Senator Mullin (00:00):
… military and civilian aerospace equipment, semiconductors, linings for piping, surgically implanted medical devices, inhalers, water filtrations, phone touch screens, which all of us use today. Solar panels, coatings for steel and concrete bridges, and you name it, they're pretty much involved in it. So with so many different types of PFAS used in so many applications, blanketed banning PFAS without fully understanding the risks differences between the chemicals would not only suffocate our economy and would halt innovation, but would also disproportionately impact low income and rural communities who already face many other challenges.
(00:42)
One thing I want to make clear is that although it is not nearly as impossible to show that all PFAS directly cause negative health conditions in humans, several studies have shown that significant exposures to certain PFAS can cause adverse health effects. However, as Congress considers PFAS regulations, we must also work to avoid unintentionally harming technological advancements in national security.
(01:09)
I'll pause here for a second and say, one thing that Congress seems to do is we overreact. I want to get it right. I live and walk in this world just like everybody else. I have six kids that are growing up in this world and I expect to be around for a long time and I want my kids to be around. I want my grandkids to be around. So overreaction is not what I want to do here, but looking for a direction, a healthy direction and moving in the right path is why you guys are here today. So hopefully you can incite wisdom, leave emotion out of it and put facts in place and you can help steer us in the right direction. So once again, thank you for your time. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Chairman Merkley (02:09):
And now I'd like to turn this over to the chairman of the entire committee, Senator Carper, and I believe this may be his last hearing.
Senator Carper (02:17):
Don't say that. Saving the best for last.
Chairman Merkley (02:20):
While serving as chair and we were delighted to have you here.
Senator Carper (02:23):
Thank you. It's a joy of us to serve with you and our colleagues on this subcommittee. One of the things we get to do as we come to the end of our tenure in the Senate, we get to give a farewell address and later this week… No, actually next week, I have the opportunity a week or so I think from today to give a farewell address. So I'm going to talk for three hours about PFAS that day. And not really, but I'm going to talk a bit next week when I give my farewell address about all that we've accomplished in this room with this committee, with the involvement of the two gentlemen to my right.
(03:09)
There's a couple of big issues that we've not been able to resolve and one of those is before us here today. And I like to say the key to success in life is you just don't giving up, you should never give up. And this is an important issue. It's an important issue for us to find common ground and something that is fair and reasonable, but actually provides some protection that we need. So I'm delighted that the last hearing is on one of the toughest issues that we face and I would just urge both of you to make sure that in the next Congress, we don't quit and we find a way to yes. Thanks so much.
Chairman Merkley (03:51):
Thank you very much, Chair Carper. And we're going to now turn to our witnesses testimonies, starting with Dr. Laurel Schaider.
Laurel Schaider (04:03):
Good morning, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Mullin, and members of the committee. My name is Laurel Schaider. I'm a senior scientist at Silent Spring Institute, an independent nonprofit research organization investigating links between everyday chemicals and health. We are leaders in researching women's health and breast cancer prevention. Since 2009, I have led research on how PFAS move through the environment, how people are exposed, and how these chemicals affect our health. Thank you for the invitation to testify today.
(04:32)
PFAS or forever chemicals have polluted every corner of the globe. They have been found in the blood of nearly every single American whose blood has been tested. My colleague, Dr. Fenton, will tell you about the many serious health effects associated with PFAS. I'm here to tell you why that's very bad news. Exposures to PFAS are widespread. They're in our water, our food, consumer products, even in the air and dust in our homes.
(04:55)
Although all of us have PFAS in our bodies, some communities and individuals have much higher levels than others. My main point is this. We need comprehensive strategies to address PFAS contamination, identify and reduce exposures, support impacted communities, and ultimately eliminate unnecessary uses of these harmful chemicals. PFAS are used in a wide range of everyday products like nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpets, and cosmetics. My own research has shown that PFAS are widespread in food packaging and consumer products like dental floss and children's clothing and furnishings.
(05:29)
We've shown that PFAS can migrate out of products and end up in our bodies. Infants can be highly exposed since PFAS can cross the placenta and contaminate breast milk. PFAS have also contaminated our environment. Millions of people in the US are drinking tap water containing PFAS according to testing by the US Geological Survey in 2023. The most severe contamination is found near industrial facilities and military bases, airports and other locations where aqueous film forming foam or AFFF was used.
(05:58)
In many other communities, PFAS contamination comes from wastewater treatment plants, landfills, septic systems, and sewage sludge used to fertilize farmland. Earlier this year, the EPA set standards for six PFAS in drinking water. These standards were set in the low parts per trillion range, much lower than for most other contaminants, underscoring their extreme toxicity. These new standards will go a long way to reducing exposures.
(06:22)
However, they only apply to six individual PFAS, a drop in the bucket compared to the more than 14,000 chemicals classified as PFAS and they do not protect the 44 million Americans who rely on a private well for their drinking water. The health and economic costs of PFAS are not evenly distributed. Public water systems serving small communities, particularly in rural areas, need more financial and technical support for testing and treatment. Our research has found that communities with higher proportions of Hispanic and black residents are more likely to be exposed to PFAS through their drinking water.
(06:57)
And PFAS can build up in fish and shellfish, so tribal communities and subsistence fishers may be especially vulnerable. PFAS contamination takes a toll on communities. I've heard from anguished parents who feel guilt for having unwittingly exposed their children during pregnancy and breastfeeding. I've heard from farmers who've lost their livelihood because their land and livestock were contaminated, and I've heard from too many people who've lost loved ones to cancer or other diseases that they suspect were caused by PFAS. They face a lifetime of worry about long-term health effects. Our healthcare systems have not caught up with this public health crisis. We need better access to PFAS blood testing as recommended by a 2022 National Academies report. We need more resources to educate clinicians such as those developed by our NIH funded PFAS reach study, as models for how PFAS blood testing can improve clinical care. New Hampshire now requires insurers to cover the cost of PFAS blood tests and similar policies are needed nationwide.
(07:54)
To protect public health in the environment, we need to turn off the tap on unnecessary uses of PFAS and develop safer alternatives. Many everyday uses of PFAS are not essential. PFAS and products such as cosmetics, dental floss, and home textiles have no real health or safety benefit. For some other uses like firefighting foam, safe and effective alternatives already exist. In 2019, an international panel of experts from the fire engineering industry concluded that fluorine free foams, which don't contain PFAS meet the same performance standards as AFFF without long-term pollution risks.
(08:25)
We will never solve this problem if we attempt to address PFAS one at a time. We need comprehensive strategies to address all PFAS, including fluorinated polymers as a class. Production of PFAS can expose workers and nearby communities and products containing PFAS can contaminate the environment after their disposal. We need to stop assuming that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. We are still dealing with costly messes from chemicals manufactured decades ago like DDT and PCBs. Fortunately, we also know that legislation can lead to significant improvements like substantial declines in children's blood lead levels and recovery of bald eagles from DDT in recent decades. We need to act now to address the current PFAS contamination crisis, prevent additional contamination and protect future generations. Thank you.
Chairman Merkley (09:13):
Thank you very much, doctor. And then we'll turn to Dr. Fenton. Thank you.
Dr. Fenton (09:17):
Well, good morning, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Mullin, Chairman Carper, honored to be here for your last round. Two decades ago, my EPA colleagues and I discovered that newborn mice exposed to PFOA during pregnancy were dying. PFOA caused a dose-dependent decrease in birth weight of mouse pups, but even those that appeared healthy at birth died several days later.
(09:44)
We reported a few years later for the first time that PFOA caused deficits in lactation, was transferred across the mouse placenta, was present in the breast milk of mice and women exposed to PFAS, and induced obesity and persistent breast developmental abnormalities during puberty from just a pregnancy exposure. Around that same time, PFAS And PFOA were voluntarily phased out of the market by the manufacturers, but by then most Americans had it in their blood. Most of us here today, and I have looked at the room, have been exposed to PFAS as young adults, but a lot of the people sitting behind me were exposed in utero.
(10:26)
They may have received up to 40% of their mom's body burden of PFAS. Today, it's likely that all US children are born with a PFAS body burden, and we have evidence of that from the CDC testing that's shown in figure one on the screen. For several reasons, children are more vulnerable to the effects of PFAS than adults. Body burdens in children are higher because they're breastfed. In America, human breast milk levels of PFAS and PFOA are at or above ATSDR's children drinking water screening level for these PFAS. We don't have a crystal ball to predict the severity of the health effects for this prenatally exposed generation, but scientists like myself are very concerned.
(11:12)
In general health effects associated with PFAS exposure include many of the things that Senator Merkley described in his opening remarks and are really nicely summarized in the two documents that I've provided to the committee in your documents. So the PFAS report to Congress and a highly cited paper by myself and numerous other PFAS experts.
Chairman Merkley (11:34):
Without objection, we'll have those entered into the record. Thank you.
Dr. Fenton (11:38):
Yes. Although pregnant women and children are more vulnerable to the effects of PFAS, the 2022 National Academy report only provided clinical guidance for adults. Many new papers have emerged since this guidance was, including alarming data indicating increased risk of fatty liver disease in children associated with PFAS exposure. Children don't usually have fatty liver disease. Due to the shorter half-life in humans and rodents, Gen X was offered by industry as a safer alternative to PFOA. However, my own studies in pregnant mice exposed to equivalent doses of PFAS and of PFOA and Gen X found they have similar health effects, especially fatty liver disease and metabolic disease, and therefore, Gen X is not a safer alternative to PFOA. These toxicities and studies are super important for the people living in contaminated counties of North Carolina who are exposed to Gen X and their drinking water and other perfluoroethers for decades.
(12:39)
They will likely suffer health effects later in their life. NC State faculty are engaged with these communities and their families and they deserve to be followed for health effects, just like the [inaudible 00:12:49] science panel study followed health effects of PFOA many years ago. Today, women of reproductive age were born between approximately 1992 and 2004 when PFAS and PFOA were at their highest levels in human blood. So the body burdens of these legacy chemicals are high, but these women of the age that are in this room are also exposed to emerging chemicals that we know very little about.
(13:15)
We can't wait 20 more years to determine the health effects of PFAS exposures that are currently being passed from one generation to the next. Ongoing studies at federally funded labs across the US are evaluating the effects of replacement PFAS comparing those to known effects of legacy PFAS. And while many studies can be done, we know enough today to say that replacement PFAS are not safe replacements. I asked this committee to promote the following suggestions to protect public health. Develop new and support the current legislation to limit PFAS production and use as much as possible. Require health insurance companies to pay for PFAS testing for susceptible populations like tribal communities, pregnant women and children. Empower the National Academy to update clinical guidance on PFAS to include children and pregnant women.
(14:09)
Commit NIEHS and NC Cancer Moonshot funds to develop a longitudinal health study on replacement PFAS exposure communities, especially those that may have been prenatally exposed. Oppose efforts to weaken CERCLA. Phase out PFAS containing fire foam. Require companies to provide standards and purified forms of any PFAS they produce. Fund innovative developmental methods to remove replacement PFAS from drinking water and require PFAS producers and not taxpayers to fund the development of safe destruction methods that fully capture, mineralize, and destroy PFAS.
(14:51)
Please continue to move forward with your efforts to keep PFAS out of our environment. Remember, once it gets there, it takes billions of dollars and decades or generations to get rid of it, and our taxpayer dollars can go to better purposes than PFAS cleanup stemming from lucrative industries. And I do want to say that the current rules that are in place are really a win-win. They're not only removing PFAS, but they're also removing other contaminants that are commingled. And I want to thank you for your time and your influence.
Chairman Merkley (15:23):
Thank you very much. I'm going to defer to Senator Carper.
Senator Carper (15:26):
Yeah, thanks so much. I'll just take another minute if I could. There are a number of other committees that are meeting right now with hearings, and it's not like they're postponing everything to the last day or the last week. There's just a lot of important stuff that we need to be dealing with. This is certainly one of them. I'm going to slip off to two of my other committees and to try to participate a bit in those hearings.
(15:49)
The words of my father, as I sit here, come to mind. My dad used to say "The hardest things to do are sometimes the most important things to do." And this is a hard thing to do, but it's also an incredibly important one. My mother used to say, "If you think you can or you think you can't, you're right. If you think you can or you think you can't, you're right."
(16:13)
A couple years ago, at a hearing right here in this room, Michael, where you're sitting, was a fellow named Rob Wallace, close friend of Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming, and he was here for a hearing. He'd been nominated by Donald Trump for a senior position in the Department of the Interior. And Rob Wallace said to us that day in his testimony, bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. Bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. So I would just say as I prepare to weigh, anchor, and set sail into the sunrise in a week or so, that I will hope that Senator Mullen, that you and the Chairman Merkley can somehow do what the rest of us have been unable to do. And that is to come to the right solution here. But if you think you can, you think you can't, you're right. And I think you can. Thank you all very much.
Chairman Merkley (17:08):
Senator Carper, thank you for the many kind of quotes you've instilled in our minds. That's certainly one of them. If you think you can or you think you can't, you're right. Another is it's not that hard. Just do more of what works and less of what doesn't.
Senator Carper (17:25):
Yeah. Find out what works. Do more of that. There you go.
Chairman Merkley (17:28):
There we go. And if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. And so thank you for these words of wisdom over the years.
Senator Carper (17:41):
I'll be gone, but not forgotten. Thanks.
Chairman Merkley (17:43):
That's right.
Senator Carper (17:43):
God bless.
Chairman Merkley (17:49):
Dr. Larranaga, welcome.
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (17:56):
Thank you. Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Mullin, and Chairman Carper. I'm testifying here today on behalf of the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the Association for Scientists Professionals committed to Preserving Occupational environmental health in the workplace and community. One of the headlines I want you to remember from my testimony today is that the use of PFAS chemicals is vital to the critical infrastructure of the United States. We must manage these chemicals responsibly and balance their use against the risk of using proposed alternatives. The use of PFAS is indeed critical, not only in the sense that our critical infrastructure provides a backbone for the US government to ensure our security, but also in the sense that our critical infrastructure is vital to maintaining the American way of life. For example, PFAS as described earlier in this hearing, are used in the manufacture of semiconductors, electronics, medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, herbicides, insecticides, plastics, airplanes, automobiles, buildings, and in thousands of other applications that we rely on every day.
(19:04)
One aspect of my job is to assist companies in identifying alternatives for PFAS-containing firefighting foams. This is no easy task as the PFAS-containing aqueous film-forming foam or AFFF is by far the best firefighting foam available. Companies are spending millions of dollars sometimes per facility to transition away from AFFF to fluorine-free foams, and the US government is doing the same. Our critical infrastructure stakeholders are replacing their AFFF fire suppression systems at great cost with less-capable fluorine-free foams. It's important to note that the historical or legacy AFFF foams using long-chain PFAS, you may heard of these as CA foams, are no longer produced, sold, or imported into the United States, and we as a country are no longer recklessly disposing of mass volumes of chemicals containing PFAS directly into the environment. Modern AFFF formulations that meet the 2019 military specifications contain trace amounts of PFOA, P-F-O-A or PFOS, P-F-O-S. Just to put that into perspective, the 2019 Intercontinental Terminals Fire in Deer Park, Texas released 132, almost 133 pounds of air emissions per hour during the first 24 hours, eventually releasing more than 16 million pounds of toxic air emissions. Responding fire departments attempted to extinguish the fire with fluorine-free foams and the fire burn for 51 hours. During the 51st hour, PFAS containing AFFF was applied and the fire was extinguished 13 hours later. During those 13 hours of AFFF application, the use of the modern military spec AFFF foam would've resulted in about 30 ounces of PFOA or PFOS introduced into the environment or about two and a half of these coffee cups. So the risk versus reward calculation here is this, is it better for the environment and surrounding communities to be exposed to 16 million pounds of toxic air emissions or to the 30 ounces of PFOA or PFOS? Had mil-spec AFFF been applied initially, the fire would've likely only burned for a couple of hours if that, and we could have avoided releasing millions of pounds of toxic emissions into the air, most likely with a couple of ounces of long chain PFAS released.
(21:27)
According to Dwight Williams of the industrial firefighting team that extinguished the fire, the fire could not have been extinguished without the use of AFFF. In addition, there are 51 hours of fluorine free foam application and fluorine free foams are not without their own toxicological drawbacks, being more toxic to certain types of aquatic life than AFFF. Another example is the Kemp Tool Fire in Rockton, Illinois. It was brought under control in three hours with the use of AFFF. When officials required the fire department to stop the application of AFFF for environmental concerns, the Kemp Tool Fire then
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (22:00):
… and burned for another eight and a half days generating 21 million pounds of air emissions, which could have been avoided. The fluorine-free foams are simply not as affecting at attacking complex fires that occur in industrial facilities, onboard ships, or during an airplane crash for that matter. Major airports are transitioning away from AFFF to fluorine-free foams, and the Department of Defense is doing the same in all but the most critical applications.
(22:25)
I'm sitting here today to tell you that if my family and I are aboard a jetliner that crashes, please soak us in AFFF. Why? Because jetliner fires are dangerous. Fire moves exceedingly fast, and AFFF is simply superior at putting out fires. It's important to emphasize that AIHA and I recognize the toxicological properties inherent in these PFAS and in no way encourage their improper use at disposal. AIHA supports the responsible management of these chemicals. However, we recommend a balanced and common sense approach to chemical management and regulation whereby the implementation of a risk versus reward calculus includes the assessment of the consequences of requiring the use of alternatives, removing these chemicals from the marketplace, and regulating these chemicals as an entire class instead of health and risk-based frameworks.
(23:20)
In summary, the use of PFAS chemicals is vital to the critical infrastructure of the United States. We must manage these chemicals responsibly and balance their use against the risk of alternatives. On behalf of myself and the AIHA, thank you all for the opportunity to provide feedback on this important topic.
Chairman Merkley (23:37):
So, we're delighted to have you share that information on foam, and I almost feel like we'd need a separate hearing to examine the complexities of the risk-reward that you've referred to. Today, we're primarily focused on consumer products that people come in contact with, and I want to start simply by… So, when a lot of people hear about PFAS, they hear Teflon. And the most common thing in our homes that it has Teflon on it as far as I'm aware, are no-stick pans like this. And is it correct, and I guess I'll direct this to you, Dr. Schaider, is this PFAS? Is this a simple case of we should simply retire these pans? Does some of this forever non-stick Teflon get into our blood and our children's blood when we use these pans?
Laurel Schaider (24:40):
Thank you, Senator, for the question. Yes, there are still frying pans that are made with Teflon. Teflon is a long polymer PFAS. And in the production of Teflon, smaller PFAS molecules are used and put together to make the long polymers and other PFAS are used as aids. So, frying pans are what I would consider a non-essential use of PFAS. We certainly have other ways to make cookware without the use of these toxic chemicals for everyday uses. There are concerns about PFAS exposures through the use of cookware because the smaller PFAS molecules can come off of that cookware and end up exposing people. There are also concerns about the life cycle. So, in communities where Teflon is manufactured, local environmental contamination and exposures among workers. And then, at the end of a product's useful lifespan, those PFAS ultimately can end up in landfills or in emissions from incinerators.
Chairman Merkley (25:41):
So, we have various agencies that evaluate the risk to our citizens of different products. If this is non-essential and it presents a health risk, why do we still have Teflon-coated pans being sold to the public?
Laurel Schaider (26:03):
I think that that's a great question. I think that because an industry has been able to make the case that newer PFAS are less bio-accumulated in people's bodies, that they're still acceptable to use. But I would argue that the newer replacement PFAS that are in use, as Dr. Fenton described, are not safe. And in cases like cookware, we should find alternatives to PFAS because they're simply not an essential use.
Chairman Merkley (26:33):
Dr. Fenton, you referred in your testimony to GenX, and people listening to that hear Generation X, but that wasn't at all what you're referring to. You were referring to a chemical replacement. Can you explain a little bit about that?
Dr. Fenton (26:47):
Sure, yes, I'd be happy to. I am talking about HFPO-DA. It is a dimer acid and affectionately called GenX. And there's more than one. There's GenX, multiple chemicals. But the one thing really important about the GenX work that we've done is that when we saw the health effects in the animal studies that we've done, we couldn't measure it in their blood anymore, but we know we gave it to them. So, at early life stages or right before birth, we know we could measure it in the blood of the animals, but the people living in the areas that have been affected by GenX for decades, you can't measure it in their blood either anymore. But we know that if you're exposed, your health effects can still happen.
Chairman Merkley (27:44):
When you were referring to the mice studies that you were looking at, those were PFAS studies, but there's been similar studies on GenX?
Dr. Fenton (27:51):
Yeah, there are Jane Hoppin, for example, at NC State University and others are doing biomonitoring studies to look at many of the replacement PFAS that are known to be in the water in the Cape Fear River Basin and have been there for decades like I said.
Chairman Merkley (28:12):
Dr. Schaider, I've read in the past that microwave popcorn packages like this one here have non-stick surfaces basically, but that it's PFAS. Is that true? Is there PFAS in our microwave popcorn packages?
Laurel Schaider (28:34):
Thank you for the question, Senator. So, testing that Silent Spring Institute led in 2017 found that PFAS were common in fast food packaging and other studies found that microwave popcorn bags also contained PFAS as a grease-proof agent. In the meantime, some states have put in place bans on PFAS in food packaging. And then, most recently, earlier this year, the FDA announced that PFAS are no longer allowed in paper food packaging as grease-proofing agents. So, my understanding is that microwave popcorn and other paper-based food packaging should no longer have PFAS. I am not sure about imported food packaging and how much testing and enforcement there is for imported food packaging.
Chairman Merkley (29:21):
So, in these cases where PFAS has been replaced, what has it been replaced by and is that equally dangerous?
Laurel Schaider (29:34):
In some cases, the solutions to PFAS in food packaging are simple replacement. In our study of fast food packaging, we found about half of wrappers did contain PFAS and half did not. And I would be happy to provide some additional information about what the replacement chemicals are, but my understanding is that the replacements, other non-PFAS food additives, would not be as persistent or pose the same health risks.
Chairman Merkley (30:01):
I've heard that paraffin, palm oil wax, and coconut wax are often used as a replacement for PFAS in food packaging. Are those dangerous to our health?
Laurel Schaider (30:12):
Those would be safer alternatives than PFAS.
Chairman Merkley (30:16):
In the states that have… I see I'm over my initial time here, so I'm going to yield to my colleague, but we may have time to go through several rounds of questions. Senator Mullin.
Senator Mullin (30:29):
Thank you so much. It's not like we have a lot of people waiting in line, so I wasn't too worried about you going long on that, but I do appreciate you looking at the time. Ma'am, we're talking about what's in food packaging and the popcorn and the non-stick pans, which the consumers are the ones that want to buy those pans because cast iron is hard to deal with. And for a guy that doesn't cook at all except spam, I know that bad. Yes, I'm the guy that likes spam. Okay? I'm that one that buys that stuff because it's the only thing I cook at my house up here in DC. I also want to bring to everybody's notice that it's also on all of our touch screens, right? PFAS is in everyone's… So, by using our touch screens, by using our phones, which everybody here has and every one of our schools are giving them out for… That's how they're doing their homework now and doing their work at school. Is this contaminating our kids too every time they use the phone, every time they do their work at school?
Laurel Schaider (31:26):
Thank you for that question, Senator. And I'm not aware of studies that have looked at the extent of PFAS coming off of phones and touch screens. I wonder about that with my own children as well, but I do worry about the potential for PFAS to come off of products and end up in people's bodies.
Senator Mullin (31:42):
Yeah, I bring that up because the pan, you're talking about the food, but the Teflon is designed to stay there. These, if you look at my phone, which you can't see, I don't even replace it every time I crack my phone because I know I'm going to drop it the next day, but it cracks up. We see them crack up and it's constantly on our head. It's constantly on our fingers. We're constantly using our fingers. So, I don't know how this isn't the same as using the pan. I'm serious. If you're talking about contamination, how does it transfer from one place to the next if it's not transferring by touch?
(32:15)
And I say that because we don't know. And so, when we're moving forward to put a band on PFAS, one, what are we going to replace it with? I don't think coconut wax is going to replace these touch screens, right? When we start talking about insulating cups, I'll leave the names out of them, but my kids drive me nuts with all these stupid insulating cups every time they get in my truck. And it's like some fad that they carry and it drives me nuts. But every one of those insulation cups for the most part have PFAS in them, right? So, what is it, at what level do we stop and what level is it contaminating? Which level is it isn't? Is it just on the disposable side of it that we're not disposing it right? These are just questions that we need to talk about because it is something that we use in our everyday life that we got to be careful about. Yes, ma'am. Go ahead.
Dr. Fenton (33:13):
If I might, Senator Mullin, I want to suggest a couple things here.
Senator Mullin (33:20):
Yes.
Dr. Fenton (33:21):
That yes, these are all ways that we could be exposed. We do know that PFAS can be dermally absorbed. So, through your skin. Some can be dermally absorbed. They're water-soluble, so they're going to go into your skin. But this may not be the most prominent way that we're being exposed. And I want to suggest that we do spend some time talking about PFAS in foods, food stuffs, drinking water because those are major pathways of ingestion and exposure for all Americans. So, there's some new work coming out of East Carolina University and NC State showing that produce grown in our state is contaminated with PFAS just because of the soil that they're being grown in. Now, that's a shame. I hope that we can get to a place where we can get rid of the PFAS in the ground, that dairy cattle may eat the grass from that ground and our children could eat those blueberries. But making sure we have clean drinking water and food that's not contaminated with PFAS is a really major… That would be a major win.
Senator Mullin (34:40):
Ma'am, I would ask on what exactly are we talking about with the health risk that it's exposing to? Because most of that which you're talking about, because plumbing is my background and I also carry a C license, operating license for water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants, most of that is delivered through the water system from irrigation. But what we actually don't know is what harm it's actually causing. What's the long-term effects? We're identifying PFAS is there, but it's like we're putting a cart before the horse. We're saying that, "It's there. So, it must cause some type of issue." But there's not enough study to actually say, "It is causing these issues."
(35:25)
And I just want to be cautious. I don't want to overreact and I'm not getting into all my questions because I want to talk about semiconductors too, sir, but I am running out of time and we will circle back on this. The whole point I'm trying to make right here is we all see that it's everywhere. It's everywhere. But I don't think we're even close to knowing the exact studies of if it is harmful and if it is, which direction is it harmful? At what point is it harmful? Is it just at the manufacturing stage? Is in the raw form in itself? And so, yes, ma'am, you can finish and I'll go over my time and I'll [inaudible 00:36:06].
Dr. Fenton (36:06):
I actually have a good answer for that. So, many of the PFAS that we're talking about today don't change form. So, it would be whatever, the PFOA, for instance, if you're exposed to PFOA, that's what's in your blood and that's what stays in your blood. And it is not easily removed from the body. We do know that many, a good handful of PFAS, we do know the health effects. And I have put on the docket, two really good reviews of the health effects of PFAS. One that was written by federal employees working across the entire base of the federal government. Anybody who worked with anything with PFAS was on this committee that wrote the PFAS report to Congress. Numerous health effects both in humans and toxicology studies and ecology studies are in there. Also, some colleagues of mine wrote specific targeted areas that have the biggest weight of evidence for health effects of PFAS. And those do include cancer, birth weight reduction of newborn infants. So, specifically for the newborn infant issue-
Senator Mullin (37:26):
I'm sorry. You got to wrap up because I'm almost two minutes over time. I'm sorry.
Dr. Fenton (37:29):
Okay. All right.
Senator Mullin (37:30):
And I apologize about that.
Dr. Fenton (37:31):
So, for the newborn infants, we can estimate the amount of decrease in their birth weight by the amount of increase in the PFAS in the mom's blood.
Senator Mullin (37:41):
Thank you.
Dr. Fenton (37:41):
There's a direct correlation.
Senator Mullin (37:43):
I'm over time. We'll get back. We'll circle back around.
Chairman Merkley (37:46):
And we're going to turn to Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker (37:50):
Well, thank you very much and I'm intrigued by the pronunciation of this substance. So, since the last witness says, "PFAS," I'll say, "PFAS." Some people say, "PFAS." I want to nail something down if I can. Is there a category of PFAS? And I'll ask this to you, Dr. Larranga, that is not harmful as compared to a type of PFAS that is? And here's where I'm going. There's a rather far-reaching definition of PFAS as, "Any compound containing at least one fully-fluorinated carbon atom," unquote. Now, I'm told by some people that this combines a type of PFAS that is okay and not harmful with a type that is. And that the type of PFAS that is not harmful is used in 95% of our ammunitions and a number of very, very important things to our economy not to include national defense. So, if the panel is starting with Dr. Larranga would discuss that, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (39:35):
Thank you, Senator. It's my understanding that the fluoropolymer substance, like PTFE for example, that's used in many, many of our defense systems, 95% of our ammunition has a similar type of polymer chemical. Almost all of our weapon systems have these types of chemicals, and that the PFAS of concern did not come out of those for bioavailability. So, they're not available to the body for absorption.
Senator Wicker (40:13):
Although they do contain one fully-fluorinated carbon atom.
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (40:17):
Yes, sir.
Senator Wicker (40:18):
They do not comprise a harmful substance.
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (40:29):
That's correct. One of the issues that could cause that is if you're heating them. If you're heating them far above the temperature that they're rated for, that could happen.
Senator Wicker (40:39):
For example.
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (40:43):
For example, a pan. That's a complete use where we could remove that from the marketplace without any adverse effect to our infrastructure or defense.
Senator Wicker (40:52):
Okay. Well, so should we be concerned that certain domestic suppliers will not be able to meet the demand for very important products as they continue to fight over this definition?
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (41:11):
Yes, sir. If we were to ban as a country, all PFAS chemicals in a broad brush, it would affect our supply chain that would lead to directly to our military, public health and all the critical infrastructure sectors. And one example is the guidance systems on airplanes and ships and a lot of other, drones and things like that use semiconductors that in which PFAS was used to create those semiconductors. In addition, the installation on the wiring has PFAS containing chemicals as insulators to the wiring. And if we were to broadly brush these into a regulator where we couldn't use them anymore, airplanes would have to get heavier, they would carry less people, they would carry less cargo and they would become a lot heavier. And so, what that would mean is we would be burning a lot more carbon to move the same amount of cargo or people in a passenger-
Senator Wicker (42:10):
And public health would not be any better off.
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (42:12):
Public health would not be better off because you'd be increasing the amount of air pollution that you put into the environment, which ends up in our oceans anyway.
Senator Wicker (42:20):
Okay. Well, let me ask Mr. Chairman to, at this point, enter into the record, a report on critical per and polyfluoroalkyl substance use.
Chairman Merkley (42:39):
Without objection.
Senator Wicker (42:40):
Thank you, sir. Thank you. If other members, my time has expired, but I'm sure other members of the panel would like to respond.
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (42:50):
Thanks, Senator.
Chairman Merkley (42:52):
I think that's an invitation if anybody else wanted to follow up on his question.
Laurel Schaider (42:57):
Thank you for your question, Senator Wicker. To my knowledge, there are no PFAS that I would consider completely safe. Different PFAS have different chemical structures and different toxicity. We know a lot about PFOS, PFOA and a handful of other PFAS chemicals that are frequently found in drinking water supplies and in people's blood. There are newer PFAS replacement chemicals that are more mobile in the environment. We've been studying them for a shorter amount of time, but as Dr. Fenton said, they raise many of the same health concerns. When we talk about fluorinated polymers like PTFE, those are large molecules and they're less likely to enter our cells and may not have the same type of toxicity. Dr. Larranaga said, "If you overheat those though, they can produce toxic fumes." For instance, in your home, if you overheat a Teflon pan, those fumes can be really toxic for pet birds, and I can't imagine that they're good for our health either. I would add another important point though, that fluorinated polymers don't occur by themselves. Polymers are produced from shorter
Laurel Schaider (44:00):
PFAS chemicals that are stitched together and products containing a fluorinated polymer also contain a mixture of different PFAS chemicals. So, we never are exposed to just one PFAS at a time. So, even fluorinated polymers raise concerns about exposures among workers in fluoropolymer production facilities, and in the communities, for instance, in North Carolina that Dr. Fenton described in the communities where around those facilities where drinking water, soil sediment can be contaminated.
(44:31)
And then at the end of a product's life's useful lifespan, there are concerns about disposal. What happens to those PFAS after we throw away products that contain PFAS? If they're incinerated, there are concerns about air emissions, and what that might mean for communities around incinerators that are often environmental justice communities, or putting them in a landfill could lead to slow release from landfills over time as well.
(44:56)
And in terms of the different types of uses of PFAS, I would point to the essential uses framework, which I think provides a really nice path forward for identifying where we can start making reductions in PFAS use. Now, it's certainly easier to take PFAS out of a Teflon pan. Another common use I would point to are dental flosses, like oral big eye dental floss, which is made with Teflon. We're putting Teflon in our mouth. To me, that's a non-essential use that we could absolutely do away with. Right now, if you're talking about critical infrastructure, cell phones, semiconductors, those might take longer to find alternatives to phase out their use.
Senator Wicker (45:38):
Last statement is very much appreciated. Yes, the last sentence.
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (45:46):
May I respond to that?
Senator Wicker (45:46):
Yes. And it seems that I have mispronounced your name.
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (45:50):
Yes sir.
Senator Wicker (45:51):
Larranaga?
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (45:52):
Yes, sir.
Senator Wicker (45:52):
Okay. I've done better.
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (45:54):
Yeah. Thank you. First of all, Teflon dental floss. It's absolutely necessary for me. My teeth are packed so tight that that's the only thing I can get in there. So, just FYI, we agree that we shouldn't improperly dispose of PFAS-containing materials. But let me give you an example of how important PFAS chemicals are. The firefighting foams that we are replacing, the PFAS-containing AFFF with contain fluorinated polymers. So, if we were to remove these chemicals from the marketplace at a broad brush, we would be left without the ability to fight these large fires, even if we have to fight them in a compromised fashion because these new foams are not as effective as AFFF.
Dr. Fenton (46:43):
Can I comment please? Senator Wicker. I read just last night a document from the Federal Aviation Administration that there are two mil-spec AFFF. They're on the QPL right now. We do have safe replacements. I know at least they've listed two and they were considering a third one. So, although it seems ominous, especially for the defense systems, some of the microcomputers things like that, to replace something that seems essential we're being successful at it. In fact, one of the companies that makes the QPL PFAS-free foam is a company that made AFFF foam. So, they're doing it. They're still making money. They're still building their industry, and they're using their imagination and their experts to make a safer product. So, I do think it's doable and it's happening already. So, I just want to leave you with that impression.
Senator Wicker (47:58):
Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, for that indulgence. And perhaps witnesses can supplement their answers for the record.
Chairman Merkley (48:05):
Thank you very much, Senator. I want to go back to a point you made, Dr. Fenton, about understanding the major pathways of human contamination. There are probably plenty of places where PFAS is, and maybe it's the insulation on wires that may have a very low impact on human health, especially if they're hidden behind a wall in an aircraft. But as I understand it, the main things you're identifying are PFAS. That's in our food and in our water. And in the food side, the mention was about biosolids, and what we're talking about is the human waste that's then repurposed as fertilizer.
(48:52)
So, it's interesting that when some PFAS goes through our bodies, and doesn't stay in our blood, it finds its way back into our food, and maybe the second time around it has an impact. So, I really want to focus on those major sources of contamination that affects our health. And you noted one aspect of that studies have really focused on holding other factors constant. There's lower birth weight in humans who have a higher exposure to PFAS. And I assume this is by taking blood samples. So, is this hold constant all the other factors, like let's say cigarette smoking is associated with lower birth weight. Is this an area where we really have a pretty clear understanding of an impact?
Dr. Fenton (49:43):
Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. There are dozens of studies that have shown consistent effects from PFAS-associated decreases in birth weight. And those epidemiological studies take into consideration all the things that you were just mentioning, smoking, poor nutrition, socioeconomic status, even the BMI of the mother. They take into many those many variables into consideration when they do the analysis in the studies they're controlled for. So, those are things that they control for.
Chairman Merkley (50:22):
Okay, so we see this in human studies, but then you also mentioned mice studies and the mice studies, they show the same thing. You mentioned mice that I think you called them pups. Is that the correct term?
Dr. Fenton (50:34):
Yes, I probably did, yes.
Chairman Merkley (50:36):
And were we seeing the same effect? So, we have both the human studies and the laboratory studies reinforcing each other?
Dr. Fenton (50:43):
Correct. In fact, the University of California San Francisco did a systematic review and of all the studies that had shown birth weight outcomes in mouse studies, and at the time all the studies that had shown birth weight outcomes in human studies, and they reviewed them both all together. So, when I say a systematic review, that is all the information that is available in the literature.
Chairman Merkley (51:11):
So-
Dr. Fenton (51:11):
[inaudible 00:51:12] similar outcomes.
Chairman Merkley (51:12):
Lower birth weight can be an indication of other things, but maybe not the immediate highest concern, but it's an indication of something that's going on. But you mentioned some very specific things like breast development abnormalities. Is that in humans, or is that in mice, or in both?
Dr. Fenton (51:29):
Well, so I first reported it in mice, and since then there have been nine studies in women showing that PFAS and PFOA specifically and a few other handful of other PFAS are associated with women not being able to nurse their children. So, they have a shorter duration of lactation is a specific term that they're using in these papers. And this is not just in the US. So, several of these studies are from other countries. Several are from the US. They're showing very consistent lower.
Chairman Merkley (52:04):
I just want to keep this moving. How about other diseases where the studies have shown a significant correlation? For example, is you mentioned fatty liver disease.
Dr. Fenton (52:16):
Yes.
Chairman Merkley (52:16):
I don't even know what that is, but maybe you're about to tell me. But also are there other things? Are the show higher cancer rates, for example, for breast cancer, or prostate cancer?
Dr. Fenton (52:26):
Yeah, yes. So, some of the things that we have in common are thyroid disease, definitely changes in fatty liver. And you can tell if a person has fatty liver from their clinical enzymes. Like when you go to the doctor and they say they're going to do a liver panel on you, you can tell if you have some adverse outcomes in your liver based on those clinical easy to acquire outcomes. You do a blood draw and they can tell you then. But the fat that's accumulating in the liver can lead to non-repairable damage to the liver. And that would be like steatosis when the liver can become fibrous. Once that happens, it's not reversible, whereas fatty liver is reversible.
Chairman Merkley (53:21):
So, if you were to name the top four health concerns, would they be the ones you've just mentioned, or what would the top four health concerns be? That there's clear studies associating with higher PFAS?
Dr. Fenton (53:36):
So birth outcomes, one. Metabolic-
Chairman Merkley (53:41):
Birth outcomes meaning miscarriages, meaning stillborn, or simply the lower weight of
Dr. Fenton (53:47):
Smaller birth weight. And there's really good evidence that links smaller birth weight to long-term adverse health outcomes. And there's thousands of papers that link it to that, so that this is not just a PFAS issue. Anything like poor nutrition, cigarette smoking, anything that causes lower birth weight can lead to adverse outcomes later in life that are long-term. So, definitely birth outcomes.
(54:15)
The thyroid disease is a big deal. Immune suppression, I would say is one of the biggest issues. And we do know that PFAS suppresses the ability of the body to properly respond to a vaccination. This is really important in our children. And if children are getting PFAS in their breast milk and from their mom, excuse me, this really brings home a very important point. We want moms to breastfeed their babies because they provide to the baby immunoglobulins in the milk that help the little infant develop their immune system. But if PFAS are inhibiting that production of a proper immune system, this can lead to long-term immune problems for the person.
Chairman Merkley (55:07):
Thank you. Senator.
Senator Mullin (55:10):
How many different forms of PFAS is there?
Laurel Schaider (55:15):
That number seems to keep changing. The most recent-
Senator Mullin (55:17):
Thousands?
Laurel Schaider (55:18):
… Estimate by EPA is over 14,000.
Senator Mullin (55:20):
Okay. So, have we ever been able to identify which PFAS is causing this problem? Just yes or I don't know.
Laurel Schaider (55:31):
Yes.
Senator Mullin (55:32):
Okay. So, we can specifically look at those, and maybe be able to separate those from the other ones. Because I mean, when you're talking about immune shots, right, every needle out there has Teflon on it. That's what the plunger is able to slide up and down in. And so when they're getting injections, you're getting shots. It's Teflon. I am just saying that it's literally everywhere. And I don't know how you can possibly think we're going to ban PFAS if we don't look for what the alternative is going to be. And there's 14,000 and counting different forms of PFAS.
(56:13)
And I go back to my original statement is at which form, because you're creating it, so it's a chemical that you're creating, at which form or which deterioration does it become harmful? Where's the curve? Is it at the final product, or the curve going down? I know you have a lot to say about it, but I got to move. I'm just bringing a question to mine, because we're talking about the effects, but we're not talking about when it actually takes place. I want to talk about semiconductor conductors and I need to send something for the record. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit for the record a letter emphasizing the critical role certain PFAS play in manufacturing for semiconductor industry.
Chairman Merkley (56:54):
Without objection.
Senator Mullin (56:56):
Dr. Larranaga?
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (56:58):
Yes, sir.
Senator Mullin (56:58):
Is that close?
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (56:59):
Yes, sir.
Senator Mullin (57:00):
Okay. Given your experience in leading risk assessments in the semiconductor industry, what are the potential impacts a blanket regulatory ban on PFAS in this sector?
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (57:11):
So, there are several impacts in this sector. One being the fabs, which are tremendously expensive, that build semiconductors, would have to retool. In order to do precision manufacturing. At the nanoscale, at least currently with the technologies we have, PFAS are required. There's no way to do it without PFAS with the level of precision that is necessary to make a semiconductor chip. If we were not to be able to make those semiconductor chips, a couple of things would happen. One, our chips would have to become larger. Two, they would be less efficient and less capable, as well as being less durable. Meanwhile, our competitors, China, and other countries would be increasing their computing power. At the same time, we would be decreasing our computing power. So, from a semiconductor perspective, it's very important that we are able to use PFAS in this industry.
Senator Mullin (58:17):
So, basically what I'm hearing is it could greatly disrupt the supply chain.
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (58:21):
It would tremendously disrupt the supply chain. Yes, sir.
Senator Mullin (58:24):
Pointing out to what other things are involved with PFAS, many lifesaving medications containing PFAS substance are antidepressants, autoinflammatory drugs, certain essential cancer treatments, and even Lipitor contains PFAS. And I just point that out once again, it's literally everywhere. Sir, do you agree that this indicates that not all PFAS had the same impact on human health, and therefore should be treated differently based on each chemical's properties and risk profile?
Dr. Michael D. Larranaga (59:01):
Yes, sir. I do believe that the different PFAS chemicals will have different chemical properties, and that we should look at them individually based on health risk frameworks. Not only medications, but actually medical instruments like the semiconductor issue where they would have to get larger. Imagine a pacemaker inserted into someone's chest would have to become larger. Also, because the PFAS chemicals that are used in there in the circuitry are on the wiring, and in the actual chips that it uses to the brain of the pacemaker. So, those would have to become larger as well. So, it has these know badminton's entire class has these long reaching effects that would affect our public health and healthcare at large.
Senator Mullin (59:52):
So, what we're searching for here is instructions or direction on, as we're looking for policy, how do we approach regulating it? And I think that's a question that we could tackle to some degree. If you have thoughts short, because I'm a little over time, but for all of you guys, what's the best way for us to tackle this? I know Chairman Merkley, he's being thoughtful in this direction, which I appreciate it. We understand not one size fits all. As I said, my opening statement, we want to make sure that we don't overreact. So, just real quickly, if you could just, what's your thoughts?
Dr. Fenton (01:00:31):
Senator, if I could, I think that there are essential uses potentially, and potentially we aren't exposed to the products very often, but we may be exposed to the waste. I want to just mention that. Proper disposal of the waste in these industries is super important. Because I mean, if you think about it, think about how few people may actually ever touch a semiconductor, or put their fingers on the wiring that my colleague's talking about. But the waste coming from the industries that make them go into water bodies, go into the air that we all breathe.
Senator Mullin (01:01:21):
So, focus on the waste. I think that was kind a point I made before, at which level does it become harmful?
Dr. Fenton (01:01:27):
And to your point earlier, when you think about the classes of PFAS that might cause health effects, the current regulation that's in place from the EPA will remove the compounds that we know already caused some of these health effects. So, if we can keep that regulation in place, it will take those PFAS out of water, out of air.
Senator Mullin (01:01:53):
The problem is with some of those compounds, it's taken away from the critical needs that we already have. Some of the compounds to which they're referring to the EPA, it is what is it taking out of the industry that we're using every single day that is critical of our life? And so to some degree, I do feel like the EPA, not some degree, the EPA in this direction, and I think overreacted. But do I have time to let the other ones respond too, sir? You're the Chairman.
Chairman Merkley (01:02:22):
Why don't we come back after we-
Senator Mullin (01:02:24):
Oh, sorry. I didn't… Sorry, sir. Markey, I didn't know you were here. I'll yield back.
Chairman Merkley (01:02:34):
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey (01:02:36):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this very important hearing. Thank you for your years of service in women's health space. Much appreciated. My wife was two-star admiral in charge of all women's health in America, so I appreciate your service. And recent reports and studies show that soils examined show that hazardous waste incinerators have elevated levels of PFAS. These incinerators are disproportionately in disadvantaged communities. Toxic PFAS emissions get into the atmosphere where they can hurt children, pregnant women, agriculture, soil, air, can continuous monitoring of any air emissions protect our communities from being exposed to PFAS coming from hazardous waste incinerators.
Laurel Schaider (01:03:32):
Thank you for the question, Senator Markey. I think the concerns about incineration of PFAS are really critical to consider. And I appreciate you raising concerns about environmental justice and the communities that live around incinerators. There are new improving methods for how we measure PFAS. And I think it's important if there is going to be incineration of PFAS-containing materials, that we're carefully monitoring for the full suite of PFAS that are there. But I have concerns about incineration and what that might mean for exposures among people living in those communities. And I think those kinds of life cycle issues are really why we need to be really judicious when we're creating these highly persistent chemicals that really don't break down.
Senator Markey (01:04:18):
Thank you. And Dr. Schaider, firefighters. Firefighters protect us from harmful fires, but we need to help protect them from being harmed by the gear they wear, which is full of PFAS. So, firefighters are just walking around covered in PFAS. We need to protect our protectors from cancer clusters in firehouses. Dr. Schaider, is it true that PFAS in firefighters turnout gear and firefighting foams can harm their health?
Laurel Schaider (01:04:47):
Thank you for that question as well. There's a huge concern right now among firefighters about their exposures to PFAS. As you said, that can come from the firefighter turnout gear, which has typically had PFAS Teflon layer.
Senator Markey (01:05:04):
So, are there alternatives?
Laurel Schaider (01:05:06):
There are alternatives. And actually our state of Massachusetts just instituted a ban on PFAS in firefighter turnout gear. So, I'm proud of our state for advancing that. I think it's an example of when we set a goal to reduce exposures and protecting firefighters. Health is critically important that new research, and development can provide solutions so that we're keeping our protectors safe, but also not exposing them to toxic chemicals.
Senator Markey (01:05:33):
I agree, and I think it's something that we should think about on a national level because obviously so many of our firefighters do die from cancer, and we want to make sure that we give them the protections which they deserve. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conducted an exposure assessment in Westfield, Massachusetts. One of the 10 cities included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's PFAS Exposure assessment while radon
Senator Markey (01:06:01):
… while random households were invited to participate, the data collected was not fully shared with the public. Dr. Schaider, do you agree that more data transparency would be helpful to allow the public to understand their exposures, risks, and pathways?
Laurel Schaider (01:06:19):
Thanks for that question. I know that the ATSDR has released summary statistics for the results of blood testing that they conducted in Westfield. I'm not familiar with the specifics-
Senator Markey (01:06:31):
Should that be made fully available?
Laurel Schaider (01:06:33):
Certainly the summary statistics of the blood levels that they tested in Westfield residents, how those compare to the general population, what's the median level, what's the 95th percentile, those summary statistics have been made available. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the data, the extent of data release, but I in general think that having more information about exposures among the general population and exposed communities is helpful.
Senator Markey (01:06:59):
Yeah. We would want to ensure that there's total access to the information about the safety of breastfeeding for PFAS-exposed mothers, especially considering the potential health risks to children. So that would be, I think, a very important thing that we could do. And the EPA's updated draft PFAS disposal guidance document acknowledges that performance and testing data are needed to validate PFAS's destruction by incineration as opposed to other novel ways of getting rid of PFAS in our environment. Dr. Fenton, do you believe that attempting standard incineration of PFAS can lead to more dangerous PFAS compounds released into our environment?
Dr. Fenton (01:07:49):
Thank you for the question, Senator. We certainly know that incineration can lead to release into the environment, but what I suggested earlier in my comments was that funding innovative ways to demineralize these compounds or reuse what is being released from the incineration might be useful down the road. I mean, I do think there's a place that we can still fund innovation and work toward a place where we're not releasing fluorine-carbon bonds into the environment.
Senator Markey (01:08:30):
Yep. And with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman? Thank you. Dr. Fenton, do you believe that the failure of PFAS manufacturers to provide reference standards to the EPA has hindered the agency's ability to establish accurate drinking water standards for PFAS? And has this lack of cooperation hurt communities across the United States?
Dr. Fenton (01:08:51):
Sir, it has affected how quickly and how efficiently we can provide strong data, high-quality data on health effects. It has affected me personally. It has affected my colleagues. The confidential business information in some of the PFAS mixtures has really hindered our progress in understanding the health effects. That is probably the number one issue that I've had to deal with is the inability to get standards for some of the new compounds that we'd like to study in North Carolina in particular.
Senator Markey (01:09:27):
Thank you. And it is absolutely critical.
Dr. Fenton (01:09:27):
Thank you.
Senator Markey (01:09:29):
I had my first date with my wife 40 years ago in two more months, Mr. Chairman. And she was explaining to me… Her mother had died from breast cancer, and she was explaining to me that her interest in medicine was driven by that and having to go to the Stanford Hospital day after day as a girl with her mother for the treatment. But what she explained to me was this, that Japanese women contract breast cancer at only one-third of the rate of American women, but Japanese women contract breast cancer at the same rate as American women in the first generation that they live in America. Meaning that we're doing something to ourselves with our environments, what we put into our food, what we put into our water, what we put into the air.
(01:10:23)
We do it to ourselves and it causes a much higher level of cancers in our society. So we just can't deny these statistical realities when we compare ourselves to the rest of the world. And while manufacturers might want to just continue business as usual, the impact is then felt by the families, the women, the children in our society, the firefighters who get exposed and ultimately succumb to the diseases. So I thank you so much for this very important hearing.
Chairman Merkley (01:10:54):
Well, thank you very much, Senator. And I noticed that when we have a conversation and testimony about, well, PFAS in our food and water is causing bad health effects, often the response is, "Oh, but wait. It's on other things in our environment like insulated wire in an airplane or coating a solar panel," to try to distract us essentially from the fundamental question of the pathways in which we are affected and how it can be removed in those pathways that are affecting human health. And so this is not a conversation about banning a class of chemicals. It is a conversation about finding the ways that we're affected and eliminating those effects to improve human health.
(01:11:45)
I think it's a very good point you made, however, Dr. Fenton, that the waste that happens from other portions of the industry may well find its way back into our bodies, even if the initial product is not one we're touching or around. One of those products is stain-resistant carpet. And I remember when the ads came out about, "Oh, you can drop all kinds of things on the carpet and it just beads up," and so forth. Is that a PFAS treatment? And I'm thinking about our little babies crawling around on the carpet. Is that a risk to our baby's health?
Laurel Schaider (01:12:27):
I would say absolutely yes. We do know that stain- resistant carpets treated with Scotchgard or StainMaster contain PFAS, and there's ample evidence that the chemicals don't stay in the product. There have been studies that have made links between people who have stain-resistant carpets in their house and levels of PFAS in their blood. And I also have concerns about children who are more vulnerable, spend more time close to the ground, spend more time with their hands in their mouth. PFAS can get through our skin, but also can be transferred by hand-to-mouth contact. And children are more vulnerable to those harmful health effects. So we know that having these products in our home increase our exposure.
(01:13:11)
And I think one point that's important to keep in mind, and Senator Mullin had asked about all these different ways that we can be exposed, all those cumulative exposures add up. We can be exposed from food and water and consumer products and some pathways of exposure are easier to turn off now. And I think we should grab that low-hanging fruit and reduce exposures where we can. Other pathways may be more challenging, but we should work in general to reduce our exposures to PFAS and reduce our reliance on these problematic chemicals.
Chairman Merkley (01:13:42):
Well, and I've kind of been assuming that areas where you have higher abrasion may produce more particles that find their way into our bodies, and maybe that's wrong, but for example, I think about carpets. Carpets, we're walking on them, there's abrasion, there's carpet dust. That carpet dust, those fibers that have PFAS on them because they're stain resistant or spill resistant now are easily breathed in and therefore have a pathway to get into our bodies. I've thought about the Teflon pans and I've seen many Teflon pans where the coating has essentially been worn off from stirring things in the pan.
(01:14:16)
And of course, you noted that heat can be a factor as well. Seems a lot more of a risk than, say, a coating on my phone where one, I can put a plastic cover over that coating so I'm not touching it. But even if I am, there's not the abrasion involved, and I'm guessing that the transfer of PFAS through my thumb might be far lower. So I mean, our goal here is to figure out and understand better where the highest levels of transfer, as you call it, low-hanging fruit, that can have an impact. But my assumption about abrasion, is that a reasonable way to think about some of this?
Laurel Schaider (01:14:58):
I think that's one way to think about… I think a lot about how do we actually get exposed to the PFAS and how do the chemicals in the products get into our bodies. So certainly abrasion of products and fibers ending up in dust. We don't think about dust as a harmful chemical exposure pathway, but the dust in our homes is one way that we can be exposed to toxic chemicals. It's sort of a repository for toxic chemicals in homes, but also there are certain PFAS chemicals that are volatile. So some of the PFAS that we're talking about in water are polar. They tend to stay in water. But other PFAS chemicals like fluorotelomer alcohols are volatile. So they can actually come off of products and end up in the air in our homes and then we breathe them in. Fluorotelomer alcohols are an example of a precursor.
(01:15:43)
So when we think of PFOS, PFOA, those chemical structures basically don't change unless you heat them at very high temperatures. Other chemicals like these fluorotelomer alcohols are what we call precursors. So in our bodies and over time in the environment, they can be transformed into PFOS or PFOA or these other very stable PFAS. Another way that we can be exposed is through these volatile PFAS that we do measure in indoor air. And we do see that homes with PFAS-containing products have higher levels in air and dust.
Chairman Merkley (01:16:14):
So a question we might be asking when we hear that there's PFAS on our cell phone is, "Is that a volatile version?" And I'll ask that for the record. I'll have my team follow up because I wanted to note that you all mentioned cosmetics. And so why would cosmetics contain PFAS? And cosmetics certainly produce dust, if you will, that we breathe in. Is there any rational reason to have PFAS in cosmetics?
Dr. Fenton (01:16:41):
They do it for waterproofing. So like waterproof mascara and waterproof foundation that you would put on your face. It is meant to last all day.
Chairman Merkley (01:16:52):
And is that absorbed through the skin? Because now you're applying something directly to a significant area of your skin. Is that a much higher risk than some other sources?
Dr. Fenton (01:17:03):
Like all sources, it's how often you're exposed to it. So if you're wearing it every day as an individual, yes, you probably would have substantial exposure from that. But you can make personal choices. Like you can make a personal choice not to have Scotchgarded upholstery or mattresses or carpeting or cosmetics.
Chairman Merkley (01:17:26):
But the thing, Dr. Fenton, is that citizens assume when they don't see it… They don't see a warning on it.
Dr. Fenton (01:17:32):
Right, correct.
Chairman Merkley (01:17:32):
It doesn't say, "This carpet has Scotchgard. It will reduce your stains, but also be aware that your children may breathe in a whole lot of PFAS that may have health impact."
Dr. Fenton (01:17:43):
Correct.
Chairman Merkley (01:17:44):
We don't put warnings on them. And this is where relying upon every citizen to be educated like the doc… Each of you have doctorates, and to make individual choices. That's why we have public policy because that's why we're struggling with this. Of course, I've never used, what do you call, stain-resistant mascara? What do you call it?
Dr. Fenton (01:18:07):
Waterproof mascara.
Chairman Merkley (01:18:09):
Waterproof mascara. I've never used mascara. I had no idea there was PFAS in it, but I'm sure I can see a reason for that. But do we have studies that show cosmetics, as you're describing, incorporating these water-resistant qualities result in PFAS in the blood? In other words, it is it a pathway of concern?
Laurel Schaider (01:18:33):
I'm not aware of specific studies that have looked at that question, but I think we know enough about how these chemicals can come out of products. As Dr. Fenton mentioned, they can be absorbed through our skin. I don't know that we need to do a study for every single product to show this one… What percent of that PFAS ends up in our blood. I would take more of a precautionary approach because we know that if chemicals are in products, at least some portion of that will end up in our bloodstream. And if we're talking about waterproof mascara, that's really not an essential use. I think that's an easy one to point out. And yeah, we often say that you shouldn't need a chemistry degree to go shopping for products for your family. I think it's unfair to expect that consumers will know all the different types of harmful chemicals that they should avoid. As a mother of a tween daughter who's getting into makeup, it's impossible to think that every person needs to know about these toxic chemicals. I think people rightfully expect that the government is protecting their health.
Chairman Merkley (01:19:33):
But not always is it the case. So my last question is really about the April EPA drinking water regulations for six PFAS chemicals. And I think these were the regulations that were being referred to before, and the level that they set is very, very low. Like parts per trillion. I'm used to parts per million or billion, but I've never seen a parts per trillion before. But now imagine that you're providing the water to a municipality and you test and you go, "Oh gosh, the groundwater is contaminated with PFAS, we're pulling it out of the ground or whatever." Is there any real cost-effective way to pull this PFAS in the parts per trillion out of our drinking water?
Dr. Fenton (01:20:34):
Yes.
Chairman Merkley (01:20:35):
Okay. Tell us about that.
Dr. Fenton (01:20:37):
Granular activated charcoal systems, large volume systems have been implemented in multiple cities across the United States already, because as you know, 11 states already had PFAS regulations on the books. I mean, only 11. So this federal law now protects all states at a level that's safe. So 11 states have already figured out how to do this and they're doing it… Some of them are doing it without increasing the water bill to their constituents.
Chairman Merkley (01:21:15):
So we have a cost-effective way to get this out of our water. Since water you have all mentioned is a major pathway, that's a real positive to accomplish that.
Dr. Fenton (01:21:24):
Right.
Laurel Schaider (01:21:25):
I would add that… So it is cost-effective, but there are economies of scale, so that works really well. When you're a large water system, the cost per person decreases. But for small water systems with a small customer base, these systems are hugely expensive. For instance, in Hyannis on Cape Cod in Massachusetts where we've been studying PFAS for a number of years, there are only 14,000 customers there. All of their public wells were contaminated by PFAS, and they've had to spend tens of millions of dollars to install granular activated carbon to remove the PFAS. And I don't think it's fair for the ratepayers to foot that bill and I would like to see more pathways for the chemical industries who created the chemicals and profited from them to be responsible for the cleanup.
Chairman Merkley (01:22:11):
Polluter pays is your principle.
Laurel Schaider (01:22:13):
Yes.
Chairman Merkley (01:22:14):
Well, this is a really interesting and important conversation we're having. Obviously it's a very complicated one, and so I really appreciate your bringing your expertise to bear and hopefully it will cause others who are listening in and go, "Well, we need to explore this further and think about how do we capture that low-hanging fruit? Should we be labeling things that warn individuals about the effects? Should we simply be…?" In certain products, and maybe it's the stain-resistant carpet say, "No, the public health risks far outweighs any value," or so forth. And so a lot to follow up on. I really appreciate your all's contributions and expertise.
Dr. Fenton (01:23:09):
Senator, could I suggest for the record that what you brought up about the policies on the labeling would be enormously useful to all Americans? If we knew which consumer products had PFAS in them, we could make better choices. We could change things, we could have some say by ourselves in our exposures.
Chairman Merkley (01:23:34):
Well, let's follow up on that question because one of the things that's in my head is I heard about lots of things that have PFAS I had no idea about, whether it's medical equipment or a screen of a cell phone. But there may be categories where that labeling is more important because the pathways of contamination are more significant. And maybe it's cosmetics, maybe it's the carpet, I don't know. But we'll look to your expertise to help guide us on this, and my team will keep wrestling with it. So thank you for that point. In closing, thank you again. We've heard that the scientific community is deeply concerned about the public's exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals. We've heard about the impact, both observed from human studies and from studies on mice, that the health effects are very significant and therefore a topic we should continue to explore how to reduce this risk dramatically for our citizens.
(01:24:45)
I ask unanimous consent from all my colleagues who are still at the table here to approve submissions for the record that they might like to make, including any letters that they'd like to submit or articles or other material. And if any of them wish to submit written questions for the record, that is allowed through the close of business on December 19th of this year, and we'll compile those questions, we'll send them out to you all and your replies, if you can get them back to us by January 9th, it'd be very helpful so it can, one, be timely and close out the record. So without hearing an objection to that, that's the plan and this hearing is adjourned.
Speaker 1 (01:25:37):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.