A Senate hearing on the health impacts of exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) revealed a divide between lawmakers and industry chemical researchers over the appropriate level of stringency for federal regulations aimed at controlling PFAS exposure.

What are PFAS? According to the EPA, PFAS are long lasting man-made chemicals found in some consumer and industrial products since the 1950s. They can build up in living things and cause various health issues.

Divergent opinions on PFAS emerged during the December 5, 2024, hearing. The lead senator emphasized that any level of exposure to PFAS is “significant and dangerous,” while an expert witness argued for a policy of responsible management, highlighting that PFAS chemicals are “vital to the critical infrastructure of the United States.”

The hearing was held before the Senate Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight, where Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said, “We’re here to understand a class of chemicals known as PFAS,” which “many folks know of from brands such as Teflon and Scotchgard, but they’re estimated to be thousands of PFAS chemicals in use to resist water stains and grease.” 

Because PFAS chemicals are durable and resistant to typical natural cleaning processes, including by water and bacteria, they are useful for consumer products, said Merkley, who added, “but those very qualities make them an environmental disaster.” 

The research says: As a result, after decades of use, scientists are finding PFAS chemicals everywhere, including in biosolids generated by wastewater treatment facilities and subsequently spread on crops as fertilizer, putting PFAS back into the water and food to be consumed, Merkley said. 

“Estimates are that at least 45 percent of U.S. household tap water contains one or more of PFAS chemicals,” including “two of the best understood PFAS chemicals;” perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), which the EPA “has concluded there is no safe level in drinking water,” Merkley said. 

That prompted the EPA to issue—on April 10, 2024—a final rule that sets drinking water standards for five individual PFAS substances, including PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA. In addition, on April 19, 2024, the EPA issued a second PFAS rule designating PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances because those chemicals have been linked to cancers, immune and developmental damage to infants and children, and has some impact on the liver and heart. 

“This is a public health challenge, and we want to understand it better,” said Merkley. 

However, while Subcommittee Ranking Member Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) agreed there is a need for more research on PFAS chemicals, he added that because “PFAS is so commonly used in manufacturing markets,” there is a need to “fully understanding the risk differences between the different PFAS chemicals.” 

Furthermore, Mullin said, as Congress considers PFAS regulations, there is need to avoid overreaction and “unintentionally harming technological advancements in national security.” 

“Overreaction is not what I want to do here, but to look for a direction, a healthy direction and move in the right path,” which is why the witnesses are at this hearing, Mullin said. 

The witnesses, in the order they testified, were: 

1. Laurel Schaider, senior scientist, environmental chemistry and engineering, Silent Spring Institute. 
2. Sue Fenton, director, Center for Human Health and the Environment, North Carolina State University. 
3.  Michael D. Larrañaga, president and managing principal, R.E.M. Risk Consultants, representing the American Industrial Hygiene Association. 

In her testimony, Schaider said PFAS chemicals are used in a wide range of everyday products like nonstick cookware, stain resistant carpets and cosmetics, and her research has shown that PFAS are widespread in food packaging and consumer products like dental floss and children’s clothing and furnishings. 

In addition, her research reveals that “PFAS can migrate out of products and end up in our bodies,” and by doing so puts babies at risk because “infants can be highly exposed (to PFAS) since PFAS can cross the placenta and contaminate breast milk,” she said. Furthermore, 

PFAS has contaminated our environment, and “millions of people in the U.S. are drinking tap water containing PFAS,” which is why the EPA set drinking-water standards for six PFAS chemicals, she said. 

“My main point is we need comprehensive strategies to address PFAS contamination, identify and reduce exposures, support impacted communities, and ultimately eliminate unnecessary uses of these harmful chemicals,” Schaider said. 

In Fenton’s testimony, she discussed the impact of PFAS on newborns, saying two decades ago she and EPA colleagues discovered that newborn mice exposed to PFOA during pregnancy were dying. “PFOA caused a dose-dependent decrease in birth weight and mouse pups, but even those that appeared healthy at birth died several days later,” she said. 

Later research revealed that PFOA caused deficits in lactation that were transferred across the placenta, and was present in the breast milk of mice and women and induced obesity and persistence of abnormalities during puberty, according to Fenton. 

At about that time, the manufacturers voluntarily phased PFAS out of the market, but by then most Americans had it in their blood, she said. “Most of us here today have been exposed to PFAS as young adults,” with about 40 percent exposed to PFAS through their mothers, she added. 

Today it is likely that all U.S. children are born with a PFAS body burden and we have evidence of that from data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fenton said. “For several reasons, children are more vulnerable to effects of PFAS than adults,” she said adding, “Body burdens in children are higher because they’re breastfed,” and it has been found that in the U.S., human breast-milk-levels of PFAS are at, or above the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s children drinking water screening level for these PFAS chemicals, she said. 

“We don’t have a crystal ball to predict the severity of the health effects for this prenatal exposed generation, but scientists like myself, are very concerned,” said Fenton, who added, “We can't wait 20 more years to determine the health effects of PFAS exposures.” Ongoing studies of federally funded labs across the U.S. are evaluating the effects of replacement PFAS comparing those to known effects of legacy PFAS. “While many studies can be done, we know enough today to say that replacement PFAS are not safe replacements,” she said. 

Nonetheless, Larrañaga testified PFAS chemicals are so vital to the critical infrastructure of the U.S., that their use needs to be balanced against the risk of using chemical alternatives, and those chemicals must be managed responsibly. 

Furthermore, PFAS chemicals are used in the manufacture of semiconductors and electronics, medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, herbicides, insecticides, plastics, airplanes, automobiles, buildings, and for thousands of other applications, including for aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), which is a fire suppressant used to extinguish flammable liquid fires such as fuel fires, according to Larrañaga. 

AFFF foams using long-chain PFAS are no longer produced, sold or imported into the U.S. and the country is “no longer recklessly disposing of mass volumes of chemicals containing PFAS directly into the environment,” Larrañaga said. 

Furthermore, modern AFFF formulations that meet military specification contain trace amounts of PFOA or PFOS, Larrañaga said. “To put that into perspective, the 2019 Intercontinental Terminals Co. fire in Deer Park, Texas, released almost 133 pounds of air emissions per hour during the first 24 hours, eventually releasing more than 16 million pounds of toxic air emissions,” he said. 

Responding fire departments attempted to extinguish the fire with fluorine-free foams, and the fire burned for 51 hours, and during the 51st hour, PFAS-containing AFFF was applied, and the fire was extinguished 13 hours later, according to Larrañaga. 

The “AIHA and I recognize the toxicological properties inherent in these PFAS, and in no way encourages the improper use or disposal,” said Larrañaga, who stressed that.

“During those 13 hours of AFFF application, the use of the modern military spec AFFF foam would have resulted in about 30 ounces of PFOA or PFOS introduced into the environment,” he said. 

The fluorine-free foams are simply not as effective at attacking complex fires that occur in industrial facilities, onboard ships, or during an airplane crash, for that matter. 

Had PFAS-containing AFFF been applied initially, the fire would have likely burned for only a couple of hours, avoiding the release of millions of pounds of toxic emissions, Larrañaga said. 

“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 30 ounces of PFOA or PFOS?” he said. 

Nonetheless, Schaider told The Driller “We need to stop assuming that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty,” and the problem of PFAS contamination will never be solved “if we attempt to address PFAS one at a time. We need comprehensive strategies to address all PFAS, including fluoridated polymers,” she said. 

Furthermore, “the cost and health effects of PFAS are not evenly distributed,” with “public water systems serving small communities, particularly in rural areas, needing more financial and technical support for testing and treatment,” Schaider said. 

“PFAS contamination takes a toll on communities,” said Schaider, who added, “Research has found that communities with higher proportions of Hispanic and black residents are more likely to be exposed to PFAS through their drinking water, and PFAS can build up in fish and shellfish, so tribal communities and subsistence fishers may be especially vulnerable.” 

Schaider added she has “heard from anguished parents who feel guilt for having unwittingly exposed their children (to PFAS) during pregnancy and breastfeeding,” and “from farmers who've lost their livelihood because their land and livestock were contaminated.” 

In addition, Schaider said she has “heard from too many people who've lost loved ones to cancer or other diseases that they suspect were caused by (PFAS related) defects. They face a lifetime of worry about long term health effects.”