health or the 

environment and could be designated as hazardous substances. 

4. EWG strongly supports provisions of S. 1507 that amend the Safe Drinking Water Act tO 

require monitoring of all detectable PFAS under the next Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule. In combination, Sec. 202 and Sec. 303 of S. 1507 will significantly 

increase our ability to detect the presence of PFAS in source and finished water, laying 

the groundwork for state and federal drinking water standards. EPA has used the 

agency's authority under SDWA, CERCLA, FIFRA, ECPRA and other statutes to 

regulate other categories, classes and subclasses of chemicals but has thus far fai led to set 

standards for PFAS, subclasses ofPFAS, or individual PFAS. Setting a deadline, as 

proposed inS. 1507, will help create a sense of urgency among regulators. 

5. EPA strongly supports efforts to designate PFAS as a hazardous substance, a~ proposed 

inS. 638, the PFAS Action Act of20 19 and as proposed by Dingeii-Kildee Amendment 

#537 to H.R. 2500. Fu11hermore. we support SA 417 to the S. 1570, which recognizes 

that civilian airports were required, by regulation, to use fluorinated foams. Furthermore, 

the manufacturers of fluorinated foams and PFAS chemicals have long been aware of the 

toxic, persistent, and bio-accumulative qualities of fluorinated foams but failed to 

disclose these risks. 

6. EWG strongly supports efforts to designate PFAS as a hazardous substance, as proposed 

in S. 638 the PF AS Action Act of20 19 and as proposed by Dingeii-Kildee Amendment 

#537 to H.R. 2500. As you know, CERCLA is designed to ensure that polluters 

contribute to the cost of remediation, including persons who own or operate a fac ility 

from which a hazardous substance was released, who arranged for disposal or treatment 

of a hazardous substance, or who own or operated a faci lity at which disposal occurred. 

However, CERCLA contains provisions limiting liability for certain parties, including 

farmers who have applied fertilizers, local governments who have involuntarily obtained 

contaminated properties (e.g. through bankruptcy or abandonment), pa1ties who 

contributed very small amounts of waste, "innocent;· and bona fide purchasers, and 

parties with limited ability to pay. In particular, Sec. l 07(o) of CERCLA exempts from 

liability some parties who generated or transported waste if they contributed ''de 

micromis'· amounts. What's more, Sec. I 07(p) exempts certain parties who only 

contributed municipal solid waste to a listed site. 

7. Yes. There are analytical techniques, such as liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry 

(LC-MS), that can link PFAS contamination back to a particular private or public actor. 

8. Because PFAS are ·'forever'" chemicals that tend to bio-accumulatc in our blood and 

organs, PI' AS chemicals which been linked to cancer, ha rm to reproductive system, or 

harm to the immune system. should be presumed to pose an unacceptable risk to human 

health. The bloom serum of one-fourth of Americans already exceeds ·'safe" levels 

established by scientists, so Congress must urgently address ongoing sources ofPFAS 

contamination, including direct discharges of PFAS into air and water and consumer use~ 

of PFAS as well as legacy contamination. 

9. Although EPA's PFAS Action Plan is the agency's most comprehensive plan to date, the 

Action Plan docs not include a single requiremenl to monitor PFAS, report PFAS 

discharges, address ongoing PFAS discharges and uses, or remediate legacy PFAS 

contamination. To address the PFAS comamination crisis. Congress should, at a 

Page 6 of7 
74 


36935.063

minimum: expand PFAS monitoring, as proposed in S. 1507; expand PFAS rep011ing, as 

proposed in S. 1507; subject PFAS air discharges to regulation under the Clean Air Act, 

as proposed by H.R. 2605; subject PFAS water discharges to regulations under the Clean 

Water Act, as proposed by Pappas amendment #665 to H.R. 2500; test sewage sludge for 

PFAS; end the importation of PFAS waste; phase out the use of PFAS in consumer 

products like food packaging, as proposed by Dingell Amendment# 141 to H.R. 2500; 

end the approval of new consumer uses ofPFAS; designate PFAS as a hazardous 

substance, as proposed inS. 638 and amendment #537 to H.R. 2500, develop guidance 

for the proposal disposal of PFAS waste, as proposed inS. 1507; ensure that PFAS 

incineration destroys PFAS. as proposed by Amendment #352 to H.R. 2500; and 

significantly increase fund ing for drinking water infrastructure through the clean water 

and safe drinking water revolving funds. 

I 0. Yes. The cost of implementing a PFAS drinking water standard will place new financial 

burdens on communities, especially rural communities serving less than I 0,000 residents. 

However, the costs of inaction- including health care costs- far outweigh the costs of 

needed drinking water infrastructure. 

I I. PFAS pollution has so far been disproportionally found in rural communities near 

military installations or near industri al sites, such as Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics. 

EWG has identified more than 700 sites that are contaminated with PFAS, including 

more than 200 military installations that are predominantly in rural areas. Since many 

rural communities lack the resources or expertise to remove PFAS from contaminated 

drinking water. Congress should increase both financ ia l and technical assistance. 

Page 7 of 7 
75 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. 

Faber. We’re very grateful. 

Mr. Mehan. 

STATEMENT OF G. TRACY MEHAN III, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MEHAN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, 

Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. My 

name is Tracy Mehan, I am Executive Director of Government Affairs for the American Water Works Association, or AWWA, on 

whose behalf I am speaking today. I appreciate this opportunity to 

offer AWWA’s perspectives on the many pressing issues surrounding PFAS. 

Let me first of all say that this is a congenial environment for 

me. This Committee had confirmed my nomination as Assistant 

Administrator for Water back in 2001, so this is a congenial environment. 

I also want to thank the Committee, the entire Committee, for 

their support in reauthorizing the Drinking Water State Revolving 

Loan Fund, as well as doubling the authorized amount for that 

fund, as well as putting RIFIA, the new Federal credit program for 

water infrastructure, on a permanent footing. We are most grateful 

for that support for what is maybe the greatest single threat to the 

public health of the United States and the drinking water sector. 

AWWA’s 50,000 members represent the full spectrum of water 

utilities, small and large, rural and urban, municipal and investor 

owned. I speak not only from the perspective of AWWA, but as a 

former State and Federal regulator, an adjunct professor of environmental law and a cancer survivor. Our members are really the 

most customers facing of anyone dealing with this issue day and 

deal every day with their customers in hopefully an honest, truthful, and straightforward way as to what we know and what we 

don’t know about the various risks facing our drinking water systems. 

Drinking water utilities and State environmental agencies need 

to know where to focus monitoring resources to understand what 

risks may be in source waters. This is a key part of what we call 

source water protection. There are existing tools that EPA could be 

using to a greater degree to help address such concerns regarding 

PFAS. In particular, as mentioned by Lisa, the Toxic Substances 

Control Act, or TSCA, deploying these authorities in the service of 

safe drinking water is source water protection at the most strategic 

level. 

Working with EPA’s technical staff, which we heartily encourage, 

we agree that we need an all hands on deck approach, and TSCA 

is probably one of the biggest hands to use. We urge Congress to 

ensure that EPA takes advantage of such existing authorities 

under TSCA to manage risks posed by PFAS compounds. Using 

this authority, the agency needs to provide a report in one year and 

update it every 2 years, describing the location of current and past 

PFAS production, import, processing, and use in the United States 

for individual PFAS compounds, based on the data collected 

through TSCA. We have tried to get some of this information, and 

it is not that easy, although we believe it is there. Appropriate acVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:58 Aug 14, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36935.TXT SONYA
76 

tions should also be planned or taken under TSCA to restrict production, use and import of PFAS and support improved risk communications with the public. Actions taken by other Federal agencies, in particularly the Departments of Defense and Human 

Health Services to address PFAS concerns should also be reported 

upon. 

Finally, statutory and non-statutory barriers encountered in 

gathering and distributing information on PFAS in order to inform 

risk management decisions by EPA, States, and local risk managers, should be included. 

EPA officials promised to issue a proposed regulatory determination of PFAS and PFOA under the Safe Drinking Water Act processes this year. We urge Congress to support EPA’s Office of 

Water, particularly in appropriations, as it works through the rule 

determination process. 

With regard to Federal drinking water standards setting process, 

we understand that it is frustratingly slow. However, a scientific 

risk based and data driven process that discerns what substances 

are to be regulated and at what levels is indeed going to take a significant amount of time and resources. We caution against setting 

a precedent by bypassing these established processes via legislative 

action. The Nation tested that approach with the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act with untoward results. 

There is an appendix to my written testimony which sets out some 

of the concerns and problems that relate with that. I would be 

happy to discuss that. 

That said, we are eager to follow the data on PFAS wherever it 

goes, and we will work with our members to comply with whatever 

regulations are forthcoming. Believe me, the biggest concern we 

face is the trillion dollar need to replace and expand our water infrastructure. Water rates are going up at maybe 3 percent higher 

than the CPI. We have additional costs now with lead service line 

replacements. So we need to make smart decisions so we do not 

mis-deploy resources going after less risky challenges than the ones 

we already know. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mehan follows:] 

77 


36935.064

G. Tracy Mehan, Ill 

Executive Director, Government Affairs 

American Water Works Association 

G. Tracy Mehan, Ill is Executive Director, Government Affairs, for 

the American Water Works Association (AWWA). He was an 

independent consultant and served as Interim President of the U.S. 

Water Alliance and national Source Water Protection Coordinator 

for the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities. He is also 

an Adjunct Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George 

Mason University and Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College. He was Principal 

with The Cadmus Group, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, from 2004 to 

2014. Mehan served as Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency from 2001-2003. He served as Environmental Stewardship 

Counselor to the 2004 G-8 Summit Planning Organization (2004). Mehan also served 

as director of the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes (1993-2001) and as Associate 

Deputy Administrator of EPA in 1992. He was director of the Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources from 1989 to 1992. Mehan is a graduate of Saint Louis University 

and its School of Law. Mehan served on the Water Science and Technology Board and 

now the Committee on the Mississippi River and the Clean Water Act for the National 

Research Council of the National Academies. He was also an independent expert 

judge for the City Water Conservation Achievement Award program (2006 & 2011) 

sponsored by The U.S. Conference of Mayors and its Urban Water Council. 

Mehan is a member of the Environmental Law Institute (Ell) and a regular book 

reviewer for Ell's flagship publication, The Environmental Forum. 

Mehan served on EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory Board (2014-2018) as well 

as the boards of the U.S. Water Alliance and the Great Lakes Observing System. He is 

also a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Environmental Policy, School of 

Public Affairs, American University and a past member of the board of the Potomac 

Conservancy (2006-2014). 
78 


36935.065

American Water Works 

Association 

Dedicated ta the World'5 Most lmponant Re5ource• 

Government Affairs Offlce 

1300 Eye Street NW 

Suite701W 

Washington, DC ~l0005~3314 

T 202.628.8303 

F 202.62R2846 

Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated with Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 

Presented by 

G. Tracy Mehan, Ill 

Executive Director, Government Affairs 

American Water Works Association 

Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

May 22,2019 

Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the committee. 

My name is Tracy Mehan, and I am Executive Director for Government Affairs for the American 

Water Works Association, or AWWA, on whose behalf I am speaking today. I appreciate this 

opportunity to offer AWWA's perspectives on the many issues surrounding per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. 

AWWA's 50,000 members represent the full spectrum of water utilities- small and large, rural 

and urban, municipal and investor-owned. We are an international, non-profit, scientific and 

educational society dedicated to protecting public health through the provision of safe drinking 

water. While AWWA is primarily a drinking water association, about 60 percent of our utility 

members are dual utilities, that is they have a division of drinking water and a division of 
79 


36935.066

wastewater and possibly stormwater as well. I speak not only from the perspective of AWWA, 

but as a former state and federal regulator and an adjunct professor of environmental law. 

AWWA would like to bring to the committee's attention several issues regarding PFAS. We 

understand the committee's concerns that PFAS compounds may pose both human health and 

ecological risks that warrant greater attention and management. The number of bills introduced 

regarding PFAS and the variety of issues they address illustrate the breadth of concern over 

these compounds. 

PFAS compounds are a group of more than 3,000 man-made chemicals manufactured in the 

United States and other countries since the 1940s. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) reports that more than 1,200 PFAS compounds have been used in commerce, and that 

about 600 are still in use today. They may be found in food packaging, non-stick products, stainand water-repellent products, fire-fighting foams, polishes, cleaning agents and other 

commercial products. The most well-known and common of these compounds are 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perflurorooctane sulfontate (PFOS). Related compounds are 

also causing concern: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), 

perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), perfluorobutanesulfonic 

acid (PFBS) and fluoropolymers made through the process known as GenX. Much of our 

current data is focused on legacy PFAS compounds that are no longer manufactured, such as 

PFAS and PFOA. 

Currently 12 states have policies in place regarding PFAS compounds and drinking water, with 

three more developing policies. Also, 17 states have source water protection policies for PFAS, 

and at least one more state is developing such policies. One state, New Jersey, has a maximum 

contaminant level, and several have MCLs in development. 

2 
80 


36935.067

Use of Existing Authorities to Address PFAS 

Drinking water utilities and state environmental agencies need to know where to focus 

monitoring resources to understand what risks may be in source waters. We need to know 

where PFAS compounds have been produced and in what volumes. There are existing tools 

that EPA could be using to a greater degree to help address such concerns regarding PFAS. In 

particular, there is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA has data-gathering 

authority that the agency could use to garner more information from the manufacturing sector 

about the number of PFAS compounds that have been developed, in what quantities they were 

produced and where they were produced. TSCA data indicates that manufacturers have already 

discontinued the use of a number of PFAS compounds, but state and local risk managers need 

more information than is currently available to manage legacy compounds and proactively 

manage PFAS that are currently in use. Deploying TSCA authorities in the service of safe 

drinking water is "source water protection" at the strategic level. 

Utilizing its oversight authority over federal agencies, we urge Congress to work closely with 

EPA career staff to ensure that the agency takes advantage of existing authorities under TSCA 

and the Safe Drinking Water Act to manage risks posed by PFAS compounds. Using such 

authorities, the agency needs to: 

• provide a report in one year and update it every two years describing 

o the location of current and past PFAS production, import, processing and use in 

the United States for individual PFAS compounds based on data collected 

through TSCA; 

3 
81 


36935.068

o appropriate actions taken or planned under TSCA to restrict production, use and 

import of PFAS and support improved risk communications with the public; 

o actions taken by other federal agencies, and in particular the departments of 

Defense and Health and Human Services, to address PFAS concerns; and 

o summarizes statutory and non-statutory barriers encountered in gathering and 

distributing information on PFAS in order to inform risk management decisions by 

EPA, states and local risk managers. 

We understand the significance for designating some PFAS compounds as hazardous 

substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA). However, we must flag some unintended consequences of such actions that 

need to be evaluated. 

Wastewater utilities receive and treat water from a range of sources from homeowners to 

industries. That water may contain PFAS compounds. Even though they are not the source of 

these compounds, wastewater or stormwater utilities could end up liable for cleaning up these 

substances. If biosolids from wastewater treatment plants have been applied to land as fertilizer, 

such liability increases. Removing PFAS from wastewater requires advanced technologies, 

such as granular activated carbon, ion exchange or reverse osmosis. Then, as with advance 

drinking water treatment techniques, there is the issue of how to dispose of the concentrated 

PFAS mix. 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) comes into play as welL Information gleaned via TSCA to target 

assessments of PFAS in the environment will assist development of industrial pre-treatment 

actions under that act CWA authority will also come into play in the development of analytical 

4 
82 


36935.069

methods for PFAS in industrial wastewaters and in development of appropriate and reliable 

treatment methods. 

PFAS Action Plan 

EPA released its PFAS Action Plan earlier this year. While we saw some positive steps 

promised in that plan, we believe authorities exist for federal entities to do even more. Agency 

officials have provided briefings on that plan, so I will not repeat it in detail. EPA officials 

promised progress under the Safe Drinking Water Act's (SDWA's) process for developing 

drinking water standards, beginning with making proposed regulatory determinations for PFOA 

and PFOS this year. We urge Congress to support EPA's Office of Water, particularly in 

appropriations, as it works through the rule determination process. It was monitoring under the 

SDWA's unregulated monitoring requirements that set the stage for the current PFAS policy 

debate. EPA will require a second round of monitoring for additional PFAS in the upcoming fifth 

round of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. In late April, EPA proposed interim 

clean-up guidelines for PFOA and PFOS under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA). EPA also has a process under way to determine if PFOA and PFOS can be listed as 

hazardous substances under CERCLA. Equally important, EPA committed itself to improving 

risk communication for PFAS compounds. Members of the public and policymakers such as 

yourselves are understandably concerned about the unknown risks associated with a group of 

contaminants that is both manmade and is seemingly an avoidable risk. Effective risk 

communication is significant to addressing these concerns. 

With regard to the federal drinking water standard setting process, we understand that this 

process can be frustratingly slow. However, a scientific, risk-based and data-driven process that 

discerns what substances are to be regulated, and at what levels, is indeed going to take a 

5 
83 


36935.070

significant amount of time. We caution against setting a precedent of by-passing these 

established processes via legislative action. The nation tested that approach with the 1986 

Amendments to the SDWA with untoward results (see attached appendix). That said, we are 

eager to follow the data on PFAS compounds wherever it may go in the investigative process so 

that we may know how to best protect public health. We will then prepare our members to 

comply with any new regulations. 

Removing PFAS compounds from water typically requires treatment techniques such as 

filtration through granular activated carbon or ion exchange. While these advanced technologies 

can be effective, they are also expensive, and generate waste streams that require specialized 

disposal methods that are not readily available across the country. 

AWWA members are looking for a cohesive risk management strategy that addresses legacy 

compounds and ensures that current and future PFAS compounds are not a threat to the 

country's water supplies. We are concerned that states are considering MCLs for PFAS 

compounds over a range of values that will have markedly different treatment implications, 

sometimes without adequate benefit-cost analysis. This makes intelligible, accurate, defensible 

risk communication impossible. Drinking water standards are part of a holistic risk management 

strategy. 

In our 2012 study, Buried No Longer, AWWA determined that the United States needs to spend 

about $1 trillion over 25 years to maintain and expand our current level of water service. 

Therefore, over time, regulatory actions needs to be prudently implemented to avoid 

aggravating affordability issues for customers, particularly those with low incomes. AWWA's 

biennial rate survey found that during the period between 2016 and 2018, charges increased 

7.2% for water and 7.5% for wastewater, outpacing inflation by 3 percentage points. This follows 

6 
84 


36935.071

a larger trend, whereby water rates have more than doubled the pace of inflation since 2014. 

Water systems across the United States are striving to provide the best water quality possible at 

a reasonable cost to their customers. Investing in a treatment requirement based on inadequate 

information can leave fewer resources to address other known risks, such as failing 

infrastructure or lead service line replacement. 

Research 

Research is key in addressing PFAS. The lack of health effects data on substances such as 

PFAS compounds has long held back regulatory determinations under the SDWA. Before a 

substance can be regulated, the SDWA requires that it "is known to occur or there is a 

substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency 

and at levels of public health concern; and in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation 

of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons 

served by public water systems." 

Last year the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry observed "The toxicity of 

perfluoroalkyl compounds, particularly PFOA and PFOS, has been extensively evaluated in 

humans and laboratory animals. However, comparison of the toxicity of perfluoroalkyls across 

species is problematic due to differences in elimination half-lives, lack of adequate mechanistic 

data, species differences in the mechanism of toxicity for some endpoints, and differences in 

measurement of exposure levels between epidemiology and experimental studies. Substantial 

differences in the rate of elimination of perfluoroalkyls exist across species .... The mechanisms 

of toxicity of perfluoroalkyl compounds have not been fully elucidated." In this report, ATSDR 

was only able to propose reference doses for four out of fourteen of the more extensively 

studied PFAS compounds. 

7 
85 


36935.072

Research to provide information necessary to make informed risk management decisions is 

expensive and has been inadequately funded. Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National 

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, pointed to this 

fact last fall when she testified to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government 

Affairs, saying "While we have studies that indicate adverse health effects due to PFOA and 

PFOS exposure, we do not have strong data on which to base conclusions for the great majority 

of thousands of PFAS and we have only limited findings that support the following adverse 

health effects. 

"PFAS" is a grouping of chemicals with a large array of chemicals with different structures and 

thus different chemical properties that impact developing analytical methods, their fate in the 

environment, the effectiveness of different treatment technologies, as well as how they degrade 

(and into what). To effectively manage PFAS the environmental engineering community need 

information to guide design and operation of treatment technologies. In particular research is 

needed to support quantification in environmental media and sustainable strategies for removal 

of PFAS of concern from waters and wastewaters. 

Further research is needed in these areas: 

Health effects data to identify which PFAS compounds pose a human health risk; 

Analytical methods to quantify levels of PFAS compounds in environmental samples 

(natural waters, wastewaters, soil, finished water); 

• Technologies to economically destroy PFAS compounds in wastes from drinking water 

and wastewater treatment so that these long-lived chemicals are not re-introduced into 

groundwater or surface waters; and 

• Technologies to cost-effectively remove problematic PFAS compounds from drinking 

water and wastewaters to levels that do not pose public health concerns. 

8 
86 


36935.073

We urge Congress to ensure that the EPA and other relevant agencies or research bodies have 

the tools and resources they need to answer the needs listed above. 

Setting Achievable Expectations 

It is important that the Committee request and examine technical and economic analysis from 

career staff at EPA before proceeding with any legislation to regulate PFAS compounds. For 

example, the Safe Drinking Water Act framework does not require a binary decision between 

setting standards for individual compounds one-by-one, and requiring treatment for all "PFAS" 

as a class. Taking steps to control PFAS exposure will shift public resources from other 

essential tasks. To do so warrants understanding the practical implications of legislative 

language. AWWA recommends the Committee allow EPA to develop regulations and guidance 

that target steps that provide a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction. 

AWWA and water systems across the United States are committed to providing high-quality 

drinking water and protecting consumers from demonstrable risks. To assure that PFAS risks 

are effectively and efficiently reduced, these compounds must be properly addressed within the 

scientific framework of the SDWA. Water systems also need Congress to work with EPA to 

ensure that the agency has the funding to properly execute its work under all of the available 

statutes to protect our nation's water resources. 

Finally, I want to note that AWWA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

recognized "Drinking Water Week" early this month. The theme this year was, "Protect the 

Source." I hope that the discussions at this hearing and the discussions this hearing generates 

9 
87 


36935.074

will help us all do more to protect our sources of drinking water from substances posing a threat 

to human and environmental health. 

G. Tracy Mehan, Ill 

G. Tracy Mehan, Ill, became AWWA's Executive Director for Government Affairs in August 

2015. Before that, he was a principal with The Cadmus Group, Inc., an environmental consulting 

firm. Mehan served as Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency from 2001 to 2003, directing both the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act 

programs. He developed new policies and guidances on watershed-based permitting and water 

quality trading. He also promoted and expanded ambient water quality monitoring and 

innovative approaches to meeting the challenge of the infrastructure financing gap. Mehan 

served as director of the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes (1993-2001) and as Associate 

Deputy Administrator of EPA in 1992. He served as director of the Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources from 1989 to 1992, managing the state's environmental, parks, historic 

preservation, geology and other programs. He represented Missouri in all negotiations over the 

management of the Missouri River. Mehan is a graduate of Saint Louis University and its 

School of Law. Mehan is an adjunct professor in environmental law at George Mason University 

School of Law. 

What is the American Water Works Association? 

The American Water Works Association (AWWA) is an international, nonprofit, scientific and 

educational society dedicated to providing total water solutions to protect public health and 

assure the effective management of water. Founded in 1881, the association is the largest 

organization of water professionals in the world. 

10 
88 


36935.075

Our membership includes more than 3,900 utilities that supply roughly 80 percent of the nation's 

drinking water and treat almost half of the nation's wastewater. Our 50,000 members represent 

the full spectrum of the water community: public water and wastewater systems, environmental 

advocates, scientists, academicians, and others who hold a genuine interest in water, our most 

important resource. AWWA unites the diverse water community to advance public health, 

safety, the economy, and the environment. 

### 

11 
89 


36935.076

Appendix to prepared statement by G. Tracy Mehan, 111. 

"The statute should be amended to eliminate the requirement that National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations be established for 25 new contaminants every three years. Instead, new regulated 

contaminants would be selected based on whether their health risk, occurrence, and comparative risk 

from other exposure pathways warrant regulation." 

Prepared statement from June Swallow, former Director of the Rhode Island Department of 

Health's Division of Drinking Water Quality, Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, 1993 

"The 1986 Amendments to the SDWA require EPA to issue national primary drinking water regulations 

for 83 specified contaminants and for 25 additional contaminants every three years. This rigid "25 every 

3 years" statutory requirement outpaces the Agency's ability to critically assess whether there are public 

health threats posed by thousands of contaminants that may appear in drinking water before 

developing regulations. Under the present statutory scheme, future regulations may not be aimed at the 

highest priority public health risks, potentially increasing the already significant regulatory burden on 

EPA, the States and public water systems with only marginal benefits. In time of constrained resources, 

EPA needs the flexibility and time to select contaminants for regulation that pose real public health risks. 

As an alternative to the "25 every 3 years" mandate, the Administration recommends that EPA more 

thoroughly evaluate public health risks before regulations are developed." 

Prepared statement from Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, House 

Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, 1994 

"The current requirement to regulate 25 new contaminants every 3 years needs to be replaced with a 

scientifically defensible, risk-based approach. The current regulatory treadmill dilutes limited resources 

on lower priority contaminants, and as a consequence may hinder more rapid progress on high priority 

12 
90 


36935.077

contaminants. A new selection process should maintain a mandatory duty to collect data, conduct 

research, and make publicly accountable decisions on whether or not regulations are needed. This 

approach would be less rigid than the "25 every 3 years" requirement from the 1986 SDWA 

amendments, but would not revert to the pre-1986 policy, which failed to ensure timely research and 

contaminant selection." 

Prepared statement from Robert Perciasepe, former Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office 

of Water, House Subcommittee on Health and Environment, 1996 

13 
91 


36935.078

American Water Works 

Association 

Senate Committee on EnYironment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Examining legislation to address the risks associated with per- and 

po/yjTuoroa/kyl substances (PFAS)" 

May 22,2019 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Mehan 

Chairman Barrasso: 

1. During the hearing. you stated that American Water Works Association (A WWA) is 

"concerned that states are considering fmaximum contaminant levels] for PFAS 

compounds over a range of values that wil! have markedly different treatment 

implications, sometimes ""ithout adequate benefit-cost analysis." You went on to explain 

that "[t)his makes intelligible, accurate. defensible risk communication impossible.'' 

When one state sets the maximum contaminant level (MCL) at one level 

and other states sets MCLs at different levels, clear communication to the 

public about the safety of its drinking water becomes impossible. When 

regulatory agencies arrive at differing MCLs, it's apparent that their costbenefit assessments are based on different data or values or are non~ 

existent. 

Is EPA able to address this challenge to risk communication in the absence of a national 

primary drinking water regulation for one or more PF AS compounds? If so, how'? 

When one state sets drinking water treatment requirements at one level 

and other states sets different levels, the public does not understand why 

one state's standard is different from another. Moreover, the first point-of~ 

contact citizens have, the local water utility and local governing bodies, 

were not part of the state decision-making process and are not equipped 

with the tools to support clear risk communication. This situation becomes 

particularly difficult when state risk assessments rely on different 

assumptions and safety factors, even though they are developed 

contemporaneously. At present, AWWA is not aware of any PFAS drinking 

water levels that have been developed utilizing a robust benefit-cos! 

analysis. Consequently, the public does not understand the distinction 
92 


36935.079

between a conservative public health goal and considered steps 

appropriate for effective risk management. 

2. During the hearing, you testilied that Congress must consider "the question of 

misdirection of resources, what are the opportunity costs of[requiring EPA to issue a 

national primary drinking water regulation for PFAS) as opposed to dealing with ... ri sks 

like lead, disinfection byproducts, etc." 

As Congress considers legislation directing EPA to issue a national primary drinking 

water regulation for one or more PFAS compounds, what steps can it take to ensure that 

it does not repeat the mistakes in the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act? 

Congress could provide funding for research needed to determine health 

effects and occurrence of PFAS compounds. This could help prevent the 

temptation to regulate via legislation on a contaminant-by-contaminant 

basis, which would be an imitation of the failed methodology of the 1986 

Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

3. During the hearing, you indicated that some water organizations might support 

designating some PFAS compounds as ·'hazardous substances" under CERCLA ··as long 

as there is an exemption for water and wastewater utilities." 

The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) and the Water 

Environment Federation (WEF) have written: "Should the Committee and Congress 

move to designate all Pf AS (as proposed inS. 638) or a select subset of PFAS chemicals 

as hazardous substance under CERCLA, NACWA and WEF strongly urge the inclusion 

of clear, unambiguous statutory language excluding municipal wastewater residuals from 

potential CERCLA liability.•· These two water organizations explained that '·a CERCLA 

designation for PFAS could potentially open liability tor public clean water utilities that 

have been beneficially land applying their biosolids for decades.'" 

Does AWWA take the same position as that ofNACWA and WEF on S. 638? If not, 

what is AWWA's position on S. 638? 

Yes. Many of our member utilities are dual utilities, in that they provide 

drinking water and wastewater services to the same customers. 

Wastewater utilities are not the source of PFAS contamination, but could 

find themselves held liable without such exemptions. The costs of such 

findings would be borne by those local ratepayers. 

4. When EPA establishes a national primary drinking water regulation for a drinking water 

contaminant, how does this affect a water utility? 

Establishing a national primary drinking water regulation triggers a series 

of actions for all public water systems (PWSs) to which EPA makes the 

regulation applicable. First, PWSs must assess if the contaminant is 

present at a level requiring additional treatment. Regardless of whether 

additional treatment is needed, the water system must also initiate 

2 
93 


36935.080

appropriate monitoring for the contaminant(s) based on the regulation's 

requirements and report those results to the primacy agency. 

If the contaminant is present at a level that is not reliably below that 

required by the regulation, the water system will: 

o Conduct monitoring and special studies to determine what mitigation 

steps are needed. Steps identified could be abandoning sources of 

supply, modifying current treatment processes or installing 

additional treatment. 

o Actual facility improvement planning will require engineering 

evaluations, design, fiscal planning and permitting. 

o If the necessary improvements can be accomplished within the water 

system's financial means, then the system will proceed to 

procurement and construction; 

o Assuring adequate financing may require water rate increases or 

initiating other managerial steps, such as a merger with another 

water system. 

o Throughout this process the water system will need to maintain an 

ongoing dialogue with its customers so that they understand the 

approach being pursued, why the investments are being made and 

the financial implications of those improvements on them as 

ratepayers. 

o Meeting strict regulatory deadlines can force water systems to revisit 

the timing of other priority infrastructure investments. Given limited 

available resources, water systems may delay replacement of aging 

infrastructure, expansion of service to support economic 

development or making near-term expenditures necessary for longterm sustainability, such as investments in business systems. 

o If the water system does not meet deadlines and requirements in the 

regulation, it must meet the rule's public notification requirements so 

that the public is appropriately informed of those failures. 

o One aspect of meeting regulatory deadlines is obtaining adequate 

funding. Major infrastructure investment, such as that needed for 

new treatment technologies, may require more capital in the short 

term than can rates can provide. That is when water systems must 

choose between financing options such as municipal bonds, the 

state revolving loan fund, the Water Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act program, public-private partnerships, public-public 

partnerships or assistance from the Department of Agriculture's 

Rural Utilities Service program. If a utility already has a substantial 

debt load, this can get complicated. 

5. What technologies currently exist to treat PFAS contamination in drinking water and 

wastewater? 

What treatment technology is appropriate depends on the PFAS 

compounds present, local water quality characteristics, existing 

infrastructure and financial constraints. EPA has prepared a summary of 

treatment technologies and their relative effectiveness treating PFOA and 

3 
94 


36935.081

PFOS.1 At present the technologies with demonstrated ability to remove 

PFAS compounds are ion exchange, granular activated carbon (GAC), and 

reverse osmosis. Depending on the PFAS compounds targeted for 

treatment a combination of these treatments may be necessary. Also, as 

groundwater systems introduce advanced treatment for PFAS, other 

treatment may be necessary (e.g., additional or different treatment for 

corrosion control due to water quality changes due to PFAS treatment). 

a. How much do these technologies cost and who would incur these costs? 

Costs will vary according to the types and amounts of PFAS 

compounds that need to be removed, the size of the treatment 

facility and other water quality characteristics. Treatment processes 

result in waste products that the water system must dispose of. 

When the treatment process concentrates a contaminant in a media 

such as GAC or ion exchange resin such that it meets the definition 

of a hazardous waste, it must be disposed of as such, with the 

associated precautions and cost. Processes such as reverse 

osmosis create concentrated liquid waste streams known as brine 

that must be disposed of as well. Such brines as typically discharged 

through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits or 

injected into wells managed through Underground Injection Control 

program permits. Again, such disposal has both permitting 

requirements and implementation costs, when they are in fact 

feasible. 

As noted above, applicability and cost are very site specific. A report 

prepared by Black and Veatch in 2018 illustrates the range of costs 

one system considered as it evaluated GAC, anion exchange (IX), 

and membrane filtration. This analysis for Cape Fear Public Utility 

Authority provides a planning level comparison of each technology 

with respect to capital and annual costs. The table below taken 

directly from the report. 

Cape Fe:ar Puhlk Utlllty Authority 

Table S-t Cost Summaf)' f'OJ' 44 MGD Treatment Plant 

Capital Cost (+50%/·30%) 

Annual O&M Cost 

$46M 

$2,7M 

$46M 

$l.l~l 

$176M 

1 EPA, Drinking Water Treatability Database, last accessed June 17 at 

$150M 

S4.7M 

$504M 

h ttps :1/ia spu b, e pa.gov /td b/pages/ co nta min an t/t rea tme ntSu mma ry, do: jsess ion id = FCtorndn mz Kv czG B P aJ N fGVf 

W901LCEj8f7nv7GizABI28Q9w9p!-185947653 

4 
95 


36935.082

Another community, also on the Cape Fear River, Brunswick County, 

is investing $90 million for treating 40 million gallons of water per 

day using reverse osmosis. As stated above, the costs of additional 

treatment are borne by local ratepayers. 

6. If Congress pursues legislation directing EPA to issue a national primary drinking water 

regulation for one or more PFAS compounds under the Safe Drinking Water Act, what 

should the legislation include to help water utilities comply with such a regulation? 

Increased funding for the SRF and WIFIA programs, protection of the tax 

exempt status of municipal bonds if Congress brings up tax legislation 

again, more research and development resources to help bring down the 

cost of detection and treatment, realistic timelines for compliance, and 

more research resources to determine human health effects from these 

compounds. 

Ranking Member Carper: 

7. EPA has issued several Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) for PFAS using its Toxic 

Substances Control Act authority. 

One2 of these SNURs was issued for pertluoroalkyl sulfonates (like PFOS), and was 

added to at least once. EPA said that it had promulgated the SNUR because '"these 

chemical substances may be hazardous to human health and the environment," saying 

further that they added these chemicals because "EPA believed the action was warranted 

given the similarity of these chemicals to those currently included in 40 CFR 721.95823 

and the strong likelihood of similar health and environmental concerns, as discussed in 

Unit Ill. of the March 10.2006 document" and that "EPA has concerns regarding adverse 

human health and environmental effects of PF AS. It is highly persistent in the 

environment, it tends to bioaccumulate, and it is toxic. In its voluntary phase-out of 

perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and PFOS-related products, the 3M Company, which 

had been the sole U.S. manufacturer of the chemicals, committed to stop production of all 

pertluoroalkyl sulfonic acid products with alkyl chain lengths ofC8 or greater. 3M 

completed its phase-out of PFOS production in 2002. which led to a significant reduction 

in the use of all PFAS-related substances ..... As described in Unit Ill of the proposed 

SNUR, EPA has concerns regarding the reproductive and subchronic toxicity. 

persistence, and bioaccumulative potential of the chemical substances that are included in 

this SNUR. These concerns lead the Agency to believe that humans and the environment 

could suffer adverse effects from their use. Any use of these PFAS chemicals would 

continue to add to the reservoir ofpertluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFASA) in the 

environment, resulting in additional human/ environmental exposure. There is evidence 

that PFAS-containing chemicals degrade to perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFASA), 

which exist in the anionic form in the environment, or to PFASA precursors." 

The second4 SNUR EPA issued was for long-chain,pcrtluoroalkyl carboxylate 

2 https://www .govinfo .gov I con tentlpkgiFR-2007 -10-09lpd fiE7 -19828 pdf 

' https: f/www .gov i nfo.gov Icon ten tlpkgl C F R-2011-ti tl e40-vo l31lpdf I C F R ·· 2 011-tit I e4 0 -vo 131-s ec 7 21-9 5 82. pdf 4 h ttps :/lwww .g ovi nlo .gov I con tentlpkgiF R-2015-01-21lpdf 12 015-0063 6. pdf 

5 
96 


36935.083

substances, and was also amended at least once. This SNUR was for PFOA and PFOAlike substances. In the rule, EPA observed that ''PFOA is persistent, widely present in 

humans and the environment, has long half~lives in humans, and can cause adverse 

effects in laboratory animals, including cancer and developmental and systemic toxicity 

(Refs. II, 12, 13, 14, and 15). PFOA precursors, chemicals which degrade or may 

degrade to PFOA, are also present worldwide in humans and the environment and, in 

some cases, might be present at higher concentrations than PFOA and be more toxic 

(Refs. 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20). PFOA higher homologues are chemicals with carbon chain 

lengths longer than PFOA. Available evidence suggests that toxicity and bioaccumulation 

appear to be higher for chemical substances with longer carbon chain lengths compared 

to those with shorter chain lengths (Refs. 21. 22, 23. and 24)." 

EPA has also issued two draft health assessments proposing safe thresholds of exposure 

for specific PFAS chemicals (GenX and PFBS) for public comment,5 stating that ''the 

available oral toxicity studies show that the liver is sensitive to GenX chemicals, and the 

kidney and thyroid are sensitive to PFBS." In its draft toxicity assessment6 for GenX 

chemicals, EPA stated that it is working on five additional health assessments for PFAS 

that have not yet been released. 

EPA has the authority to list chemical substances or categories of chemical substances on 

the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory. when. in the Administrator's judgement, there is 

sufficient evidence to establish any one of the following: 

''(A) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant 

adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels that are reasonably likely to 

exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, 

releases. 

(B) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in 

humans-

(i) cancer or teratogenic effects. or 

(ii) serious or irreversible-

(!) reproductive dysfunctions. 

(II) neurological disorders, 

(Ill) heritable genetic mutations. or 

(IV) other chronic health e!Tects. 

(C) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause, because 

of-

(i) its toxicity, 

(ii) its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or 

(iii) its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment, 

a significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness, in the judgment 

of the Administrator, to warrant reporting under this section." 

a. In your opinion, do you believe that the range of concerns EPA determined 

existed for the PFAS chemicals that are subject to the provisions of the above5 https://www.epa .gov /sites/prod uction/files/2018-11/documents/factsheet pfbs-genxtoxicity values 11.14.2018.pdf 6 https:(/www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-

11/documents/genx J1.!!..1l.!Lc comment draft toxicity assessment nov2018-508.pdf 

6 
97 


36935.084

referenced SNURs also indicate that there is sufficient evidence to warrant TRI 

reporting? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

AWWA views PFAS as a multi-media risk management challenge, 

and more over, a challenge that cannot be solely addressed through 

the Safe Drinking Water Act It is not possible to assess 

environmental exposure to PFAS without using the full suite of 

statutory authorities available to EPA, including EPCRA. If EPA's 

Administrator judges PFAS compounds likely to be a risk 

appropriate to manage under the SDWA, then EPA should have an 

ample science policy basis for requiring collection of data through 

EPCRA in order to inform risk management. 

b. In your opinion, do you believe that once EPA finalizes the health assessments for 

GenX and PFBS, EPA will have established that there is sufficient evidence to 

warrant TRI reporting? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

See response to question 7.a. 

c. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), the Administrator has the authority to designate as a hazardous 

substance any "elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, and substances which, 

when released into the environment may present substantial danger to the public 

health or welfare or the environment." In your opinion, do you believe that the 

range of concerns EPA determined existed for the PFAS chemicals that are 

subject to the provisions of the above-referenced SNURs also indicate that these 

substances could be appropriately designated to be hazardous substances under 

CERCLA? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

See response to questions 3 and 9. 

d. In your opinion, do you believe that once EPA finalizes the health assessments for 

GenX and PFBS, these substances could be appropriately designated to be 

hazardous substances under CERCLA? If not. please spccitically explain why 

not. 

See response to questions 3 and 9. 

8. EPA has informed Congress that it intends to set a Maximum Contaminant Level for 

PFOA and PFOS7 under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and stated that EPA "is 

also gathering and evaluating information to determine if a SDWA regulation is 

appropriate for a broader class of PFAS.'' 

' https :1/www. epw. sen ate. gov /pub lie/ each e/files/f I c/fc854d2 e ·c5 7 d -4e 2 6· aceSe06 7fb d bd e06/90 705 2 B84 E FCDC968 99 D 1240 F07 BE F FA. 2019-02-15 -epa-response-to-sen-carp e r-re -pfas-003-. pdf 

7 
98 


36935.085

a. Do you agree that a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for 

perfluorinated compounds that at minimum includes PFOA and PFOS should be 

promulgated by EPA? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

Under the SDWA, EPA must determine that there is a meaningful 

opportunity for a national primary drinking water regulation to 

protect public health. Moreover, the basis for the resulting regulation 

must be demonstrably sound through a transparent pubic record 

that is based in the best available science and an analysis that takes 

both costs and benefits into account. 

AWWA does not prejudge where EPA's analysis of PFOA, PFOS or 

other PFAS compounds will lead. The drinking water community will 

take the steps expected, but because every dollar invested in public 

health protection to meet one objective is not available to meet other 

pressing objectives, we ask that Congress and EPA be certain that 

the regulations that are set be developed through a scientifically 

defensible process as described by the SDWA. 

b. Do you believe that, subject to the availability of appropriations, EPA should be 

required to include all PF AS chemicals for which there is an EPA-validated 

detection technology in its next Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 

(UCMR) in order to determine whether and where these other PFAS chemicals 

might be found in drinking water? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

The UCMR is an important and appropriate mechanism through 

which EPA can acquire a representative national distribution of 

PFAS compound occurrence. In its PFAS Action Plan, EPA indicated 

its intention to collect additional occurrence data on PFAS 

compounds. On July 16, EPA is to hold a stakeholder meeting and 

webinar on the analytical methods anticipated to be used in UCMR5, 

including a new method for PFAS compounds. 8•

9 The new drinking 

water method will reliably quantify 26 PFAS compounds. There is 

partial overlap in analytes between the new method and the existing 

EPA analytical method, EPA Method 537.1. While EPA Method 537 

has been improved since UCMR3, it is not clear without more 

information from EPA about the new analytical method as to whether 

analyzing PFAS under both methods is an appropriate use of 

resources. 

c. Since each UCMR by statute cannot include more than 30 contaminants on its list 

for monitoring. would you support excluding the PF AS chemicals described in a) 

from that cap in order to maximize occurrence data on PFAS without preventing 

EPA from requiring monitoring to be undertaken on other important potential 

drinking water contaminants? If not, please specifically explain why not. 

8 84 FR 25026 

9 Presentation to EPA's Science Advisory Board, Andrew Gillespie et al., EPA's PFAS Action Plan, Downloaded June 

17, 2019 at 

h ttps: /fyose mite. epa .gov I sa b/ sa bp rod u ct. nsf /641909 E2 68 7 CF84585 2583 F 000 584188/$ Fi le/M c Lain G iII espie + P F 

ASBackground ActionPian Research 5AB.pdf 

8 
99 


36935.086

There is substantial state and federal interest in the occurrence of 

PFAS compounds. If PFAS is sufficiently important to warrant the 

special focus given it by EPA, Congress, and individual states, 

perhaps it is sufficient for UCMRS to focus on PFAS. Without the 

information EPA is expected to provide at its upcoming UCMR5 

stakeholder meeting, judging whether other anticipated contaminant 

monitoring is warranted remains to be seen. 

d. Should EPA be provided with clear authority to regulate sub-classes ofPFAS 

chemicals (for example, groups of PFAS chemicals with similar chemical 

structures and modes of action on the body) under the Safe Drinking Water Act? 

If not, please specifically explain why not. 

EPA has sufficient authority to regulate individual contaminants or 

groups of contaminants under the existing statute. The criteria for 

making that determination already captured within the current SDWA 

are sound and sufficient. 

e. Do you believe that EPA should be held to a statutory deadline for making 

regulatory determinations on whether to promulgate National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations for PFAS chemicals about which the Agency has both toxicity 

information and occurrence data in drinking water? If not, please specificall y 

explain why not. 

Setting tirnelines for action is an appropriate and frequent role in 

federal policy for Congress. This is a sound role for Congress with 

respect to drinking water regulatory policy. If Congress intends to 

set such a deadline for PFAS chemicals, then Congress must also 

appropriate adequate funding to support EPA in conducting the 

research and regulatory development processes needed to develop a 

sound regulation. While it is appropriate for Congress to set 

deadlines for agency decision-making processes, it is inappropriate 

for Congress to pre-judge the science policy determination or 

required a decision on a timeline that precludes making an 

appropriately informed decision. 

9. The liability provisions of CERCLA provide for strict. joint and several liability. These 

provisions allow a liable party to argue in court that a different party should pay for 

remediation costs if the different party was responsible for or contributed to the 

contamination that required remediation. So, for example, if EPA found that a drinking 

water or wastewater utility was liable under CERCLA for PI' AS contamination, the 

utility could argue that the industrial source that made or used the PFAS should actually 

pay for the remediation costs. During the hearing, you stated that a ··hazardous waste 

designation under CERCLA would be appropriate as long as there is an exemption for 

water and wastewater utilities.'· which appears to run counter to the premise of the 

liability provisions ofCERCLA. 

I understand that water and wastewater utilities treating PFAS-contaminated water over 

past decades would not necessarily have been aware of the risks or presence of the 

9 
100 


36935.087

materials, but the same can be stated for almost every other user or handler of PFAS. 

Carving out an exemption for wastewater and water utilities from CERCLA 

liability for PFAS compounds would not be novel. CERCLA has allowed for 

exemptions for innocent purchasers, bona fide prospective purchasers, de 

micromis contributors (Percival et al. 2013}. It also has protections against 

lender liability and secured creditors who do not participate in 

management of a facility. 

a. Arc water and wastewater utilities exempt from CERCLA liability for the costs of 

remediating contamination from any other of the hundreds ofCERCLAdesignated hazardous substances? If so, which substance or substances? 

We have not researched this question and do not know the answer. 

b. The first CERCLA hazardous substance list included almost 700 substances, 

many of which were originally named by Congress in statute. Have any of these 

substances ever been found in drinking or waste water? 

We have not researched this question and do not know the answer. 

c. Please provide a list of each instance in which EPA has sought to hold a 

wastewater or drinking water utility liable for contamination under CERCLA, 

along with a brief description of the circumstances associated with each instance 

(i.e. the name and location of the utility, the contaminant, the date on which 

EPA's action was resolved, and whether EPA determined that the utility was 

knowledgeable or negligent when it contributed to or caused the contamination). 

We have not researched this question and do not know the answer. 

d. Has AWWA requested (from Congress or EPA) an exemption from CERCLA 

liability in the past? If so. please provide a list of each such instance, along with a 

description of the circumstances (reason for the request, date. and outcome). 

To the best of our knowledge, no. 

Senator Capito: 

I 0. What sort of funding or technical assistance program would be of the greatest assistance 

to your members in addressing the challenges posed by PFAS contamination. particularly 

if there is a federal MCL? 

Funding for research to support sound regulatory decision-making, 

increased funding for the SRF and WIFIA programs, and appropriate 

funding for state regulatory implementation and assistance programs. 

10 
101 


36935.088

However, we would also caution against putting funds in sitos for specific 

contaminants. Communities that do not have PFAS problems, but have 

problems with aging infrastructure or other contaminants, could find 

themselves blocked out of the SRF or WIFIA if such funds are si!oed. More 

research and development resources to help bring down the cost of 

detection and treatment would help as well. 

!1. Are there existing programs well-suited to this task? If not. what type of program would 

be of the greatest assistance? 

The SRF, WIFIA and possibly the Rural Utilities Assistance program at 

USDA. 

12. Are there regulatory mechanisms that would be appropriate as an "on-ramp" towards an 

MCL, to ensure that the EPA acts in a timely fashion while also addressing your concerns 

about designating the entire class? 

There are no regulatory mechanisms to accelerate consideration of 

regulating PFAS compounds as one class. 

13. What is the state of testing technologies for "'whole fluorine" monitoring of drinking 

water? 

AWWA's understanding is that at present the "whole fluorine" analytical 

method is not appropriate for monitoring PFAS as it also captures 

compounds that contain fluorine but are not PFAS. There is a method for 

oxidizable PFAS compounds. This method, while more appropriate than the 

whole fluorine analytical method, appears to be best suited to site-specific 

evaluations for site remediation or treatment evaluation rather than use in a 

regulatory construct. 

Also, at present the analytical methodology has not been standardized and 

subjected to screening for robustness typical of commercially available, 

regulatory methods. Consequently, available laboratory capacity is limited. 

14. What challenges are raised for your members by having the states develop their own 

MCLs and regulatory processes for PF t\S in a piecemeal fashion? 

When one state sets drinking water treatment requirements at one level 

and other states sets different levels, the public does not understand why 

one state's standard is different from another. Moreover, the first point-ofcontact drinking water customers have, the local water utility and local 

11 
102 


36935.089

governing bodies, were not part of the state decision-making process and 

are not equipped with the tools to support clear risk communication. This 

situation becomes particularly difficult when state risk assessments rely on 

different assumptions and safety factors, even though they are developed 

contemporaneously. At present, AWWA is not aware of any PFAS drinking 

water levels that have been developed utilizing a robust benefit-cost 

analysis. Consequently, the public does not understand the distinction 

between a conservative public health goal and considered steps 

appropriate for effective risk management. 

### 

12 
103 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Thanks to the entire Committee. 

We are going to now proceed with some questions. 

I would like to start, Dr. White, visiting with you about, as EPA 

has said, it has initiated the regulatory development process for 

listing two specific PFAS substances, PFAS and PFOA, as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. 

Does the American Chemistry Council support EPA’s ongoing 

process of what they are talking about doing in this matter? 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you, again, Senator Barrasso, for your question. ACC does support EPA’s activities to review and determine 

whether or not PFAS and PFOA should be designated as hazardous 

substances under the CERCLA Act. Again, as a scientist, it has to 

be a science based process, that outlines and follows the science 

and the data that we would need to determine whether or not they 

actually would comply with that. 

So as long as it is a science based process, ACC absolutely supports EPA’s review and would like to see that expedited, so we can 

make a determination. 

Senator BARRASSO. So if enacted, several of the bills, again for 

you, Dr. White, several of the bills that we are considering today 

would regulate all PFAS substances in the same manner. Would 

you help us understand some of the principal differences between 

chemicals within this class? 

Ms. WHITE. Absolutely. As I mentioned from the very beginning 

of my testimony, all PFAS are different. They don’t have the same 

hazard profile or environmental profile. For example, 

fluoropolymers are very large molecules that are usually not bioavailable and not water soluble. So again, you would not find them 

in drinking water, for example, and you would not see them having 

increased toxicity. 

So you can’t treat all of these PFAS chemistries the same. That 

is why you can’t have a one size fits all approach. You really have 

to look at the scientific data that is relevant for each one of those 

chemistries, determine whether or not there is a potential human 

health risk, and then take action if there is. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Ms. Daniels, if I could turn to you. In some communities, PFAS 

is just one of the many known drinking water contaminants. Help 

us understand how the risks associated with PFAS compare to the 

risks associated with other drinking water contaminants. And you 

know what they are, we can go through them, lead, disinfection byproducts, legionella, a number of different things out there. 

Ms. DANIELS. Sure, thank you for your question. Absolutely, 

there are other high priority contaminants out there that water 

systems and States are dealing with. In a lot of those cases, the 

risk is known. We know a lot about those chemicals. Legionella and 

other pathogens, microbial pathogens, have always been a big part 

of protection efforts, because you have acute health effects associated with those chemicals. 

Legionella has been a challenge for us, and one of the concerns 

is if you are tracking water borne disease outbreaks through the 

CDC reporting, legionella has actually increased 550 percent since 

104 

2000 in terms of the number of outbreaks. So it is something we 

are very concerned about. 

It is one of the reasons, in our testimony, that we talk about the 

fact that working on PFAS is taking work away from our core programs, which concerns us a little bit. Lead continues to be a major 

issue for States. I think we are doing what we can to really focus 

on lead in schools and lead in day care facilities as we await EPA 

to come out with their long-term revisions to the Lead and Copper 

Rule. 

So having said that, PFAS is important to States; it is important 

to water systems. The challenge with PFAS, it is everywhere. It is 

everywhere. It is everywhere. I don’t know that I have quite seen 

a contaminant like that, where you have to be so concerned when 

you are taking a sample, about cross-contamination. If you have deodorant on, if you have put lotions on that day, you have the potential to cross-contaminate that sample. 

So when I think about PFAS, there absolutely has to be focus on 

an incremental reduction of getting those chemicals out of commerce because we can’t just solve this as a drinking water issue. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mehan, if I could just visit with you. In your testimony, you 

discuss the process to establish a national drinking water standard. 

You state caution against setting a precedent of bypassing these established precedents via legislative action. You say the Nation tested that approach in the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking 

Water Act with untoward results. 

Could you explain what happened following those amendments 

in 1986 for some of us who weren’t there at the time? 

Mr. MEHAN. Right. At the time, I was running the Missouri Department of Natural Resources which had delegated primacy for 

the drinking water program. Under the 1986 amendments, essentially, EPA was mandated to put out 25 new MCLs every 3 years, 

I believe it was. So we were at the receiving end of this process. 

Staff couldn’t quite explain to me what the risks were that were 

being addressed, but nonetheless, we had to go to our legislature, 

beg, borrow, and persuade to get a fee in place. Of course, the utilities didn’t like that; the customers didn’t like it. Nobody liked it, 

but we had to do it. Of course, then, there was just the rulemaking 

process and the cost. 

So it was kind of a mess. There is also the question of misdirection of resources, what are the opportunity costs of this approach 

as opposed to dealing with real risks like lead, disinfection byproducts, et cetera, are the basic infrastructure of the utilities themselves. 

In the appendix I have, I have a quote from June Swallow of the 

Rhode Island Department of Health, Lisa’s predecessor at ASDWA, 

who basically excoriates the 1986 amendments and said instead, 

new regulated contaminants would be selected based on whether 

their health risk occurrence and comparative risk from other exposure pathways warrant regulation. There is also quotes from Bob 

Perciasepe, who you all know, who was running the Maryland 

agency at the same time I was running the Missouri agency. While 

he was at EPA, pretty much expanded on that criticism, in terms 

really of relative or comparative risk type of analysis. 

105 

So that was my lived experience with it, and I think it was 

shared by others who were in the trenches at that time. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just want to commend, not just our panelists, but I want to commend our staffs. 

Sometimes we have before us witnesses that are majority witnesses, minority witnesses. You are all consensus picks, and I 

think early wisely chosen. So thank you for taking the time and 

preparing for this and for responding to our questions. 

I think, Mr. Mehan, you indicated you had been in this room before. I suspect others have, too. But for those who are here on a 

return visit, welcome home. 

Mr. MEHAN. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. It is good to see you all. 

I am not a big one for yes or no questions, but I am going to do 

a few of those today. And I am going to do it by asking you to raise 

your hands if you disagree with a particular statement. I will go 

slowly and ask you to work with me on this if you will. We will 

see how it goes. 

Please raise your hand if you disagree, if you disagree that some 

PFAS chemicals have been shown to be harmful to human health. 

Please raise your hand if you disagree that some PFAS chemicals 

have been shown to be harmful to human health. 

I see no hands. Thank you. 

Second question. Please raise your hand if you disagree, if you 

disagree, that there should be a Federal drinking water standard 

to regulate the harmful PFAS chemicals that are also found in 

drinking water. I will say it again. Please raise your hand if you 

disagree that there should be a Federal drinking water standard to 

regulate the harmful PFAS chemicals that are also found in drinking water. Please raise your hand if you disagree. 

We have one who disagrees. Dr. White, thank you. 

Mr. MEHAN. I would demure to the question, Senator, in that we 

do not support nor oppose. We commit to the process of making a 

regulatory determination of whether an MCL is needed. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. MEHAN. Primarily for looking at the two prime suspects. 

Ms. WHITE. I would also agree with what Tracy said, that you 

really have to make sure that you are following the regulatory 

process and using the science as the basis for making that determination. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks. 

You have an opportunity to raise your hand if you wish. Please 

raise your hand if you disagree that the public should be made 

aware of releases of harmful PFAS chemicals into the environment. 

Please raise your hand if you disagree that the public should be 

made aware of releases of harmful PFAS chemicals into the environment. 

I see no hands. On the second question, we had two who spoke. 

I didn’t see too many hands. But I had a couple people who spoke, 

and that was fine. 

A fourth question would be, please raise your hand if you disagree that EPA should have the authority under the Superfund law 

106 

to require responsible parties to pay for the cleanup of harmful 

PFAS chemicals, or to clean up itself in cases where no responsible 

party can be found. I will say that one again. Again, please raise 

your hand if you disagree that EPA should have the authority 

under the Superfund law—— 

Mr. MEHAN. Again, Senator, it is not a question of being for or 

against. We understand the utility of a hazardous waste designation. 

However, you have received a letter from actually several of our 

sister associations, AMWA, NACWA, and WIF, and one of the 

issues is the impact on biosolids application, on pre-treatment, on 

the wastewater side of the house. As I recall, the exact position of 

NACWA and WIF was that a hazardous waste designation under 

CERCLA would be appropriate as long as there is an exemption for 

water and wastewater utilities. 

Senator CARPER. Fair enough. 

Mr. MEHAN. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. I saw no other hands. I would like to go on. 

Very briefly, Dr. White. 

Ms. WHITE. I feel I should jump in here, just following onto what 

Tracy said. You really do have to follow what the CERCLA requirements are. So as long as those are followed, then yes. But it has 

to be based off the science, as outlined in CERCLA. 

Senator CARPER. Fine. And finally, I tell you what. I am not 

going to ask this next raise your hand question, but I am going to 

go to something further. I know that there is more to providing 

input on legislation than just raising your hands. I appreciate that. 

Thank you for doing that for us. But to that end, I just want to 

ask each of you, just very succinctly, tell us what your top priority 

for PFAS legislation is. Just very succinctly, what would be your 

top priority for PFAS legislation? 

Dr. White. 

Ms. WHITE. My top priority is that it is science based, and based 

off the most relevant and best available science for those individual 

chemistries to make decisions. 

Senator CARPER. You are on message, which is a good thing. 

Ms. Daniels. 

Ms. DANIELS. I would like to see additional legislation where it 

is needed to really enhance what can be done under TSCA. EPA 

talks about TSCA being the gatekeeper. Right now, I think the 

gate is wide open, and I am not even sure where the key is. So I 

think if we can take a look at the authorities under TSCA and see 

if anything else can be done to get some of that up front work first 

done, before these chemicals are already out in the environment 

and potentially in drinking water. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Scott Faber. 

Mr. FABER. We think that we really need to kickstart the cleanup process, especially where communities are wrestling with very 

seriously contaminated drinking water supplies. And we also need 

to make sure that Federal facilities, especially DOD, take responsibility for their legacy pollution, so that the PFAS Action Act and 

the PFAS Accountability Act, we just want to assure that DOD 

does live up to its responsibilities would be our top priorities. 

107 

Senator CARPER. Just very briefly and succinctly, Mr. Mehan, the 

same question. Your top priority for PFAS legislation. 

Mr. MEHAN. Reflecting both my written and oral comments, we 

need to get TSCA in the game more vigorously, and also respect 

the processes in the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Senator CARPER. All right, great. Thank you all very, very much. 

I am going to slip out here and go solve the infrastructure problems of our Nation while the rest of you deal with an equally important issue of the PFAS and PFOA. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank all of you for 

being here today. Thank you for today’s hearing to examine the 

challenges associated with PFAS contamination across the country. 

Unfortunately, these issues are all too familiar to West Virginia. 

We have had our communities at either end of our States that have 

faced the challenges Mr. Faber just talked about, responsibility to 

Federal facilities. So given the volume of testimony provided to the 

Committee for the hearing record, this issue is clearly one of national interest and significance. 

With my constituents in mind, I have engaged in several pieces 

of legislation meant to address this program, working in collaborative and bipartisan fashion, both with Ranking Member Carper 

and also with Senator Gillibrand. Indeed, we rotated sponsoring, 

co-sponsoring, each other’s legislation. 

But the bill that I have led, which is the S. 1507, PFAS Release 

Disclosure Act, would set up a process for EPA to add various 

PFAS to the toxic release, the TRI, Toxics Release Inventory, subject to the completion of review. I want to get to that issue, because 

I think it requires determinations to be grounded in science. You 

have talked about science, and backed by regulatory review processes that involve notice and comment. The bill does not include 

the entire class of the known 6,000 PFAS compounds. 

So getting to my question, Dr. White, I just laid out the thinking 

of the sponsors, and of our disclosure act and how we designed a 

regulatory on ramp for inclusion of PFAS into the Toxics Release 

Inventory. Is it fair to ACC’s members are familiar with the requirements of the TRI and associated filings? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. ACC members are familiar with the TRI findings and how things should be listed. As you have highlighted in 

your bill, we would be supportive of reviewing the TRI requirements. So there are specific criteria that get chemicals listed on the 

TRI that determine whether or not there was actually an adverse 

health effect associated with those chemistries before they are listed. 

So as a scientist, you would have to support that science review 

of the specific TRI criteria to determine whether or not the specific 

PFAS that you have identified here in the bill actually warrant 

listing under TRI. 

Senator CAPITO. Obviously, by my support of the three bills, I 

feel just—of my awareness of what has happened in my particular 

State, I would say obviously that is why I am sponsoring this legislation, because I feel it does need to be included in the TRI. 

108 

But let me talk about some of the misinformation out there on 

this bill. It is onerous, and it would apply to actors like Mom and 

Pop gas stations, and it would feed all kinds of civil lawsuits and 

short circuit the EPA regulatory process. 

Mr. Faber, do you feel that S. 1507 prevents these sorts of outcomes with its structure of regulatory approach? Do you have an 

opinion on that? 

Mr. FABER. Only industrial dischargers in certain categories 

would be subject to your bill, Senator. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. Thank you. 

Ms. Daniels or Mr. Mehan, do you have anything to add on that 

point? The accountability measures inherent on the TRI will help 

limit or prevent emissions, hopefully relieving the remediation burdens on communities and water systems. So do you have anything 

to add on that point, since your stakeholders will have to deal with 

the contamination once it is in the water? 

Ms. DANIELS. Yes, thank you. I think it is absolutely necessary 

that we get more information out to both the public and the States 

in terms of where these chemicals are. I know as a State, we filed 

multiple FOIA requests in preparation for our sampling plan, because we wanted to know where the highest risk was. Nobody 

could tell us where these chemicals were being used. So right now, 

there is a lack of information. 

Mr. MEHAN. Senator, AWWA hasn’t normally taken positions on 

TRI issues. But speaking personally, TRI is the premier information based environmental program. I think it is a useful, hygienic 

way to encourage people to pursue pollution prevention, toxic use 

reduction through a relatively light handed approach. 

The only critique that I think has some merit about TRI is that 

all those listed are really risk based. I think, to the extent again, 

if you are talking PFAS as a category, we would caution against 

that approach. But to the extent you are picking a subset of high 

risk compounds, that might be worth a conversation. 

Senator CAPITO. Our staffs, both Republican and Democrat, have 

worked with ACC’s members and AWG to try to arrive at a solution here on S. 1507. So I would ask both you, Dr. White, Mr. 

Faber, if you would continue to work with us in a collaborative way 

so that we can find a sweet spot here in something that is very 

troubling. 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you. 

Mr. FABER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. I will just say this in my final 10 

seconds. We can sit up here and talk about CERCLA and TRI and 

PFAS and PFOA, and honestly, if my constituents are home or listening, they have no idea what I am talking about. What we are 

simply talking about is making sure that our drinking water is as 

safe as it can possibly be for us now and for future generations. Because a lot of these substances stay in your water forever or for 

what forever would be. Very long pieces of time. 

So I think it is in all of our best interests to talk as simply as 

we can about the goals that we have in terms of cleaning up our 

drinking water, remediating the problems, facing the problems, and 

being honest about it and transparent, helping small water sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:58 Aug 14, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36935.TXT SONYA
109 

tems when and how they need it to meet these difficult challenges. 

Because we know that is going to be an issue. 

So I am pledging to you to work with my partners here to find 

a way to find these answers, to make sure that our next generation 

does not wake up someday and find out that they have had a negative impact to something that we were talking about, CERCLA and 

TSCA and all these other things, and not quite getting to the real 

answers. That is my hope with being so active on these bills. 

I thank you all for listening. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Capito. 

According to my records of arrival first, I think Senator Markey 

was here earlier and has come back. 

Senator MARKEY. Much appreciated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PFAS used in firefighting foams poses a particular danger to 

both civilian and military firefighters. The use of these foams during training and emergency response is a major source of PFAS 

contamination of groundwater on military bases and near civilian 

training facilities. 

In my home State of Massachusetts, high levels of PFAS have 

been found near Fort Devens, Barnes Air National Guard Base, 

Joint Base Cape Cod, and the Barnstable County Firefighter Training Academy. Our firefighters and military personnel willfully put 

themselves in harm’s way to keep their neighbors and country safe. 

We should be all we can to keep them safe in return. 

Mr. Faber, civilian airports can now use non-PFAS foams to fight 

fires, but our military members and many firefighters, civilian, remain at risk. What other steps should be taken to limit the use of 

PFAS containing firefighting foams as well as better understand 

their risks? 

Mr. FABER. Thank you, Senator. Firefighters do face unique risks 

from PFAS because PFAS is in the foams, as well as in the turnout 

gear that they wear to fight fires. While we do not know all the 

ways that firefighters are likely to get certain cancers, more than 

the rest of the population, we do suspect that PFAS is one of them. 

One of the things that Congress should do is do more to test the 

blood of firefighters for PFAS and legislation has been proposed, 

the Protecting Military Firefighters from PFAS Act. That would 

also build on a study that was include in the NDAA last year, but 

did not include firefighters, and should have. So there are opportunities to better understand how PFAS are impacting firefighters. 

More broadly, we need to really accelerate efforts to reduce the 

use of fluorinated foams wherever possible, beginning with ending 

the use of fluorinated foams in training exercises, whether that is 

in civilian airports, training academies, and other situations. 

Senator MARKEY. Great. In response to my questioning during 

the Committee’s previous PFAS hearing, Deputy Assistant Secretary Sullivan said that the Department of Defense would ‘‘meet 

any properly promulgated standard that is issued by the State, and 

roll it into our cleanup program.’’ 

Mr. Faber, of the five States that have issued or proposed stricter 

regulations on PFAS contamination in water, would you consider 

these ‘‘properly promulgated’’? 

110 

Mr. FABER. Yes, Senator. There is guidance on when a regulation, in this case, has been properly promulgated. It has to be legally enforceable; it has to be generally applied. Many States have 

already promulgated rules to restrict or reduce the presence of 

PFAS. Many other States are doing so. In certain situations, the 

Department of Defense should be deferring to those State standards when cleaning up these contaminated sites. 

Senator MARKEY. And the PFAS Accountability would require cooperation between DOD and States on cleanup efforts. 

As part of their jobs, non-military firefighters are exposed to 

PFAS in multiple ways, including in their suits. This is an occupational hazard, and I believe we should be tracking this civilian 

worker exposure and addressing it, similar to what the military is 

doing for their firefighters. 

Mr. Faber, do you agree that we should be studying occupational 

PFAS related hazards that might be affecting our community firefighters? 

Mr. FABER. Absolutely. We should expand the NIOSH study that 

is currently underway to add firefighters to better understand the 

impacts that PFAS foams and turnout gear are having on firefighters. 

Senator MARKEY. Disgracefully, they have been exempted from 

previous studies and are not getting the same blood tests that military firefighters are getting. That must change. 

Mr. Faber, would designating harmful PFAS as hazardous 

chemicals under the Superfund law help communities near military 

bases that are struggling with contamination? 

Mr. FABER. Yes, Senator. Designating PFAS as a hazardous substance under CERCLA would really kickstart the remediation process, so that communities that are located near air bases, other Federal facilities, would be ensured that there would be an effort underway, either between DOD or in the case of NASA, or other Federal facilities, an effort between EPA and the Federal facility to 

clean up the mess and make sure that responsible parties pay their 

fair share. 

Senator MARKEY. So States are being forced to step up to protect 

the health of their residents, as the EPA continues to slow walk 

a national plan of action. The least the Department of Defense 

could do is meet or exceed States standards. Instead, the Defense 

Department is denying and dodging, at the expense of our military 

members’ and their families’ health. Meanwhile, we still don’t have 

the full answers for our firefighters in every community in the 

United States in terms of the protections they will be given. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Faber. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you to the panel for being here. 

I want to add a thank you to somebody who is not here, which 

is my home State paper, the Providence Journal, which has done 

an amazing job of covering the threats of climate change along our 

coasts. They have done repeated front page, above the fold articles 

about the risks Rhode Island’s coastline is facing and how we are 

having to prepare. 

111 

In that spirit, they have also done a terrific job on PFAS contamination in one of our municipalities, in Burrillville, which is facing water contamination. I would like to ask permission to put 

their article on Burrillville’s contamination into the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

112 


36935.090

5/22/2019 A lurkmg danger for R.L's dnnking water- News- provldenceJournal.com- Providence, R! 

Journal 

A lurking danger for R.I.'s drinking water 

By A.l.e.x Kuttner 

Journal Staff Writer 

Posted May 17,2019 at 5:03PM 

Updated May 18, 2019 at 5:38 PM 

Toxic chemicals that poisoned Burrillville wells could be part of 

a burgeoning public-health crisis, and environmental activists 

are urging more aggressive action. 

BURRILL VILLE Armand Coliins can't help but think that the cancer that caused his 

wife Lucia's death last month may have been linked to the contamination of their water 

supply. 

She was 67 when she succumbed to breast cancer on April 8. 

"She was never sick. She didn't do any of the bad stuff like me," Collins said as he smoked a 

cigarette on the back steps of his duplex on Mill Street. "It just makes me wonder." 

In September 2017, the Rhode Island Department of Health disco.vered that the weli that 

serves Collins' home and some 34 others in .9. .. ~.~~-~-~? .. ':~.!~.~-~:.was contaminated with a class 

of widely used chemicals that many experts believe is contributing to a global publichealth crisis. Follow-up tests in the neighborhood a few weeks later found the same 

substances in six private wells. 

The human-made compounds that fall into the family of per- and polyfluoroalkyl 

substances, or E .. ~~.?.~.' are added to foams used to fight fires and applied to cookware and 

packaging to keep food from sticking and to carpets and furniture to prevent staining. 

High exposure to the compounds!.~.~,~ .. ?: .. :~~-~.?..~.~- to cause developmental disorders in 

children, raise the risk of cancer, interfere with hormonal production and increase 

cholesterol levels, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

The testing done in 2017 was the ftrst time authorities looked for PFASs in the Oakland 

aquifer. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management traced the 

contamination back to firefighting foam that leached into the ground from the S!~kl-~!1:?.-. 

. ~~P.~~Y.~~-~.: ... C.~E.~.P .. ~~.~-~:.~.~~! but it's unknown when the water became tainted. 

https :Jfww.N. p rovidencej ournal. com/n ews/20 1 90517 /lurking-danger ~for -ris-drl nkmg-water 118 
113 


36935.091

5/2212019 A lurking danger for R.I.'s dnnkmg water- NeW'ii- prOVidencejournaLcom. Providence, Rl 

After the test results were released, the DEM organized deliveries of bottled water to the 

former mill village located between the Clear and Branch rivers, and a new water line 

from the Harrisville Fire District is set to be completed this summer at a cost of nearly $3 

million. 

But while the long-awaited project will solve the neighborhood's problem, broader 

questions remain largely unanswered about PFASs. What concentration in drinking water 

is safe for human consumption? How many other drinking water systems may be 

contaminated? Is the federal government doing enough to protect public health? What 

about Rhode Island authorities and their counterparts in other states? 

The contamination in BurriHville was caused by a kind of foam that may be found ·in fire 

departments, airports and other facilities throughout Rhode Island, Even a small amount 

ofit could have rendered the wells in Oakland unsafe to use. 

"It gives you a sense of the scale of the problem across the state and the nation," said 

Rainer Lohmann, a University of Rhode Island professor and co-leader of a .f~~-~T~.l~y-: 

funded research center on PFASs. 

Invented in the 1930s, fluorinated chemicals were heralded for their ability to repel oil, 

water and grease. 

Within two decades, DuPont had started using one of them, known as PFOA, to make 

Teflon, while 3M was using another, PFOS, in Scotchgard. Soon, the compounds were 

shown to be effective in smothering petroleum fires, enabling foams to spread more easily 

and form tighter caps over flammable liquids. 

Today, there may be as many as 3,000 substances in the family that are used in everything 

from microwave popcorn bags to rain jackets to some dentai t1osses. 

"To make a long story short, it's everywhere," said DEM assistant director Terrence Gray. 

The chemicals have proved to be problematic because they are water-soluble, don't break 

down in the environment and can accumulate in human bodies over time. They can be 

breathed in through dust and, to a limited extent, absorbed through the skin, but the main 

risk comes through food and drink consumption. 

The -~-~.Y.~T.~ .. ~-~.:..~.~~} ... ~ o~~-~-~-~ .9E.~YP..' a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has 

estimated that up to 110 million Americans have been exposed to the compounds in their 

drinking water. 

The highest~ profile cases surrounding PFASs have arisen in Minnesota and West 

Virginia, in the vicinity of factories that manufactured the chemicals and have 

contaminated water supplies in neighboring communities. (Both PFOA and PFOS were 

https ·l!www.providencejournal.comfnews/20190517/lurklng-danger-for-ns-drinking-water 2/8 
114 


36935.092

5(22/2019 A lurking danger for R.l:s dnnkmg water News - providenceJournal.com- Providence. Rl 

phased out as a result.) 

Military bases, where large quantities of firefighting foams are used, have also polluted 

groundwater aquifers. The U.S. Department of Defense.~:.~.~-- ~.?..cumented contamination, 

or identified its potential, around 401 installations around the nation. The list includes 

J..?..~!:.~---~-~:.~---~~.12..~ .. ~.?..?. in Bourne, Massachusetts. 

The compounds are so potent that even a single incident in which fire fighting foam is 

used can pollute groundwater. Last October, after a tanker tru~-~--~-~P.P.:.? ov~:.J!: 

~~-~v~~-e-~~~.' spilling some 10,000 gallons of gasoline, so much foam was used to contain 

the liquid that the white mounds looked llke snowbanks rising up to the windows of cars. 

Cleanup crews washed the foam into storm drains that eventually empty into the 

Providence River, and the chemicals dissipated in the flushing of Narragansett Bay in a 

matter of weeks, according to tests carried out by Lohmann's lab. 

But the story could have been different if the spill had taken place near drinking-water 

wells. 

"If that incident occurred in some place like Glocester, we would have had significant 

contamination," said Nick Noons, principal sanitary engineer with the DEM. ''We would 

have had a big problem on our hands." 

The chemicals are unregulated by the federal government, despite repeated calls from 

environmental and public-health groups. The EPA, which enforces the federal Clean 

Drinking Water Act, has yet to put in place a legally enforceable ''maximum contaminant 

level" for PFASs, only going so far as tightening recommendations for safe concentrations 

of the chemicals. 

The revision came in May 2016, when the agency l.?.~e~_e? ... a ... ':~:alth -~dvi~-~~t' .~.:.:::.~.1 to 70 

parts per trillion (ppt) in total for PFOS and PFOA, the two compounds that have been 

the main subjects of the growing body of research into the dangers of the family of 

chemicals. 

That level of concentration is roughly equivalent to 70 grains of sand in an Olympic-size 

swimming pool, says Noons. 

It wasn't until six years ago that the first tests for the substances in drinking water 

supplies in Rhode Island were carried out. 

As required by the EPA, all large water systems- those serving more than 10,000 people 

-and a sample of smaller systems, 15 in all, carried out tests for PFOA, PFOS and four 

other compounds between 2013 and 2015. 

https "/fwww.providencejournaLcomtnews/201 90517 /lurking-danger-far-ris-drinking-water 318 
115 


36935.093

5/22/2019 A lurkmg danger for R.l.'s dnnktng water- News- prov!dencejourna!.com. Providence. Rl 

Only two systems, Cumberland and Westerly, showed the presence of the chemicals. Both 

were below the EPA advisory level at the time, and in subsequent testing, the levels have 

dropped. The levels at several wells in Westerly, which ranged as high as about 40 ppt, 

have most recently hovered around 10 ppt, and the levels at a well in Cumberland, which 

were as high as 80 ppt and are believed to have been caused by plumbing tape on a pipe, 

were down to about 20 ppt, according to the health department. 

In summer 2017, the department initiated its own round of testing statewide, prompted in 

part by the emergence of widespread contamination in Vermont and New Hampshire 

near factories that used the compounds. Working with researchers at Brown University 

and the DEM, the agency fOcused on 40 small public water systems- those serving fewer 

than 10,000 people- as well as schools and childcare facilities, all located within a mile of 

potential sources of contamination, such as fireflghting training facilities, manufacturing 

plants and landfills. 

The tests looked for nine PFAS compounds and detected them in eight places scattered 

around the state, but only one, the Oakland Association the water system serving 

Oakland village- had numbers that exceeded the EPA advisory level. In three tests 

conducted between Sept. 14 and 29, the combined levels for PFOS and PFOA came back at 

88,69 and 114 ppt. But other PFAS compounds were also detected. When they are 

included, the total contamination ranged as high as 205 ppt. 

With the six additional wells factored in, an estimated 175 people have been affected by 

the contamination. While they can shower with well water, they cannot use it for 

drinking, brushing their teeth or food preparation. Boiling water isn't a solution, as it only 

concentrates the chemicals. So the DEM has been delivering water every two weeks to 

homes in the neighborhood. 

Based on soil and water samples, the agency has also concluded that the OaklandMapleville Fire District is responsible for the contamination. The six private wells that 

were contaminated include the one at the district's firehouse at 46 Oakland School St. The 

five others, as well as the Oakland Association\ abut the department's property or are 

located nearby. The highest contamination levels were found in samples taken next to the 

station. 

The chemicals leached into the groundwater from a storm water infiltration field next to 

the firehouse, just north of the Oakland Association's pump house. It's unclear, however, if 

the substances leaked from containers of foam concentrate that were stored in the station's 

garage or were washed from hoses or drained out of equipment after off-site training, said 

Noons. 

https·/Jwww.providencejoumaLcom/newsf20190517!1urkmg·danger-for-ris-drinking-water 418 
116 


36935.094

5/22/2019 A lurking danger for R.I.'s drmking water- News- prow1enceJournal.com- Providence. R! 

The contamination happened after 2002, when the fire station was built, but there's no 

way to narrow down the timing any further, according to Noons. Messages left with the 

department's fire chief were not returned. 

Richard Nolan, the operator of the Oakland Association and tax collector for the fire 

district, said he's not so concerned about the contamination, pointing out that if the water 

was tested before the EPA lowered its health advisory level in 2016, then it would have 

been deemed safe to drink. 

But the uncertainty is unsettling to Collins1 a retired bus driver with the Rhode Island 

Public Transit Authority. He has stuck to bottled water for drinking since the test results 

came back and stopped growing vegetables in his raised beds because he couldn't water 

them. But he worries that he, his late wife, and their daughter, who lives in the 

neighboring unit, were using the water before the contamination was discovered. 

"How long were we drinking it?" he said. 

The water at Rhonda Nightingale's house on nearby Remington Avenue tested negative 

for the chemicals but, worried about the possibility of the contamination spreading, she 

and her boyfriend chose to hook up to the new line coming in from Harrisville. It will 

offer some peace of mind, but it will also mean that they will have to start paying water 

bills. 

"We shouldn't have to," she said. "It's not our fault. We didn't do this." 

In one way, the Burrillville case is an example of how state officials are still learning 

about the chemicals. The Oakland Association's well was selected for testing bec:mse of its 

proximity to a landfill and several former factories. State officials didn't expect the 

contamination to come from the fire station. 

So in another round of tests that is now underway, the health department is looking at 

water supplies near fire stations all around Rhode Island that may also be storing 

firefighting foam. They are also sampling wells near schools, because floor waxes 

sometimes used in school buildings contain PF ASs. There is a possibility that low levels of 

the chemicals found in school wells in Charlestown and Scituate during the 2017 tests 

were caused by floor waxes that passed through septic systems into groundwater. 

The major water systems in the state are also being retested. When the tests are completed 

in june, it will mean that 49 percent of community water systems and all schools with 

wells in the state will have been sampled for PFASs. Homeowners with wells, restaurants 

and others are also being advised to do their own tests if they arc near places where the 

chemicals are found. 

https:I/WMV.providencejournal.com/news/20190517/lurking~danger-for-ris-drinking-wa!er SIB 
117 


36935.095

5/22/2019 A lurkmg danger for R.I.'s dnnkmg water- News - provldencejournal com- Providence, Rl 

"I feel we are being quite proactive," said June Swallow, chief of the health department's 

Office of Drinking Water Quality. "We are seeking out areas of concern and carrying out 

testing. We are also notifying private-well owners and suggesting a path forward for them 

as well." 

But some environmental groups believe that the federal advisory level of70 ppt is too 

high, that the EPA's current leadership is too close to industry and is acting without 

urgency, and that, by extension, Rhode Island authorities aren't doing enough. 

The Co~-~-~-::Y~-~-~-?-~---~-~-~--~-?.~-~-~-~-~-i_?.~. and the Taxies ~-~.~~-?~---q~~-~~-~ in February p_~titioned_ 

the health department to adopt a state drinking-water~~-~-~-~-~-~.~ for five of the most 

common PFAS substances. They recommended a total threshold for the five substances of 

20 ppt- meaning that concentrations of all five together must be lower than that level. It 

is the standard adopted just last week by Vermont, which is considered a leader in 

working on state PFAS regulations. 

Other states are also taking matters into their own hands. Massachusetts and New 

Hampshire are working on setting maximum contaminant levels for the compounds. New 

Jersey has moved to set standards of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 for PFOS, which would be 

among the most stringent regulations in the nation. 

The Rhode Island health department -~-enied the request from the Conservation Law 

Foundation and the Taxies Action Center, writing that it "shares the Petitioners' concerns 

about the potential impacts of PFAS in public water supplies" but "lacks sufficient 

quantitative and qualitative data upon which to base appropriate regulations." 

In response 1 state Rep. June Speakman, a Warren Democrat, .~!.:.~LC?..?..~-~-:.? ... ~ ... ~!.~.~. this month 

that would require the department to set maximum contaminant levels for the chemicals 

and would also put in place an interim standard for contamination of 20 ppt. It was heard 

in committee on Thursday and held for further study. (A .~.~P.~ .. :..~~-: ... ~-~~~- is also under 

consideration in the legislature to prohibit the substances in food packaging.) 

'This is a public-health emergency, and we need states to take action now," said Amy 

Moses, director of the Conservation Law Foundation in Rhode Island. 

Swallow says that the state is working hard to look for PFAS contamination. She 

emphasizes that four out of every five samples from Rhode Island drinking water supplies 

have detecred none of the chemicals and, when the compounds have been found 1 the levels 

arc nowhere near those reported in Vermont, New Hampshire and other states. 

That doesn't mean that Rhode Island won't reconsider its stance once the current round of 

testing is completed 1 she added. But she believes that the state is in a position to take what 

she described as a more deliberative approach. 

https ·f!www.providencejournatcomtnews/20190517 /lurkmg·danger-for-ris-drinklng-water 618 
118 


36935.096

5/22/2019 A lurking danger for R I.'s dnnkmg water- News- providenceJournal.com- Providence. R! 

"Given the occurrence data that we have so far, we feel like we have the time to be 

science-driven," she said. 

The highest concentrations ofPFASs found in Rhode Island so far are in the 

groundwater around Naval Station Newport, where there used to be dedicated firefighting 

facilities. 

The levels there are around 20,000 ppt. But the contamination is not considered a threat 

because Aquidneck Island is supplied with drinking water from reservoirs that aren't near 

the base. 

Levels are also high in Buckeye Brook in Warwick1 which flows past T.F. Green Airport 

before emptying into Narragansett Bay. 

Lohmann and his coileagues at URI's Sources, Transport, Exposure & Effects ofPFASs, or 

STEEP, center have found higher-than-expected levels of the chemicals in upper 

Narragansett Bay, too. The levels are well below what the EPA considers unsafe, but they 

are well above those in the Hudson River and other regional water bodies. The 

researchers believe the contaminants could be tied to the metal-plating or textile 

industries. Lohmann said the causes of the levels are of interest to scientists, but the 

concentrations shouldn't concern swimmers, fishermen or other users of the Bay. 

The center, a partnership with Harvard University and the Silent Spring Institute, was 

created two years ago after advances in liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry 

improved scientists' ability to measure the levels of PF ASs in the environment. Its work is 

primarily focused on developing low-cost detection tools that could be used to collect 

ground, air and water samples, said Lohmann, an environmental chemist. 

He believes the only effective way to control the release ofPF ASs in the environment is to 

cut down on their use and production. There are good uses for the chemicals- such as on 

coatings on heart valves- but there are safer alternatives in most instances 1 he argues, 

"If it's not essential, there's no excuse to keep using it/' said Lohmann, whose past research 

focused on pollutants that include PCBs and dioxins. 

Like those chemicals, which were banned as a class in the 1970s, many experts say that 

PF ASs must be regulated as an entire family. Stopping the use of one variation doesn't do 

much if another pops up in its place, they say. Moses compares it to a game of"Whac-aMole." 

Gray, of the DEM, a chemical engineer, agrees. 

https:l/www.providencejourna!.com/news/20190517/lurking~danger-for-ris-drinking-water 718 
119 


36935.097

5/22/2019 A !urk•ng danger for R.I.'s dnnkmg water- News- provJdencejournaLcom- Providence, Rl 

"Until these things are regulated as a class, it's going to be almost impossible to keep up in 

a regulatory context/' he said. "That's not just a Rhode Island problem. That's a problem 

for everyone." 

On Friday morning, local, state and federal officials gathered in a dusty parking lot in 

Oakland to celebrate construction of the new water line from Harrisville. 

Work had started weeks ago, but this was the official groundbreaking ceremony, attended 

by, among others,Jeffrey R. Diehl, CEO of the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank, which is 

financing the project, and jane Downing, the acting deputy director of the EPA's water 

division in New England. 

The $2.85 million needed to complete the new line is coming entirely from federal dollars 

funneled to the Infrastructure Bank through the EPA. 

In an interview, Downing, the EPA official, defended the agency's response to the PFAS 

problem. Regulators are moving to take action as they understand more about the 

chemicals, she said. 

"We have to just consider the science and understand that science will evolve and we'll 

have more and more compounds to look for and at lower and lower levels," she said. 

During the ceremony, Nolan, of the Oakland Association, thanked all the parties involved 

for finding a new source of water for the village. But state Rep. David Place, a Burrillville 

Republican, expressed frustration at the amount of time it took. 

"Two years/' he said. "There are going to be people that for two years have not been able 

to drink the water from their faucets by the time this is over and done with." 

( 401) 277-7457 

On Twitter:(iiJl(ujfnerAlex 

https:f!WWIN.providencejoumal.comtnews/2019051711urkmg-danger-for-ris-drinking·water 818 
120 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, done some very good work in 

this Committee in bipartisan fashion. We have done good work on 

TSCA, which ended up passing in very significant bipartisan fashion. Regrettably, we saw the Trump EPA make a hash of that bipartisan effort. Then in bipartisan fashion, we corrected it. I actually introduced a Trump nominee for the Toxic Chemicals Section 

at EPA to put us back on bipartisan course. 

I think it is a real concern when a divided Senate comes together 

in bipartisan fashion on an issue like this and then finds that the 

agency has gone off on a partisan tear. We are supposed to be the 

political ones, not the agency. We saw it recently with the NRC. 

This Committee, myself, Senator Crapo, the Chairman, and others 

have done terrific work passing bipartisan nuclear innovation bills. 

What happens? The NRC, on a partisan basis, goes out, outside 

of the record of the rules proceeding that they are operating under, 

and unilaterally, the Republican appointees only decide something 

that nobody asked for in the public record, which is that nuclear 

facilities shouldn’t be required to prepare for flood risk. I don’t 

know how you could have a dumber decision. And the fact that 

they would do that on a partisan basis, with such a good record of 

bipartisanship here on the Committee, is very frustrating. 

I think where this Committee has stood together on a bipartisan 

basis, agencies need to take the message and work as if they were 

bipartisan, too, and not inject a lot of nonsense, polluter driven 

partisanship into the agency’s decision. For Pete’s sake, if we can 

get over it, you ought to be able to get over it out there in the agencies. 

So this is a real frustration to me. Ms. White, the American 

Chemistry Council worked well with us on TSCA. I think that 

helped the signals about the early enforcement and was part of the 

solution that I brought Alex Dunn in, who I think is a good Administrator. I hope that you are leaning in as a council to try to solve 

this problem in that same bipartisan spirit on which we all worked 

together on the underlying TSCA bill and on correcting the initial 

enforcement. 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you, again, Senator Whitehouse. As you mentioned, and to me, as a toxicologist and a scientist, ACC is absolutely willing to be a constructive partner in this process, and making sure that science kind of underlies this process as we evaluate 

how to mitigate and manage any associated risks with PFAS chemistries. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good. Because bipartisanship is a terrible 

thing to waste. 

Ms. WHITE. I agree. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It takes all the fun out of working in a bipartisan fashion if what happens is, we get kneecapped by partisanship in an administrative agency, after we have avoided partisanship here in the most partisan of branches of Government. 

Ms. Daniels, we are likely to be taking up an infrastructure bill 

of some kind. Who knows? The President topped Speaker Pelosi’s 

trillion dollars and said $2 trillion. So who knows what is it going 

to be? 

121 

His budget person, Mr. Mulvaney, promptly came out and undercut the President, so we don’t really quite know how that is all 

going to turn out. But there is a real likelihood, I think, of there 

being an infrastructure bill. Our side certainly wants one, and I 

think there has been considerable support on this Committee on a 

bipartisan basis for our share of a strong bipartisan bill. I thank 

the Chairman for that. 

What would you like to see in an infrastructure bill that would 

help your constituency deal with this contamination problem? 

Ms. DANIELS. Thank you for the question. Yes, we certainly are 

supportive of an infrastructure bill for all of the other things that 

water suppliers need. Pittsburgh, a town in Pennsylvania, is certainly one of those examples of what happens when you have deferred maintenance. That is a concern for us. 

Specifically for PFAS, I do think we need to look at alternate 

funding sources. Because I do believe the incredible costs, so just 

to put GAC on one well, for example, could be anywhere from 

$500,000 up to $1 million. When you are talking about other advanced technologies for the shorter chain chemicals, like GenX, you 

are talking tens of millions of dollars. 

We are going to have to think long and hard about alternate 

funding sources for these systems. Because there are already a lot 

of great needs within the SRF program itself to deal with lead and 

some of the other problems that we have been talking about here. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would just please urge 

that you all get back to us over whatever period of time is appropriate, even outside the scope of this hearing, to share with the 

Chairman and the members of this Committee what some of your 

ideas might be for an infrastructure bill, so that we have a chance 

to look at them and digest them, and if things start to move in a 

serious way, that they get every fair consideration which they deserve. OK? Thanks. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Before turning to Senator Van Hollen, I would point out that the 

six bills posted for the hearing today were all bipartisan bills. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Great. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank all of you for your testimony here today. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling a hearing on the subject. I 

think all of us are concerned about PFAS contamination in our 

States. 

In Maryland, we have five identified PFAS sites, Andrews Air 

Base, Fort Meade, Tipton Airfield, former David Taylor Research 

Center, now called Bayhead Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground and 

something called Chesapeake Bay Detachment. So we have five 

sites. We do have a good, cooperative group working between the 

Defense Department, EPA, and the State, Maryland Department of 

the Environment. That is the good news. 

But the Maryland Department of the Environment did indicate 

that they could use additional help and support. So when we contacted them about Senator Carper’s bill, they were supportive. And 

122 

I am a co-sponsor of that bill to designate PFAS as a CERCLA hazardous substance. 

That of course makes Federal agencies, in the case where it is 

Federal agencies having PFAS, liable for the cleanup. I think that 

is important, because that now puts it not just as a voluntary effort, but a legal effort. Now, of course, the funding issue is real. 

To all of you, when the Federal Government becomes liable for 

cleanup, I assume that means they have to find the money within 

their budgets. Is that the case? 

Mr. FABER. That is right, Senator. In the case of Wallops, for example, if NASA were to be found responsible for the PFAS pollution that were on base or off base, they would have to find the resources to help finance the cleanup. They could also see contribution from some of the other responsible parties, in this case, foam 

manufacturers or chemical companies. But ultimately it would be 

NASA dollars, not Superfund dollars, that would pay for the cleanup. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. You anticipated my question, because Wallops is another facility where we have a PFAS issue. I listed five 

that are in the State of Maryland. PFAS is, of course, in Virginia, 

but very close to Maryland. We have workers from both States 

there trying to make sure that that is a safe facility. 

So under that scenario, NASA would be primarily responsible for 

the cleanup. 

Mr. FABER. For Fort Meade, for the parts of Fort Meade that are 

still under DOD control, it would be DOD’s responsibility. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Now, in your experience, are those funds 

that come out of the—are there legal liability funds that are appropriate, or have they been separately appropriated in the past? 

Mr. FABER. In the case of DOD, DOD does have, under the 

Superfund Amendments of 1986, a program, the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, that has helped finance some of that 

remediation. So they have funding that is annually appropriated to 

help clean up contaminated sites, munitions, burn pits and so on. 

Not nearly enough money has been appropriated. And as we have 

heard earlier, DOD has been reluctant to take on responsibility for 

PFAS contamination that started on, especially airbases, and now 

contaminating nearby communities, near Dover or F.E. Warren or 

other airbases in Maryland. 

One challenge is, when States are in control of the cleanup under 

CERCLA, there is no provision in CERCLA that requires DOD and 

States to enter into cooperative agreements than then force DOD 

to meet certain deadlines and fulfill their responsibilities. S. 1372, 

the PFAS Accountability Act, would ensure that in those circumstances, that DOD has to meet a properly promulgated State 

standard, as long as it meets certain criteria. 

So one missing piece in the world of CERCLA is this requirement 

that DOD or NASA or other Federal facilities do have to meet 

these State standards when States are the lead agency in charge. 

That does happen under CERCLA. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I am glad you raised that. In Maryland, 

for example, under the Maryland Controlled Hazardous Substance 

Act, Maryland has become the lead agency for CERCLA designated 

hazardous waste. So you are saying that the other legislation 

123 

would be required to make sure that the State of Maryland is not 

on the hook to pay the bill? 

Mr. FABER. If the State—and in the case of Wallops, NASA— 

were not able to reach a cooperative agreement, then there would 

be a duty on NASA to alert you, Congress, so that you could get 

involved and ensure that DOD or NASA or whatever Federal agency created the pollution problem was living up to their responsibilities. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. 

I just also, Mr. Chairman, want to associate myself with Senator 

Markey’s comments regarding addressing the occupational hazards 

to firefighters and others. Thank you. 

Thank you all. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. 

Before we adjourn, I would like to note that we have received a 

number of written statements from parties who would be impacted 

by the legislation before us. These include communities polluted 

with PFAS substances, as well as airports, rural drinking water 

providers, paper producers, metal finishers, refineries and others. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter these written statements into the 

record. 

Without objection, it is done. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

124 


36935.098

Statement for the Hearing Record: Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing on Legislation to Address the Risks Associated with PFAS 

ll61

h Congress 

May 22,2019 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and Members of the Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works: 

Thank you for holding this hearing today to review legislation critical to addressing the health and 

environmental risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). I am pleased that the 

Committee has decided to focus on the Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act (S.l25l ), legislation I 

introduced with Senator Portman, during today's hearing. In addition to my statement, I would also ask 

that the Subcommittee include in the hearing record a letter I have received in support of S.l25l. 

The Committee will be hearing testimony today on a number of important pieces of legislation in addition 

to the Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act. I am very pleased to cosponsor the PFAS Accountability Act, 

Senator Stabenow's bill to establish clear deadlines and reporting requirements for cleaning up PFAS 

contamination at federal facilities across the country, and also the PFAS Action Act, legislation led by 

Senators Carper and Capito that would list PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. 

As members of this Committee know. access to safe and clean drinking water is a fundamental human 

need, and is directly tied to the public health, wellbeing and economic vitality of our nation. While 

America's drinking water is the safest in the world, unregulated emerging contaminants, such as PFAS, 

are increasingly being detected in drinking water systems across the country. 

According to a 2019 study by the Environmental Working Group and Northeastern University, PFAS 

chemicals have contaminated more than 600 water sources in at least 43 states due their legacy uses in 

aqueous film forming foam. non-stick coating for cookware and other commercial and industrial 

applications. Each day, alarming concentrations of these chemicals arc being detected at military and 

industrial sites, landfills and airports across the country.ln New Hampshire, PFAS materials have emerged 

as a major contaminant concern to the drinking water sources in several communities, and were 

responsible for the closing of a major water supply well located at the former Pease Air Force Base in 

Portsmouth. While the risks associated with PFAS exposure are still being uncovered. studies have linked 

these unregulated emerging contaminants to a number of adverse health effects, causing great public 

concern. 

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required 

to routinely identify and analyze emerging contaminants and provide guidance to states, local officials 

and the public about the potential public health risks and acceptable contamination levels for these 

materials. Unfortunately. actions by state and public water systems to monitor and treat these 

contaminants arc often delayed due to the rigorous and lengthy nature of the EPA's multi-step review 

process. A lack of scientific research that adequately addresses potential health effects of emerging 

contaminants has also hindered EPA and state efforts to regulate the presence of these materials. 

Moreover, as emerging contaminants are identified in communities, many state and local agencies need 
125 


36935.099

additional assistance and support for testing contaminants and communicating the potential risks with 

the public. 

The safety of our drinking water in essential and non-negotiable. There is a critical need to address 

exposure to PF AS and other emerging contaminants and attend to any potential adverse health effects or 

additional impacts on our communities. My legislation would strengthen and coordinate Federal and 

state efforts to improve the efficiency of SOW A and the safety of our nation's drinking water system. 

The Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act would establish a Federal task force on emerging contaminants 

to improve interagency coordination on research as well as the development of environmental and health 

advisories and standards pertaining to these materials. My legislation would also create a National 

Emerging Contaminant Research Initiative to improve the identification, analysis and treatment methods 

for emerging contaminants. Finally, the bill would address concerns we have heard from New 

Hampshire communities that have detected emerging contaminants in their water supplies by 

establishing a state assistance program to provide much-needed guidance and support to help ensure that 

the nation's drinking water will always be safe. 

The Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act has received strong support from several water sector 

organizations, including the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the Water Quality 

Association, the Water Research Foundation and the National Association of Water Companies. 

PFAS contamination is a public health challenge of the first order, and! appreciate that the Chairman 

and Ranking Member will be moving legislation to address this challenge. Again, thank you for the 

opportunity to submit testimony in support of the Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act. ! look forward to 

working with the Committee to advance this proposal. 
126 


36935.100

Introduction 

Statement of 3M Company 

To The 

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

Legislative Hearing on PFAS 

May 22,2019 

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) represent a broad class of organic 

molecules containing fluorine. A defining feature of each PFAS compound is that some 

or all of the carbon atoms in the compound are bonded to fluorine atoms instead of 

hydrogen. PFAS offer a specific combination of unique properties, including water 

resistance, oil resistance, and temperature resistance. These properties make them 

valuable in important applications across many industries such as: low greenhouse 

gas potential refrigerants, medical devices, low emissions vehicles, fire supression, 

electronics manufacturing, fuel cell membranes, industrial heat transfer and recovery, 

flame retardants, corrosion protection, and emissions reduction in chemical and power 

plants. 

3M was an early producer of PFAS in the United States, and continues to manufacture 

some of these materials today. 3M helped lead the way in understanding the health 

science of these compounds, developing analytical capabilities, and advancing the 

understanding of remediation technologies. In 2000, 3M announced it would 

voluntarily stop manufacturing any perfluorooctyl-based PFAS, such as PFOA and 

PFOS, in collaboration with environmental and health authorities. 

3M has monitored the health of our occupationally-exposed employees, who, in their 

day-to-day jobs, had PFOA and PFOS exposure levels much higher than those 

measured in the general population. Our analyses of these occupational data have not 

shown adverse health effects attributable to these PFOA and PFOS exposures. 

Today, 3M manufactures PFAS compounds incorporating 3- and 4-carbon 

perfluorinated molecules, as well as fluoropolymers. We deploy these chemistries in a 

variety of ways for an array of customers and industries worldwide. For example, 3M's 

current chemistries enable products like asthma inhalers and products that directly 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

3M no longer manufactures food packaging materials containing PFAS or aqueous 

film-forming foam (AFFF). AFFF was developed in the 1960s by the United States 

Navy, with support from 3M. The Navy patented the technology and required its 
127 


36935.101

vessels carry AFFF to protect the lives of U.S. sailors, airmen, and flight officers after 

134 sailors tragically died in a fire aboard the USS Forrestal in 1967 in one of the worst 

naval disasters in American history. To this day, the military specification governing 

AFFF requires the use of PFAS-based surfactants given their unique and life-saving 

properties. 

The Science on PFAS Continues to Evolve 

While toxicology studies in animals (primarily in mice, rats, and monkeys) have found 

certain adverse effects for some PFAS chemistries, those effects followed exposure 

levels that were typically orders of magnitude higher than levels found in the 

environment today, including in areas where drinking water contains elevated levels. 

Epidemiology studies on humans have generally found either null (negative), 

inconsistent, or conflicting results that are not sufficient to establish causation. 

In fact, while noting certain possible associations, public health agencies and 

independent science review panels have acknowledged that causation has not been 

shown: 

• "The available human studies have identified some potential targets of 

toxicity; however, cause and effect relationships have not been 

established for any of the effects, and the effects have not been 

consistently found in all studies." A TSDR 2018; pages 635-636. 

• The Panel concluded there is mostly limited or no evidence for any link 

with human disease from these observed differences. Importantly, there 

is no current evidence that supports a large impact on a person's health as 

a result of high levels of perfluoroalkyl exposure. Australian Expert Health 

Panel on PFAS, May 2018 

• "[C]ausality between a PFAS-chemical and a specific health outcome in 

humans has not been established in the current scientific literature." 

Michigan Science Advisory Panel. Scientific Evidence and 

Recommendations for Managing PFAS Contamination in Michigan, at 9. 

December 2018. 

Some individuals have contended that certain PFAS compounds, and PFOA in 

particular, cause cancer in humans. The body of scientific literature does not support 

this contention. At most, agencies that have evaluated the weight of scientific 

evidence have concluded that there is only "possible" or "suggestive" evidence. For 

example, the International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the 

World Health Organization, classifies PFOA as a possible human carcinogen. This 

classification is far from a determination of causation and includes 311 chemicals and 

2 
128 


36935.102

physical agents, including radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those 

emitted by wireless communication devices (e.g., cell phones) and, until it was 

downgraded from this classification in 2016, coffee. EPA found the evidence 

"suggestive" for both PFOA and PFOS (a similar categorization to I ARC's "possibly 

carcinogenic" for PFOA), but decided the body of evidence for the carcinogenic 

potential to humans was too limited to support a quantitative cancer assessment. The 

Australian Expert Health Panel previously noted "there is no current evidence that 

suggests an increase in overall cancer risk." 

As public health and environmental science authorities undertake regulatory reviews of 

PFAS, the scientific understanding of these chemicals will continue to develop in order 

to better understand the potential risks associated with exposure to PFAS in humans. 

Exposure Levels to C8 PFAS Compounds Continue to Decline 

There is a consistently declining trend of PFOA and PFOS in the U.S. general 

population as reported by the Center for Disease Control's National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey. The mean blood levels of PFOS and PFOA in the 

general U.S. population in the 2015-2016 period declined by approximately 85% and 

70% respectively, since the time when 3M announced its voluntary phase-out of 

PFOS production in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).' 

ATSDR recently observed, "[S]erum levels of PFOA and PFOS in the general 

population of the United States have decreased dramatically in recent years as U.S. 

production of these substances ceased." 2 We encourage CDC to continue this work 

and to update and publish mean blood level data for PFOA and PFOS. 

In addition, 3M proactively started a perfluoroalkyl biomonitoring program with the 

American Red Cross, examining adult blood donors in the same six regional areas 

since 2000-2001. The most recent publication, which examined samples collected in 

2015, reported declining trends consistent with NHANES for these six regions. 3 

Federal Action Based on Sound Science Is Warranted 

Congress has charged EPA with principal responsibility for administering and 

implementing national standards to protect the environment and public health, 

including promulgation of regulatory and guidance standards utilizing the agency's 

specialized expertise and knowledge. EPA's lifetime drinking water health advisory 

levels are numerically lower than drinking water standards in Australia, Canada, or 

Germany. The existence of a patchwork of state regulatory standards will create 

1 Center for Disease Control (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), January 2019. 2 ATSDR 2018. 

3 Olsen et al., 2017 

3 
129 


36935.103

inconsistent and potentially conflicting environmental policy and result in unnecessary 

costs and burden to local governments, utilities, U.S. businesses, and families. 

Selected Water Guidance or Regulatory Values (ng/L, ppt) 

Jurisdiction PFOS PFOA 

US EPA 70 70 

Michigan 70 70 

Minnesota 15 35 

New Jersey 13 14 

Germany 100 100 

Texas 600 300 

Australia 70 560 

Canada 600 200 

3M's View of The Best Available Science 

3M has long espoused the use of "best available science" in rule-making. In our view, 

the principles that should apply when looking at regulatory action regarding PFAS 

include: 

• Using a "weight of evidence" approach when looking across similar studies, 

putting more weight on studies of higher scientific value. 

• Whenever possible, relying on studies of higher order animals over lower order 

animals. For example, using results of primate studies over those of rodents, due 

to the closer similarity to human physiology. 

Assigning appropriate uncertainty factors based on a transparent decisionmaking algorithm. The uncertainty factor allocation should avoid employing 

factors already accounted for in assumptions for other parameters. For example, 

it is known that rodents are more sensitive to PFAS than humans, yet, many 

proposed reference doses based on effects in rodents have been derived with 

the highest interspecies uncertainty factors possible. 

It is important to critically evaluate the relative PFAS source contribution from 

drinking water. In developing drinking water guidance and regulatory values, 

many agencies have adopted the regulatory default value for source 

contribution, which assumes that 80% of PFAS intake comes from sources other 

than drinking water (e.g., food). However, a number of studies support much 

higher contributions from drinking water, making this default assumption 

unsubstantiated. Agencies should properly incorporate this data into their 

guidance/regulatory level derivations. 

4 
130 


36935.104

These principles, when applied, would yield health limits for exposure to PFAS while 

minimizing the risk of unnecessary testing and treatment of water supplies and avoiding 

unnecessary confusion due to varying state standards and guidance. 

Conclusion 

We share the Committee's concern for the potential impact of PFAS on drinking water 

across the country, but we strongly believe that science, rather than political 

considerations, should drive environmental and public health rule-making. This is a 

complex issue that we, as a Nation, need to get right. Establishing reactive, everlowered limits for PFAS in drinking water in certain States will not make water any safer, 

and could create undue and unintended burdens on States, municipalities, and 

communities that are unnecessary and unsupported by science. That is why we have 

supported, and continue to support, calls for action, and calls to federal regulators to 

consider setting appropriate enforceable, national drinking water standards. What 

constitutes safe drinking water should not vary from State to State. We believe that any 

action should be determined by the best available science and should be left to federal 

agencies that have or have access to the relevant expertise and that are congressionally 

tasked with making such determinations. For this reason, we continue to call for a broad 

review by the National Academy of Sciences to thoroughly review the body of PFAS 

science, then advise the EPA as it moves forward with its Action Plan. We believe this 

can be done without any impact on existing timelines for action by the EPA. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We stand ready to continue to 

work with you on this important topic. 

5 
131 


36935.105

May 22, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United State Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

AIRI'ORTS COUNCIL 

INTERNATIONAL 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United State Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am writing today to provide Airports Council International-North America's (ACI-NA's) perspective on issues 

to be discussed in today's hearing, "Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated with Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)." ACI-NA is the voice of North American airports and we represent local, 

regional and state governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports in the United States. Our 

members represent more than 300 airports operating in the United States and more than 400 aviation-related 

businesses. 

America's airports are a fundamental component of our nation's transportation infrastructure. In 2018,$1.73 

billion passengers and 32.3 million metric tons of cargo travelled through U.S. airports. With a national 

economic impact of $1.4 trillion, airports contribute more than seven percent to the U.S. gross domestic 

product and support over 11.5 million jobs around the country. 

While passenger and cargo traffic through airport facilities continues to grow at a record pace, our outdated 

aviation infrastructure is not keeping up with demand. As a result, far too many airports around the country 

are overcrowded and cramped. In February 2019, ACI-NA released a new report detailing the significant 

infrastructure needs of America's airports. With America's airports facing more than $128 billion in new 

infrastructure needs across the system and a debt burden of $91.6 billion from past projects, the sad reality is 

that our airports are already cash strapped and falling further behind in their effort to upgrade their facilities 

and improve the overall experience of their customers.· 

Airports are committed to being responsible partners with their communities by operating their facilities in 

environmentally responsible ways. However, in exercising its mandate to ensure the safety of the traveling 

public the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires airports to provide aircraft rescue and firefighting 

services using aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) that contain PFAS compounds. FAA directed the use of two 

of these compounds, Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), in the 1970s, 

before there was any recognition of their potential downsides. 

Because the federal government has mandated that airports use fire-fighting foam containing PFAS, the 

federal government must be responsible for any impacts flowing from that mandate. Fundamental fairness, 

as well as the legal principle that parties responsible for a hazard bear responsibility for that hazard, require 

this. Therefore, we urge you to ensure that any bill that would require airports to take any action or bear 

any burden as a result of the use of PFAS that was required by the Federal government, includes provisions 

for federal financial and legal responsibility for those actions. Airports should not be forced to pay for 

Airports Council International-North America • 

1615 L Street, NW. Suite 300 ·Washington. D.C. 20036 • (202) 293-8500 
132 


36935.106

2 

consequences of actions the federal government required them to take. As an example, when appropriate 

remediation and disposal actions are identified for airports relating to their federally-mandated firefighting 

obligations, it is imperative that Congress ensures the federal government pay for them. 

Clearly more work must be done to study PFAS compounds, discern the best way to minimize their impact on 

the environment, and remediate any damaging concentrations remaining in the environment. We recommend 

proceeding with caution on federal legislation that does not account for all of these factors and which may 

stifle important travel and trade through our nation's airports. 

In a first step out of the dilemma, ACI-NA successfully pushed for a provision in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 

2018, directing FAA to set performance standards within three years that do not require airports to use AFFF 

containing PFAS. This provision opens the door to future use of fluorine-free firefighting foams, similar to the 

PFAS-free foam allowed at European airports, provided such foams can meet FAA performance standards. 

While FAA has begun the research necessary to evaluate the use of such AFFF, it is unlikely that revised 

standards will be issued for several years. Therefore, we encourage Congress to emphasize the importance of 

these studies and encourage FAA to accelerate its research. 

Additionally in February 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a "PFAS Action Plan" 

describing the agency's plan to begin the process to designate PFOA and PFOS as "hazardous substances" 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and develop 

interim cleanup recommendations to address contaminated groundwater. While EPA has published a lifetime 

health advisory guideline of 70 parts per trillion, which applies only to the combination of PFOA and PFOS, the 

agency has not yet established regulatory criteria or released health advisories for the wider family of PFAS 

compounds. Therefore, we encourage Congress to direct EPA to accelerate the development of these 

standards. 

Also, given that PFAS has been used since for more than 70 years to manufacture stain-resistant, water· 

resistant, and non-stick products (such as clothing and cookware), we encourage Congress to direct and fund 

Department of Defense (DOD) research on "fingerprinting" PFAS to assist in determining the source of any 

groundwater contamination. 

Additionally, there are many open questions related to remediation and disposal. Work that may be 

undertaken through the bills before Congress, as well as that being directed at the state level, will result in 

inventories of impacted areas. However, next steps are essentially unknown, as recommended practices for 

both remediation and disposal activities continue to evolve. ACI-NA encourages Congress to provide EPA 

funding to facilitate increased knowledge and suggested practices related to remediation and disposal. 

ACI-NA requests that Congress defer general legislation on PFAS, PFOA, PFOS, and new drinking-water 

standards until the EPA, FAA, and DOD have completed their foundational research into the appropriate levels, 

historical sources, meaningful alternatives, remediation, and disposal methods available to end-users like 

airports. In the event that any such legislation is moved forward, we urge you to ensure that it includes 

federal responsibility for any consequences of federally-mandated use of products containing PFAS. 

Regarding legislation currently pending before your committee, we make these specific comments on those 

bills most concerning to us: 

S. 638, "The PFAS Action Act of 2019" 

ACI-NA opposes this legislation, as this blanket categorization such could result in the classification of many 

other PFAS compounds that may be found at airports as hazardous substances without the underlying science 

to justify this determination. Such action could significantly impact airport operations and negatively affect air 

service in hundreds of communities throughout the United States. As EPA is just beginning the process to 

Airports Council International-North America • 

1615 L Street, NW, Suite 300 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • (202) 293-8500 
133 


36935.107

3 

designate PFOA and PFOS as "hazardous substances" under CERCLA, this overly broad legislation is premature. 

EPA should be permitted to conduct its research and undertake its rulemaking process, taking into account the 

need to differentiate among the thousands of PFAS compounds and under their respective health impacts. 

S. 1507, "The PFAS Release Disclosure Act" 

This legislation is also premature, as it could require airports to report PFOA and PFOS data in the Toxic 

Release Inventory (TRI} given that scientific data necessary to facilitate the report is unlikely to be available on 

January 1, 2020, the date airports would be required to begin reporting if this bill is enacted. EPA has not yet 

determined a toxicity level for these PFAS compounds. Further, there is little scientific data available on 

contaminated soil for two of the required components ofTRI reporting- "treatment" and "disposal". 

We appreciate your consideration of the impact these bills would have on U.S. airports and the communities 

that depend on them for air transportation and economic development. If we can be of any assistance or 

provide additional information, please contact ACI-NA's Senior Director of Environmental Affairs, Melinda 

Pagliarello (202-861-8092 or MPagliarello@airportscouncil.org}. 

Sincerely, 

j///'~·- \ '} ' 

;~"'· J. I 

Kevin M. Burke 

President & CEO 

Airports Council International-North America • 

1615 L Street, NW, Suite 300 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • (202) 293-8500 
134 


36935.108

May 20,2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Frank Pallone 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, Chairman Pallone, and Ranking Member 

Walden: 

We are writing as members of the American Alliance for Innovation (AAI), a group of trade 

associations representing a broad spectrum of American companies who rely on sound chemical 

management policy. Because of the essential role per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) play 

in so many of the products Americans rely on every day, we urge you to refrain from taking overly 

broad actions regarding PFAS that would wholly circumvent existing EPA and other appropriate 

federal agencies' regulatory frameworks and processes for regulating chemicals. Rather, we support 

Congress's review of current authorities provided under federal law and developing a pathway to 

expedite necessary regulatory and clean-up actions to address the legacy challenges. 

AAl members represent businesses both large and small spread across the United States economy. 

Multiple business sectors are included in our membership, such as aerospace, agriculture, 

automotive, building and construction materials, electronics, energy. and textiles. PFAS is a key 

enabling technology that plays a vital role in many of these industries. including products ranging 

from life-saving applications in pacemakers and defibrillators to low-friction and clot-resistant 

coatings for catheters, stents and needles. PF AS products arc also used in the manufacturing of 

semiconductors, solar panels and high-performance electronics and are used to extinguish dangerous 

hydrocarbon fires efficiently and effectively. 

While some of the chemical names sound the same, PF AS have differing characteristics, 

formulations, intended uses, and environmental and health profiles. Therefore, a blanket, one-sizefits-all approach to regulating all PFAS chemicals as a class is not only misleading to the public, but 

is scientifically inaccurate. 

We continue to support strong national leadership in addressing PI' AS and firmly believe that the 

career officials at the EPA, through the rulemaking process, are best positioned to provide the public 

with a comprehensive strategy informed by a full understanding of the safety and benefits of 

different PFAS chemistries. It is also essential that EPA implement its National PFAS Action Plan 
135 


36935.109

quickly based on the best-available science and continue to communicate effectively to the public 

to build confidence, transparency, and credibility in the actions it takes. 

Thank you for your leadership and your consideration of this important matter. Please let us know 

if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Aerospace Industries Association 

Airlines for America 

American Chemistry Council 

American Forest & Paper Association 

American Petroleum Institute 

Fashion, Jewelry & Accessories Trade Association 

lNDA, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry 

International Liquid Terminals Association 

National Association of Chemical Distributors 

National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers 

National Association for Surface Finishing 

National Council of Textile Organizations 

National Tank Truck Carriers 

Oregon Women in Timber 

Painting and Decorating Contractors of America 

Pine Chemicals Association 

Resilient Floor Covering Institute 

Single Ply Roofing Industry 

Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates 

Specialty Graphic Imaging Association 

Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance 

The Chlorine Institute 

The Treated Wood Council 
136 


36935.110

American 

Forest & Paper 

Association 

American Forest & Paper Association 

Statement Submitted for the Record 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing Entitled: "Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated with Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)" 

May 22, 2019 

We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on legislation under consideration by the 

Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 

substances (PFAS). 

The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) serves to advance a sustainable U.S. pulp, 

paper, packaging, tissue and wood products manufacturing industry through fact-based public 

policy and marketplace advocacy. AF&PA member companies make products essential for 

everyday life from renewable and recyclable resources and are committed to continuous 

improvement through the industry's sustainability initiative- Better Practices, Better Planet 

2020. The forest products industry accounts for approximately 4 percent of the total U.S. 

manufacturing GOP, manufactures over $200 billion in products annually, and employs 

approximately 900,000 men and women. The industry meets a payroll of approximately $50 

billion annually and is among the top 10 manufacturing sector employers in 45 states. 

AF&PA members are committed to ensuring the safety of their products, including the safety of 

chemicals used in their manufacturing processes. AF&PA believes that chemical and productrelated legislation and regulations should be protective of health, cost-effective, and based on 

the best available science. AF&PA also supports studies and research to achieve sciencebased assessments that ultimately may be used as the basis for establishing regulations. Policy 

and regulations should be based on credible science and reflect actual exposure to and risk 

from chemicals in specific products, not merely whether de minimis or trace levels of a chemical 

may be present. 

PFAS are a large and diverse class of chemicals with widely varying uses and properties. 

AF&PA is opposed to any legislation that does not distinguish between short and long-chain 

PFAS, suggesting that all short-chain PFAS have similar potential for harm. The specific shortchain PFAS chemistry currently used in food packaging has been carefully reviewed and 

approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under a comprehensive federal 

regulatory program that ensures the safety of food packaging for public health and the 

environment. 

FDA-regulated food packaging should be excluded from legislation. The FDA has "carefully 

reviewed the available science" on the short-chain compounds used for food packaging 

purposes and determined that they are safe for their intended use. The FDA's careful study and 

approval of the use of short-chain PFAS chemicals allows for continued production of safe and 

reliable food packaging.; AF&PA member companies do not use older, long-chain fluorinated 

chemistries such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) in the 

1101 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 • Washington, D.C. 20005 • (202) 463·2700 • afandpa.org 
137 


36935.111

May 22, 2019 

Page 2 

production of food contact paper and paperboard. These companies began using modified 

paper coating formulas around 2011-- ahead of the 2016 FDA ban on various long-chain PFAS 

chemicals. 

We also are greatly concerned about the potential direct consequences on paper recycling from 

any legislation that does not exempt paper-based products and manufacturing byproducts 

where PFAS has not been intentionally added. The failure to provide an exemption will directly 

affect the paper recycling industry and diminish our ability, and that of our customers and 

suppliers, to operate in a sustainable manner. PFAS are ubiquitous in the environment, and 

legislation should exempt products, byproducts and substances where PFAS is not intentionally 

added. 

We thank the Committee for their consideration on this important matter and stand ready to 

assist you and offer our expertise as a resource as you shape policy on this important issue. 

For more information, please contact: 

Elizabeth Bartheld 

Vice President, Government and Industry Affairs 

American Forest & Paper Association 1101 K Street, NW 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20005 

Elizabeth Bartheld@afandpa.org 

' Food packaging that complies with FDA regulations are safe for their intended use. 
138 


36935.112

May 22, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

5!3 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Chet M. Thompson 

President and CEO 

American 

Fuel & Petrochemical 

Manufacturers 

1800 M Street, NW 

Suite 900 North 

Washington, DC 

20036 

202457.0480 office 

202.844-5505 direct 

202.457.0486 fax 

Cthompson@afpm.org 

RE: Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances 

(PFAS) 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) is a trade association representing 

high-tech American manufacturers of virtually the entire U.S. supply of fuels and home heating 

oil, as well as the petrochemicals used as building blocks for thousands of vital products in daily 

life. AFPM members make modern life possible and keep America moving and growing as they 

meet the needs of our nation and local communities, strengthen economic and national security, 

and support over three million American jobs. 

The safety of our workers and our communities is a core value for AFPM's member companies. 

It is in this context that AFPM evaluates legislation seeking to address the potential risks from 

per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). 

Although AFPM's members do not manufacture PFAS, firefighting foam containing PFAS is the 

most effective firefighting foam commercially available today. AFPM fully supports the 

continued development and use of alternatives, including new generation fluorinated fire foams 

that will hopefully prove to be equally effective for emergency firefighting purposes. Our 

members arc also implementing practices to limit the use of PFAS foam during non-emergency 

training exercises and equipment testing. 

As Congress considers addressing risks associated with certain PFAS, it must preserve the ability 

to prevent and suppress fires at refineries and petrochemical facilities. 

AFPM supports a consistent, national approach to address any potential risks associated with 

PFAS. AFPM does not support federal or state legislatures setting limits or hazardous 

classifications on PFAS chemicals by statute. Rather, any contaminant level or treatment level 

limits should be developed, as indicated by scientific review, by the proper rulemaking process, 

with the opportunity for input by all stakeholders. 
139 


36935.113

Finally, AFPM urges any resulting regulations be supported by a peer-reviewed, risk-based 

approach on an individual PFAS chemical basis, not a "one-size-fits all" classification for all 

PFAS. 

We appreciate your attention to this important issue and look forward to working with 

lawmakers as the process moves forward. 

Sincerely, 

Chet Thompson 

President and CEO 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers 
140 


36935.114

t'llerov~~ ,,..-. 

June 3, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Howard J. Feldman 

Senior Director 

Regulatory and Scientific 

Affairs 

200 Massachusetts Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

202-682-8340 

feldman@api.org 

www.api.org 

Subject: "Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated with Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)" 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and members of the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works: 

On behalf of the members of the American Petroleum Institute (API), I appreciate the 

opportunity to submit comments on the May 22 hearing, "Examining Legislation to Address the 

Risks Associated with Per- and Polytluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)" and respectfully request 

that this letter be entered into the formal record. 

API is the only national trade association representing all facets of the oil and natural gas 

industry, which supports more than I 0.3 million U.S. jobs and nearly 8 percent of the U.S. 

economy. API's more than 600 members include large integrated companies, as well as 

exploration and production, refining, marketing, pipeline, and marine businesses, and service and 

supply firms. They provide most of the nation's energy and are backed by a growing grassroots 

movement of more than 47 million Americans. API was formed in 1919 as a standards-setting 

organization. In its first I 00 years, API has developed more than 700 standards to enhance 

operational and environmental safety, efficiency and sustainability. 

1 
141 


36935.115

PFAS are a group of chemicals that have been manufactured and used in the U.S. since the 

1940s. Their unique characteristics have made them an important component to a range of 

industries- including aerospace. automotive, building and construction, defense, electronics, 

food packaging, healthcare, telecommunications, and oil and gas. Individual PFAS have distinct 

physical, chemical and structural properties, which impact how each one can be used and 

measured and the effect each may have on human health and the environment. Implementing a 

class-wide regulatory or legislative approach for these complex PF AS threatens to create a 

framework in which risk is not determined by evidence-based science and compliance may be 

technically unachievable or require significant cost with no associated health or environmental 

benefit. 

One issue relevant to our industry is life-saving firefighting foam. Foams containing PFAS are 

the only available option that are effective in extinguishing liquid petroleum fires, such as those 

involving gasoline tankers and aboveground storage tanks. The use of these foams meets 

National Fire and Protection Association (NFPA) 11, the industry standard for firefighting foam. 

These foams are essential to the safety of employees, first responders. and members of the 

community. and to mitigating potential significant impacts to the environment that could result 

from uncontrolled fire incidents. 

Companies strive to implement best practices and procedures related to fire prevention and 

response, including training. testing, containment, and personnel protection. To mitigate the need 

to deploy firefighting foams, API maintains and continuously improves new standards related to 

fire prevention and occupational safety. For non-emergency training, industry supports the use of 

fluorine-free foams. Additionally, API provides financial and technical support to the NFPA to 

develop standards to validate the effectiveness of fluorine-free alternatives. That being said. until 

an effective and proven alternative has been identified. API opposes a ban on the utilization of 

fluorinated foams for firefighting. 

API and its member companies support a consistent and credible approach that leverages 

existing frameworks to assess the potential risks associated with PF AS. While grouping PFAS 

chemicals into simple categories may streamline the debate, it ignores the scientific complexity, 

range of properties, and potential benefits to modern society. As Congress continues to evaluate 

legislative proposals pertaining to PFAS, API strongly cautions against regulating these 

substances as a broad class and urges that any potential action be based on existing 

administrative procedures and sound science. 

API appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Should you have any questions, 

please contact me at (202) 682-8340. 

Sincerely, 

2 
142 


36935.116

APWA 

~=-=-· 

May 16,2019 

"(

ater Environment Federation' 

lh<)wat.,qwHypoopJc' 

The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen 

506 Hart Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman: 

Water 

R~search 

NGWA 

~ 

~Water U '-~ Q\!e!Lty IN ATE REUSE 

The Honorable Rob Portman 

448 Russell Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

On behalf of the undersigned water sector organizations. we would like to thank you for introducing S. 1251. 

the Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act. This important legislation will improve critical research into the 

potential human health impacts of unregulated emerging contaminants that may be found in drinking water 

supplies. We are pleased to offer our support. 

As you know, the Safe Drinking Water Act includes a robust, science-based regulatory process that EPA must 

follow when determining whether to propose a national primary drinking water regulation for a currentlyunregulated contaminant. As part of this process, the law requires EPA to regularly identify emerging 

contaminants- those not currently subject to federal regulation and make determinations of whether they 

should be subject to new limits. However. a lack of scientific data that explains the human health efTects of 

certain emerging contaminants often slows EPA's ability to make regulatory determinations in a timely 

manner. and leaves communities uncertain as to the precise human health impacts of emerging contaminants 

that may have been detected in their water supplies. 

The Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act would improve research into the human health implications of 

emerging contaminants by establishing an interagency working group between EPA and the Department of 

Health and Human Services that will organize and coordinate federal activities to identify the human health 

e!Teets of emerging contaminants. The bill would also establish a National Emerging Contaminant Research 

Initiative to improve the identification. monitoring, and treatment of emerging contaminants. Finally. the 

proposal would offer technical assistance to help states respond when emerging contaminants have been 

detected in water supplies relied upon by their residents. 

We support the Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act because it would facilitate research into the human health 

effects of emerging contaminants thus giving critical data to communities where contaminants arc present, 

and to EPA as it undertakes the process of deciding whether a national primary drinking water regulation is 

warranted for a given contaminant. We appreciate your leadership on this issue, and we look forward to 

working with you as this legislation advances through the Senate. 

Sincerely . 

.American Public Works Association 

American Water Works Association 

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 

National Association of Water Companies 

National Groundwater Association 

Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP), Inc. 

Water Environment Federation 

The Water Research Foundation 

Water Quality Association 

WateReuse Association 
143 


36935.117

,,., METROPOLITAN u WATER AGENCIES 

May 22,2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

P 202.331-2820 F202.785.1B45 

amwanet 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) appreciates the opportunity to submit 

comments for the record oftoday's hearing on ''Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated 

with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).'' As an organization representing the nation's largest 

publicly owned drinking water systems, we commend the committee for organizing this hearing to 

explore policies that could address PFAS that have been increasingly detected in our environment and 

our water supplies in recent years. 

As AMWA said in a statement that was submitted to a hearing in the House of Representatives last week, 

we believe that federal policies targeting PFAS should mirror the approach that is followed for other 

emerging contaminants. Namely, polluters should be held responsible, necessary research should be 

conducted. and any new regulations should be transparent, science-based. and protective of public health. 

As you know, PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals that were developed over the second half of the 

20th century for use in a variety of industrial applications, from nonstick cookware to firetighting foam. 

While the chemicals' nonstick properties carried useful commercial value. the substances accumulate 

over time, do not degrade easily, and are highly soluble in water- allowing their presence to spread 

throughout the environment. Human exposure to PFAS may occur through the use of products containing 

PF AS or the consumption of food or water that has absorbed the suhstances. EPA· s Science Advisory 

Board has classified PFOA. one common PFAS. as likely to be carcinogenic, and numerous animal 

studies have shown associated impacts to the liver, immune system. thyroid, and reproductive systems 

after exposure to various other PFAS. l Iowevcr, we have little to no information on toxicity, particularly 

in relation to human toxicity, for the vast majority of the thousands ofPFAS, and significant research is 

needed to fill in these gaps. 

AMWA watched with interest in February when the Environmental Protection Agency released its PFAS 

Action Plan, which outlined EPA's strategy for addressing these contaminants through existing statutory 

authorities. We were pleased to sec components of the plan that committed to additional research, 

cleanup assistance 1 and a continuation of the regulatory process under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

len;·!lm'>'n 

Con!lalo>iJWaleiDIWlCI 

Ke>mGert>g 

r~•l C"llw' \ 'lllme> 

s,,el>lrl"mm•dc J<fl"'-ySz.1bo 

Groa< L;kts Wat~r Author<!\ SutTolk Coun~ WM~r Amlmntv 
144 


36935.118

The Honorable John Barrasso 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

May 22,2019 

Page 2 of 4 

(SDWA). While much work remains to be done, we view the Action Plan as a positive first step, and 

Congress must conduct oversight to ensure implementation of the plan remains on track. For example, 

the Action Plan notes that EPA has initiated the regulatory development process for listing PFOA and 

PFOS- two of the most prominent PFAS- as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). AMWA strongly believes the 

entities that are responsible for releasing contaminants into the environment- and thus, into sources of 

drinking water- must also be held liable for the cost of removing these contaminants to the point that any 

imminent and substantial human health threat is abated, and any applicable Maximum Contaminant 

Level Goal under SOW A is achieved. This is especially true for man-made contaminants like PFAS. 

which would not be present in the country's water supplies had a company not manufactured them and 

allowed them to enter the environment. CERCLA is a proven and effective mechanism for holding 

responsible those who have polluted drinking water supplies, so we favor action under that statute to 

ensure that the entities that originally introduced PFOA and PFOS into the environment ultimately pay 

the cost of source water cleanup- not the utility ratepayers of those affected communities. 

Equally important to holding polluters accountable is the need to develop sound, reliable research that 

identifies the precise human health risks associated with exposure to PF AS chemicals. as well as how 

community water systems can best remove them from water supplies. Testimony delivered to the House 

of Representatives last week suggested the existence of between 3,000 and 6,000 man-made PF AS 

compounds, but the human health implications of exposure to many of them remain unknown. Moreover, 

most lab facilities lack the capability to even detect more than several dozen of these compounds, and 

conventional drinking water treatments like ozonation, biofiltration, and UV disinfection are ineffective 

at removing many PFAS from water supplies. Other treatments like granular activated carbon or reverse 

osmosis may have greater success, but the cost of their initial installation and ongoing operation are 

significant obstacles for many communities. In sum. it is hard to formulate an appropriate public policy 

response without understanding the point at which a particular PFAS may pose a measurable human 

health risk. or whether a local community has the capability to effectively respond. 

EPA's PFAS Action Plan outlines a number of near-term and long-term actions the agency intends to 

take to address the gaps in our current understanding of PFAS' toxicity profile and treatment options. 

These include identifying the human health and ecological effects of exposure to various PFAS, the 

significant sources of human PF AS exposure, the costs and effectiveness of different methods for 

removing PFAS from drinking water and other parts ofthe environment, and steps EPA can take in 

support of stakeholders who need up-to-date research to protect the public from harmful exposure. 

AMWA suppotis each of these objectives. and because quality science requires a financial investment. 

the association urges Congress to provide EPA with the resources it needs to carry out the studies 

necessary to answer these questions. To this end. AMWA supports the Safe Drinking Water Assistance 

Act (S. 1251 ), legislation offered by Scns. Shaheen and Portman that would expand research into 

emerging drinking water contaminants by instituting an interagency working group and facilitating 

technical assistance to help states respond when a new unregulated substance is detected in their water 

supplies. Clearly. robust research must be a central component of any effective nationwide response to 

PFAS. 
145 


36935.119

The Honorable John Barrasso 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

May 22,2019 

Page 3 of 4 

Finally, AMWA continues to support the detailed, science-based regulatory process that EPA is required 

to follow when developing a national primary drinking water regulation for any contaminant under 

SDWA. The law requires EPA to regularly identify contaminants not currently subject to federal drinking 

water regulation and make a determination of whether each should be subject to new drinking water 

limits. PFOA and PFOS have been on EPA's Contaminant Candidate List for several years and were 

subject to monitoring by drinking water systems through the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule. Important information about the prevalence ofPFOA and PFOS in the nation's drinking water 

supplies was gathered during this time, and under SDW A the next step in the regulatory process is for 

EPA to decide whether to propose a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for PFOA and PFOS in 

drinking water. EPA's PF AS Action Plan committed the agency to taking this step before the end of the 

year. 

To make a positive determination and move forward to develop an MCL, the EPA Administrator must 

conclude that the contaminant in question is prevalent in drinking water across the country at levels that 

may carry an adverse human health risk, and that an MCL would present a meaningful opportunity to 

reduce this risk. Moreover, an initial MCL proposed by El' A must be followed by a period of public 

review and comment, where stakeholders and other interested parties are afforded a chance to engage 

with the agency, review the underlying science, and make their own suggestions about the 

appropriateness of an MCL at a given level. Only after collecting and considering this feedback may EPA 

promulgate a final MCL- one that the public can be confident is transparent. science-based, and 

protective of public health. 

AMW A recognizes that at times SDWA 's regulatory process can appear to move slowly, and that it can 

be tempting to instead direct EPA to issue a regulation for a particular contaminant. But it is also 

critically important to make sure, before a regulation is enacted, that the resulting compliance efforts by 

thousands of individual communities would result in a measurable reduction of risk. In the case of the 

broad family of l'FAS, it is not clear how a drinking water standard could presently meet this test, given 

the thousands of different known compounds, limited information on effective detection and treatment 

strategies, and unknown human health impacts for many individual chemicals. A hasty formation of a 

PFAS MCL would run contrary to the consideration of sound and transparent science that is at the heart 

of the law's regulatory process. 

AM W A believes that Congress should hold EPA accountable for meeting its self-imposed goal of issuing 

a regulatory determination for PFOA and PFOS by the end of the year, before considering legislation to 

mandate a standard. Depat1ing from SDW A's defined regulatory process could ultimately lead to a 

regulation that is rushed, lacks transparency, and may not fulfill the objective of measurably improving 

human health outcomes. Such a regulation would be of questionable value, and would likely lead to 

increased compliance costs for communities that are already struggling with water affordability 

challenges. Again, AMW A supports SDWA 's transparent and science-based regulatory process, and 

believes that following that process will lead to the most trusted outcome for communities and the public. 

AMW A appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments for the record of today's hearing. The 

emergence ofPFAS in our environment has posed a vexing challenge for water utilities, but we strongly 
146 


36935.120

The Honorable John Barrasso 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

May 22,2019 

Page 4 of 4 

believe that holding polluters accountable, developing robust research and data, and considering sciencebased regulations represents the best way forward. 

We thank you for holding this hearing today. and we look forward to continuing to work with you as this 

issue unfolds in the months ahead. 

Sincerely. 

Diane VanDeHei 

Chief Executive Officer 
147 


36935.121

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NEILL. BRADLEY 

!•::-..u:L''JIY!·. \'ICE PRI :>!Dl.:--.T & 

Cl!IJ..l· P(l!.!Cl CHJ·JCLR 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

May21,2019 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

161 5 J! ."I Rl I t, !'\: \\ 

\\ .. \SIIl'-t;JO'-. DC 200(,2 

(202) ..J-6 }.S'du 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce appreciates the Committee holding the hearing. 

"'Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 

Substances (PFAS)." The Chamber is committed to proactively working with legislators, 

regulators, and all stakeholders to establish risk-based standards that protect human health and 

the environment. While well-intentioned, the legislation to be considered at the hearing should 

be improved to more appropriately address issues related to PFAS. 

S. 638, the "PFAS Action Act," would require the Administrator of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to designate all PF AS as hazardous substances under 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or 

Superfund, within one year. 

EPA should retain its important authority to study the effects of potentially hazardous 

substances and to ascertain whether they should be designated as hazardous under CERCLA. 

The Superfund program has a strong track record of dealing with hazardous substances. EPA's 

career scientists have the requisite expertise to examine PFAS, and decisions on these substances 

should not be a political question addressed by Congress. 

As currently drafted, S. 638 would have significant unintended consequences that could 

lead to the reopening of an innumerable amount of remediated sites. This has the potential to 

overwhelm the Superfund program. undermine the progress that has been made on the highestrisk sites, and create unnecessary economic burdens on stakeholders, including small businesses, 

which may otherwise not be able to afford the direct costs associated with such widespread 

remediation efforts. 

S. 1507, the "PFAS Release Disclosure Act," would amend operation of the Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 to require the reporting by industrial and 

federal facilities of certain PF AS releases via the Taxies Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI 

database serves as a centralized collection of mandatorily-reported information pertaining to 
148 


36935.122

releases of toxic chemical emissions, toxic chemicals placed in certain land disposals, as well as 

those managed through recycling energy recovery and treatment. 

To be considered a toxic chemical subject to the TR!, EPA must find the chemical is 

known to cause or can reasonably be expected to cause ·'significant adverse acute human health 

effects" or a significant adverse environmental effect or is reasonably anticipated to cause cancer 

or other chronic health effects. Currently, no PFAS are subject to TRI reporting requirements. 

This legislation would be substantially improved by targeting those PFAS that are of the 

highest priority based on actual risk, using existing regulatory processes to address both current 

and future issues. Any legislative action should respect the formal rulemaking processes and 

scientific approaches that serve as the foundation of environmental statutes. 

S. 1507, as currently drafted, would add the two PF AS of greatest concern, PFOA and 

PFOS (including their associated salts), to the TR!, as well as a number of other PFAS or groups 

of PF AS subject to certain current or future regulatory processes provided for in the Toxic 

Substances Control Act. While initially limited in scope, the number of PFAS that could 

ultimately be subject to future TR! reporting requirements under this bill has the potential to 

reach well into the thousands. 

S. !507 would also reduce the TR! reporting threshold of25.000 pounds for chemical 

manufacturers and processors and l 0,000 pounds for chemical users to 100 pounds for all 

stakeholders. Although stakeholders would likely be better served by retaining the original 

threshold for reporting requirements, the bill would allow EPA to reexamine the lowered 

threshold every five years, based on the best available science and data. Notably, S. 1507 would 

also provide important protections for confidential business information. 

We look forward to working with you on this important matter as the legislative process 

continues. 

Sincerely, 

Neil L. Bradley 

cc: Members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 
149 


36935.123

Written Statement of 

Paul Kirsch 

President, Chemours Fluoroproducts 

The Chemours Company 

Before the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

May 22, 2019 

Introduction 

Water quality and emerging contaminants are growing concerns across the United 

States, and rightly so. Water is essential to our lives, our communities, and our 

planet. One focus of this concern is a class of fluorinated chemicals called PF AS, 

or pertluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. As discussed below, the term 

PF AS represents a broad and diverse range of compounds that have a variety of 

physical and chemical properties, health and environmental profiles, uses, and 

benefits. 

The Chemours Company's fluoropolymers business uses a small subset ofthis class 

of chemicals in manufacturing some of its fluoropolymer materials. This includes 

fluoropolymer materials used for mission critical military operations, as well as for 

countless industries essential to modern life including the medical, renewable 

energy, water treatment, electronics, aerospace, and semiconductor industries. 

Fluoropolymers are used in essentially every car, airplane, and cell phone in the 

United States. And they are used in the production of a wide variety of medical 

products ranging from prescription drugs to catheters. 

As president of the fluoroproducts business at Chemours, I would like to state at the 

outset that we at Chemours take very seriously our obligation to manage the PFAS 

compounds in our manufacturing process in a responsible manner and ensure they 

are safe for their intended use. 
150 


36935.124

As discussed below, we at Chemours also support the federal legislative efforts 

currently underway and their goals to develop a safe regulatory framework for PF AS 

using a science-based approach that takes advantage of the extensive, existing 

regulatory framework. This includes expeditiously addressing priority PFAS 

compounds under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA), setting federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for 

priority PFAS compounds, and adding certain PFAS compounds to the Toxic 

Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements. 

Chemours is committed to being a transparent and collaborative partner in this 

process. We have demonstrated just how seriously we take our commitment to 

stewardship by adopting ambitious Corporate Responsibility Commitment goals. 

One such goal is the reduction by 99% or greater of PF AS air emissions and water 

discharges at all of our sites globally. In making this commitment, Chemours has 

gone well beyond our legal and regulatory requirements to address local community 

expectations now and in the future. We know of no other company that has made 

this type of commitment. 

Chemours' actions include: 

• significant steps already taken at multiple manufacturing sites, 

including an investment of over $100 million in state-of-the-art 

abatement technology at our Fayetteville Works facility in North 

Carolina. 

• investment in research and development of treatment technologies, 

including carbon and ion exchange. 

• creation of more sensitive analytical methods and synthesis of 

authentic reference standards for researchers, as well as commercial 

labs, regarding certain PF AS byproducts, as no commercial standards 

or methods had previously been available for determining 

concentrations ofthese compounds. 

Chemours has shared and contributed and is willing to continue to do so our 

analytical expertise and abatement knowledge related to this chemistry because we 

believe that it can be valuable in reaching real solutions. 

2 
151 


36935.125

PFAS- The Similarities and Differences 

Some of the bills under consideration suggest a legislative approach that would apply 

a blanket "one size fits all" regulatory approach across all PFAS. I believe this 

approach poses two major challenges. 

First, a blanket "one size fits all" approach will slow down the regulatory process 

and impede the science-based prioritization and progress that the nation so 

desperately wants to see on this topic. As outlined below, in order to provide swift 

progress, Chemours believes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

should focus immediately on those compounds identified by the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (A TSDR) with risk-based screening levels 

(namely, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA). See ATSDR's Minimal Risk Levels 

(MRLs) and Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs) for Pertluoroalkyls 

(PFAS), November 2018. 1 Addressing these compounds at the federal level- in a 

manner consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act and the relevant 

environmental statutes - will provide a much needed solution to a significant 

portion of the nation's water quality challenge related to PFAS. 

The second challenge to a blanket approach is the fact that fluorinated compounds 

are not a uniform class of chemicals. While PFAS chemicals have similarities (for 

example, they all contain a fluorine-carbon bond), they also have many differences. 

For example, PFAS chemicals vary widely in physical-chemical properties, 

structure, and toxicity. As discussed below, the different characteristics among 

PFAS chemicals result in very different risk and toxicity profiles for particular 

substances. In order to ensure that our regulatory approach is science-based and 

does not unnecessarily stifle innovation, these differences should be incorporated 

into any effort to better regulate PFAS compounds. 

The need to apply different regulatory strategies to different compounds within a 

class of chemicals is neither novel nor controversial. For example, consider the 

following three hydrocarbon substances: polyethylene (a widely used, if not the 

most widely used, plastic in the world), propane (an explosive gas), and ethanol 

(found in alcoholic beverages). All three of these substances are hydrocarbons but 

nobody would suggest regulating these three in the same way. The differences 

among PF AS compounds can be just as extensive as the differences among 

polyethylene, propane, and ethanol. 

1 While we agree that these substances identified by the ATSDR for MRLs are appropriate for regulation, we do not 

necessarily agree with the specific risk levels identified by the ATSDR. Any determination of risk levels should follow 

standard scientific risk assessment methodologies as well as the criteria set forth in the applicable regulations. 

3 
152 


36935.126

A. Durability vs. Toxicity 

Essentially all PF AS compounds are durable, environmentally persistent 

compounds. This is because they contain carbon-fluorine covalent bonds, and these 

bond types are quite resistant to degradation. In fact, it is this characteristic that 

provides many of the commercial and consumer benefits ofPFAS compounds. 

But the durability of a chemical compound in the environment is not synonymous 

with its toxicity or hazard potential. Just think about other environmentally 

persistent compounds, such as metals. Iron, calcium, and arsenic, being metals, are 

all persistent in the environment. Two of these chemicals are essential nutrients, 

while the third is especially hazardous to human health. No one would consider 

these three, similarly persistent chemicals to pose equal risks to human health. And 

for this reason, it wouldn't make sense to consider adopting a "one size fits all" 

regulatory approach for all metals. 

B. Biopersistence 

Certain PF AS substances have been found to remain in people for a period of time. 

For instance, PFOA, which was phased out of production in the United States years 

ago, has been shown to have a half-life in humans of approximately 2 to 3 years. 

This characteristic is sometimes referred to as biopersistence because the chemical 

persists in the body. 

Meanwhile, there are other "second generation" PF AS chemicals that have been 

developed to be non-biopersistent in mammals. One such compound is the 

compound called GenX made by Chemours and used to produce certain 

fluoropolymers. GenX has been shown to rapidly eliminate from the body. 

The elimination of GenX from the body has recently been corroborated by 

independent researchers at North Carolina State University who have been studying 

the relationship between GenX levels in water and human blood. These researchers 

found no detectable levels of GenX in the blood of any participants, even for those 

individuals consuming drinking water with low levels ofGenX. See North Carolina 

State University, Center for Human Health and the Environment, The GenX 

Exposure Study, 2018, https://chhe.research.ncsu.edu/the-genx-exposure-study/. 

In addition, laboratory studies have also confirmed that GenX is eliminated within a 

few days, which indicates that it is not persistent in the bodies of those test animals. 

See Gannon, et al. Absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and kinetics of 

2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propanoic acid ammonium salt 

following a single dose in rat, mouse, and cynomolgus monkey. Toxicology. 2016 

Jan 18; 340:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2015.12.006. 

4 
153 


36935.127

Looking Forward A Workable Approach 

With these toxicological and regulatory considerations in mind, Chemours submits 

that several proposed bills addressing PFAS could be targeted more precisely to 

align with the scientific data and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on 

productive economic activity and innovation. For example: 

• Senate Bill 63 8 seeks to have EPA designate "all PF ASs" as hazardous 

substances under CERCLA. As a workable alternative, EPA could be 

required under CERCLA to move immediately to address those PF AS 

compounds for which the A TSDR has already established MRL 

screening values. Then, EPA should move promptly to address other 

PF AS compounds pursuant to an expedited regulatory "on ramp" as 

described below. This scientifically-based, tiered approach would 

prevent unanticipated complications and expensive regulatory burdens 

that could arise from the current bill, such as the unnecessary creation 

of hundreds or thousands of potential new Superfund sites. 

• The PF AS Release Disclosure Act properly targets PFAS compounds 

with MRL screening values (PFOA and PFOS) for listing on the 

TRI. This Act also seeks to have EPA add a list of other chemicals to 

the TRI based on EPA's prior regulatory determination that such 

chemicals posed similar toxicological risks as PFOA and PFOS. We 

understand that the proposed PF AS Release Disclosure Act would seek 

to apply thresholds to substances individually (not as a single value to 

different substances) using existing statutory criteria and regulatory 

processes. On that basis, we concur with the proposed legislation. 

• The Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act of2019 appears to require 

EPA to create a single MCL for PF AS in drinking water under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. As discussed above, lumping all PFAS together 

makes little sense from a toxicological perspective. Instead, as with our 

proposal related to CERCLA, it would make more sense to create 

MCLs immediately for the priority PF AS compounds identified by the 

ATSDR with screening levels. This approach would also avoid a host 

of technical problems that the bill would create for EPA, among them 

how to develop a scientifically-credible single safe drinking water level 

for an unspecified mixture of chemicals with varying or unknown levels 

of toxicity. 

5 
154 


36935.128

Regulatory On-Ramps 

For PFAS other than those with mm1mum screening levels established by the 

ATSDR, Chemours proposes that EPA develop an expedited protocol for 

determining whether particular substances should undergo standard toxicity testing. 

This screening protocol should incorporate several criteria including: 

• Presence and concentration ofthe compound in the environment 

• Actual or potential human exposure 

• Indications of toxicity based upon credible structural and chemical 

similarity to other compounds for which toxicity data exists 

• Results from rapid, non-animal toxicity testing methods 

• Remediation or other response efforts in place 

• Other appropriate toxicological criteria 

If, based upon these criteria, EPA determines that there is a high likelihood that 

additional regulatory action will be necessary, EPA should undertake or require 

focused studies designed to identify potential human hazards using generallyaccepted scientific methodologies and applying the regulatory criteria and processes 

of the relevant statutes. Then, any future MCLs and/or other regulatory designations 

can be based upon sound science and relevant toxicological data. 

Finally, Chemours is not alone in proposing a tiered, prioritization approach to PFAS 

toxicity testing. Several leading scientists at EPA and the National Institutes of 

Health recently published a paper describing a similar approach. See Patlewicz, et 

al. A Chemical Category-Based Prioritization Approach to Selecting 74 Per- and 

Po!Jfluoralkyl Substances (PFAS) for Tiered Toxicity and Toxicokinetic Testing. 

Environmental Health Perspectives. January 2019. These types of tiered approaches 

may be appropriate where also supported by evidence of exposure and other relevant 

information and environmental data. 

Conclusion 

Chemours supports the regulation ofPFAS compounds, focusing first on the highest 

priority substances, and then on other appropriate PFAS compounds on an expedited 

basis. 

6 
155 


36935.129

200 Powder Mill Road 

Wilmington, DE 19803 

302-695-7369 

June 5, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Frank Pallone 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, Chairman Pallone, and Ranking Member 

Walden: 

Thank you for your leadership on addressing the legacy of poly and per-fluorinated alkyl 

substances (PFAS) that you have shown during your recent Committee hearings. 

DuPont believes a comprehensive, risk-based federal chemical regulatory system, combined 

with strict compliance, will protect public health and the environment, while allowing innovation 

to continue to develop safe and innovative products that meet customers' needs. That is why 

DuPont supports Congressional and EPA efforts to develop science-based guidelines and 

regulations for PFAS chemicals, with an emphasis on building on past EPA's actions to 

regulate long-chain bio-persistent PFAS compounds including PFOA. 

We believe Congress should utilize EPA's extensive knowledge base of PFAS chemicals to 

evaluate and regulate, as appropriate, those legacy PFAS chemicals. Congress should 

empower EPA to expeditiously conduct regulatory evaluations using its existing authority under 

the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

and Taxies Reporting Inventory (TRI). In particular, the regulatory focus should be on those 

bio-persistent, long-chain PFAS chemicals as defined by EPA in its 2009 Long-Chain 

Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs) Action Plan. Congress should also provide EPA and other 

Agencies with appropriate funding and resources to fulfill regulatory responsibilities, to further 

advance the development of test methods, and to assist local communities in dealing with 
156 


36935.130

PFAS chemicals in the environment. Finally, acknowledging the hundreds of different PFAS 

chemicals that have been and continue to be utilized in the U.S. by many manufacturers to 

produce a broad range of important industrial and consumer products, Congress should 

establish a process for differentiation, classification, and potential regulation of additional PFAS 

chemicals as data becomes available. 

Safety and environmental stewardship are core values at DuPont. We are committed to 

fulfilling our compliance and remediation obligations and to continuous improvement of our 

chemical stewardship process. We uphold the highest standards for the safe operation of 

facilities and the protection of our environment, our employees, our customers and the people 

of the communities in which we do business. 

Thank you for your leadership and your consideration of this important matter. Please let us 

know if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

fJ/bruJt&~ Dr. Alexa Dembek 

Senior Vice President, Chief Technology and Sustainability Officer 
157 


36935.131

NACWA 

May 21,2019 

The Honorable ,Tohn Barrasso 

Chairman 

Senate Environment & Public 

Works Committee 

Washington, D.C. 

Water Environment 

Federation· 

the water quality people~ 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Environment & Public 

Works Committee 

Washington, D.C. 

Re: May 22, 2019 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

Entitled "Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated with Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)" 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) and the Water 

Environment Federation (WEF), we appreciate the opportunity to provide the Committee with 

some insights and recommendations from the clean water community on the emerging and 

highly complex issue of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and the potential impacts 

proposed legislation may have on the communities our members serve'. Our members include 

public agencies and clean water professionals providing clean water services in communities 

nationwide. 

The PFAS family constitutes a suite of more than 3,000 known chemical varieties that have been 

in production and in the environment since the 1940s. Recently, these chemicals have been 

detected in elevated concentrations in groundwater in certain parts of the country, especially 

near airports and military bases where aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) were used as well as 

ncar industrial manufacturing sites. 

These synthetic chemical substances are engineered and utilized specifically for their strong 

carbon-fluorine bonds which are enormously effective at resisting heat, water, and oil. As such, 

PFAS chemicals are commonly found in everyday consumer products including fast food 

containers, nonstick cookware, stain resistant coatings, water resistant clothing and personal 

care products. Due to their chemical structure and their commercial value and use, PFAS are 

ubiquitous in the environment. They are also persistent, bioaccumulatc, and do not readily 

degrade. 

NACWA and WEF submitted comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 

2018 urging the Agency to develop a federal response that appropriately reflects the risks posed 

by PFAS, close the unresolved scientific gaps-including fate, transport, and toxicity of PFAS 

using a science based approach-and evaluate the appropriate regulatory response to target the 

sources of PFAS and responsible disposal techniques. 

1 NACWA& WEF, PFAS ISSUE BACKGROUND AND ADVOCACY AsKS (2019), available at 

https: 1/www. waterwee k. us/wp-con tent/upload s/2 019/04/pfas-3-o n epa g er ·1-Fl NAL -we b. pdf 
158 


36935.132

Building on those comments, NACWA and WEF support legislative approaches that utilize 

existing environmental statutes as tools to address current, and mitigate future, PFAS 

contamination. We believe that an important priority for Congress is to prioritize and stop these 

chemicals at their source through appropriate controls on industrial and other uses-before 

PFAS enters a public sewer system or the environment. We further believe that added 

protections under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know-Act's (EPRCA) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) would be extremely 

useful in expanding the knowledge of industrial sources and identifying specific PFAS chemicals 

entering commerce and ultimately the environment. 

Congress can also empower the Clean Water Act's pretreatment program. NACWA and WEF's 

POTW members are the primary implementers of the national pretreatment program and are 

charged with controlling commercial and industrial discharges to the sewer system. Limiting the 

amount of PFAS discharged into the sewer system will prevent PFAS from passing through the 

wastewater treatment process and into the environment. Congress can direct EPA to complete 

its current study of industrial dischargers containing PFAS and to develop appropriate PFAS 

pretreatment standards for high-priority industrial sectors. 

NACW A and WEF believe the above recommendations are critical first steps to protect public 

health and mitigate environmental contamination. However, NACW A and WEF have concerns 

regarding legislation that aims to address PFAS contamination through designation of PFAS 

chemicals as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 

Public clean water utilities receive and treat a broad range of wastewater influent from 

heterogenous sources including domestic, industrial, and commercial sources. Our members are 

responsible for treating and managing billions of gallons of wastewater and storm water 

everyday but are typically not equipped or designed to remove synthetic industrial chemicals 

such as PFAS. It is imperative that Congress and EPA recognize that municipal clean water 

utilities are not sources of PFAS themselves, but because they were not designed to remove 

these chemicals, they can convey PFAS from their actual source to the environment. 

Removing PFAS chemicals from wastewater influent/effluent at the large volumes received by 

publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) would require the installation of very costly advanced 

treatment techniques such as granular activated carbon, ion exchange, or reverse osmosis. These 

technologies would only transfer the PFAS to another medium where it would still need to be 

managed. POTWs will face considerable operational and technical challenges as well as 

substantial costs if required to treat for or otherwise address the presence of these substances in 

wastewater. 

Should the Committee and Congress move to designate all PFAS (as proposed inS. 638) or a 

select subset ofPFAS chemicals as hazardous substance under CERCLA, NACWA and WEF 

strongly urge the inclusion of clear, unambiguous statutory language excluding municipal 

wastewater residuals from potential CERCLA liability. While we understand that designating 

PFAS constituents as hazardous substances could provide the necessary monetary relief for 

states seeking to hold parties responsible and to adequately clean up contaminated PFAS sites, 

Congress must ensure this designation does not have broader, significant unintended 

consequences for public clean water utilities. 

A.s part of managing and treating the nation's wastewater each day, our public utility members 

are actively engaged in resource recovery, including the treatment and management of nutrientrich biosolids for usc on farmlands and other soil applications. Biosolids are highly beneficial for 
159 


36935.133

our environment and our economy because they not only enhance soil health, recycle nutrients, 

reduce fertilizer and pesticide use, but they also put to productive use the wastewater treatment 

residuals that every community in the United States must manage. 

A CERCLA designation for PFAS could potentially open liability for public clean water utilities 

that have been beneficially land applying their biosolids for decades. The majority of the 

biosolids generated in the US is land applied and a clear municipal wastewater exclusion from 

CERCLA hazardous substances designation would ensure that efforts to address PFAS do not 

have unintended consequences for the POTWs who must receive these chemicals from their 

sources. Once the science has been fully developed on the extent to which PFAS levels must be 

further managed, the clean water utility community stands ready to find an appropriate path 

forward. 

Typical biosolids with no direct large industrial inputs are unlikely to impact ground and surface 

waters at levels above EPA's existing health advisory levels for drinking water (70 ppt). Only in a 

few worst-case scenarios have wastewater and biosolids been found to contribute to PFAS water 

contamination at levels of concerns. These are rare and involve large discharges to the sewer 

system from industrial facilities using significant volumes of PFAS. In these situations, PFAS 

concentrations have been greatly reduced by stopping discharges through industrial 

pretreatment requirements and other source control methods. 

As public and environmental stewards of their communities, NACWA and WEF members want 

to continue working with Congress, the federal and state regulatory authorities, and 

stakeholders to address PFAS contamination and how PFAS may be entering wastewater 

treatment systems. We believe it is imperative to identifY potential sources of PFAS and mitigate 

these chemicals from entering water resources. To achieve our common goals of protecting 

public health and the environment, it is critical that we continue to build upon our scientific 

understanding of these emerging contaminants and their potential risks. Additional research on 

these issues is necessary, and NACWA and WEF fully support EPA's ongoing efforts to better 

understand the fate and transport of PFAS, and their ultimate impact on the environment and 

public health. 

NACWA and WEF appreciate your consideration of these comments and the impacts current 

legislation could have on the operations of public clean water utilities, their ratepayers, and the 

constituents you serve. We all share a goal of protecting the health and safety of the 

communities we serve and welcome further discussions with the Committee on this issue. 

Sincerely, 

Adam Krantz 

CEO 

NACWA 

Eileen J. O'Neill. Ph.D, BCES 

Executive Director 

WEF 
160 


36935.134

F 

May 20.2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Re: Senate EPW Hearing on Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated 

with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On behalf of The National Association of Surface Finishing (NASF) we appreciate the 

opportunity to submit information on the Committee's hearing. "Examining Legislation to 

Address the Risks Associated with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).'' The industry 

understands the potential concerns associated with PF AS compounds and has a long history of 

proactive environmental stewardship on PFAS used in the surface finishing industry. Based on 

the industry's experience and the current best available science. it is clear that not all PFAS 

compounds pose the same risks and the entire class of PFAS compounds should not be regulated 

the same. Below we provide evidence on why the Committee should allow the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make substance-by-substance, risk-based 

evaluations on PF AS compounds, consistent with the best available science, rather than attempt 

to address risks for the broad range of PF AS compounds as a class. 
161 


36935.135

NASF Overview 

NASF promotes the advancement of the North American surface finishing industry globally. It 

has approximately 800 members, including surface finishing companies. surface finishing 

suppliers. large global industrial customers and individual and professional members. The 

NASF represents the business, management, technical, and educational programs, as well as the 

regulatory and legislative advocacy interests of the surface finishing industry. 

Surface finishing is the process of coating, usually a metal or plastic object, with one or more 

layers of another metal, paint, or plastic to furnish its surface with desired properties, such as; 

corrosion, abrasion and wear resistance; improved lubrication; non-toxicity; altered dimensions; 

light reflection; insulation or conductivity; improved electrical properties and solderability; heat 

and cold resistance; and improved appearance. The many industries that rely on metal finishing 

include; automotive, aerospace and defense, industrial equipment, computers and electronics, 

medical equipment, tools and dies, shipbuilding, petroleum, furniture, steel mill products, 

jewelry, plumbing fixtures, household appliances. and construction. 

The surface finishing industry plays a vital role in the lives of consumers and in the nation's 

economic future. The industry's role in corrosion protection alone provides an estimated $200 

billion annual economic benefit to the nation, including significant corrosion protection for 

military equipment that provides national defense. Surface finishing maximizes our 

productivity, safety and quality of life, and ensures that the products people use every day last 

longer, work better, and look better. 

Surface finishing operations are performed in two ways; 1) as a "captive" operation where the 

finishing work is performed on the products made at the manufacturing company; and 2) on a 

job-shop basis where the finishing work is performed under contract for the owner of the product 

or material that is to be finished. Nearly all surface finishing job shops are small businesses. 

Over 80 percent of the job-shops in business employ fewer than 75 people, while nearly 40 

percent employ fewer than 20 people. Most job-shop surface finishing firms are family-owned 

2 
162 


36935.136

businesses, located in every state but more heavily concentrated in the industrial Midwest, the 

Southeast, New England and California. 

NASF History of Proactive Environmental Stewardship 

Historic Use o(PFOS in the Plating Jndustrv 

Beginning in 1995 as part of the chromium electroplating and anodizing National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) of the Clean Air Act (40 CFR Part 63 

Subpart N), EPA recommended the usc of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)-based fume 

suppressant as an effective and cost-efficient option to reduce hexavalent chromium emissions 

from chromium electroplating and anodizing processes. The small businesses in the surface 

finishing industry relied on fume suppressants because they were as effective as air emission 

control equipment in reducing hexavalent chromium emissions, but were not as expensive and 

did not require significant capital investment. 

In 2006 OSHA promulgated a revised workplace exposure standard for hexavalent chromium 

with a more stringent permissible exposure limit (PEL). Surface finishing operations also used 

PFOS-based fume suppressants in chromium plating processes to reduce workplace exposure 

levels as an effective and cost-efficient control option for ensuring worker safety. 

The PFOS was added to the fume suppressant to reduce hexavalent chromium emissions in the 

harsh chemical environment of a chromium plating bath without degrading. Based on EPA's 

data, the implementation of the chromium electroplating NESHAP with the usc of PFOS-based 

fume suppressants reduced hexavalent chromium emissions by over 99 percent from the 

agency's 1995 baseline. 

Just ounces of PFOS-based fume suppressants were added to process tanks to reduce hexavalent 

chromium emissions effectively. Before the industry requested that EPA prohibit it from use in 

the surface finishing industry, the estimated use of PFOS in the surface finishing industry 

represented only 0.4 percent of global commercial uses. 

3 
163 


36935.137

NASF's Environmental Stewardship on PFOS 

NASF has had a long history of environmental stewardship on the use of PFOS-based fume 

suppressants. Over a decade ago, as the initial concerns regarding PFOS in the environment 

started to emerge, the State of Minnesota detected PFOS in wastewater discharges from 

chromium electroplating shops. Working together, NASF, EPA, and Minnesota eliminated the 

use of PFOS-based fume suppressants in chromium electroplating shops in Minnesota. Based on 

these efforts, the levels of PFOS in wastewater discharges from facilities were reduced 

dramatically from levels of approximately I 00 parts per million (ppm) to levels measured in 

parts per billion (ppb), which at the time, EPA and Minnesota considered extremely low and of 

little concern. 

Following the success in Minnesota, NASF proactively approached EPA in the context of the 

EPA's standard review of the chromium electroplatingNESHAP to implement a nationwide 

phase-out of PFOS-based fume suppressants. The surface finishing industry is the only 

industry to have proactively requested and received a ban on the use of PFOS in an EPA 

regulation. The revised chromium electroplating NESHAP was finalized in 2012, and the ban 

on the use of PFOS became effective in September 2015. 

The surface finishing industry no longer uses PFOS-based fume suppressants to control 

hexavalent chromium emissions in chromium plating baths. The surface finishing industry took 

steps during the transition time to adopt safer, EPA-compliant, commercially available, effective 

PFOS alternatives for fume suppression, described below. The industry has since been working 

to explore both fluorinated and non-fluorinated based alternatives as fume suppressants in order 

to protect both the environment and workers. 

Levels of PFOS Detected In Wastewater Effluent 

Even with the industry's proactive efforts to eliminate the use of PFOS-based fume suppressants, 

the State of Michigan recently detected levels of PFOS in wastewater effluent frotn some surface 

4 
164 


36935.138

finishing operations, measured in the parts per trillion (ppt) range. As a frame of reference, one 

ppt is equivalent to a single drop in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools. 

Industry and regulatory agencies are uncertain why PFOS has been found in wastewater effluent 

from surface finishing facilities that have not used PFOS since September 2015. NASF has 

engaged with EPA, Michigan, the wastewater treatment plant community, industry partners, 

technical experts, and other stakeholders to gain a more thorough understanding of the source of 

the residual PFOS in surface finishing effluent and the most effective solutions to minimize and 

eliminate these residual concentrations in the effluent. 

Currently, several surface finishing facilities in Michigan have installed granular activated 

carbon (GAC) filtration to reduce the levels of PFOS in their wastewater effluent. While this 

treatment can be effective, it is expensive. does not remediate the source of the residual PFOS, 

and may pose additional environmental challenges. For example, a small plating operation 

spends approximately $20,000 per month for the GAC treatment. In addition, the spent carbon 

must be incinerated at a site designated to handle PFAS-laden GAC incineration, greatly 

increasing the costs. Simply put, these costs are not economically sustainable for small, familyowned plating operations. 

NASF Research Efforts to Address PFOS Issues 

NASF has been working to develop and launch national research projects to understand why 

PFOS is present in the wastewater effluent of surface finishing operations and how to address 

these residual levels. For example, the AESF Foundation, the research and education 

organization affiliated with NASF, recently funded research to be conducted at the University of 

Illinois at Chicago on the potential electro-chemical destruction of PFOS in wastewater. NASF 

looks forward to updating the committee on the results of this important research. 

In addition, NASF has developed other resources that address the legacy issues from the past 

uses of PFOS and the new challenges presented by the safer, alternative fume suppressant 

currently used in the industry. For example, NASF engaged toxicologist and national expert on 

5 
165 


36935.139

PFOS risks, Dr. Janet Anderson, to prepare a "White Paper" to summarize the industry's 

background and use of PFOS-based fume suppressants and technical information on the 

alternative fume suppressant. This document is appended to this letter. Furthermore, NASF has 

created a ·'PFAS Resource Center" on its website at https://nasf.org/pfas/ that provides valuable 

information on the issue for the industry, government officials, the public, and other interested 

stakeholders. 

Status of Substitute Chemistry for Fume Suppressants 

Today's hexavalent chromium fume suppressant formulations in the U.S. usc only '·short-chain" 

fluorotelomer chemistry, primarily 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTS). Fluorotelomers are 

fluorinated carbon compounds named via the ''X:Y" designation in which X is the number of 

fully fluorinated carbons andY is the number of non-fluorinated carbons. 6:2 FTS is composed 

of six fully fluorinated carbon atoms. and two non-fluorinated carbon atoms. Compared to 

PFOS, 6:2 FTS is significantly less toxic than PFOS; 6:2 FTS docs not bio accumulate. and is 

not environmentally persistent. 

The fully fluorinated carbon end of 6:2 FTS can break off and form short-chain perfluorinated 

compounds such as pertluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA; five fully fluorinated carbons) and 

perfluorpentanoic acid (PFPeA; four fully fluorinated carbons), but does not degrade to longchain fully fluorinated compounds such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), or PFOS. PFOA and 

PFOS have seven and eight fully fluorinated carbon chains, respectively, which cannot form in 

the environment from a smaller molecule such as the 6:2 FTS. Short-chain fluorotelomers such 

as 6:2 FTS and short-chain fully fluorinated compounds such as PFHxA are less toxic than PFOS 

and do not build up in a human body. 1 Therefore, they are of less concern for human health 

risks. 

1 Luz et al. 2019. Perfluorohexanoic acid toxicity, part 1: Development of a chronic human health toxicity value for 

use in risk assessment. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 103, pp. 41-55; Anderson eta!. 2019. 

Perfluorohexanoic acid toxicity, part II: Application of human health toxicity value for risk characterization. 

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 103, pp. 10-20 

6 
166 


36935.140

Not All PFAS Compounds Pose the Same Risk 

Treating "PFAS" (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) as if all PFAS belong to one uniform 

class of chemicals is not scientifically justified, and regulating all PFAS chemicals as if they are 

the same could have significant negative consequences to our industry. The term "per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)'' encompass a wide range of thousands of chemicals that can 

have very different chemical and physical properties. Subclasses of PFAS are remarkably 

different in ways that affect their potential impact on human health and the environment; some 

are not soluble in water, some are not environmentally persistent, some are not absorbed into the 

human body, and some are eliminated from the body in a few days or hours. 

These characteristics arc notably different than the perfluorinated substances such as PFOS and 

PFOA, which are soluble in water and therefore found in drinking water, are environmentally 

persistent, and can be absorbed in the human body and remain there for years. These important 

distinctions should be acknowledged when issuing legislation and regulation- only those PF AS 

that have persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic characteristics should be considered for 

CERCLA and/or TRI reporting. 

Impacts of Proposed Legislation on Surface Finishing Industry 

CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation 

Senate bill 638 would require EPA to designate all PFAS as "Hazardous Substances" under 

section 102(a) ofCERCLA; 42 U.S.C. §9602(a). This indiscriminate, generic approach would 

add thousands of individual chemicals to the Hazardous Substance list- more than doubling the 

total number added to the listing in the last 38 years without any evaluation of whether the 

individual listings are warranted. Such an overly broad designation is unprecedented and 

unnecessary. 

Hazardous substance designations have been and should continue to be reserved for those 

substances known to present a substantial danger to public health or the environment when 

7 
167 


36935.141

released. 2 As noted previously PFAS substances present a· wide range of properties and 

toxicological profiles, which do not support lumping all PFAS together. It may be appropriate to 

ensure that EPA assesses and prioritizes specific PF AS under the Hazard Substances listing 

criteria on a practicable schedule, but EPA's experts must be allowed to collect and review the 

best available science and make appropriate regulatory decisions as required by CERCLA and 

the other environmental statutes that Congress has delegated to EPA to fully implement. 

Limiting CERCLA Hazardous Substance designations only to those substances that fully meet 

the statutory criteria is important because of the costs such designations impose on individuals, 

small businesses like surface finishing operations. and local and federal governments. CERCLA 

imposes strict liability (regardless of fault) for costs to investigate, remove or remediate 

Hazardous Substances. Liability falls on the past and current owners or operators of those 

facilities, and those who arranged for the disposal of Hazardous substances on those properties. 

CERCLA does not impose any liability on producers of substances sold as useful products that 

come to be located in the environment in connection with storage and use by customers. 

Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. Unired States. 556 US. 599 (2009). Instead, liability falls on the 

current or past owners of any of the thousands of properties where the Hazardous Substances are 

found whether a fanner's field used by a water treatment utility to reuse recovered biosolids, a 

landfill that unknowingly, but lawfully, accepted solid waste with PFAS, or a small business 

such as a plater that in good faith used commercial chemical formulations recommended or 

approved by regulatory bodies to reduce hexavalent chromittm emissions. 

And once the hazardous substance designation is made, policy makers have no ability to control 

where these costs are incurred or the massive cascade of litigation that will surely follow. 

Federal and state governments can incur investigation and remedial costs and seek to recover 

2 The several alternative Hazardous Substance listing criteria include substances that, (1) when released, "present 

substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the environment" (CERCLA Section 102(a)); or (2) "present an 

imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Section 

31l(b)(2)(A)); or (3) when emitted into the air, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition of the 

substance are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health or 

adverse environmental effects (Clean Air Act Section 112(b)(3)(B)); or (4) is likely to result in serious or widespread 

injury to health or the environment (Section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act). 

8 
168 


36935.142

them from past and current affected property owners, or they can issue orders compelling 

property owners and operators to conduct the investigations themselves and pay for the 

government for its oversight expenses. See, e.g., Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Avia/l Services, Inc .. 

543 u. s. 15 7, /6/ (2004). 

Cost recovery rights are not, however, limited to governments. Once a substance is designated as 

a Hazardous Substance, any private citizen can investigate a property and seek to recover those 

investigation and remediation costs from the alleged local source of the contaminant; or they can 

file a declaratory judgment action and seek an order compelling such other persons to help fund 

their private cleanup efforts. 

Decades ofCERCLA experience shows unequivocally that each of these initial claims- whether 

by government or a private party- will spawn further litigation that can bankrupt small 

businesses, blight neighborhoods, erode local tax bases, and impose significant remedial and 

property damage costs on municipal water treatment utilities, among others. The magnitude of 

the costs associated with these consequences can be expected to be particularly high in the case 

of PFAS because of EPA's extremely low health guidance values. The existing legal framework 

is designed to allow EPA to make these substance-by-substance evaluations, based on the best 

available science, evaluation by experts of all relevant disciplines, and with input from the 

public.3 

'Hazardous Substance designations also will trigger new reporting obligations for releases of any of the thousands 

of PFAS substances to the extent released in quantities greater than the chemical- specific reporting threshold 

(reportable quantity or "RQ") in a 24-hour period. 42 U.S.C. §9603. Since it would be arbitrary to set a single RQ 

for all PFAS, EPA will be obligated to devote significant resources over years to set individual RQs for each PFAS 

substance, and until then the RQ for all will be one pound. 

9 
169 


36935.143

TRI Reporting 

Legislatively adding certain PFAS to the TRIIist as envisioned by Senate bill I SOt would 

grossly add to the existing number of listings and would completely bypass the administrative 

process, established in the statute and implemented by EPA to ensure that chemicals added to the 

Jist are first determined by EPA experts to present the kinds of serious hazards that warrant the 

societal costs of tracking and reporting manufacturing, processing and use information. Having 

this broad range of PFAS compounds categorized in "one bucket" is not scientifically defensible 

from experts in the field, and is a massive oversimplification of the class of chemicals as a 

whole. 

The TRI program requires companies to report annually on Form R if they intentionally or 

inadvertently manufacture or process a TRI chemical in quantities greater than 25,000 pounds, or 

if they otherwise use a listed chemical in quantities greater than I 0,000 pounds. Reporting 

companies must report on chemical waste management activities, including any recycling, 

energy recovery, treatment, disposaL or environmental release of each TRI substance. This is 

time consuming, difficult work which, in the case ofPFAS, will be compounded if hundreds of 

chemicals potentially may need to be addressed by industry as a whole. 

In addition, the legislative proposal to reduce the reporting threshold for PFAS compounds to 

I 00 pounds would exacerbate the problems associated with the overly broad inclusion of these 

PFAS compounds. As the statute provides, these reporting efforts should be confined to the 

limited number of substances that meet the stringent statutory listing criteria. 

'This would include PFOA and associated salts, PFOS and associated salts; and a PFAS substance or class of PFAS 

substance listed as an active chemical substance under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(b)(l) and 

subject to a TSCA Significant New Use Rule (SNUR). The bill would also require EPA to determine whether to add 

to TRIa GenX substance, 12 other specified PFAS substances, and any PFAS substance used to manufacture 

f\uoropolymers. 

10 
170 


36935.144

Conclusion 

On behalf ofNASF and its members, we appreciate the opportunity to provide this information. 

NASF is committed to developing best practices for managing PFAS compounds and identifying 

science-based solutions to address the concerns posed by PFAS compounds used in the surface 

finishing industry. Despite our reservations on the specific language of the proposed legislation 

to address PFAS compounds, NASF looks forward to working with the Committee to find 

science-based approaches to protect human health and the environment that are economically 

and environmentally sustainable. 

If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding the issues discussed 

above. please contact Christian Richter at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or 202-257-0250 and 

Jeff Hannapel at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or 202-257-3756. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Christian Richter 

Jeff Hannapel 

On behalf of the National Association of Surface Finishing (NASF) 

11 
171 


36935.145

Testimony 

Before the 

U.S. Senate 

Committee on the Environment and Public Works 

On Behalf of the 

National Rural Water Association 

May 22, 2019 Hearing on 

Examining Legislation to Address the Risks Associated 

with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 

Small and rural communities thank you for the opportunity to comment on PFAS-related legislation 

being considered by the Committee: S. 638, The PFAS Action Act of 201 9; S. 950, The PFAS 

Detection Act of 2019; S. 1251, The Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act of 2019; S. 1372, The PFAS 

Accountability Act of 2019; S. 1473, The Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act of 2019; and S. 1507, 

The PFAS Release Disclosure Act. 

The National Rural Water Association (NRWA) is the non-profit association of the federated state rural 

water associations with a combined membership of over 30,000 small and rural communities. NRWA 

is the country's largest water utility association and the largest community-based environmental 

organization. State Rural Water Associations are non-profit associations governed by elected board 

members from the membership. Our member utilities have the very important public responsibility of 

complying with all applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and for 

supplying the public with safe drinking water and sanitation every second of every day. 

NRWA shares the Committee's goal of eliminating environmental public health risks including the 

elimination of all concentrations of PFAS from the public's drinking water. Local governments and 

state governments exist solely to protect and assist their citizens. The provision of safe drinking water 

is perhaps the most elemental purpose of local government and is generally recognized as one of the 

most essential public health, public welfare, and civic necessities. Most all of the country's 

approximately 50,000 community drinking water systems are typically administered by their local 

governments. Approximately 91 percent of the 50,000 community water systems serve fewer than 

10,000 persons (EPA SDWIS database 201 9). The great majority of public water systems affected by 

any future federal action for PFAS will be these small water systems. 

Small and rural communities have a much more challenging time complying with federal Safe Drinking 

Water Act regulations and operating complex drinking water treatment systems due to the lack of 

technical resources in small communities. While we have fewer resources, we are regulated in the 

exact same manner as a large community. While the cost of a small community's water infrastructure 

may only be a fraction of a large metropolitan community, the cost per household is often much higher 

because we have so few ratepayers to spread out the cost. Similarly, the compliance burden of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act is more severe because we don't have the same technical resources as large 

communities. Many small communities may only have one operator with multiple duties, not just 

The National Rural Water Association is the country's largest public drinking water and sanitation supply organization with over 

30.000 members. Safe drinkmg water and sanitation are generally recognized as the most essential public health, public welfare, 

and Ctvic necessities 
172 


36935.146

wastewater treatment- and we don't have staff engineers, compliance officers and attorneys to help 

with compliance. But we still have to stay current with all the new rules, maintain our treatment and 

distribution systems, and manage our very complex federal drinking water compliance requirements. 

Federal regulations that are not supported by local governments, while well-intentioned, may have an 

adverse effect of mandating that local communities and consumers pay the cost of federal compliance 

that they don't believe is resulting in the most beneficial public health or environmental policy. This 

dynamic is especially acute and problematic for economically disadvantaged populations. 

We appreciate the Committee's continued assistance in advancing new funding and administrative 

policies to help the most economically disadvantaged consumers afford public water. Many 

stakeholders believe that economically disadvantaged populations are facing a crisis in affording their 

current water utility bills. We appreciate the Committee's sensitivity in understanding that any new 

federal unfunded mandates on local governments can increase the cost of the public's essential 

drinking water service and force the most economically at-risk consumers to be unable to afford their 

water bill or other necessary public health expenditures. 

We appreciate the intent of Senators Carper, Stabenow, Shaheen, Gillibrand, and Capito in crafting 

legislation to protect the public from the risk of PFAS in their drinking water supplies including testing, 

remediation, health effects research, treatment technologies research, direct assistance to affected 

populations including members of the military, modifications to federal environmental statutes, funding 

assistance to affected communities, and new federal authorities to hold responsible parties 

accountable for harming communities and individuals. We support these objectives in principle and we 

will be submitting additional comments regarding the specifics of the legislation after further review 

and consideration from our local government membership. We are grateful for the opportunity to work 

with these Senators and the Committee to ensure any final legislation is of maximum benefit to the 

public and their local governments. 

We also commend the EPA for their efforts to assist public drinking water systems in protecting the 

public from PFAS in their drinking water. Specifically, we appreciate the Agency's May 2018 PFAS 

National Leadership Summit and Engagement and the Agency's 2016 PFOA and PFOS Drinking 

Water Health Advisories. We urge the Committee to recognize and endorse the Agency's novel 

Health Advisory concept because it gives the public what they most want, the best scientific 

knowledge about the safety of their drinking water. This knowledge empowers the very people who 

are drinking the water and paying for its service to make responsible decisions about their public 

health. This dynamic is evinced by the numerous EPA-sponsored PFAS Community Engagement 

Events where the local government presenters have detailed how they were taking immediate action 

to remediate PFAS contamination in their drinking water regardless of a federally enforceable 

standard. 

The EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Health Advisory level is preferable to the Act's National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulation process (i.e. Maximum Contaminant Levels of MCLs) because the MCL 

mechanisms function as if the local communities are the responsible parties for contamination with a 

remedy of civil penalties which actually further penalize the communities whose drinking water was 

contaminated. Again, this dynamic is especially acute and problematic for economically 

disadvantaged communities and populations. Numerous stakeholders, including Members of 

Congress, have called on the EPA to promulgate a federal regulatory standard or MCL for PFAS. 

NRWA urges the Congress to resist calls for a national SDWA MCL for PFAS. Instead, we urge the 

Agency to rely on alternative federal initiatives to assist communities dealing with PFAS contamination 

as opposed to enforcement and levying fines on local citizens (the ratepayers) for communities out of 

compliance. What is actually needed in affected communities is assistance (i.e., funding for treatment, 

The National Rural Water Association is the country's largest public dn'nking water and sanitation supply organization with over 

30,000 members. Safe drinking water and sanitation are generally recognized as the most essential public health, public welfare, 

and civic necessities 
173 


36935.147

monitoring assistance, on-site technical assistance for emergency operations, credible public health 

information, emergency access to safe drinking water, and compensation from responsible parties). 

The SDWA's mechanism of levying federal fines on local consumers for violations of MCLs is not a 

helpful solution for small and rural communities adversely affected by PFAS contamination. Federal 

civil enforcement fines of up to $25,000 a day do not help a rural, low income community afford better 

water. Alternatively, the federal government should identify the level where PFAS becomes unsafe in 

drinking water or acknowledge whether such a determination is impossible given the complexity of the 

analysis. 

Another reason that Health Advisory levels are preferable is that they are based on the safety of the 

water rather than MCLs. MCLs are not public health levels, but rather are determined by what a large 

metropolitan community can "feasibly" afford. There is a level authorized in the Safe Drinking Water 

Act for EPA to identify a healthy base level, the so-called "unreasonable risk to health" level that has 

never been identified by EPA in the manner proposed under the SDWA. The public wants to know 

what levels of PFAS in drinking water are safe or unsafe. The current MCL approach, as currently 

implemented, does not provide this essential information. 

Every local government detecting PFAS contamination prefers to have all traces of contamination 

removed from their drinking water and all local governments are likely advancing plans and policies 

toward that goal absent a federal regulation or MCL. The promulgation of an MCL does not advance 

the goal of removal of all PFAS from community drinking water supplies in locally governed water 

utilities. Local governments are not responsible for PFAS contamination and responsible parties 

should be held accountable for remediation, treatment and providing alternative sources of safe 

drinking water. 

America's small and rural communities are the foundation of our nation's economy and high quality of 

life. NRWA is proud to represent this sector of American society. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and participate. We are very appreciative of the 

Committee's many public outreach opportunities. Please contact Mike Keegan with any questions or if 

we can be of any assistance. 

The National Rural Water Association is the country's largest public dnfJking water and sanitation supply organization with over 

30,000 members_ Safe drinking water and sanitation are generally recognized as the most essential public health, public welfare. 

and civic necessities 
174 


36935.148

May21,2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP), Inc. works with rural and tribal 

communities across the country on issues relating to safe drinking water and sees 

firsthand the impacts dangerous contaminants have at the local leveL RCAP also 

understands the profound impact that regulatory compliance can have on the economic 

viability and operation of small systems, and the financial and health implications for 

both the system and the larger community. 

It is vital that all systems protect the health of their community. and that all 

considerations are taken to ensure the safety of the public's water sources and systems. 

With the responsibility of managing a water system also comes the need to balance the 

technicaL managerial and financial (TMF) aspects of sustaining that system (and the 

community that it serves). and regulations can sometimes atTect the ability to ensure 

sustainability of the system when the TMF implications are not properly understood. A 

balance must be achieved between ensuring the sustainability of the system and the 

incredible responsibility each system has to ensure the community is safe and healthy. 

With our vast experience working with some of the smallest and most distressed 

communities across the country. RCAP supports the development of maximum 

contaminant levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and pcrfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) by the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). These compounds arc being detected 

in drinking water, and MCLs are needed to ensure consistent and effective protection of 

public health. 

COMMUNITIES 

Unlimited 
175 


36935.149

US EPA classifies PFAS as emerging contaminants, which means that they are 

characterized as a perceived, potential, or real threat to human health or the environment. 

As some PFAS are bioaccumulative, they build up in the body over time and they are 

slow to be eliminated. 

Currently, there is much confusion on how to address the detection of these compounds 

in drinking water.ln 2016, EPA issued health advisories for PFOA and PFOS. EPA 

stated: 

EPA has established health advisories for PFOA and PFOS based on the agency's 

assessment of the latest peer-reviewed science to provide drinking water system 

operators, and state, tribal and local officials who have the primary responsibility 

for overseeing these systems, with information on the health risks of these 

chemicals, so they can take the appropriate actions to protect their residents. EPA 

is committed to supporting states and public water systems as they determine the 

appropriate steps to reduce exposure to PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. As 

science on health effects of these chemicals evolves, EPA will continue to 

evaluate new evidence. 

In the absence ofMCLs, these health advisories are being used as defacto MCLs in 

states. When these compounds are detected, state and local regulatory agencies have no 

choice but to require treatment or other action because there is no MCLin place to help 

guide these decisions. In many cases they do not have the authority to do so, leading to 

many states scrambling to develop their own regulatory requirements. To the public, 

exceeding an advisory level means the water is unsafe. PFAS are pervasive and arc 

becoming a hot-button issue across the country and many states have taken regulatory 

action, meaning that it is imperative to regulate them uniformly from a federal 

perspective. 

RCAP strongly recommends a national MCL process be undertaken by EPA to ensure a 

transparent, scientifically defensible, and consistent approach is taken, including 

understanding the health risks to individuals and families and the sustainability of 

systems to abide by regulations required by the MCL. A robust public process will allow 

stakeholders an opportunity to comment. review, and debate the science required for 

MCL development. Stakeholder input is also required and needed to ensure that the 

regulations can be effectively implemented while not placing an undue burden on 

communities, especially the smallest and most distressed regions of the country. The 

voice of systems of all sizes are needed, and the MCL process allows for that input. 

A national total MCL will provide states, utilities, and technical assistance providers clear 

guidance on how to address these compounds through a transparent and clear process. It 

is important to understand the impact this will have on small systems across the country, 

COMMUNITIES 

Unlimited • 

RCAC 

:'•oulhl'•'~t ~ur.1l 

C"!l>>l1Ufllh -"''tbiJ!><V J11 Great .• ~ake~ "PA~TNf~~f"' 
176 


36935.150

and a MCL should be accompanied by additional resources, through technical assistance 

and funding, to help small systems comply. This will help ensure small systems continue 

to maintain the health of the public they serve, while addressing the sustainability issues 

many are facing on a daily basis. 

RCAP stands ready to work with EPA, states, and small water systems nationwide as the 

regulatory process for these contaminants is determined. 

Sincerely, 

RCAP Board of Directors 

Cc: The Honorable Kevin Cramer 

The Honorable Tammy Duckworth 

COMMUNITIES 

Unlimited • 

RCAC a Great Lakes ' :' .,,- !'~, 

P A. ~ - N c ~ ~ ,, I' 
177 


36935.151

May 21, 201';) 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20150 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Honorable Members of the Committee, 

I

STF!F.LD 

SIDENTS 

DVOCATlNG 

R 

EMSELVES 

Thank you for holding this very important legislative hearing entitled, "Examining Legislation to Address the 

Risks Associated with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)." Thank you also for this opportunity to 

provide comment on behalf of myself, my family, and Westfield Residents Advocating For Themselves. 

Westfield, Massachusetts is a community positioned in the western portion of the state, at the southeastern 

foothills of the Berkshires. Our city is bisected roughly in half, North/South, by the Westfield River. Barnes Air 

National Guard Base is located in the North side of our City, atop the Barnes Aquifer, into which all four of our 

North side municipal wells tap. Presurnably because a fAre training exercises spanning decades, per~ and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been detected in all four of these wells, and several private wells in the 

contamination plume area that spans roughly three miles from the air base to the river. In a 20!8letter to the 

Westfield City Council, researchers from Silent Spring Insritute noted that, "PFOS levels in Well? were in the 

top 0.5% of all samples in public water supplies rested across the U.S." Those tests were performed •before• the 

EPA modified method 537 to account for branched chain isomers, so those PFOS levels, while in the top 0.5%, 

were dramatically less than they would have been if the same water sample were analyzed today. 

As you can well imagine, legislation aimed at addressing "the risks associated with PFAS" is extremely important 

to us, as it is to every other person whose lives have been affected by these toxic, persistent, and pervasive 

chemicals. Essentially, we all need to: stop our exposure- from air, water, soils, biosolid usc, and foods; clean up 

the contamination; stop PFAS usc and discharges; create the legal framework required to hold accountable 

those responsible for PFAS contamination; and create the laboratory capacity and public health supports to 

assess rhe exrent ofPFAS contamination in our environment and bodies. 

Affected Americans, at this point, still do not have access to accurate information about sources ofPFAS in 

their communities as PFAS discharges are still not required to be reported. Without designating PFAS as 

hazardous substances or hazardous waste, we are left without a means to stop PF AS discharges to our 

environment and our bodies, and we ate left with the victims ofPFAS contamination and exposure bearing the 

cost for dean up as well as medical care, loss in property values, and lost time at work. 
178 


36935.152

Eliminating PFAS exposure in air, from industrial emissions, product degradation, and inadequate PFAS 

incineration must be addressed. Due to the toxicity, mobility, and fate of these "forever chemicals", and the 

intimate and dynamic relationship between surface water, groundwater, and soil, along with eliminating 

discharges, we need PFAS contamination characterization in the surface waters, ground waters, and soils of 

affected communities. Protection from PFAS exposure and contamination also requires informed consent and 

carefully managed use ofPFAS containing products for consumers and particularly for fire fighters whose 

personal protective gear and equipment are loaded with PFAS. 

It also bears mentioning that since many of the PF AS contamination sites are surrounding military bases, 

affected communities here and abroad need the help of the U.S. government to require the Department of 

Defense provide clean drinking water immediately and make every timely effort to restore the natural resources 

they have polluted. 

While elimination and clean up are necessary, at this very moment neither can be completely and safely 

accomplished. Therefore, we all need research into safe, complete PFAS de.muction, and into the toxicity and 

health effects that have resulted from decades of mismanagement and coverup. 

Thank you for holding this legislative hearing and for accepting these comments into the record. Americans 

across the globe, contaminated without consent, are depending on our government to step up and do the right 

things to address our toxic PFAS problems. 

Very sincerely, 

Kristen L. Mello 

Co-founder, WRAFT 

Westfield Residents Advocating For Themselves 

ilttps://www.faccbook.com/WRA FTO 1 08) 

klm.wrafr@gmail.com 
179 

Senator BARRASSO. Now I would like to thank all of you for being 

here today. Some members of the Committee may have written 

questions that they will give to you. So the hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks. But I just want to thank all of you for your 

time and your testimony and sharing your wisdom with us today. 

Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[A prepared statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Since early 2016, when perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a type of per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), was found in hundreds of private wells and one 

municipal water system in southwestern Vermont, I have worked to ensure the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes this threat seriously. The groundwater 

contamination in Vermont is the product of past industrial manufacturing in the 

area. PFAS—a toxic chemical that can cause cancer, thyroid disease, obesity, and 

immune problems—is very dangerous to human health in extremely low concentrations. 

Vermont has led the Nation in its response to PFAS contamination, passing a law 

requiring one of the strongest drinking water standards in the country for five 

PFAS compounds. The law requires water system managers to test for the five compounds by the end of this year. If levels above the standard are found, water utilities will have to treat water to lower levels and provide residents with clean drinking water until the public supply is safe. 

Meanwhile, Andrew Wheeler’s EPA has proposed a very weak ‘‘action plan’’ that 

does not come close to protecting public health and a clean environment. That is 

what happens when the EPA acts on behalf of corporate polluters instead of protecting public health and a clean environment. Communities all across the country, 

particularly communities of color, find themselves time and time again fighting for 

the basic right to clean air and clean water. If Administrator Wheeler is successful, 

we will continue to see this same type of groundwater contamination in communities all across the country. That is unjust, and that has got to change. 

In the richest country in the history of the world, it is not a radical idea to demand that when people turn on their taps, the water they drink is safe and clean, 

not filthy and poisonous. In February, I was proud to introduce the WATER Act to 

deliver water justice to millions of people who lack access to clean and safe drinking 

water and create up to a million jobs in the process. 

My bill would help communities struggling with PFAS contamination by extending the State Revolving Loan Fund to cover PFAS contamination. My bill would provide support to update treatment systems or find alternative water supplies when 

community water systems or household water wells have PFAS contamination. 

If President Trump was serious about addressing our crumbling infrastructure, 

which he is not, he would tell Mitch McConnell to bring this bill up for a vote and 

get Republican Senators to vote for it. Most Americans agree that everyone has a 

right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, but this EPA apparently disagrees. 

We have got to stand up and demand environmental policies that protect all of us, 

not just the profits of chemical corporations. 

If we are serious about modernizing our aging water infrastructure in Vermont 

and across the country, we must make a significant and prolonged investment on 

the Federal level. Instead of cutting rural water funding like the Trump administration has proposed, we should dramatically increase support for these types of critically important projects. 

[Text of legislation submitted for the record follows:] 

180 


36935.153

"UTHENTICATE09 US GOVEIINMENT 

INFORMATION 

GPO 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

II 

S.638 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substanc.es as hazardous substances 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2019 

:Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. PETERS, Mr. TILLIS, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. :MERKLEY, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. REED, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. Bu'RR, Mr. BE.!'.'NET, Mr. lVIANCHIN, Mr. 

SCHUMER, Mr. UDALL, Mr. HEII\'RICH, Ms. HAssAN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, 

and Ms. BALDVliN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives ofthe United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "PF AS Action Act of 

5 2019". 
181 


36935.154

2 

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION AS HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. 

2 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Pro4 tection Agency shall designate all per- and polyfluoroalkyl 

5 substances as hazardous substances under section 102(a) 

6 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com7 pensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9602(a)). 

0 

•S 638 IS 
182 


36935.155

AUTHENT!CATED9 U.S COVJ!:RNMENT 

!NFO"II.MATlON 

CPO 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S.950 

To require the Director of the United States Geological Survey to perform 

a nationwide survey of perf1uorinated compounds, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 28, 2019 

II 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. !WU:l'U)S, Mr. PETERS, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. 

BURR, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Director of the United States Geological Survey to perform a nationwide survey of perfluorinated 

compounds, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "PF AS Detection Act 

5 of 2019". 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 
183 


36935.156

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2 

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.-The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

(2) DIRECTOR.-The term "Director" means 

the Director of the United States Geological Survey. 

(3) PERFLUORINATED COMPOUND.-

•S 950 IS 

(A) IN GENERAL.-The term 

"perfluorinated compound" means a 

perfluoroalkyl substance or a polyfluoroalkyl 

substance that is manmade with at least 1 fully 

fluorinated carbon atom. 

(B) DEFIN!TIONS.-In this definition: 

(i) FULLY FLUORINATED CARBON 

ATOM.-The term "fully fluorinated carbon 

atom" means a carbon atom on which all 

the hydrogen substituents have been replaced by fluorine. 

(ii) NONFLUORINATED CARBON 

ATOM.-The term "nonfluorinated carbon 

atom" means a carbon atom on which no 

hydrogen substituents have been replaced 

by fluorine. 

(iii) PARTIALLY FLUORINATED CARBON ATOM.-The term "partially 

fluorinated carbon atom" means a carbon 
184 


36935.157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

3 

atom on which some, but not all, of the hydrogen substituents have been replaced by 

fluorine. 

(iv) PERFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCE.-

The term "perfluoroalkyl substance" 

means a manmade chemical of which all of 

the carbon atoms are fully fluorinated carbon atoms. 

(v) POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCE.-The term "polyfluoroalkyl substance" means a manmade chemical containing a mix of fully fluorinated carbon 

atoms, partially fluorinated carbon atoms, 

and nonfluorinated carbon atoms. 

15 SEC. 3. PERFORMANCE STANDARD FOR THE DETECTION 

16 OF PERFLUORINATED COMPOUNDS. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Director shall establish a per18 formance standard for the detection of perfluorinated 

19 compounds. 

20 (b) EMPHASIS.-

21 (1) IN GENERAL.-In developing the perform22 ance standard under subsection (a), the Director 

23 shall emphasize the ability to detect as many 

24 perfluorinated compounds present in the environ-

•S 950 IS 
185 


36935.158

4 

1 ment as possible using analytical methods that are 

2 as sensitive as is feasible and practicable. 

3 (2) REQUIREMENT.-In developing the per4 formance standard under subsection (a), the Direc5 tor may6 (A) develop quality assurance and quality 

7 control measures to ensure accurate sampling 

8 and testing; 

9 (B) develop a training program with re10 spect to the appropriate method of sample col11 lection and analysis of perfluorinated com12 pounds; and 

13 (C) coordinate as necessary with the Ad14 ministrator to develop methods to detect indi15 vidual and different perfluorinated compounds 

16 simultaneously. 

17 SEC. 4. NATIONWIDE SAMPLING. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Director shall carry out ana19 tionwide sampling to determine the concentration of 

20 perfluorinated compounds in estuaries, lakes, streams, 

21 springs, wells, wetlands, rivers, aquifers, and soil using the 

22 performance standard developed under section 3(a). 

23 (b) REQUIREMENTS.-In carrying out the sampling 

24 under subsection (a), the Director shall-

•S 950 IS 
186 


36935.159

5 

1 (1) first carry out the sampling at sources of 

2 drinking water near locations with known or sus3 pected releases of perf1uorinated compounds; 

4 (2) when carrying out sampling of sources of 

5 drinking water under paragraph (1), carry out the 

6 sampling prior to any treatment of the water; 

7 (3) survey for ecological exposure to 

8 perfluorinated compounds, with a priority in deter9 mining direct human exposure through drinking 

10 water; and 

11 ( 4) consult with12 (A) States to determine areas that are a 

13 priority for sampling; and 

14 (B) the AdministratorIS (i) to enhance coverage of the sam16 piing; and 

17 (ii) to avoid unnecessary duplication. 

18 (c) REPORT.-Not later than 90 days after the com19 pletion of the sampling under subsection (a), the Director 

20 shall prepare a report describing the results of the sam21 piing and submit the report to--

22 (1) the Committee on Environment and Public 

23 Works and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

24 Resources of the Senate; 

•S 950 IS 
187 


36935.160

6 

1 (2) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of 

2 the House of Representatives; 

3 (3) the Senators of each State in which the Di4 rector carried out the sampling; and 

5 ( 4) each Member of the House of Representa6 tives that represents a district in which the Director 

7 carried out the sampling. 

8 SEC. 5. DATA USAGE. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Director shall provide the 

10 sampling data collected under section 4 toll (1) the Administrator of the Environmental 

12 Protection Agency; and 

13 (2). other Federal and State regulatory agencies 

14 on request. 

15 (b) USAGE.-The sampling data provided under sub16 section (a) shall be used to inform and enhance assess17 ments of exposure, likely health and environmental im18 pacts, and remediation priorities. 

19 SEC. 6. COLLABORATION. 

20 In carrying out this Act, the Director shall collabo21 rate with22 (1) appropriate Federal and State regulators; 

23 

24 

25 

•S 950 IS 

(2) institutions of higher education; 

(3) research institutions; and 

( 4) other expert stakeholders. 
188 


36935.161

7 

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Direc3 tor to carry out this Act4 (1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2020; and 

5 (2) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 

6 through 2 02 4. 

0 

•S 950 IS 
189 


36935.162

MAZ19401 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

S.L.C. 

s. 

To improve and coordinate int:<!r:Jgem~y Ferlcral A.ct.ions 1111d Jn·ovidc assistance 

to States for responding to public health challenges posed by emerging 

contaminants, and for other purposes. 

IN TilE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mrs. SrwiEE?\' (for herself and Mr. POR'n1.AN) introduced the following !.Jill; 

which was re;ul twiee ant! referrml to t.he Committee on 

A BILL 

To improve and coordinate interagency Federal actions and 

provide assistance to States for responding to public 

health ehalleng·es poseu by emerging contaminants, ami 

for other pnrposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-resenta2 fives of the Un-ited States of America ·in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Safe Drinking Water 

5 Assistance Aet of 2019". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that-
190 


36935.163

i\1.AZ1940l S.L.C. 

2 

1 (1) safe and clean drinking water is essential to 

2 the health, well-being, comfort, and standard of liv3 ing of every person of the United States; 

4 (2) emerging contaminants in drinking· water 

5 systems arc increasingly being detected at low levels; 

6 (3) prolonged exposure to unregulated drinking 

7 water contaminants, including emerging contami8 nants, may pose human health risks, particularly to 

9 vulnerable populations; 

10 (4) the Safe Drinkll.tg· Water Act (42 U.S.C. 

11 :300f ct seq.) requires the Administrator of the Envi12 ronmental Protection Agency13 (A) to periodically make regulatory deter14 minations with respect to unregulated contarni15 nants; anu 

16 (B) not less frequently than onec every 5 

17 years, to identif)r and publish a description of 

18 unregulated eontaminants that may require reg19 ulation; 

20 (5) in a 2011 report of the Government Ac21 eountability Office, the Comptroller General of the 

22 United States found, with respect to unregulated 

23 drinking water contaminants, that-
191 


36935.164

MAZ1940l S.L.C. 

3 

1 (A) the Administrator has made limited 

2 progress in prioritizing drinking water contami3 nants based on greatest public health concern; 

4 (B) the lack of data relating to the expo5 sure of the public to potentially harmful drink6 ing water contaminants and the related health 

7 effects of that exposure continues to limit the 

8 ability of the Administrator to make regulatory 

9 ueterminations; am1 

10 (C) in many eases, gathering sufficient 

11 data to address contaminants awaiting regn12 latory determinations by the Administrator has 

13 taken the Administrator more than 10 years, 

14 and obtaining data on other contaminants that 

15 a,re currently awa,iting regulatory uetermina16 tions may take decades; 

17 ( 6) iu the 2016 Drinking Water Action Plan of 

18 the Environmental Protection Ageney, the Adminis19 trator recommended that the lilederal Government 

20 and key ·water stakeholders strengthen the effective21 ness of urinking water health advisories through en22 haneed collaboration and increased focus on risk 

23 management and risk communieation approaches; 

24 (7) in response to the re11ort of the Committee 

25 on Appropriations of the Senate accompanying S. 
192 


36935.165

MAZ19401 S.L.C. 

4 

1 1662 of the 115th CongTess (S. ltept. 115-139), the 

2 Office of Science and Technology Policy developed a 

3 coordinated eross-ageney plan for addressing eritieal 

4 research gaps related to detecting, assessing expoS sure to, and identifYing the adverse health effects of 

6 emerging contaminants in drinking water; and 

7 (8) it is vital that legislators, regulatory offi8 cials, public water system owners and operators, sci9 entists, and envirorummtaJ advoeaey groups eontinue 

10 to work to ensure that the public water systems of 

11 the United States arc among the safest in the world. 

12 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

13 In this Act: 

14 (1) ADrvDNIS'l'RATOR.-1.'he term "Adminis15 trator" means the Administrator of the Environ16 mental Protection Agency. 

17 (2) CONTAlvHXAXT.-rriw term "contaminant" 

18 means any physical, chemical, biological, or ra.dio19 logical substance or matter in water. 

20 (3) CONTAMINANT OF EMERGING CONCERN; 

21 EMERGING CONTAl\UNA.\T.-'l'he terms "contami22 nant of emerging concern" and "cmcrg·ing contami23 na.nt" mean a contaminant-
193 


36935.166

lVIAZ19401 S.L.C. 

5 

1 (A) for which the Administrator has not 

2 promulgated a national primary drinking water 

3 regulation; ami 

4 (B) that may have an adverse cffcet on the 

5 health of individuals. 

6 (4) FEDERAL RESEARCH STRATEGY.-The term 

7 "Federal research strategy" means the m·oss-agency 

8 plan descr·ibed in section 2(7). 

9 (5) ·TECHNICAL ASSIS'l'Al~CE AXD SUPPORT.-

1 0 The term "technical assistance and support" in11 cludes12 (A) assistance witb13 (i) identifying appropriate analytical 

14 methods for the detection of contaminants; 

15 (ii) umlerstanuing the strengths anu 

16 limitations of the analytical methods de17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

scribed in clause (i); 

(iii) troubleshooting the analytical 

methods described in clause (i); 

(B) providing advice on laboratory certification program elements; 

(C) interpreting sample analysis results; 

(D) providing training with respect to 

proper analytical techniques; 
194 


36935.167

iJ1AZ19401 S.L.C. 

6 

1 (E) identifYing appropriate technology for 

2 the treatment of contaminants; and 

3 (ljl) analyzing ::;ample::;, if4 (i) the analysis cannot be otherwise 

5 obtained in a practicable manner other6 vvise; and 

7 (ii) the capability and capacity to per8 form the analysis is available at a Federal 

9 facility. 

10 (6) WORKING GROtTP.-The term "Working; 

11 Group" means the ·working· Group established under 

12 section 4(b)(1). 

13 SEC. 4. RESEARCH AND COORDINATION PLAN FOR EN· 

14 HANCED RESPONSE ON EMERGING CONTAMI· 

15 NANTS. 

16 (a) IN GENERAh-Thc Administrator shall17 (1) review PedL~ral cfforts18 (A) to identify, monitor, and assist in the 

19 development of treatment methods for emerging 

20 contaminants; and 

21 (B) to assist States in responding to the 

22 human health risks posed by contaminants of 

23 emerging concern; and 

24 (2) in collaboration ·with owners and operators 

25 of public water systems, States, and other interested 
195 


36935.168

lYIAZ19401 S.L.C. 

7 

1 stakeholders, establish a strategic plan for improving 

2 the Federal efforts referred to in paragTaph (1). 

3 (b) INTERAGENCY WORJGNG GROUP ON EMERGING 

. 4 CONTAi\UNAl'\JTS.-

5 (1) IN GENERAIJ.-Not later than 90 days after 

6 the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 

7 and the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

8 shall jointly establish a Working Group to coordinate 

9 the aetivitie~ of the Federal Government to identify 

10 and analyze the public health cffeets of drinking 

11 water contaminm1ts of emerging concern. 

12 (2) ME:.VIBERSHIP.-The Working Group shall 

13 include representatives of the following: 

14 (A) The Emironmental Protection Agency, 

15 appointeu by the Administrator. 

16 (B) The follo,ving agencies, appointed by 

17 the Secretary of Health and Human Services: 

18 (i) The National InstituteR of Health. 

19 (ii) 'l'he Centers for Disease Control 

20 and Prevention. 

21 (iii) The Agency for Toxic Substances 

22 aud Disease Registry. 

23 (C) The United States Geological Survey, 

24 appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. 
196 


36935.169

MA.Zl9401 S.L.G. 

8 

1 (D) Any other Federal agency the assist2 ance of which the Administrator determines to 

3 bl~ necessary to carry out this subsm~tion, ap4 pointed by the head of the respedive agency. 

5 (3) EXISTING WORKING GROUP.-'l'he Adminis6 trator may expand or modify the duties of an exist7 ing working group to perform the duties of the 

8 Working· Group under this subsection. 

9 (c) NATIONAL EMERGING CONT.c'li'VIINANT RESEARCH 

10 lJ\TITIATIVE.-

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

(l) l<~BDI<JRAL HESEAIWH STRATEGY.-

(A) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 90 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy (referred to in this subsection as the 

"Din\ctor") shall coordinate with the heads of 

the agencies described in subparagraph (C) to 

establish a rese:arch initiative, to be lmo>vn as 

the "National Emerging Contaminant Research 

Initiative", that shall-

(i) use the Federal research strategy 

to improve the identification, analysis, 

monitoring, and treatment methods of contaminants of emerging concern; and 
197 


36935.170

lV1AZ19401 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

9 

(ii) develop any necessary program, 

policy, or budget to support the implementation of the Federal research strategy, inelnding meebanisms for joint ag·cney review 

of research proposals, for interagency cofunding of research a.etivities, and for information sharing; across agencies. 

(B) HESEAIWH ON El\IERGIXG CONTAlUINANTS.-ln earrying out subpara.gTaph (A), the 

Director shall-

(i) take into consideration conscnsns 

conclusions from . peer-reviewed, pertinent 

research on emerging contaminants; and 

(ii) in consultation with the Administrator identify 11rioritv emerg·irw eontarni- ' • u b 

nants for research emphasis. 

(C) li'EDEH.AL PARTICIPA'l'ION.-Thl: agencies referred to in subpara.gTaph (A) include-

(i) the National Science Poundation; 

(ii) the National Institutes of Health; 

(iii) the Environmental Proteetion 

Agency; 

(iv) the National Institute of Standards and Technology; 
198 


36935.171

l\iAZ19401 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

S.L.C. 

10 

(v) the United States Geological Survey; and 

(vi) any other J:t'ederal ageney that 

eontributes to rcscareh in water quality, 

environmental C},.1Josures, and public 

health, as determined by the Director. 

(D) P.liliTICIPATION FRO:M ADDITIONAL 

ENTITIES.-ln carrying out subparagTaph (A), 

the Director shall consult with nongovernmental 

organizations, State and local governments, and 

science and research institutions determined by 

the Director to haYe scientific or material interest in the National Emerging Contaminant Research Initiative. 

(2) l:MPLElVIENTATION OF RESEARCH REC16 O:Ml\IENDATIONS.-

17 (A) IN GEXEH.AL.-Not later than 1 year 

18 after the date on vvhich the Director and heads 

19 of the agencies described in paragraph ( 1) (C) 

20 establish the National E.merging Contaminant 

21 Researeh Initia.tiYe under paragraph (1)(A), the 

22 head of each agency described in paragraph 

23 (1)(0) shall-
199 


36935.172

ii1AZ19401 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

11 

(i) issue a solicitation for research 

proposals consistent with the Federal research strategy; anu 

(ii) make gmnts to a1Jplieants that 

submit research proposals selected hy the 

National Emerging Contaminant H.esearch 

Initiative in accordance with subparagraph 

(B). 

(B) SELECTION OF RESEARCH PROPOSALS.-The National Emerging Contaminant 

Research Initiative shall select research proposals to receive grants under this paragraph 

on the basis of merit, using criteria identified 

by the Director, including the likelihood that 

the proposed. research will result in significant 

progn~ss toward achieving· the objectives identified in the F'edcral research strateg:y. 

(C) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.-Any entity or 

gToup of 2 or more entities may submit· to the 

head of each ag-ency described in paragraph 

(l)(C) a research proposal in response to the 

solicitation for research proposals described iu 

subparagraph (A)(i), including-

(i) State and local agencies; 
200 


36935.173

l\1AZ19401 S.L.C. 

12 

1 (ii) public institutions, including pub2 lie institutions of higher education; 

3 (iii) private corporations; and 

4 (iY) nonprofit organizations. 

5 (d) li'EDERAL TECHNICAL ASSIS'l'Al\ICE M'D SUP6 PORT FOR STATES.-

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(1) STUDY.-

(A) IX GENERAL.-Not later than 180 

Jays after the elate of enactment of this Aet, 

the Administrator shall conduct a study on actions the Administrator can take to increase 

technical assistance and support for States with 

respect to emerging contaminants in drinking 

water samples. 

(B) CON'l'ENTS OF STUDY.-In carrymg 

out the study described in subparagraph (A), 

the Administrator shall idcntif}r-

(i) methods and effective treatment 

O}Jtions to increase technical assistance and 

support with respect to emerging contaminants to Statl~S, induding· identifying opportunities for States to improve communication vvit.h various audiences ahout. tlw 

risks associated with emerging contami~ 

na.nts; 
201 


36935.174

MAZ19401 S.L.O. 

13 

1 (ii) means to facilitate access to quali2 fied contract testing laboratory facilities 

3 that tlomluet analyses for emerging· eon-. 

4 taminants; and 

5 (iii) actions to be carried out at cxist6 ing Federal laboratory facilities, including 

7 the research facilities of the Administrator, 

8 to provide technical assistance and support 

9 for States that require testing faeilities for 

10 ernerging eontaminants. 

11 (C) AVAILABILITY OF A.t'JALYTICAL RE12 SOURCES.-In carrying out the study described 

13 in subparagraph (A), the Adrriinistrator shall 

14 considerIS (i) the availability of16 (I) Pcdcral and non-Federal lab17 oratory capacity; and 

18 (II) validated methods to detect 

19 and analyze contaminants; and 

20 (ii) other factors determined to be ap21 propriate by the Administrator. 

22 (2) REPORT.-Not later than 1 year after the 

23 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 

24 shall submit to CongTess a report describing the re25 sults of the study described in paragraph (1). 
202 


36935.175

MAZ19401 S.L.C 

14 

1 (3) PROGRA.iVI '1'0 PROVIDE FEDERAL ASSIST2 ANCE TO STATES.-

3 (A) IN GE?\TERAL.-Not later than 3 year::; 

4 after the date of enactment of this Act, based 

5 on the findings in the report described in para6 graph (2), the Administrator shall develop a 

7 program to provide technical assistance and 

8 support to eligible States for the testing and 

9 analy::;i::; of emerg-ing co11taminants. 

10 (B) .APPLICATION.-

11 (i) IN GENERAL.-To be eligible for 

12 technical assistance and support under this 

13 paragyaph, a State shall submit to the Ad14 ministrator an application at such time, in 

15 such manner, and containing such infor16 mation as the Ad1ninistrator may require. 

17 (ii) CRI'l'ERIA.-Thc Administrator 

18 shall evaluate an application for technical 

19 assistance and support under this para20 gTaph on the basis of merit using criteria 

21 identified by the Administrator, includ22 

23 

24 

ing-

(I) the laboratory facilities avajlable to the State; 
203 


36935.176

MAZ19401 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

15 

(II) the availability and applicability of existing analytical methodolo-

(III) tho potency and severity of 

the emerging contaminant, if known; 

and 

(IV) the prevalence and magnitude of the emerging contaminant. 

(iii) PRIORITIZATION.-In seleeting· 

States to receive technical assistance and 

support under this paragraph, the Administrator-

(I) shall g1ve priority to States 

with affected areas primarily in financially distressed communities; 

(II) ma.y-

(aa) waive the application 

process in an emergency situation; and 

(bb) require an abbreviated 

applieation proeess for the eontinuatiou of work specified m a 

previously approved application 

that continues to meet the criteria described in clause (ii); and 
204 


36935.177

MAZ19401 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

16 

(III) shall consider the relative 

expertise and availability of-

(aa) Federal and non-Federal laboratory capacity available 

to the State; 

(bb) analytical resources 

available to the State; and 

(cc) other types of technical 

assistance available to the State. 

(C) DATABASE O:F' AVAIIuillJjE RESOURCES.-The Administrator shall establish 

and maintain a database of resources available 

through the progTam developed under subparagraph (A) to assist States with testing for 

emerg-ing contaminants that-

(i) is-

(I) available to States and stakeholder groups determined by the Administrator to have scientific or material · interest in emerging contaminants, ineluding'--

(aa) drinking water and 

wastewater utilities; 

(bb) laboratories; 
205 


36935.178

iVlAZ19401 S.L.C. 

17 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

(ce) Federal and State emergency responders; 

(Jd) State primacy ageneies; 

( cc) pub lie health agmwies; 

6 (ff) vvater associations; 

7 (II) searchable; and 

8 (III) accessible through the 

9 website of the Administrator; and 

10 (ii) indudcs a dcseription of11 (I) qualified contraet testing lab12 oratol'y facilities that conduct analyses 

13 for emerging contEtminants; and 

14 (II) the resources available m 

15 Feueral laboratory facilities to test for 

16 emerging· contaminants. 

17 (D) WATER CONT.AiVIINANT Il'tFOR..viATION 

18 '1'00!.~.-rrhe Administrator shall integrate the 

19 database established under subparagraph (C) 

20 into the ·water Contaminant Information Tool 

21 of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

22 (4) FUXDING.-Of the amounts available to the 

23 Administrator, the Administr·ator may use not more 

24 than $15,000,000 in a fiscal year to carry out this 

25 subsection. 
206 


36935.179

MAZ19401 S.L.C. 

18 

1 (e) REPORT.-Not less frequently than once every 2 

2 years until 2029, the Administrator shall submit to Con~ 

3 gress a report that tlm;eribes the progTess made in ear4 rying out this Aet. 

5 (f) EFFECT.-Nothing in this section modifies any 

6 obligation of a. State, local government, or Indian Tribe 

7 with respect to treatment methods for, or testing or moni~ 

8 toring of, drinking water. 
207 


36935.180

11 GTII CO?\GHESS 

1sT SESSION s. 

To encourage Federal agencies to r.:q1cditiously enter int{) or amend eooperat.ive abrreemcnts with St.at.es for removal and remedial aetions to atltlr-e~R 

PFAS (~ontaminatiou in drinking, surface, and ground water and land 

surfaee all(! suhsu r-faee strata, and for other pm·poses. 

l)J rrHE SE?-JATE OF THE lJ)JJTgD STArrES 

Ms. STABENOW (fm· he1·self, :\h-. Ht!BJO, 2\lr. C,\HPER, .i\Ir. TlLl,IR, :\Irs. SiullEEN, :\it·. BllH.H., .Mr. pg'!'!<jRS, :\Is. li.ASSA.:'i, :\Is. I3AWWIN, and Ms. 

CAX'l'\YELL 'ntrodueed t.he follo,dng bill; which was r·ead twiee and referred to the Committee on ---·---

A BILL 

To encoura.g·e Federal agencies to expeditiously enter into 

or amend cooperative agreements with States for removal 

and remedial actions to address PPAS contmnination 

in drinking·, sm·face, and ·gTonnd water and land surface 

and subsurface strata, and for other pnrpoBes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and Hmt.~e of Representa2 ti·ves of the United States ofAmer·ica. in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 'l'lus Act may be cited as the "PP..AS Accountability 

5 Aet of 2019''. 
208 


36935.181

~JAZ1943B 1;\.hC. 

2 

1 SEC. 2, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WTIH STATES FOR RE2 l\10V AL AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS TO AD· 

3 .DRESS DRINKING., SURFACE, AND GROUND 

4 WATE~ AND SOIL CONTAMINATION FROM 

5 PFAS. 

6 (a) DEFINIT~ONS.-ln tlus ~ection:: 

7 (1) I~'EDERAL FAGIIATY .. -

8 (A) IN' Gl'JNEHA.r •. -Thc term ''Federal fa9 ellity" means a facility (as defiltecl hi section 

10 101 of the Comprehensive EnviromnentRl l\e11 sponse, Compensation·, mid Liability Act of 

12 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601)) that is O'lvned or oper13 atcd by the Federal Qryi•emment. 

14 (B) L'JCT~USION .. -'l'he term "l"'ederal facil15 ity" iilchrdes16 (i) a facility or site-' . 

17 (I) m.med by, leased to, or other18 wise possessed by the· United States; 

19 or 

20 (II) under the jurisdiction of the 

11 Secre:tary of Defense; 

2~2' (ii) a facility or site that, at the time 

23 of the actions leading· to contamination. or 

24 suspected ~ontamination of di1nkin.g· water, 

25 surface water, or gTolmdwater or land sur-
209 


36935.182

:itAZ1!l43B 

I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

n 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

.S.L.C. 

fact>. or snbsnrfaee strata from a 

pcrfluorinated compo1m\l, wa.s-

(I) o'w~md l:>y, leased to, or other-

'vise possessed b~r the United States; 

(II) under the jurisdiction of the 

&.cretary of Defe1if5e; <!rid 

(iii} land ovmed .and operated lW a .... \~. 

State whei.i the land is used. for trainir1g 

the National Guard purb'Uant. to chapter 5 

of title 82, Uuited States Code, "1th fmids 

provided by the. S~;cmtary· of DGfense or 

the Secretary of a milita1·y department, 

even thoug·h that land is not under the jnrisdietion of the Seci·ctary of Defense. 

(2) PUUN F'LUOnTNATED C),ARBON ATOlVI.-The 

tcl'ni "f\uly fluorinated c~irbon atohi" means a car., 

bon atOln 011 whieh an .the hydrogen ~ul)stitueuts 

have been replaceclby ftuDrinc; 

(3) PEtU1'IJV()H.INATED COl\IP()TTND.-'l'h\! tr.rm 

01' means a 

22 pei'fluoroalkyl substance or }\ polyfluor(!a:lkyl sub23 stance (or "PF.A,S") that is ma:mnad.e 'rVith at least. 

24 1 fully f1n:or1:n~1tecl c~irbmi atom. 
210 


36935.183

S,L.G . 

. 4 

(4) STATE.-'l'hc term "State" has the mean2 ing givQilthe term ii1 section lQl of the Comprehen3 sive Em1ronmcntal li.esponse! Compm1sation; anc1 

4 Liability Act of 19BO (42 U.S.C, 9601). 

5 (h) CooPERATn'E.AGRERiVIENT,-

6 {1) IN GENERAi:~.-Qn request by the Goveri1ol' 

7 oi· chief executive of a State, a Federal dCp<lltment 

8 or ;tgcncy shall ·work expeditiously to finalize a coop9 crative ag:r't~cme:'.nt for, or to amend an e.xisting coop· 

lO crative agTl!ement to a{lch~ess, tc~ting, moriitoring, 

11 removal, and reinedial aetionf; to adch·ess contamina12 tion (.)r suspec~ted contamination of clrin:king water, 

13 mu·face vvate1', oi· gToundwater or land surface nr 

14 subsmface strata {rom a pcrfluorinated .compmmcl 

15 originating from a Feclc:ral fa.eility. 

16 (2) M:rNr:.vrmr 'STA-"''TlARDS.-A cooperative 

17 agreement finalized or amClndccl m1der paragraph 

18 (1) shall require the ar·ca ~ubjcet to the cooperative 

19 agreement to meet or exceed the most stringent of 

20 the follmving· standards for per±luoiinated com21 pounds in any onv:irpmnental media: 

12 {Al .A1i t\l:tforcm1hlc State stmiclai.~d, m cf23 feet in that State, for drinking· water, surfaee 

24 water, or g1'0iln.dwater or laud surface ·or sub25 smface strata, as required under section 121(d) 
211 


36935.184

1 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

2 Com}}Ct~sation, and I.iability Act of 1980 ( 42 

3 tJ:s.c. 9G21(d)).. 

4 (B) A health a:dvispry i.111der section 

S 1412(h)(l)(P) of tho Safe D'dnkhig Water Act 

6 (42 U.S:G. 300g-l(b)(1)(F)). 

7 (C) .A:ny I?ederal stanclard, i·equireilient, 

8 c.i'iterioi1, or lirujt, includirig a standard, re9 qu:ircment, c:riterion:, 01; limit issued mrdet1 0 (i) the Tox:ie Substanc.es Control 1\.:ct 

11 (15 U.S.G .. 2601 et seq.); 

12 (li) the Safe Drinking \Yater Act (42 

13 1LS.C. 300fetseq.); 

14 (iii) the Clean .Air Act (42 U.S.G. 

15 7401 et seq.)~ 

16 (iv) the Fcd0r:;ll Water PollptiOn Col+-

11 trol Act (33 U.8.C. 1251 et seq.); 

18 N) the l\htine :Protection, H.escareh, 

19 and Sanctuaries Aet of 1972 (eonm1only 

20 la1ci'wn as the 11 0eeau Dumping Act'') (33 

21 U.S;(J. 1401 et seq.); or 

22 (vi} the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 

23 U.S.C. G901 et seq,). 

24 (3) OTHER .AUTIIORITY.,.-Ill additiol1 to the re25 quil'em:c11ts fol' a cf>operative agTeement ti.nder para-
212 


36935.185

6 

1 graph (1), when othm,vise authorized to expend 

2 funds for the Jmrpose of aclclressil1g grmwcl or sui3 face water contaminated l)y a pcrfluorinatecl com4 pound, the huad of a Federal dcpaliment or agency 

5 m~w~ to expend those funds; enter into a grant 

6 ag:i.'een~ent, cooperative iJ.gre(lmcllt, or contract 

7 with8 (A) the local water <wthority with Jurisdic9 tiort over the contamination site, inclltding10 (i} a public W<\ter sy.~tem (.as defin~;d 

11 m secti<)n 1401 of the 8afe lJril'lkiug 

12 ''later Act (42 U.S.C. 300f)); .ancl 

11 (ii) a publicly m'nlCd treatm(\nt, works 

14 (as defined in section 212 of the .Federal 

15 Water Pollutlon Control Act (3~1 U.S.C. 

16 1292)); m: 

17 (B) a State, local, or Ttibal g·ovcrnment. 

18 (c) NOTIFICATION HEQini{EMENT.-

19 (1) DEFINITION OF' APPROPH.IATE CONG:RES20 SIONAL COivGHTTgE~.-Iu this snb~ection, the tc>rm 

21 "appropriate congTcssiona.l committees" mcans22 (A) the Committee on Envi1·omnent and 

23 Pnblic '\Vorks of the Senate; 

24 (B) the Committee on Homeland Security 

25 ari:d.Govcrnmental.Affairs of the Senate; 
213 


36935.186

MAZJ943:l 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

7 

(C) tht• Committee on Encrg:y Enid Commerce of.thc Hmwc of Reprcsentatives;.and 

(DJ tJ1e C011rrnittee on Oversight and Re~ 

foi·m of the House of Representatives. 

(2) REPORT.-

(A) IN G'Eil\"ERAh-If a cooperative agree- . . 

iuent is 1\0t finalized or n:mencled nuder sub~ 

section (b) by the date that is 1 year after the 

date on which a request py the Gm;ernor or 

chief executive of a State ·was made, the Presidertt shall s~tbmit a rcpoi·t described in snbpaJ.'agr~1ph (B) to-

(i) the app1;opriate congi'essiuual cornnlittees; 

(ii) each Senator from tht~ State ~ffccted by the perfluot:inated conipound contamination; and 

(iii} ea,Dh meniber of Cong1·ess that 

represents a district a.ffccted by the 

P.erflndrhJ;;tt.ed compmmd contamination . 

. (B) REPOR'r DESCRIBED.___,Tlie report refei·red to in ~,·ubparagtaph (A) shall include-

(i) a detailed C}...l)lanation of why a cooperative agri!.einent. ha.s not. been fii1ali.zec~ 

or amended1 as applicable; and 
214 


36935.187

1 

2 

3 

8 

(ii) a projeeted timeline for finalizing . . -

or cunending· a coOl)Cl'ative agTccment, a$ 

applicable. 
215 


36935.188

MAZ19412 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

S.L.C. 

s. 

'I'o amend the Rafc Drinking Water Act. to rcrJuirc the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency to set maximum contaminant levels 

for certain chemicals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STA'rES 

Mrs. GIJ,J,IBRAND (fm· herself and Mrs. CAPITO) introduced the following bill; 

which WH~ read twice and referred to the Committee on 

A BILL 

'l'o amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

set maximum eontaminant levels for eertain ehemieal~.>, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and llmt.se of Rep?·esenta2 tives of the Un-1:ted States of America. in Congress assernhled, 

3 SECTION I. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Protect Drinking 

5 Water from PFAS Ad of 2019". 
216 


36935.189

MAZ19412 S.L.C. 

2 

1 SEC. 2. MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS. 

2 Section 1412(b)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 300g-l(b)(2)) is a.menueu by a.uuing a.t the 

4 enu the follo"'ri.ng: 

5 "(D) PERFLUORINATED COMPOU.:\DS.-

6 "(i) REQUIRED REGULATIONS.-Not 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Protect Drinking Water from 

PFAS Act of 2019, the Auministra.tor 

shall publish a maximum contaminant level 

anu promulgate a national primm-y urinking water regulation for perfluoroalkyl and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances. 

"(ii) MONITORING.-ln establishing 

monitoring requirements nnuer the national primary drinking water regulation 

for pcrfluoroalkyl and polytluoroalkyl substances under clause (i), the Administrator 

shall-

"(I) consider options for tailoring 

monitoring requirements for publie 

water systems that do not detect, or 

arc reliably and consistently below the 

maximum contaminant level for, those 

substances; and 
217 


36935.190

MAZ19412 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

S.L.C. 

3 

"(II) prioritize the use of existing 

authorities to provide technical assistance and funding to help small, rural, 

or disadvantaged public water systems 

to comply with the national primary 

drinking wa.ter regulation.". 
218 


36935.191

RYA19233 

llG'l'H CONGR.ESS s 

1ST SESSION 

S.L.C. 

• 

To include certain perfluoroulkyl und polytluoroalkyl suustanc<;s in the toxicH 

release inventor~', 1md for other purpoHes. 

IN 'l'HE SENATE OF' rrH:BJ UNI'rED STATES 

:.\1m. CAPITO (for herself, J-Irs. GII..LIBRAND, and Mr. CARPER) introduced the 

followin~~: bill; whieh was read t.wim~ and refern:d t.o the Committee on 

A BILL 

'l'o include certain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances m the taxies release inventory, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Re it enacted by the Senate and Ho-nse of Rep·resenta2 fives (~f the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Aet. may be cited as the "P:F'AS Release Diselo5 sure Act". 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.-Jn this section: 
219 


36935.192

fl.L.C. 

2 

1 {1) .:\.D:.vnmHTH.ll.'i'OR.-'rhe t.c:r1ll ''1\.dminis2 t.rator" mt.mn~ tlw Admini~t.rator of tlw Em·iron3 menrul PT·oteetion Agency. 

4 (2) TOXICS H.gj,IJ:..,.\SE I~VE.t-:'l'OHY.-Thn term 

5 "toxirs release invent01·y" means the toxies release 

6 invnntory under section ~H:3{e) of the Etnc1·guney 

7 Plunning- antl Community RighVJ1o-Know Aet. of 

8 HJ86 (-!2 U.S.C. 1102::l(c)). 

9 (b) l.YtMEDL\'rl~ l~CJ,l!SIO:\ .-

10 (1) IN GEX~TtAL.-Subjeet to snbseetion (e), 

11 heghming ,J mmary 1 of the Nllrmlar· year following 

12 the datr of en<t<'tnwnt of thil:l At~t, tlw following 

13 ehemicals shall be deemed to be included in the 

14 tox.ies release inventory: 

15 (A) Perfluorooetanoie a<~id (eommonly rc16 ferred to as "PFOA") (C'hcmie!ll Abst.J·aet.<> 

17 Servim; No. :3:35-G7-1). 

18 {B) 'fht> salt associated with the chemical 

19 d<'S<~ribed in snbpar-agraph (A) ( Ohcmieal Ab20 straets Se1·vi.ee No. 3H25-2G-1 ). 

21 (C) PerJ1uorooetanc sulfonic aeiu (com~ 

22 monly refe.rt't'U to as "PFOS") (Cherniea! Ah23 Htract.<; ScrvicG No. 1763-23-1). 

24 (D) 'l'he salts assoda.ted with the ehernica.l 

25 dcseribed in subparagrUJ)h (C) (Chemieal Ab-
220 


36935.193

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

straet Serviee Nos. 452!1~-00~6, 28457-72-5, 

56773-42-3, 29081-Gf)-9, 4021-47-0, 

111873-33-7, and 91036-71-4). 

(E) A pcrt1uoroaUcyl or polytluot·oalkyl substance or- c·lass of perf1uoroalkyl or 

polyt1uoronlkyl suhstarwes that is-

(i) li::;teu us nn aetivl:' elwmieal snbstance in the I•,cbru~u·y 2019 update to tlw 

inventory under scdion 8(b)(l) of the 

Toxic Substanel'.'l Control Act (15 U.R.C. 

2607(h)(1 )); and 

(ii) on the elate of e.naetnwnt of this 

Act, r;;ubject to the proviRiom~ of-. 

(I) St'(!tion 721.9582 of title 40, 

Code of Pederal f{.egcllations; or 

(II) section 721.1 06:)6 of titl<' 

40, Code of Federal Regulation::;. 

(2) 'l'IIHm.mOLD FOH. REPOH'l'IXG.-

(A) l:\' Gl~Nl·~H .. \.L.-Subjcd. to subparagraph (B), the threshohl fm· reporting the 

dwmieals dcsel'ib(~d in pamgraph ( 1) nnde1· St'<'-

tion 3l3(f)(1) of the I!Jm0rgeney Planning; aml 

Community Hig:ht-'l'o-Know Act of 1986 ( 42 

U .S.C. 11 02:3(f)( 1)) is 100 pounds. 
221 


36935.194

HYA192:l3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.LJ'. 

4 

(B) H.E\'I~IO~K-Not later t.IHw 5 years 

after tlw clatl' of enaet.Jm•nt of thill Aet) tlw .Atlministrator shall-

{i) drtt'rlllint' whether r<.!vision of the 

threshold under subparag1•aph {A) is warraut.Nl; and 

(ii) if the Aurninistr·ator uett•rmines u 

revision to be warranted under ela.use (i), 

initiate a reyision under section 313(f)(2) 

of the Emergem·y Planning· and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1 HB6 ( 42 

lT.R.C. 11023(f)(2)). 

(c) I:-:cLFRJO?\ li'OLLO\YI?\G As~J~SSME:'\T.-

(1) 1:-..' Ol!J::\'EIL\L.-~uhjcet to subsPetion (e)) H 

perfluoroalkyl or polyf1uoroaJl~rJ svbstance m· elass 

of 1wrt1uoroalkyl or polyf1uoroa!kyl suhstaiH.'t'S sludl 

be ant.ornatically inelntlt~d in the toxics relt•ase inwntor-y beginning January 1 of the calendar year· afte1· 

any of the following dRtrs: 

(A) ESTABLISlL.\'lEN'l' 'POJ..'lCI'l'Y 

VALt:E.-Tho da.te on which tho Administrator 

t\stahlishes a toxieit:v va.hu-! for tlw 

pcrt1uoroalkyl ot· polyfluo1·oalkyl substance or 

da.ss of port1uoroalkyl 01' polyf1uoroa.lkyl subst.anees. 
222 


36935.195

HYAlfl233 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

B.J,,C. 

(B) SIG~U'JCA.'\T XEW nm IU .. 'U?,.-'The 

tlnh~ on whieh tlte Atlminist.rator finali:ws a siy:-

nitieant new use rule under subst.>Ction (a)(2) or 

(f) of scx~tion 5 of tJ1c 'i'oxie Substanees Control 

.Aet (15 U.RC. 2604) for the pel'f1uoroalkyl or 

polyt1um·oa lkyl snhstanee or elass of 

pm·fhtoroalky1 or polyflnoroulkyl iiHLl:itanees. 

((]) ADDI'l'lO:\ TO EXJS'l'L'\G 8IGXIB'ICA.~T 

~gw n;g Rl'Ll<i.-The clat.P on whkh the 

pcrf1noroalkyl or polyt1uOl'OI1lkyl substance or 

class of pcd1uoroalkyl or polyt1uoroalkyl sub~ 

<ltaneel:i is a.t.ldt•d to a list of substances eoverPtl 

by a signif1cant new use rule under subsection 

(a.)(2) or (f) of scdion 5 of Hw 'l'oxic Substances Contl'ol Act (15 U.8.C. 2604). 

(D) ADDI'l'lOX AS ACTIVE CHEJfH~,\L Ht'B81'AXC'E.-'l'bl~ date on which tlw pPrf1noroa.lkyl 

or polyflum·onlkyl substance or class of 

porfluoroalkyl OJ' polyt1uOJ·oalkyl snbstmwcs that 

is on a list of substanees eovered by a signifieant. new use rulP unckl' snbseetion (a)(2) or (f) 

of sel-iion 5 of tht• 'roxie Snbstunet>H ( 'ontrol 

Act (15 U.S.C. 260-t) is ad<led as an active 

ehemical subst.<nwc 011 the invr:ntory under Sl'{~-
223 


36935.196

B.L.C. 

6 

1 tion K(h}(l) of the rroxi(~ Suhstauces Control 

2 Act (1G U.S.C. 2f"i07(b)(l)). 

3 (2) r11IIREHHOLD 1<'01l l{gPOR'fiNG.-

4 (A) l.'-: GENEIUh-Subjcet to subpara5 graph (B), th<.~ threshold for reporting u nde1· 

6 st•etiou :n :Hf)( 1) of the Emcrgeney Planning 

7 aml Community Right-To-Know Act of 198o 

8 (42 U.S.C. 11203(f)(l)) the substances a.nd 

9 classes of substan(~es ineluclcd iu the t.oxies re10 lease in Yen tory under paragraph (1) is 100 

11 pounds. 

12 (B) REVISIOXH.-Not lat.t•r than 5 years 

13 after the date of cnaet.ment of this Act, the Ad14 ministrator shallIS (i) determine whether revision of the 

16 thresholds under suhpan~graph (A) is war17 rank(l; am! 

18 (ii) if the Administrator determines a 

19 revision to lw wa.rnmkd undm· clausc (i), 

20 initiate a reYision under senti on 818 (f)(2) 

21 of the Emt~rg('ncy Planning and Oommu~ 

22 nity Right-'1\>-Know At~t of 1986 (42 

23 u.s.c. 110:d3(f')(2)). 

24 (d) lNCJ,FSlOS li'OLLOWIXG DE'l'ERMii'\A'riON.-
224 


36935.197

RYA192!l3 ~.l.J,C. 

7 

1 (1) I:'\ GE::>:rm.AL.-'l'o the t~xhmt not ah·etuly 

2 snbj(~<;t to subst~etion (b), not latPr than 2 Yl~Urs 

3 aft.er the date of enactment. of this Act, the Adminis4 trator shall JotPJ'tnin0 \Yhdhcl' tbP substances and 

5 elasses of substanees clcseribed in paragyapll (2) 

6 meet the critNia cksrrihcd in soetion :nB(c1)(2) of 

7 tht• Erneq.!,t-'ney Planning· and Community Right-To8 Know Act of 1986 ( 42 U .S.C. 11 023(d)(2}) for in9 dusion in the t.oxius relenst' inventory. 

10 (2) St:BSTA.'WEH DE!:lCHlBED.-The substanC'cs 

11 and elassos of substances rcft~l'l'<~d to in parag1·aph 

12 (1) are pm·f'lnoroalkyl and pol;yt1uoroalkyl ::;nbstancPs 

13 and classes of pert1uoroalkyl aml po~yfluoroa!kyl sub14 stam~es, induding'-

15 (A) hexaf1uoropropylene oxide climcr aeid 

16 (Cbmnieal Ahst.rn<'ts Servi<~c :\o. 1:3252-1:~-6); 

17 (B) th(' eom rou ml~ assoei<tted with the 

18 chemical deRcribed in subparagmph (A) (Ohem19 ieal Ahstraets &>rviec Xos. 62037-80-3 and 

20 2062-9~-8); 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

peri1uorol (2-lWJlt.atluoroctho.A·yPthoxy)<w.etie a<~idl arnrnonh.im 1mlt (Clwrnit:al 

.Abstraet.<; Service No. 908020-52-0); 

' 

{D) 2,:3,3,:1-tl'traflnm·o 2-(1,1,2,3,3,3-

ltexafluoro HH trit1u oromcthoxy) propanoyl t1uo-
225 


36935.198

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.h('. 

l'idc (ClwmirRl Ahstraets Service No. 2479-7G~ 

6); 

(E) :2. ,3,3,:3-tetrafluoro 2-(11 2 3 3 3- , ' '') ' 

lw:xat1uoroHHtr·iHuoronwthoxy) propionie aeid 

(Chemical Abstracts Servi<~e Xo. 2479-7:1-4); 

{I•') :3II-pt>rt1uor·o-:5-[ (:3-md.hoxy-propm.:y) 

propanoic a.cidl (Clwmil~al Abstraets St>rVi(•e 

No. 91H005-14-.f); 

(G) the salts nssoeiated with thr chemieal 

deseribed in subpanl..gTaph (l:i') (Chemical Abstract~~ Scn1ee Nos. %8445-44-8, 1 087271-

46-2, and NOCAS_892452); 

{II) 1-octa.nesulfonic acid 

3,3, 4, 4,5,5, 6, 6, 7,7 ,8,8-tri(leea.tluoro-potassium 

salt (Chemieat Abstraets Service No. 59587-

:38-1 ); 

{I) pcl'f1uorolmtanesnlfonie aeid {Chemieal 

AbRtract....:; Service No. 375-73-5}; 

{.J) 1-Butmwsulfonic U(~id, 

1,1 .~,2,:J,;~,.J,4,4-nonaf1uoro-potassjum salt 

(Chemica.! Abst.1·aet.s St'rviee No. 29420-49-:3); 

{K) the {'On1poncnt associated with the 

ehl~mieal dcsr1·itwd in subparagraph (.J) (Clwmiea1 Abstnwts ~erv:ie(~ No. 45187-15-3); 
226 


36935.199

HYA19283 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

n 

(L) lwptat1uot·ohut~rric aeid (Chemical Ahstraets Sen~ee No. 375-22-4); 

(l\1) perfluorohexanoic nc:id (Chemical Abstraets Sen~(~r No. :-307-24-4); and 

(N) a pcrt1uoroalkyl and polyt1uoroalkyl 

substance or class of pert1nm·oalkyl or 

polyt1110roalkyl snbHtam•es othe1· than thol:le 

chemicals clcRcribed in subparag1·a.phs (A) 

through (~l} that is 11scd to manufacture 

. fluoropolynwrs, as determined b? the Administratcw. 

(3) ADDITION TO '1'0:::\1('8. Rli:LEAl:li£ Il'·(\TEK· 

13 TORY.-..~·h1~ject to subsection {c), if the Adminis14 trator deterrninPs und(•r parag-raph (l) that a. sub15 stanee or a elass of su bstaneL'S deseribeu in para16 graph (2) meet.H the erit.cria desnrihed in section 

17 :3J3(d)(2) of the Emt•rgpney Planning and Commu18 nity Riv;ht-1'o~Knmv Act of 1H86 (42 U.S.C. 

19 1102:J(d)(2)), tlw Administrator shall r<'\'isc tlw 

20 toxies release inventory to include that substanee or 

21 C'.la .. ~s of snhsta.nct'S not IRter titan 2 yna.rs aftot• the 

22 dah~ on whiL~h tht~ Achninistrator malws tlw ut'tt'l'-

23 mination. 

24 (c) Co:-:FlDEX'l'L\L Bnm,'JtiSS IxPOIUUTIO:-J.-
227 


36935.200

S.L.C. 

10 

1 ( 1) Ix Gl~XEl{.\.L.-Pr·ior to ineluding ou thP 

2 toxie::; t·c>]pa.st> inw,ntory pursuant t{> snbst•(Jtion 

3 (b)(1 ), (c)(l) 1 or (d)(:3) any perfluoroalkyl or 

4 poJyt1uoroalkyl substaneC' Or' dass of pcrflnoroalkyl 

5 or }1olyt1uoroa.lkyl substam•es th.e ellemical identity of 

6 which is suhjPet to a elaim of a person of proteet.iou 

7 from disdosme under snln:metion {a) of section 552 

8 of title 5, United StateR Code, pursua.11t to ~mh9 section (b){4) of that section, the Administ.n1tor 

10 shall11 (A) revinw that claim of protection from 

12 dlselosnrf'; and 

13 (B) reqnirt• that. person to reassert and 

14 substantiate iH' resubstantiate thut elailn in ac15 corthllice with seetion 14(f) of th0 Toxie Sub16 stnnec>s Control Aet {15 U.S.C. 2fi1:3(f)). 

17 (2) NON"DIRCLOSnUil OF' PB.O'fR:C'l'lOX IXPORMA18 'l'IOX.-lf the Administrator determines that the 

19 chemical identity of n pert1uol'oalkyi or 

20 polyfluoroalkyl substanec or dass of pcrfluoroalkyl 

21 or polyfhwt·oalkyl suhst.ane0s qualifies for protection 

22 from tliselol>t)re lmder paragraph (1 ), tlw Admini::;-

23 trator· shall include the substance or class of sub24 stam~es, as applieablo, on t.ht' t.oxies r<'kasc inventory 
228 

Æ 


36935.201

S.L.C. 

11 

in a m.anner that does not diselost' the protected in2 fonnution. 

3 (f) E~U!!Rm~~c-:Y PLAXNI>-:G .A,'\D CO.M1iC\I1'Y H.ruurr4 1'o-K~ow AC''l' OI•' 198H.-SPetion :n:~(e) of thn Emer5 genc~y Planning and Coml'nunity lOg·ht-To-Know Act of 

6 1986 (42 U.S.(\ ll02:3(e)) is amendeJ7 ( 1) by l:ltriking- tlw period at the end aml im·w.rt8 ing "; and"; 

9 (2) b~' striking "are thos0 ehemicals" and m10 scrt]ng the following: ''ar<..-'--

11 ('(1) the elwmieals"; and 

12 (:3) hy U.tklinp; at tlw enu the following·: 

13 "(2) the chemicals incimled under subsectionR 

14 (h)(1), ((l)(l), and (d)(8) of st·t~tion 2 of tlw PFAS 

15 Release Disclosure Act.".