1
12
37
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ed50a32eada3a6bb9f2631522ca0dd8f.pdf
de73a45ac4a20f4e703d78c93feca3c7
PDF Text
Text
Living with PFAS
Interviewer: Danielle DeVasto
Interviewee: Wendy Thomas
Date of Interview: 2023-03-01
Danielle DeVasto: Okay. I'm Dani DeVasto, and today March 1, 2023. I have the pleasure of chatting
with Wendy Thomas. Hi Wendy.
Wendy Thomas: Hi, how are you?
Danielle DeVasto: I'm doing well. How are you?
Wendy Thomas: Oh, I'm hanging in there. Thanks. Hanging in.
Danielle DeVasto: Wendy, can you tell me about where you're from and where you currently live?
Wendy Thomas: Sure. Um, well, I grew up in, uh, Fairfield, Connecticut, and then I moved to New
Hampshire in 1980, and we, I currently live in Merrimack, New Hampshire, and we've lived here for 32
years, my husband and six children, adult children.
Danielle DeVasto: I have a sister-in-law who lives or was from New Hampshire, and she tells me that
that is a very beautiful area of the state.
Wendy Thomas: It's gorgeous. Um, we're known as the mountainous state for a reason, you know, um,
lots, especially up north there's, there's lots of parks and trees and mountains and lakes. It's, it's
gorgeous. It's a beautiful State to live in.
Danielle DeVasto: Wendy, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in
your community?
Wendy Thomas: Sure. Um, I'm going to start at the beginning, um, because that works the best for me.
So in 2016, I heard about a water group in our town. Merrimack Concerned Citizens for wat- uh clean
water. Um, and so I went to one of their meetings because I thought it had to do with a pipeline that had
been proposed that was gonna run through our town, which was, we had feared, it would disrupt our
water supply and, and I, and they, they pulled the pipeline project. And so I, I thought that the water
situation had been, you know, resolved. So I went to this meeting, and I heard about something called
PFAS chemicals. And that was really my first introduction to it. I didn't, I didn't know what these chemicals
were. I didn't know they were in the water. Um, we have a private well, so I thought we were okay,
'causae they were talking about public water being tested. Um, and so, um, but because I, as I said, I
have six kids, um, at the time they were living at home. So I got our private well tested. Um, and again,
this was 2016, um, and our levels, um, were so high that we had to shut our well down immediately. Um,
and um, now the state had told us, so we know who is polluting our town. It's, it's an industrial corporation
called Saint Gobain. They've been spewing this chemical into the air, into the soil, into the, uh, water for
decades. Um, and it was only discovered in 2016 when they self-reported. So it had to have been bad at
that point. Um, and originally the State of New Hampshire had said the only people that needed to be
concerned about contamination in their water were people who lived within a half mile radius of this
company. Um, pretty quickly after doing some testing, they modified that to a mile radius. Now I lived
three miles from this corporation. So the state was telling me that my water was safe, and I got it tested
and it was so high, we had to shut it down. So my husband and I installed a full house filtration system.
Page 1
�We put in an, uh, reverse osmosis in the kitchen. The kids were only allowed to drink from the reverse
osmosis. Um, and again, I mean the cost of a full house filtration system plus the reverse osmosis, plus to
maintain them yearly, plus the, the fee to get them installed was about $5,000. And we had to pay this
because a corporation did this to our water, you know, so, um, but, but of course we did, and we were
fortunate that we could afford that, but so many people in our town, you know, couldn't afford that. So,
um, I got active in this group, and we tried real hard to, um, to educate people in town about PFAS. But,
um, the problem with these chemicals is you can't see them, you can't smell them, you can't taste them.
And so the group was primarily women, and we were labeled fearmongers um, you know, you know, we
hate our town because we're trying to get people not to move here. You know, we're gonna cause the,
the town property values to go down because we're talking about this contamination. So initially we, we
had a lot of, um, uh, pushback from the town. Um, and then, you know, throughout the years there, there
were a couple of red flags, but I never really put them all together. All six of my kids, um, were born with
dyslexia, um, which is a learning disability could be genetic couldn't, you know, might not be genetic who
knows. Um, I recently put down my fourth dog who has died of cancer. Um, and that seems a little
problematic to have four dogs, you know, in one household all have cancer like that. Um, my kids all have
autoimmune issues. Um, again, genetic, maybe, maybe not it's, it's not in either of our families. Um, my
husband, um, had, uh, several heart attacks and had a quadruple bypass at age 55, which is fairly young
for that, and again, you know, we thought, you know, maybe it's just bad luck and everything. Um, and
then in May of last year I was diagnosed with, uh, breast cancer. Um, it was invasive lobular cancer,
which, um, very lucky to have found it early. Um, and so I opted for, uh, a bilateral mastectomy. Um, they,
they were trying to get me to only do one side, but I, I did both. Um, and they found four precancerous
conditions in the unaffected breast. So, um, I had, I spoke with the environmental working group in DC,
and they suggested I get my blood tested for PFAS chemicals. And this is after being on a whole house
filtration system, having water delivered by Saint Gobain for the last three years, plastic bottled water.
Um, I have 12 chemicals in my blood that are above the toxic limit that that is allowed for humans, 12
PFAS chemicals. My, um, PFOS chemicals are 38 times the maximum value that's allowed for humans,
and those are associated with breast cancer. Um, my PFOA chemicals, I have more than 99% of
Americans do. Um, and those are associated with ovary and fallopian tube cancer. So I had previously
had, um, a hysterectomy, but, um, because of the blood levels, my oncologists, um, decided that, that it
would be, um, prudent for me to go and remove my ovaries and fallopian tubes to, to get rid of them
before the cancer could essentially find them. So, so that's what it's like living in a contaminated town. We
have to amputate parts of our body, our bodies to stay ahead of the, the poisonous toxins that will give us
cancer, um, in order to stay alive, you know, we have to, we have to lay them at the altar of corporate
greed because they're not stopping. They're to this day. They're still, um, emitting PFAS, uh, chemicals
into our, our environment. Well, and, and my husband had his blood tested, and he has the same
chemicals I do. He doesn't have them at as high a level as I do, but, you know, and of course the, the, the
corporation is saying, there's no direct proof right now that PFAS causes chemical or causes cancer. Um,
Page 2
�but we're finding that there, there are cases where it's causing cancer, and you know, I'm done, I'm done,
I've got cancer, you know, so, I, there's nothing for me to, to, to hold back anymore.So, you know, they're
saying that that it's not related, and I'm saying it's quacking like a duck, it's looking like a duck it's walking
like a duck. You know, I think what we have here is a big fat duck.
Danielle DeVasto: So you had mentioned that you were starting to get involved with the, the group, your
local group. Um, is it something that you're still doing, or how did that, how has that been?
Wendy Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. So because of that group, um, that's the reason I ran for state rep the first
time there were two others that were involved in that group. So we became the water warriors for our
town, and we got elected. It's a very red town, we're blue, but, um, we got elected. Um, and so we
immediately went up to the state house and we, we put bills forward to, um, uh, have maximum
containment, uh, contamination levels for PFAS in our water. Um, and again, uh, a lot of people, um,
pushed back because they didn't know what PFAS was. They didn't know the damage. Um, and we were,
we were just constant. We would sit down next to somebody at lunch, and we'd say, hey, how are you?
I'm Wendy Thomas, have you heard about PFAS? You know, so, um, we did a, you know, know a real
educational job, um, educating the other, uh, state representatives. Um, I also put together a team that,
um, outside of the legislature, because sometimes you can get things done faster outside of, um, the
procedures. And we, uh, developed some educational, uh, material regarding PFAS, uh, for people in
New Hampshire. Um, and, and I've been to some conferences and, uh, attend, you still attend meetings
on it. And, and now, so I wasn't a state rep for the second term, but I got reelected the third term, so, oh,
I'm back up there putting more PFAS legislation in.
Danielle DeVasto: Did you have a background in government in, in legislation?
Wendy Thomas: No.
Danielle DeVasto: Running for representative?
Wendy Thomas: No. No. Um, I have, um, a degree in, in communications. I have a degree in, um,
medical biology. So, um, you know, the impact of all of this made, made tremendous sense to me. Um,
I'm also, um, I, I am an instructional designer. I'm a tech writer, I'm a journalist, you know, so all of these
things sort of merge together in this, in this, um, path forward for advocacy
Danielle DeVasto: You have a lot of skill sets to draw on that I'm sure —
Wendy Thomas: Yeah but government wasn't one of them though. some of these archaic rules that we
have to follow are like, you can't walk in front of the speaker during session, if you do, you have to
apologize to the entire, you know, it's just some very weird things,
Danielle DeVasto: But you mentioned that, so since, since working in this position and as a
representative that you've been doing a lot of education, not just for the community, but also within the
legislature.
Wendy Thomas: Yes. Yeah. So this year I've put two bills forward. I think they're both gonna die
because, um, there's, there's problems with lobbyists, you know, lobbyists have money, and they don't
want, you know, PFAS to be acknowledged because it's gonna cost money to remediate and to, to treat
Page 3
�it. One of my bills was that if, if, um, a real estate agent is, is showing property to a prospective buyer,
they need to notify the buyer about PFAS in the water. It sounds logical. I mean, PFAS, if you drink it for a
long time, it, it will hurt you. Um, but the real estate agents, um, were against that because they thought it
would put too much of a burden on the seller. You know, the test is about $200. It's come down from
about $400. Um, and the thing is in New Hampshire, we only recognize four, four of the many, many,
many thousands of PFAS chemicals. So, you know, it was just a drop in the bucket, but at least it was
something. Um, and then I put a bill forward to, um, mandate that insurance companies pay for preventive
care, uh, PFAS care, if your blood tests over 20 parts per million. Um, and boy, they didn't like that one at
all, the, the lobbyists and they, you know, they're, they're pretty strong up there. Um, and the reason that
that came forward is that, um, originally my, the surgery to remove my ovaries and fallopian tubes was
denied by my insurance company, because they were like PFAS. What, you know, what's that, you
know? So, um, once my physician, um, diagnosed me with environmental toxins, then it went through,
um, I also know of a young woman in town, um, who I think she's 24 years old. She has some breast
issues. She had some lumpy breasts and went to, you know, lives in our town. Um, I urged her to go, you
know, to, to a clinic and have her, her breasts examined. And, and, um, she did, and she asked about a
mammogram, and they said, oh, no, no, no, no, you don't get a mammogram until you're 29 years old.
Well, if she has cancer from PFAS in her breasts right now, she could be dead by age 29. You know, so
things are going to have to change for those of us that have high levels of PFAS in our blood. You know,
um, the CDC came out with some terrific guidelines, uh, recently they haven't fully adopted them, but they
will. Um, and these guidelines, even, you know, if a, if a baby has PFAS, um, above 20 parts per million in
their blood, you start checking them for cholesterol at age one, you know, um, when we talk about high
cholesterol, um, high blood sugar, um, as a result of PFAS in our body, we're not just talking about an
inconvenience inconvenience. Those are killer diseases, you know, cholesterol that's, that's what almost
killed my husband. You know, so it's, it's invasive, it's pervasive. Um, you know, and the biggest thing I
think is that, uh, PFAS chemicals are hormone disruptors and everything revolves around hormones,
everything in our lives. And if you doubt the power of hormones, you've never had a teenage son, you
know. You know, but everything revolves around, uh, hormones. And if you, if you mess those up, you
know, you're messing up the entire body. You know, one of the, the, um, medications that they wanted
me to go on is an estrogen blocker for, um, my, my breast cancer. But no one, no one can tell me if these
hormone disruptors work with these, this medication, or if it works against this medication. So yeah, I've
been reluctant to take it. I, I take a supplement instead, um, hoping that, you know, maybe that will, that
will work, but it's things like that. We don't have the science, um, it's going to be, I'll probably be long dead
before we have the science that's gonna prove this because we're working so slowly in the United States,
Europe is doing a better job, but, uh, we're really dragging our heels on PFAS studies in, in the United
States.
Page 4
�Danielle DeVasto: I've heard from other people that dealing sometimes dealing with the medical
community has been frustrating because, because of that leg, has that been your experience or have you
been able to get, like, get support and — ?
Wendy Thomas: No, no. That's another one of my crusades. So, um, when I got the, the, um, results of
my blood P my blood PFAS levels, I presented them to my surgeon who did my mastectomy, who I was
still under her care. And I said, these are my results. These are the interpretation of my results. And
without even looking at them, she pushed them back to me. And she said, I'm just a surgeon. I don't need
to know about PFAS. And I said, well, I've been advocating against PFAS since 2016. You are no longer
my doctor. If you choose to remain ignorant, we can't have a relationship. See you, bye. Um, and my
oncologist, she basically said the same thing. I said, what is the relationship between a, a hormone
disruptor and this estrogen blocker? And she's like, beats me. So I don't have a surgeon. I don't have an
oncologist. I'm trying to find somebody who's knowledgeable. As a State rep, I do have a platform. So I
am going to go to the supervisor of, of these doctors in Southern New Hampshire and discuss PFAS
education, because this is criminal, you know, all of Southern New Hampshire. It's not just our town
because, um, water doesn't understand boundaries, air doesn't understand boundaries. Um, and so it's
slowly spreading to the other towns, um, and to be a physician practicing in Southern New Hampshire
and not know about the impact of PFAS on the human body is in its malpractice. Um, that's what it is. It's
malpractice.
Danielle DeVasto: Have you, um, have you been in touch with other communities or has your work kind
of, I mean, you have, like you say, you have a larger platform, so I'm just curious if —
Wendy Thomas: Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, um, the, you know, we've, we've formed sort of a coalition with the
other, uh, communities, and we're working with them, although they're at the place we were in 2016,
people are starting, you know, they're, we can't smell it. We can't taste it. I've lived here my whole year,
and I'm not sick. I mean my whole life, and I'm not sick, you know, so, but the thing is there are, there is
more information about PFAS, and people now are accepting that it can cause damage, you know, to, to
humans and cancer. I mean, we have just a ton of cancer in this town. The State of New Hampshire does
a cancer survey, but they're, they've only done it up to 2018. So they're five years behind. You know, so
they have this false picture of how much cancer we have. I have been de I mean, every time I go to the
state house, I desperately ask for, um, a, a survey on small animals, you know, pets, cats, dogs, even,
uh, we're an agricultural community. So farm animals, um, because, um, I've talked to area vets, and they
say they always know a dog or a cat when it comes from our town, 'cause it's got, you know, it's riddled
with cancer, and it's got, um, uh, tumors all over its body. Um, Yeah. And then in Europe, the very first
PFAS conference I went to, um, in Italy, there's a town that's very contaminated with PFAS, and they did,
um, studies on their food, and it turns out that eggs, um, have a high amount of PFAS, produce has a
high amount of PFAS because this company, you know, they burn their refuse and the, the soot, you
know, the, the temperature doesn't destroy these forever chemicals. That's why they're called forever
chemicals. So they're, they become particulate matter. It's spread over our town. Every time they burn this
Page 5
�stuff, the rain drives it into the ground. The produce sucks it up. So our produce has PFAS in it. Our meat
has PFAS in it, you know, any milk that comes out of this town has PFAS in it. So, you know, I mean the
CDC, if you go to their guidelines, um, not the ones where you have PFAS in your blood, but just sort of
general guidelines, they say, you know, the best thing you can do is remove the source. Well, that works.
If you're only wearing a Gore-Tex jacket when you're camping, or if, you know, if you get rid of your glide,
you know, dental floss, but when you live and breathe this stuff, the only way I can eliminate the source is
to move out of my town, and who's gonna buy a house with no water in it.
Danielle DeVasto: So what do you do?
Wendy Thomas: Well, you know, again, I've got cancer, so, um, I have no, no F's left to give. So, um, I
I'm out there banging the drum. I write letters to the editor. Um, I write op-eds, um, I've shared my cancer
story, um, publicly in our town forum. Um, and many, many, many women have contacted me privately,
um, to, to say that they also have breast cancer, or they have ovarian cancer or uterine cancer or, you
know, things like that. So, um, I'm using my story to get attention about the problem, you know, I'm, I, I'm
not doing it to get sympathy. That's not why I'm doing it. I'm doing it to, because this is not fair and people
need to speak up about it.
Danielle DeVasto: You've kind of hit at some of these already, but what concerns do you have about
PFAS contamination moving forward?
Wendy Thomas: I am concerned about the life of my town. Um, one of the things that is so
underappreciated is that when pregnant women drink PFAS laced water at the levels we're seeing in our
town, their children have a high incidence of learning disabilities. And, you know, they're, again, this is
going to affect their hormones, which, you know, we have a, we have a high degree of, of kids with
gender confusion in our town. And in, in surrounding towns, is it because of the PFAS chemicals? You
know, again, we don't know, but again, it's another quacking like a duck situation, you know? So, so, you
know, women, especially pregnant women, they need to be given filtered water. You know, we, we just
can't, we can't let them drink this stuff. Um, and, and kids, you know, of women that have PFAS in their
blood, we need to screen them immediately and start, you know, special education services or just, you
know, monitoring services for these kids and the older people, you know, that have lived in town. Now,
again, I've been here for 30 years. Um, I nursed all of my kids, so I drank a ton of water, um, which could
explain why I have higher chemicals or higher levels than my husband. Um, but I'm worried about my
children, you know, they're adults, um, they all have health issues, you know, what's gonna happen to
them. I worry about, you know, my neighbor's children's, I worry about our town, you know, and it's, it's
just, it's criminal what's happening. Um, but we can't, we're not, we don't seem to be able to stop it, which
is, you know, I can't figure that out because it's directly hurting people, and yet they're allowed to
continue. So, you know, whenever that's the case, you always have to follow the money, and I'm trying to
figure out where the money is involved. Um, and I haven't come up with much yet.
Page 6
�Danielle DeVasto: I mean, it's so ironic, right? You, you drink water because that's, what's supposed to
be healthy for you.Good for you. And you're trying to make good decisions. And yet, as it turns out, you
know the consequences.
Wendy Thomas: You know, and I'm one of the water warriors. So, so I did all the right things. We
installed that the filtration system, we, we drank from RO, um, and, and still, still, it looks like I may have
gotten sick from these chemicals. Um, it looks like my whole family has been affected by these chemicals.
So, you know, if a water warrior can't even protect our own family, what chance do other people in town
have? I mean, right now in New Hampshire, you know, the, the utility bills are through the roof, you know,
with inflation, with, with, you know, people losing work because their kids are home sick from school
because they're getting infected with COVID. People don't have a spare $5,000 to, to make sure their
water is clean, you know, and again, it's because of this, this corporation, you know, it's, it's truly an
example of profit over people.
You know, and the social warrior in me is just chronically incensed. Um, because it shouldn't be that way
people should, should be first over profit.
Danielle DeVasto: And this has been going on in Merrimack for quite some time. It sounds like.
Wendy Thomas: Yes. Yes. Well, the, the company before this company was a one called Chem Fab,
and I'm quite certain, they were probably doing the same thing, you know, disposing of their chemicals,
uh, in, in ways that, that perhaps, well, no, that not perhaps that aren't legal. Um, but this company that
moved in Saint Gobain it, their headquarters are in France, you know, and France has very strict
environmental rules. If they did this in France, their CEO would be in jail, You know, but they came to
America, and they came to the, to, to New Hampshire, live free and die. It's supposed to be live free or
die, but, um, where we have, you know, few regulations, um, and they, they picked a town that was near
river that had, you know, that wasn't, you know, a, a, a town that, that was organized. We don't have a
town square or anything like that. Um, and they, they just ran with it because they could, so one of my
goals is I wanna try to reach out to President Macron and just say, are you aware of this company
destroying my town, this French company, you know, and if you are, why aren't you doing something
about it?
Danielle DeVasto: Boy, the things I bet you thought you'd never be doing, reaching out.
Wendy Thomas: No, no kidding. I mean, I'm also trying to have a, have a meeting with President Biden,
you know, because he's, he's big on the moonshot, you know, cancer program, and it's fine to fly to the
moon. It's fine to land on the moon, but if we don't clean up planet earth, it's not gonna do us any good,
you know, so, um, but very often politicians don't wanna hear this because, um, it impacts, you know, big
donors to their campaigns. And I don't have big donors. I, um, am a state rep in New Hampshire. I am
paid a hundred dollars a year to be a state rep.
Danielle DeVasto: No big donors,
Wendy Thomas: No big donors. No, no. I'm lucky if I get a free lunch every once in a while.
Page 7
�Danielle DeVasto: Before we wrap up today, Wendy, is there anything else that you want to add that we
haven't touched on or that you want to go back to and say more about?
Wendy Thomas: Um, not really. I mean, that's, that's the story. Um, you know, as a result of this, I, I now
have to live the rest of my life wondering if every pain is cancer or if, you know, every symptom is cancer.
Um, thanks to this, this company, living in my town, I have to be concerned about my two daughters, you
know, whether or not they're going to have cancer. I have to be concerned about my four sons, whether
or not they're gonna have to, you know, end up having cancer. Um, it's just this chronic anxiety. Um, and,
and I could leave my town, you know, I could move to greener pastures, but the damage has already
been done, you know, so I'm gonna stay here, and I've decided I'm gonna stay here and fight, um, and try
to get acknowledgement and maybe some re- remediation, you know? Um, but yeah, I'm not going
anywhere, and I'm not being quiet. I've never known for being quiet. So
Danielle DeVasto: Well, thank you so much, Wendy, for taking the time to share your story today.
Wendy Thomas: Oh, my pleasure. Thank you for what you're doing. This is really important work.
Danielle DeVasto: Thank you.
Wendy Thomas: You're welcome.
Page 8
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c06f3ec0759ce27419896ea251274a82.mp4
e6aa24ce84980a180424e40d73d9d3d4
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0037
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Thomas, Wendy
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2023-03-01
Title
A name given to the resource
Wendy Thomas, 2023 (Interview video and transcript)
Description
An account of the resource
Wendy Thomas grew up in Fairfield, Connecticut and now resides in Merrimack, New Hampshire with her husband and six children. After her concerns and advocacy over PFAS grew, Wendy was elected to the New Hampshire State House of Representatives, where she worked to improve water quality and educate other representatives. In this interview, Wendy discusses her family's history with PFAS contamination of their well water, as well as her own advocacy and political action related to PFAS.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Moving Image
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ed8ae518173423b71503e112ae0deb2d.pdf
d872b7f0104e225c1a62d6bfc9606994
PDF Text
Text
Living with PFAS
Interviewer: Danielle DeVasto
Interviewee: Andrea Amico
Date of Interview: 2023-02-10
Danielle DeVasto: I'm Dani DeVasto. And today, February 10, 2023. I have the pleasure of chatting with
Andrea Amico. Hi Andrea.
Andrea Amico: Hi,
Danielle DeVasto: Andrea, can you tell me about where you're from and where you currently live?
Andrea Amico: Sure. Um, I grew up in central Massachusetts, uh, Leominster, Mass, but I currently live
in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Danielle DeVasto: How long have you lived there?
Andrea Amico: I moved to Portsmouth New Hampshire in 2007 when my husband took a job up this
way, it brought us from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. And we have been here since.
Danielle DeVasto: Can you tell me a story please? About your experience with PFA S or with PFAS in
your community?
Andrea Amico: Sure. So I like to say in May of 2014, my life changed forever. I read a newspaper article
that had said they found high levels of PFAS in the drinking water wells at the Pease Tradeport, uh, which
is imports with New Hampshire, where I live. And it is home to a former Air Force base that had been shut
down in 1991. So many years before I had moved to the area and really knew a lot about the prior Air
Force base and the fact that it was a super fun site. I didn't know that, but why it was important to me and
devastating to me, frankly, when I learned that there was contamination, there was because my husband
was working for a company at the Pease Tradeport. And my two children were attending a daycare center
located at the Tradeport, and all three of them were drinking the water every day. And so when I read that
article that they had found high levels of PFAS, and they had to shut down a large drinking water well,
because the contamination was significant. Um, my heart sank, you know, because I was like, whoa, I
don't know what these chemicals are, but my family's drinking that water. My kids are drinking that water.
Like, what is this? What does this mean? So that's how I became introduced to PFAS back in 2014.
Danielle DeVasto: And then what happened after that point for you? So you found out, you read the
article and then, and then what?
Andrea Amico: Yeah. So I started attending community meetings that were being hosted by our city and
our state, and I just started trying to learn as much as I could about these chemicals. And, you know,
back then in 2014, there wasn't a lot of information. Honestly, I, you know, searched the internet and I
could find stuff about the C8 health project and C8 health study in Parkersburg, West Virginia. I found
some EPA documents that were like 800 pages long and really hard to make sense of, but PFAS was
not, uh, known and given the, you know, attention in the media and, uh, frankly like the scientific studies
and resources that it is today. Um, and so I attended some community meetings and tried to do my, do
my best to educate myself. And, um, the first thing I really started advocating for was blood testing for my
community, because I knew that these chemicals built up in the body, and they stayed there for a long
time. And I knew that you could have a blood test to determine how much was in your body. Um, even
Page 1
�though we don't really know what that means, but you know, or at the time we didn't really know what it
meant, but, so that was like one of the first things I did was advocate for blood testing. And then I formed
a community action group with two other moms whose children also went to the daycare center, and we
formed a group called Testing for Pease. And our first big, big push was that blood testing program.
Hence, the testing part of Testing for Pease.
Danielle DeVasto: And how did that go?
Andrea Amico: Um, so we were successful. It took a lot of pressure, um, but we were able to get our
State health department to offer a PFAS blood testing program to our, to the community at the Pease
Tradeport, um, between 2015 and 2018 of almost 2000 people participated in that program. And it did
reveal elevated levels of PFAS in the blood when compared to the, you know, general population. We
know everybody has some detectable levels of PFAS in their blood, but the levels at the Pease Tradeport
were elevated when compared to, you know, the general population. And with that information, we were
able to advocate for filtration of the drinking water and the Air Force paid for that. Uh, we were also able
to advocate for health studies for the community, and we were successful in getting two PFAS health
studies for our community. One was with the ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. They're a kind of like a sister branch of the CDC. They're a federal health agency that works
with communities who have dealt with environmental contamination. Um, so we did have a large health
study done, uh, that actually wrapped up about a year ago, and we're still awaiting our community results.
And we have another health study that's ongoing today, um, called the PFAS reach study and that's
funded by the NIEHS, and that is, um, looking at children of mothers who drink water at Pease, um, and
looking at their, the child's PFAS levels and their immune function, 'cause we know PFAS can impact
vaccines and vaccine effectiveness and the immune function of children. So, um, so we've been really
successful here, you know, that blood testing program that we initially advocated for, I think opened up a
lot of opportunities for advocating for remediation filtration and additional health studies.
Danielle DeVasto: Wow. That's great that you guys have been so successful. What do you attribute that
to? 'Cause I don't think that's the story everywhere.
Andrea Amico: Yeah, I completely agree. I think there's a couple things. I think we were one of the first
communities to really grapple with this. I know there were some others, but um, we were one of the first
back in 2014, like I said, you know, Parkersburg, West Virginia was kind of on the radar with the CA
health study there. But, um, and I know that, uh, the Wurtsmith Air Force Base had found their
contamination as well. But I think us being one of the first, uh, communities to have a really significant
contamination, uh, especially to a trad port of, you know, about 10,000 people were coming to this
tradeport to work every day. Um, so I think timing being one of the first and really pushing when there
wasn't a hundred other communities asking for the same thing, we were kind of the first ones. Um, I also
think, like I said, we were a tradeport. Um, our forma military base was closed under what's called the bra
program. It was the first BRAC site with DOD base realignment closure. Um, that program was really that
program focuses on taking former bases and redeveloping them. And so I know Pease was considered a
Page 2
�very big success story to the Air Force. The fact that they took this old base, redeveloped it into this large
industrial park with 250 businesses, 10,000 employees like there's, you know, community colleges,
restaurants, a golf course, um, all kinds of businesses, medical office buildings, restaurants, like this was
a highly successful place for New Hampshire as well as a large economic hub for New Hampshire. You
know, so they really, we, no one could just really walk away from this community. You know, I mean this
was a, a significant resource and asset to New Hampshire. So I think that was part of it as well. Um, and I
also think we were very successful in establishing relationships very early on with our congressional
delegation and our elected officials and a lot of the efforts that happened at Pease, where as a result of,
you know, our Senator from New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen, who's been a PFAS leader in the U.S.
Senate, uh, making sure we have funding for the health study, the at ATSDR Health Study, really pushing
for the air force to clean up and filter the water. And, um, we also had an EPA order from region one that
ordered the E uh, Air Force to clean up the contamination. And again, I think part of that was timing of
being one of the first, but also just, I feel like it was a lot of things that came together, you know, timing
quick, organizing on the community part, asking for things, being one of the first and having strong
relationships with congressional leaders who were able to really, um, put legislation in place to give us
action. So I attribute all of our successes to a combination of those things.
Danielle DeVasto: Prior to all of this beginning, were you, um, did you have a background in community
organization advocacy work?
Andrea Amico: No, I get asked that a lot. No, I didn't. [LAUGHTER[ Um, so by training, I'm an
occupational therapist. I work in the world of rehabilitation, neuro adult rehab. Um, and so yeah, no, I
didn't have any knowledge. Like I was never an envi-. I wouldn't, you know, didn't think a whole lot, lot
about the environment, you know, like this just never politically active. Um, it just wasn't, it just wasn't
something I ever did or was never part of my life, even my family, you know, it just wasn't something I was
raised to do. So it honestly took this happening to my family and my community to kind of spark a fire
inside of me and say like, all right, like we gotta do something here, you know? And I think that's what
was so shocking to me in the beginning when like they found our contamination, they shut down the well,
and, you know, at first we were asking for blood testing, and it was like, we weren't getting, making a lot of
progress on that. And it just, it kind of like, it shocked me that like a large amount of people could have
been exposed, you know, were exposed to high levels of contaminants and drinking water. And at the
time they were calling them emerging contaminants and our State health department was like, we don't
really know the health effects. Like we're just not really sure. And it seemed like everyone was okay with
just not being sure as a reason to not do anything. And that just, I couldn't accept that, you know, and like,
I can't accept the unknown as a good enough answer not to do anything. Like if you don't know, you have
to find out, you have to do health studies, you have to do blood testing. Like you can't just leave us all to
carry on with our lives and not know if we're gonna get sick from this over time or, you know, so, um,
yeah, sorry. That was a long winded answer, but, uh, no, I didn't have any prior experience and in a way I
Page 3
�feel like that was a benefit. 'Cause I just came at this like trying to use common sense and be like, okay,
you have to do more like, it's like not acceptable to just accept the unknown.
Danielle DeVasto: So you're continuing right now with your advocacy work, correct?
Andrea Amico: Yes.
Danielle DeVasto: Like it's not, it's not done.
Andrea Amico: Oh, it's definitely not done. I, I tell people it's, it's like a lifetime. I have set my mind up
that this will be a lifetime of work for me in some way or another, you know? Um, I do a lot of work at the
national level now, so I'm part of the national PFAS contamination coalition. I helped found that in 2017,
and we're a large group of community, community leaders like me from all over the country, um, who are
also dealing with this issue, whether it's at former military bases like mine, whether it's at industrial sites,
like Saint Galvan um, that's contaminated, Miramac New Hampshire, Husick Falls, uh, Husick Falls, New
York, uh, lots of firefighters who also are concerned about PFAS. Um, so yeah, we're a real, you know,
broad group of people and working at the national level to try to get better EPA regulations, you know,
hold polluters accountable so they are forced to clean up this mess. They're forced to fund health studies
and, and make people whole again, you know, um, it's, it's incredibly wrong what has happened with
PFAS in this country? You know, the fact that manufacturers hid the health effects for so many years,
they were just allowed to manufacture so many PFAS, put them out into our environment. They're in our
bodies, um, with no regulations with no consequences. And even now what we know, we're still, we still
aren't at a point where they're regulated at a federal level. I mean, we're getting there, but, um, it's, it's, it's
absolutely horrific to me how this is all played out in our country. And I hope it's an example of like how
we need to do so much better as a country and as a society and how we treat chemicals and what we're
willing to expose people to. And, um, because these chemicals are never going away. And so anyways, I
see my work as something that will go on forever. I really do. As, as long as I'm living, there will be
something to work on with PFAS. Um, and, and I'm committed to that. You know, I, I gave a, a TEDx talk
in my community a few years ago, and I ended, I ended the line, like, I'll see people, and they're like, oh,
you're still doing that water stuff. And I'm like, yeah. And I, I ended my talk saying like, you know, I, I'm
never gonna stop because I'm just as per persistent as PFAS, you know, like, I'm, [LAUGHTER] I'm just
as persistent as PFAS. So like, yeah, it's, my work will evolve over time, but like I have committed my
mind to a lifetime of work on PFAS to some degree
Danielle DeVasto: In the move that you've made from kind of focusing on just the local to the national,
um, like what, what has that shift been like for you, or what have you noticed in making those shifts?
Andrea Amico: Um, well the I've noticed that I'm not alone., [LAUGHTER] um, we're not alone, you
know, as frustrating as it feels to be. Sometimes you can feel siloed in your own community and how
everything happens. Um, I've realized that there's a lot of other people out there just like us who have
experienced the same things, um, who want the same things. And all of our stories are different. You
know, our polluters are different. Our sources of PFAS are different in some cases, but like, we all want
the same things. Like we don't wanna be exposed to chemicals that we didn't volunteer or sign up for, you
Page 4
�know? Um, and so I've, I feel a sense of collaboration and I feel a sense of validation with a larger group
of people that it's not just us, it's not just New Hampshire, it's not just Portsmouth. Um, and I also feel a
bigger sense of responsibility. The more people that join our coalition and the more stories I hear, I feel
more of a sense of responsibility of why I need to keep going, because if I stop and look at like everything
we've gotten in my community, I'm really proud of that. And I'm really happy. And I feel like I could just be
like, Hey, we have our, you know, the Air Force is cleaning it up. They're filtering our water. We're getting
our health studies. We've had our blood testing like good, you know, like I could just, but I, I feel a bigger
sense of like, like you said, that's not the norm in most communities. Like people are fighting tooth and
nail for blood testing and health studies and filtration and, um, and the numbers of communities
discovering this contamination continue to grow. So I just, I feel a bigger sense of responsibility to
something bigger than just my community and trying to use the knowledge and the experience I have to
move the needle even further. Like we have to stop exposing people to PFAS. We do. Um, and, and we
have to study the people who have been exposed, and we have to make the people who have been
exposed and are harmed, we have to make them whole again, you know? And so, um, so there's yeah, a
lot more to do. And it's bigger than just here.
Danielle DeVasto: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm what concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving
forward?
Andrea Amico: Well, I, I am concerned that a, a few things I'm concerned that we can't even detect all of
them, you know? So the current testing, we have lacks the ability to really know what's, you know, uh,
when something is said to be PFAS free, or we're gonna, you know, stop using PFAS, like my antenna
immediately goes up, like, what does that mean? Is that mean just 20 of 'em, you know, PFAS is a class
of, I've heard 12,000, 15,000, the number keeps growing. So it concerns me that we can't even detect all
of them or truly know what we're being exposed to. Um, it concerns me that we don't have any federal
regulations at this point. We have health advisories. Um, I know the EPA is working on that, but, you
know, we've known for a long time that PFAS are bad. And the fact that we don't have regulations yet to
stop exposure is unacceptable. You know. Um, another challenge that I think people are facing, and one
that I've spent a lot of effort on is the fact that health, the healthcare community doesn't know what PFAS
are. And, um, I mean, even in my own community, people got blood testing done, and they bring the
results to their doctor, and their doctor was like, I don't, I don't know what this is. I don't know how to read
these blood tests. I don't, I don't know what to do with this information. And so, you know, that's another
thing as more communities become exposed. I mean, one of the first things that pops into your mind
when you learn you're exposed for at least for me, it was, is my family gonna be okay? Like, are they
gonna get sick? Like, what do I need to do to monitor their health? Like, what should I do now? I can't
undo the exposure. I can't take the PFAS out of their body any faster. So now what, and then you, you
know, go to your doctor, which seems like a very appropriate step. And, and they're, they're just, you
know, they're uneducated about it. And, um, and it's not, it's not their fault, the physician's fault, it's that
they don't get environmental health training. They're not given guidance on PFAS. They don't even know
Page 5
�how to order PFAS blood tests, you know? So, um, I think there's a lot more that needs to be done too,
on the healthcare side of things. So like, you know, I think when, when you think about lead exposure in
kids, like doctors know that that's not good, and there's a level in the blood that you wanna be below. And
if a kid has lead, there's steps, you can take, you know, to help them. I hope someday with PFAS, we can
be there too with the healthcare community. They're gonna know how to test for it in the blood. They're
gonna know what levels are concerning. And if you have an elevated level, they're gonna know what tests
to run and steps to take, to monitor your health and try to keep you healthy, you know? And we have,
we've seen some progress on that for sure. But that's another area I think, need that needs a lot of work.
Danielle DeVasto: Before we wrap up today, is there anything else that you would like to add that we
haven't touched on today or anything that you'd like to go back to and say more about?
Andrea Amico: Um, I just think, I think a few thoughts, or just, I'll kind of elaborate on a few things I've
said, um, it's infuriating to me how far this PFAS issue has become, um, how far it's gotten out of hand, I
should say in the sense that the chemical companies that made these chemicals decades ago knew,
knew the harms of them. Um, they hid that information, and they continued to make these chemicals
profit off of them. And, and frankly, they continued to do that today. And I just, I, I really struggle with that.
You know, I really struggle that a company, uh, can do something like that to our entire society and yet
face no real consequences. Um, it's crazy to me that the people that have been harmed by these
chemicals the most are the ones that have to like stand up and fight tooth and nail, uh, while these
chemicals were, these companies were just allowed to profit off of them. And I, I think, I think our
government and our society should make a very strong example of these companies. And I think they
need to be criminally held responsible, uh, for what they've done. And, um, and I hope that we'll, I'll hope
I'll see that in my lifetime because they absolutely need to be held responsible. Um, I will also say that,
you know, as a mom, like this has been like one of the most emotional things for me as a mother, you
know? Um, I think as a mom, you, you try to do everything right. You know, when I was pregnant with my
kids, I like took my prenatal vitamins. I went to all my appointments, um, when, when I was looking for
daycares for them, like, I, you know, toward the daycares, I asked so many questions. Like, are you first
aid certified? What's your curriculum? What's your teacher to child ratio? Never once. Did I question the
quality of the water? Never once. Um, that's like something that just eats me up inside as a mom that like,
unbeknownst to me, I sent my children to a daycare center that had highly contaminated water. Um, and
the daycare didn't know either, you know, so even if I had asked the question, they wouldn't have known,
but I can't tell you like what that's done to me emotionally, that I made a choice that put my kids in harm's
way and that, you know, that's honestly, the reason why I fight so hard is for them, like, I can't undo,
what's been done in the past, but like, if I can do everything I can to make this better in the future, I will.
And if I can do anything, I can to prevent this from happening to another mom or family, like I will. Um, but
it's really robbed me of a lot of my happiness. And it's really like taken a lot away from me as a person.
Um, and that's like something I don't think people truly understand like emotionally and psychologically,
what contamination does to a family or an individual or, uh, to a community. You know, it's just, it's just,
Page 6
�it's just absolutely devastating. It feels like the ultimate betrayal, honestly. Um, and so, you know, I guess
I just, you know, talking about the human side of things and, you know, it's easy to be like with, I
advocated for this, and we got this and like, you know, I'm so proud of those things. Those things bring
me a lot of pride and joy that I've been lucky to work with community members, and we've accomplished
so much, but I, I just want people to know that it's not easy, and it's, it's life changing, and it's not for the
better, so I guess that's what all, but I guess, and one other thing just like, what keeps me going though,
and I'll just end with this is that we have seen progress, you know, a lot. Um, not only in awareness, like I
told you, no one knew what PFAS were or even heard of 'em before. Like the amount of legislation that's
passed the amount of resources. I mean, there was $10 billion put billion with a B put in the infrastructure
bill to address PFAS. Like that's huge, you know, um, a lot of money, a lot of attention, a lot of awareness,
a lot of science going on. Um, that's what gives me hope. And I just, um, wanna just keep moving
forward. Like I said, just if we can prevent this from ever happening again, make a strong example of
what's already happened and help the people who have been harmed like that. That's what we need to
do.
Danielle DeVasto: So I suspect that you can never, you mentioned before being, you know, you want to
work to help communities and people feel whole again. Um, and I suspect that after the kind of, you
know, you say betrayal that you felt and, um, the other, you know, just all the ramifications of finding out
something like this happened to your community, that you can never maybe a hundred percent be as you
were mm-hmm, but I'm just, I was curious for you or for your community, um, or people that you work
with, what do you think could be done to make you feel as whole as possible? Like what, what would that
look like for you?
Andrea Amico: I think it's a few different things. So it's having like an established medical monitoring
program that allows people to have access to healthcare, so they can monitor their health and catch any
health effects early. Like right now we don't have that. It's very fragmented. Um, so having a system in
place that will help people monitor their health, that they don't have to pay for that, you know, and if
people do suffer health effects as a result of that, they of their contamination, they should be
compensated. I think if people have lost property values, because they live in a, in an area that's
contaminated and people don't wanna buy their house now, or live there, they should be compensated for
that. Um, I think holding the polluters accountable, you know, like criminally, um, is so important, you
know, like, no, one's no one's ever apologized. Like, no one's ever said, like, we're sorry, this happened to
you. You know, like I think owning the mistakes of the past are so important. Like as much as I like to look
forward to the future and like, how do we change this and make this better? Like that past is so important
and acknowledging the mistakes, apologizing to the communities and like taking full accountability is also
another part of it. Um, absolutely cleaning up the contamination. Like it shouldn't be left in our water in our
soil and, and that's even trickier. Like it's everywhere now, it's in our food, it's in our plants, it's in our fish,
it's in the air, it's in rainwater. Like, you know, so I think being whole, again means a lot of different things,
but it comes down to like accountability, cleaning it up, um, and not putting the burden of paying for all of
Page 7
�this stuff on the communities, you know? Um, and, and whether that's paying for filtration of their water or
paying to go to see the doctor, 'cause they might have health issues or losing, you know, some folks like
in New Hampshire, um, you know, their property values went down like that's their retirement, you know
what I mean? Their home, the value of their home. Um, it's just, it touches on so many issues. And so I
think there's a lot that needs to be done to make us whole, but those are just some that pop off pop to the
top of my mind.
Danielle DeVasto: Mm-hmm those would all be excellent places to start. Mm-hmm mm-hmm even if,
maybe it's not, you know, ultimately you can't undo what, what has been done as you've said mm-hmm
so,
Andrea Amico: Yeah, and I, I just hope too, like the technology advances on how to get rid of PFAS, you
know, 'cause even at this point we can't destroy it. We can't like even incineration there's concerns with it
there. So it's like in some ways too, I'm so grateful in my community, they're filtering it from the water, and
you know, they concentrate it and right now they send it to a landfill aligned landfill, and I'm grateful that
it's leaving my community, but in the back of my mind, I'm like, we're just like taking this pollution and
moving it somewhere else. Like we're making it somebody else's problem someday. And that seems
wrong too. You know, it's like we don't even have, and then I wonder like then why do we approve new
PFAS on the market? We can't even handle the PFAS. We have, we don't even have a good
understanding of the health impacts of all the PFAS that are on the market. Like why would we add more
into the environment? You know? Um, so again, I'm just hopeful with the resources and the awareness
and the scientific interest in PFAS that we will see more advances on remediation, technology and
destruction. Um, so we're not just like picking up the pollution and moving it around instead of actually
getting rid of it. But again, all the reason we probably should have never made this stuff in the first place
'cause we can't get rid of it, you know? Um, so yeah.
Danielle DeVasto: Well thank you Andrea for taking the time to share your story today. Thank you.
Andrea Amico: Yeah. Thanks for talking with me.
Page 8
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c414045606e4db58f7f931ffd70d4862.mp4
e2af5c96a3d378d8ac6f7a99f8896749
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0036
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Amico, Andrea
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2023-02-10
Title
A name given to the resource
Andrea Amico, 2023 (Interview video and transcript)
Description
An account of the resource
Andrea Amico lives in Portsmouth, New Hampshire where she moved in 2007. In this interview, Andrea discusses her activism and advocacy about PFAS contamination after learning about the superfund site at the Pease Tradeport, where her husband worked and children attended daycare.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Moving Image
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/57c2544194170a01b830ba13308da6ab.pdf
a25ffe5194e638dd9987fb1d36bb81ce
PDF Text
Text
Living with PFAS
Interviewer: Danielle DeVasto
Interviewee: Karen Vorce |
Date of Interview: 2023-01-13
Danielle DeVasto: I'm Dani DeVasto, and today, January 13, 2023, I have the pleasure of chatting with
Karen Vorce. Karen, thanks so much for coming and talking with me today.
Karen Vorce: Of course. Thanks for having me.
Danielle DeVasto: Can you tell me about where you're from Karen, and where you currently live?
Karen Vorce: Yes. Um, I- I live here in Kent County, Michigan, um, on the west side of Kent County in
the City of Walker, and I also work here in Kent County as well, um, at the Michigan Department of
Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy in the Remediation Redevelopment Division, and our district office
is in downtown Grand Rapids, in Kent County.
Danielle DeVasto: And how long have you been in Kent County, Karen?
Karen Vorce: Let's see, I've lived in Kent County now for about six and a half years. Um, I actually
moved to the west side of Michigan, from the Metro Detroit area in the summer of 2016.
Danielle DeVasto: Thank you. Karen, can you tell me a story, please, about your experience with PFAS
or with PFAS in your community?
Karen Vorce: Sure, yes. Um, so it kinda has to deal with me working for the State of Michigan and the
Department of Environment. Um, I started here at the state, um, in February 2017. I transferred over from
doing environmental work in consulting, um, for a number of, uh, [LIP SMACK] the regulated community
in the State of Michigan, for about seven years, and so I was really excited. Um, I applied for the job at
the state, and I was able to get the job and, um, [LIP SMACK] always had wanted to work for- for the
State of Michigan. And, [LIP SMACK] um, so I started in February 2017, and that was right when
[NOTIFICATION SOUND] we were just starting to learn about Scotchgard, um, the fabric protectant, uh,
waterproofing used by Wolverine Worldwide, um, at their tannery facility in downtown Rockford, which
was, uh, had been long gone since about 2010. And, um, so yeah, I was assigned to cover as a project
manager and geologist, uh, northern Kent County on my first day, and it just so happened that this
Wolverine site was located also in northern Kent County, so it landed in my lap, and I remember about a
month in, you know, hearing that the citizens' group had- had met with some of my colleagues and my
supervisor in January, so just about a month before I started, and had brought concerns about the waste
stream that would've left the tannery [SNIFFLE] containing PFAS, the Scotchgard material, and where
that was disposed of at this, uh, property called the House Street Dump. And so I remember we started
looking for any records on that, and then, um, [LIP SMACK] we had never sampled for PFAS at a site, an
environmental site, [LIP SMACK] um, any sites of contamination in our district before that time. So this
was definitely something new to- to Eagle in our divi- our district. Um, there were a couple other sites,
military installations, that had been doing testing [SNIFFLE] in other places. So we kinda had to learn,
myself and colleagues had to learn the process of collecting PFAS samples, how to do it properly, um,
and so we started sampling some wells, um, just to the northeast of the House Street Dump because a
Page 1
�well permit had come in. Someone wanted to install a new well and knowing that the concerns that were
brought to us from the citizen group, um, you know, and obviously the local health department, we all
kinda were like, well, let's sample those houses around where this permit is to make sure that there's not
PFAS in there. Um, Wolverine agreed to do that sampling. Um, it was difficult to- to get liable parties to do
that sampling at that time 'cause we didn't have regulated, um—PFAS compounds were not regulated.
We had no criteria, so really no legal teeth, um, to request sampling, but, uh, you know, Wolverine did
agree. Uh, we also requested onsite work to start doing onsite sampling at the House Street site, as well
as at the tannery site where it was occurring—where the tanning operations happened, but, um, you
know, that was in April 2017, and then, you know, those results, fortunately, um, they did- they did detect
some PFAS, but at that time we thought, okay, it's- it wasn't above the EPA lifetime health advisory that
we were using, uh, which was 70 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS, [LIP SMACK] and, um, so we
thought, okay, well at least those folks are, you know, below the 70, 'cause we didn't really have any other
levels or- or known values to go off of. So, uh, we said, okay, let's- let's shift Wolverine. We need you to
keep—we need you to do something at the site. We gotta get groundwater samples at the site cause
there's other houses around here, right, um, that, you know, could be impacted. So that was- that was
going on, and lo and behold—so the sampling was done in April. In May, the end of May, we got a call
from the Department of Defense, um, because they had done sampling of the Belmont Armory,
[SNIFFLE] which is on the House Street site—not on the hou—is on House Street, just down the road
from the House Street Dump. They sampled their private well for PFAS because the Department of
Defense was sampling all their properties across the United States at that time for PFAS because of their
training with, um, [LIP SMACK] the Aqua- Aqueous Film-Forming- Film-Forming Foam, the AFFF, that
they've been using at a lot of their properties. Um, that was—AFFF was not used at the Belmont Armory.
It used to be a church, and then they used it for, like, band practice. So, um, when they got a hit in their
well of, I believe it was 120 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS, um, we got that result, and we were,
like, look, this- this is what, you know, we're worried about Wolverine. This is why we've been asking you
to do this. We need you to sample wells now, like we know there's a problem. You can't just be focusing
on the- on the site, we need to sample residential wells. And so that summer of 2017, it's kind of a blur
now, but that's when, um, you know, especially as a new state employee, it was pretty intense going out
to the neighborhood, um, with this emerging contaminant telling people, hey, we wanna sample your well,
it may or may not be impacted with this PFAS stuff that's at this dump, that's down the street from your
house, that's covered in trees, that you may not have known was there. [DEEP BREATH] Um, you know,
going door to door, just having those- those conversations with people and- and not knowing in the
beginning, just thinking, oh, hopefully, you know, then maybe this won't be that bad, maybe- maybe their
wells are at a good depth, and it won't be a problem. I do remember the first house besides the- the
homes to the northeast. Once we started going down House Street, the first door I knocked on, um, who
you've probably interviewed, was Sandy Linstelz' door. She lived right across the street from House
Street, and, um, yeah, I remember meeting her and just from the moment I met her, she was just such a
Page 2
�nice lady, and, um, she was just so nice. She said, "Oh yeah, come on in, take a sample, do whatever
you gotta do," and you know, we sampled. I think there was about 46 houses during that- that initial
sampling in May 2017, or June. It was June by that time, 2017. And I still remember, uh, being in the
office and getting the email results, uh, coming in of the lab, the lab sampling results, and, um, just
seeing, you know, those results coming of some of those houses and the tens of thousands of parts per
trillion in their drinking water well, and it really was at that moment I realized, you know, even being new
to the state, sensing that something just was really wrong, this is not obviously good. Um, it's way above
that 70 parts per trillion, and I'm not a toxicologist, I'm geologist, but just seeing that number I knew that's
obviously not something that is good for people to be drinking, or safe. Um, and so, yeah, then I
remember that afternoon, at that time my supervisor and the health department took—had to take those
results and go to- go to people's houses and- and tell them right away [DEEP BREATH] what their results
were. Um, yeah, so I can keep going on this story. I can go up to where we are current day, um,
[LAUGHTER] if- if you wanted, um, but, yeah, that's kind of just going back to those early days. Um, just
the panic that's involved with projects like this coming from a regulatory standpoint. Um, I- I think of other
states, especially, or really around the world, anywhere, any- any geographic location or government, um,
[LIP SMACK] where, you know, they haven't started testing for PFAS, um, they haven't started looking for
it. Um, you know, I- I just want people to learn from Michigan, and- and learn from what we've
experienced and had to go through to kinda learn how to look for it and address it because, um, people
will find it. We're gonna keep finding it, um, but they need to start looking sooner rather than later, and I'm
sure the residents who have been impacted here in Michigan, at all of our PFAS sites, not even just here
in Kent County, would echo that the sooner that you can let people know that they're drinking something
they're not supposed to be drinking, the better, um, because, you know, now we're learning more about it.
There's kind of no more excuses that people can have. I mean, it's in- it's in the everyday CNN and all the
publications are talking about PFAS. Everyone's talking about PFAS now. Um, we know it's an issue. We
have more science, more health studies to document even lower levels, so our levels are now below 70
parts per trillion here in Michigan, for a number of compounds. Um, and EPA has since updated that 70
parts per trillion right to below one parts per trillion for PFOA or PFOS. Each of those are below one parts
per trillion now. Um, so obviously these are harmful chemicals at very low concentrations. Um, and I think
the more people realize how we're exposed to those every day, not just in our drinking water, through our
everyday commerce goods, through potentially touching things that could be contaminated, dirt, soil, um,
couches, you know, laying around on couches that are Scotchgarded, um, uh, cosmetics, you know,
different, uh, adhesives, different things we're breathing in, even the dust particles that we're ingesting,
you know, it's- it's once you start realizing kind of how ubiquitous and how much PFAS is a part of our,
unfortunately, society now, it really goes to show the- the urgency and the need that is needed to- to keep
addressing PFAS [SNIFFLE] 'cause the more we find out, it just seems like the more we're realizing that
they're not good for us. I mean, they do their job good [CHUCKLE] on the- on the waterproofing and, um,
Page 3
�the chemistry end. Yes, they're a modern marvel and, um, they do their job, but obviously they weren't
made to be inside of us.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah. Right. Um, I'm wondering if you might, if you're willing to say more about your
experience with PFAS from that kind of regulatory work perspective. You've kind of hinted that, you know,
you're not a toxicologist, you're a geologist, and so I guess I'm just curious if you have anything else that
you might say about how PFAS has kind of been a part of your work experience and- and- and impacting
that.
Karen Vorce: Yeah. So, um, yeah, P—un- understanding, we- I mean, we've just been like sponges
soaking up the data over the last six years now, um, at this site and at others. You know, we have over
240, uh, PFAS sites now in the State of Michigan, identified. Those are locations where we have
groundwater above our cleanup standards. [SNIFFLE] We have samples, um, showing that the
groundwater's contaminated above that. So we have at least 240. I'm sure there's plenty more out there,
we just haven't found yet. Um, I- I think Wolverine's site here in northern Kent County, it does span
approximately 25 square miles of groundwater contamination. It is, I'm pretty sure the largest, um, area of
contamination that we have found to date, and I'm—hopefully it stays that way. Uh, I [CHUCKLE] don't
wanna find any more like this, especially such high concentrations in private drinking water wells. I mean,
we have found, um, concentrations as high as 100,000 parts per trillion in private drinking water wells,
um, which is just pretty- pretty insane to say out loud, um, that to date from just the various conferences,
the various interactions that I've had, that I've heard others having, I haven't heard of anyone having a
higher result than that 100,000 parts per trillion in a drinking water well. I've heard of it in environmental
wells at sites. You know, we have 1,000,000 parts per trillion in groundwater at the tannery site,
[SNIFFLE] but for someone to actually be drinking that, um, is pretty astounding and, um, you know, what
we've learned about the contaminant fate and transport of PFAS, especially in this area, um, has really
helped us be able to address PFAS at other sites faster, uh, get a better understanding because in the
beginning, there's no way when this first started, um, that- that we knew this contaminant plume would
encompass 25 square miles. Like, we were thinking, oh, you know, we have, uh, chlorinated-solvent
plumes, we have petroleum, you know, gasoline-parameter plumes. We're used to dealing with
contamination. That's what we do here in my division. So I would always tell people, you don't wanna see
me 'cause when we show up, that means you have contamination, right, [LAUGHTER] um, unfortunately.
So it's—we- we're used to it, like, okay, we'll start with these close houses and that was really hard for me
personally, when this started in gaining, really having to gain the trust back of the public for- for the
agency, you know, before I even, sometimes, you know, before I was born, obviously when this dumping
occurred, but before I even worked at Eagle, because, um, you know, we—in the beginning of this, we
were handling it like every other site we handled today, not knowing that PFAS traveled as far as it could,
it's so mobile. In the complex geology that we're dealing with here in northern Kent, um, the glacial
geology, and just a lot of the sand and gravel that just acted as a beautiful, unfortunately conduit for
PFAS to travel long distances. You know, in the beginning, if- if what we know now, yes, I—we would've
Page 4
�been expanding those sampling areas from the get-go, making them bigger. But in the beginning we—
when we were taking this, okay, you start on site and then you step out and then you step out more, and
then what happened was, you know, word started going around and then people were mad that, you
know, well, why isn't the state or the health department coming to tell us about this? Why am I finding out
from my neighbors? Or, you know, there were law firms going around, right, knocking on people's doors,
and that really was difficult personally, um, for me to deal with, with people having that anger. You know,
it felt very personal to me, to the department, that we weren't doing our jobs, when at the time we thought
we were doing our jobs based on how other contaminants behave, based on other projects. We had
never, um, dealt with anything like this. So we- I tried to take that and not- and not take it personally
'cause I knew these people, you know, these residents were not mad at Karen Vorce, they- they were
mad at the situation that- that this is- that this has happened and that they have been unknowingly
drinking PFAS and subjecting their families and their children and- and things to this. And so taking that,
um, not taking things personally, but wanting to be an agent of change and an agent of help, to help the
residents was what I started to focus on and really empathizing with them and- and- and putting myself in
their shoes because yes, I was experiencing my own emotional and psychological issues with dealing
with this PFAS and being a first, you know, "emergency responder" to this, which has its own types of
kind of stress, but, you know, I—it was nothing compared to what people who were exposed to this and
drinking it were having to deal with, and I just kept reminding myself of that. Um, and so what we learned,
I think one of the main takeaways from our Wolv—as a regulator from- from Wolverine, a) transparency is
extremely important to everyone, um, especially the folks who are—may or may not be impacted. So
making sure you're, um, transparent and honest, even if you don't know the answers, saying you don't
know the answers and that, you know, this is what we're trying to do. B) Having a robust communication
plan with how you're going to reach out to residents, how you're going to have enough people to go door
to door to let people know, um, using local municipalities, uh, email blasts, using different ways to reach
people through social media, through door hangers, through mailers, multiple ways, 'cause some people
like their information different ways, but really making sure—you're gonna think you're overcommunicating, but you're—but to some people you're still not communicating enough. So until you feel
like you're communicating too much, you're not communicating enough when it comes to sites like this.
Um, so that was something we learned 'cause we really had to up—the state really ups their game, if you
will, on communication and public outreach based on PFAS. It was definitely lacking, um, before this.
[SNIFFLE] The—and th- the residents of this area helped facilitate that change 'cause they- they were the
ones who were able to point it out to, I think the agency, to say, "Hey, you know, I'm mad that I found out
from my neighbor, or I found out from someone knocking on my door,and I didn't find out from the state,"
like, how can we make sure this doesn't happen again? Okay. So that was kind of a humbling and
important learning aspect. Um, another one, especially when we're dealing with emerging contaminants
and I kind of, so I said, um, [LIP SMACK] communication is pooling your resources. So I understand not
every state has the same resources as Michigan, uh, every- every environmental, you know, agency, but
Page 5
�really reaching out to neighboring states or reaching out to other divisions or even the federal
government, putting your head in the sand and saying, you don't have the people to address the problem
isn't going to solve the problem. You need to be vocal that you don't have enough resources, that you are
concerned. That's how you get funding and that's how you get people involved, and you get legislator—
legislative change, and you get more funding in state budgets, and so being- not being afraid to be vocal
about that, to show your "vulnerabilities," as a state agency, I think a lot of agencies are afraid to do that
'cause they don't wanna look like they can't do their job, right. And you don't wanna scare people, like, oh
no, my- my state agency isn't equipped to handle this. Well, no we didn't—of course not, like we didn't
know about PFAS and no one really expects that 25 square miles of somewhere is going to be impacted.
So, you know, you- you- you plan for the worst and hope for the best, but we really need to be—PFAS
showed us we need to be prepared for things like this and don't be afraid to ask for help, and don't act like
you know all the answers 'cause you're—it's gonna be pretty obvious that you don't. So we are- we tried
to be pretty humble and open and honest in the beginning in north Kent, and I think that went a long way
with the residents as well. Um, so those are kind of my three main, um, I guess suggestions to other
regulators. And you know, we learned—we had to change a paradigm, our thinking of how we address
sites of contamination, where before, and this was some of the frustration in the beginning that residents
had, they were like, "Well, why are you starting on the source property with groundwater sampling and
then stepping out, like, why aren't you out sampling all of the wells?" And so we had to explain, well,
normally in order to know where to sample the wells, we need to know, like, groundwater flow at the site,
and we need to know what the source is and, like, what the local geology is, so then we can, like, better
pinpoint, you know where to sample and understand it. And then—but then in the public side and in some
cases depending on the concentrations, you kinda had to go ahead of that, and you can't wait for thatthat HydroGeo investigation to happen. You have to go to the- to the receptors now and sample, and you
may have to sample more than you thought you would, or you may- you may over-sample, but, hey, at
least you're sampling. I'd rather over-sample than not sample enough and- and do it in a timely manner.
So there definitely is an expectation, um, that you prioritize the drinking water response over the science
or the academic or the hydrogeologic, which in some cases is difficult because we need the hydrogeology
to tell us where it's going and where to sample, so you have to use your best professional judgment, you
have to use your—the tools you have, the digital resources, best inferred groundwater direction, right, yet
you gotta kinda think on your feet and- and- and do things that way. So that was obviously difficult to
figure out in the beginning as you're going through this. Um, we had, in the beginning of this, um, we did
call in our incident managers that we have here, our environmental, um, emergency incident managers,
that we have in our Remediation and Redevelopment Division here at Eagle. So each district of RRD,
Remediation and Redevelopment Division, um, has an incident manager. They all came from across the
state [CLICK SOUND] to north Kent, when this started blowing up in 2017, um, to help us because this
was getting to be so big and so large, and there were so many things we needed help. I- it was just me
and one other colleague and my supervisor trying to field all these calls and address all these things, so
Page 6
�we needed help. So we pulled in, we were able to pull in extra resources. Um, making sure you have
open communication between the local, state, and federal health agencies was really crucial and the
local—or the state and federal environmental agencies. So everybody was kind of at the table and
everyone kinda had their lane, if you will. We started figuring out, okay, Eagle, this is your job to- to figure
out where the contamination is, identify wells that need to be sampled, get the contractors out there,
oversee Wolverine doing the work, um, make sure it's being done right, QAQC stuff. And then it was like,
okay, health departments, your job is getting residents the results, explaining what the results mean,
telling them do they need to filter, do they not need a filter? Figuring all that out was a whole thing, too, in
the beginning when this was happening and who's communicating what, right. Um, that was crucial, um,
to make sure that we had the right people communicating the information, who were the toxicologists
epidemiologists, the health folks. Um, and- and then we were staying in our lane doing our thing and—but
we were all working together, um, on the same goal. Um, so that was another huge aspect, 'cause at the
end of the day, we all kinda have our- our little ex—areas of expertise, and it is tempting to kinda go out
and try to boss around other agencies, but- but at the end of the day, you kinda just all start working
together and get over that tur—like, this is my turf, no, this is my turf, and you just start working for your
citizens, that are basically your bosses. Um, [CHUCKLE] that's what—who I work for, right, the taxpayers.
So, um, that was a learning experience, and, um, you know, now- now I- I- I know who to contact if- if I
have issues, you know, the health—local and state health were, like, you know, really close and EPA.
Like, we're kind of all allies now from having gone through this, um, helping each other. It's not a local
versus state versus federal. It's not us versus them. That can hap—I- I don't know if the general public
knows that, but that- that can happen, you know, Eagles get in the way, um, you know, like, oh, the state
has this handled, we don't need the fed help, or, you know, local people will be like, "Oh, the local county
has us. We don't need the state's help," you know, so kinda getting in over that, those- those, um, those,
you know, can- can be a humbling [CHUCKLE] experience for- for other, I'm sure states and both, they
experienced similar things. Um, but I would say, you know- you know, this was, this has been—I- I call
this my baby, my- my site, since I started at the state. I'm still heavily involved. I—we did hire a new, you
know, project, uh, project manager [SNIFFLE] since I've transitioned into district supervisor work, um, but,
you know, people from the beginning told me this is a once in a career type of issue or- or site or- or
experience. When I first started, I didn't really realize that. I thought, Oh, this is- this is its normal to work,
you know, have- have- have- have public meetings four nights a week and work till nine at night, and, you
know, start the day again at seven a.m., and be doing all this crazy stuff and- and- and be suing multibillion dollar companies and having, you know, mediation and- and drafting consent decrees, and, well,
no, that's not normal, but, um, you know, I wouldn't trade it for anything. I- I do believe, um, that God had
me come to west Michigan, for a reason, um, that I was given north Kent, for a reason. I felt very underqualified in the beginning, uh, you know, a new PM, a newbie, um, kinda had that imposter syndrome, but
as- as time went on, I realized that, hey, you know, I have a whole department, I have colleagues, it's not
just me doing this, it's us, it's a team, everyone has their part, and I just really started focusing on the
Page 7
�people and the outreach and the empathy and caring for, you know, the residents. Um, and I think at the
end, you know, just focusing on your strengths, you don't need to know everything as a regulator. You
have resources. You have people and experts to rely on. That was also a, um, [SNIFFLE] something I
learned early on in this project.
Danielle DeVasto: What a way to start, huh?
Karen Vorce: Yes. [LAUGHTER]
Danielle DeVasto: It's really that- that, like, tested by fire and—
Karen Vorce: Yes.
Danielle DeVasto: —hopefully it is truly a once-in-a-career situation.
Karen Vorce: Yes, I hope so.
Danielle DeVasto: Um, maybe looking forward then, what kinds of concerns do you have about PFAS
contamination, moving forward?
Karen Vorce: Yeah. Um, definitely I have concerns. Um, you know, as- as a mother now, when I started
this project, I wasn't a mom, and, you know, went through this and- and now I- I have a one and a half
year old, um, so I can empathize, uh, a lot better, too, with- with folks who had children who have been
affected by contamination, you know, imagining my son drinking it or- or having been nursed on, you
know if the mother was ingesting it- it tran- transmisses through- through breast milk and when the baby's
developing and- and things like that. So I really worry. I really am just concerned, you know, especially
always thinking ahead to the next generation, how can we reduce exposure to them? Um, and I'm really
excited to see some states now, um, are banning certain products with PFAS, certain food- food
packaging, um, you know, certain—I- I swear I read somewhere certain consumer goods won't be—
clothing won't be allowed to have PFAS in it with—and something in New York City, I have to dig into that
more. Um, you know, the- the more we can eliminate when we really don't need it, if we really don't need
something to be waterproof or to have specifically these compounds, these PFAS compounds in it, let's
eliminate it. Like we don't need it in dental floss. I'm pretty sure I can still use dental floss without having
PFAS in it. I'll be fine with it, even if it's a little bit stickier, I don't know. [CHUCKLE] Like, um, you know,
kind of just- just re-thinking our- our, um, 'cause- 'cause I understand, the manufacturers play their part,
right. The- the- the capitalistic selling of things, it- it all plays its part, but at the end of the day, consumers
have power, too. We have a lot of power, um, as- as consumers, and we need to be vocal with our dollars
and what companies we're supporting and with our- with our legislators of what kind of legislation we
wanna see in our states to foster positive change of prohibiting, you know, these products from coming
into our state that eventually is gonna end up in our landfill, right, um, and end up in our environment. So
I'm really excited to see the legislation and policies starting to get put in place little by little. Um, I know it'll
be a long challenge, but, um, that- that is kind of a positive light. In- in the more health studies that we
have done right now, there is a multi-site health- PFAS health study happening in Michigan, north Kent's
involved. There's a- another site in south, uh, southwest Michigan, involved, um, and other state—other
sites across the country in that as well to better understand the health, um, and document the health
Page 8
�effects of exposure to PFAS and at what levels, what may you see certain adverse effects of, you know,
anything from cancer to hi- high cholesterol to, um, preeclampsia, uh, things- things of those nature. So
really getting a better understanding of that, I think is crucial, too, so, um, we can just spread that
knowledge, so people can make informed decisions. So we know now Teflon pans with PFOA and
others, some other PFAS compounds, not a good idea. So let's let consumers know that, so they can
then use stainless steel or alum— you know, what different types of pans. Yes, it may not be as great for
eggs, but, you know, you can- you can deal with a little bit of eggs sticking to your pan if you don't wanna
eat PFAS, right? Um, you know, letting people make—being informed to make decisions about how
much—at least having some control over how much PFAS they're being exposed to. I just bought a new
couch for the first time 'cause I've been using hand-me-downs from family for a number of years. First
question, is this Scotchgarded? Like, please, I do not wanna buy a couch that has Scotchgard or any
stain-resistant treatment on it. No, it wasn't. Oh, and it's filled with recycled, um, [LIP SMACK] pieces of
couches that didn't work or, you know, the filling from other—like it's recycled material on the inside. So
that's even better. Cool. Okay. So making, like, decisions like that to- to eliminate, you know, your
furniture, sheets, you know, clothes that really don't need to be waterproof, you know, do you really need
GORE-TEX or, you know, that water repellency on those. Little decisions like that, um, but also making
sure your representatives in your, um, states, your federal representatives, understand that you want, um,
policy and laws that protect citizens from exposure to these that make- make us aware when things—
when PFAS is in- in products. Like, trying to know all the different trade names is really difficult. I'll even
try to read labels, and I'm like, I can't even tell if this is a PFAS, like, what is this, I don't know. So having
better labeling, you know, there- there's things that can be done that I think, um, will start happening that
are going to at least make things a little bit better for the next generation, um, so we can at least learn
something from- from all of this, right? That's- that's kind of what we need to do as our responsibility, um,
with- with having this knowledge. [SNIFFLE]
Danielle DeVasto: And gives concrete things that we can do, instead of—
Karen Vorce: Yes.
Danielle DeVasto: —you know, as you pointed out, sometimes this is pretty overwhelming and—
Karen Vorce: Mm-hmm.
Danielle DeVasto: —widespread, far more complicated than we imagine, but—
Karen Vorce: Yes. Little things we can- we can- we can try to do to make change. [SNIFFLE]
Danielle DeVasto: So before we wrap up, Karen, is there anything else that you'd like to add that we
haven't touched on today or anything you'd like to go back to and say more about?
Karen Vorce: Hmm. I'm sure there is. I could definitely talk all day [LAUGHTER] about- about PFAS and
north Kent, and just the experience and, um, and, uh, you know, the good and the bad 'cause as- as
much, you know, sadness and, um, obviously harm that this contamination, um, has caused the residents
in Kent County. [SNIFFLE] Um, you know, I don't- I don't let that over-shadow the, um, the good that's
actually come out of this, in that I've met a lot of people that I never would've met, friendships have been
Page 9
�made, um, being able to- to feel at the end of the day that you're making a difference, um, and- and
helping people, um, and- and passing that on to others. It- it really feels like the citizens here have also,
you know, they've really stepped up to be, like, leaders in- in this fight against PFAS, um, to- to talk to
other states, to other affected communities, and seeing that, um, just has been really inspiring as well,
just- just people knowing, like, you don't have to be in a position of authority. You don't have to just—you
don't have to be working for an agency or- or whatever to- to be teaching people about PFAS or about
your experience. Like, anyone can- can talk to people, you know, just even it—it doesn't matter what your
day job is, right. If- if you've, you know, been ex—if you've been exposed to PFAS and especially folks in
Kent County who have been through this, um, you know, I think it's invaluable for them to kinda reach out
and- and be there for- for the other people who are going through this, um, in other communities here in
Michigan. So that's- that's been pretty amazing to see, [SNIFFLE] um, to see that happen as well. Um,
and I think, you know, it's always important for- for us to have our lessons learned, to learn from them, to
admit when- when things could have been done differently, you know, even- even industry, right? We had
industry standards and practices back in the 1940s, and '50s, that were vastly different than what we
have today, right, and so just, you know, admitting that, understanding that, and trying to address that.
It's- it's- it's not necessarily in all cases, like, I gotcha, like, ooh, I'm gonna- I'm gonna get those- those evil
corporations, right? It- it's about, okay, I understand, I totally get it. Things were different back in the day,
right, but if we know things were different, and we know there was contamination in our waste streams,
companies do have—should be thinking about their historic operations and where there could be other
"House Street Dumps." I know—you know, anyone listening to this to who may be a CEO of a company,
you know, [CHUCKLE] or know a CEO who runs a company and- and, you know, you really need to look
at- look at your company and your heart to say, hey, are- are there skeletons in the closet that I need to
address, because you're gonna be living with that for the rest of your life, knowing that you ignored
something and potentially hundreds of people have been impacted because of that. So that's also kind of
a warning [CHUCKLE] that I'll give- give to folks, um, to, hey, just- just be- just be honest. We're- we're
not dumb. People who aren't in your company, we can see through things. We- we know, and the more
proactive you're going to be, the more people are gonna wanna work with you, the more collaboration
you're gonna get, and, you know, you could really turn this into something that, um, doesn't have to be,
you know, a fight, um, to get things done. So that- that's something I'll- I'll just throw out there as well.
Danielle DeVasto: I mean, throughout the—this conversation, that theme of relationship seems to
kinda—
Karen Vorce: Mmm.
Danielle DeVasto: —keep cropping up in your story in different ways, the different kinds of relationships
that you can or have, or could build—
Karen Vorce: Yep.
Danielle DeVasto: —seems really important.
Karen Vorce: Definitely. That's a good point. [CHUCKLE]
Page 10
�Danielle DeVasto: Well, thank you so much, Karen, for taking the time to share your story today.
Karen Vorce: Yeah, thanks for having me. I appreciate it. And thanks for doing this project.
Page 11
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/09a30ba6d22bc9110d3e7c2a8b0c03ef.mp4
7b2b542d78ca331a97df008e0d95cb99
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0035
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Vorce, Karen
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2022-01-13
Title
A name given to the resource
Karen Vorce, 2022 (Interview video and transcript)
Description
An account of the resource
Karen Vorce is a geologist who lives in Walker, Michigan and works for the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy in the Remediation Redevelopment Division. In this interview, Karen discusses her work with PFAS contamination sites in Kent County, as well as how her concern over PFAS have impacted her family and personal decisions.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Moving Image
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d59fd54e489b0399681dba195f104334.pdf
a8682d79f16cd6d4b12aaaa5df014196
PDF Text
Text
Living with PFAS
Interviewer: Danielle DeVasto
Interviewee: Alan Eberlein
Date of Interview: 2022-11-29
Danielle DeVasto: I'm Dani DeVasto, and today, November 29, 2022, I have the pleasure of chatting
[BANG SOUND] with Al Eberlein. Hi, Al.
Al Eberlein: Hello.
Danielle DeVasto: Thank you for having me over to your house today. Um, Al, can you tell me where
you're from, [CLICK SOUND] and, um, let's start with that. Where are you from?
Al Eberlein: Right here in Rockford, born and raised.
Danielle DeVasto: All right. So you've been here a long time.
Al Eberlein: Yep. I grew up as a child on Myers Lake and went to Rockford Public Schools and then
resided within a couple miles of town, or in town, my entire life.
Danielle DeVasto: That's truly something. As someone who's moved around a lot, I wish that I could—
Al Eberlein: Which is more the norm now than not.
Danielle DeVasto: Unfortunately, yeah. Um, Al, would you tell me a story about your experience with
PFAS or with PFAS in your community, please?
Al Eberlein: Well, it's a funny thing because it's an unfolding story, right? And I lived through it, not
knowing I was living through it for many years. Like I said, uh, went to Rockford schools, went to the
junior high school and the high school here. Um, lived around, uh, Rockford, uh, for a number of years.
Um, uh, my first home was a- a mobile homesite, uh, at Algoma Estates, [CLEARING THROAT] which I
lived with several years after I was married in 1980, with my wife, Lori, and, um, as we were discussing
earlier, uh, lo and behold in future years, I found out—and we always knew that it was something not
quite right about the water there, uh, but we were close to the 12-mile dump because Algoma's off of 13
mile, and the 12-mile dump was, you know, backed up to that. And, um, [LIP SMACK] so I'm sure that we
were probably drinking water that wasn't too great then. And, uh, we had our, uh, first child, um, there, uh,
when we lived in Algoma Estates, Matthew, uh, in 1982. And, um, it was a- it was, um, [LIP SMACK] a
strange birth. Matthew was, uh, born with what they described as immature lung- lung syndrome that you
nor- normally don't experience unless a child is, like, two months early. His lungs were that bad or worse,
but Matthew was full term. He was almost eight-pound baby, and they said they never had seen that
before. Um, so, consequently, he almost died. Um, he was in neonatal unit in Grand Rapids, for two
weeks and, um, he did pink up right away. For hours and hours after he was born, he was purple and, uh,
he pulled out of it miraculously, um, [LIP SMACK] but consequently, uh, it left him with a lot of problems.
He had episodes of schizophrenia, uh, odd, uh, feelings in his body, like his spirit was half out of his body.
Um, uh, we tried some therapy with, uh, Wellbutrin and, um, [NOISE] Ritalin to try to help him, uh, control
his thoughts, but they didn't work for him. Um, so anyhow, uh, they barely got him—kept him mainstream
through, uh, grade school, and once he was junior high, and after, he ended up in special ed and
unfortunately kids like Matthew, they fall through the cracks. They're not bad enough to be, you know,
Page 1
�sent off to Kenosha, or something, but they're—they try to mainstream 'em, and they have a couple hours
in special ed and put 'em in a regular class, and they're, you know, how children can be cruel and- and it
was a terrible experience. Um, he was a very melancholy child and, uh—because by the time he got to
high school, uh, he started self-medicating with alcohol, dropped outta school, and we didn't even keep
alcohol in our house, but he sought out his own medication. And, um, consequently, he died at 24 years
old, uh, from alcoholism. Well, like I say, he was born in, uh, '82. In 1986, we tried again for a child, uh,
Christopher. And so we moved back into town in—before he was born—
Danielle DeVasto: Into Rockford?
Al Eberlein: — into Rockford, on Lewis Street, on the Wolverine plat, north of town, in an older home,
and so that my wife could afford to stay home with the baby. And so consequently, Christopher was born
a little early, not a lot, a little, and he was rather small birth weight, he's—but not terrible. He was about
six pounds, and they thought he was normal at the- uh, at the moment he was born, but it quickly became
apparent that he was not thriving, and they couldn't figure it out. Finally, after about a month or so, a
geneticist in Grand Rapids, said, "Um, [CLICK SOUND] I can't tell you what's wrong with your son, but I'm
heavily suspicioning that there's something wrong with him, genetically. Um, I think you should go to
Chicago, uh, Children's Hospital." So we took Christopher down there five different times, and they did
studies, and actually they did workups on Christopher. Uh, he's actually in a journal someplace. They
took, uh, pictures of him, and he was very unusual and the best determination that they could come up
with is they said, "Well, he sort of like neonatal renoleukodystrophy," and I go, what in the world is that?
And they said, "Well, that's [CLICK SOUND] where the protozoa in the cell structure is low, and the ones
that are there are deformed." So what does that mean? Well, the body does not have a good capability of
dealing with heavy metals, like, uh, copper and so forth. And so as the months went by, all this kinda built
up in his brain and damaged his brain. He lost his eyesight and, uh, he didn't thrive. He didn't get nutrition
out of food well, and, um, they said he would only live two months, but, um, we loved him and took care of
him, ended up having to feed him with a stomach tube, and we kept him alive for two years and two
months, and gave him the best life that we could give him. But I remember them saying this towards the
end of- of the time that we went to Chicago, at the Children's Hospital, and they said, "You know, there's
several different kinds," that they had, uh, described at the time of- of that disease, but they said,
"Christopher's really not like any of them, he's like his own thing." There again, both with Matthew and
with Christopher, nothing remotely like this in my wife's family history, our family history. This was just
crazy stuff out of the blue. So [SIGH] my daughter, Sarah, was born in 1992, and, uh, she was, uh, it
seemed to be a normal pregnancy, and then all of a sudden my wife started having trouble and, uh,
Sarah came, uh, two months and two weeks early. And, um, anyhow, trying to keep a long story shorter,
[CHUCKLE] um, we, uh, you know, we, of course we were worried about these other things and, um, but I
had a month old. They said, "Well, you know," they- they were worried about the Christopher disease, the
neonatal renoleukodystrophy, but it- it didn't seem to, uh, manifest itself. And we don't know why she was
born early. We don't know why she was red when she came out, but, um, she seems to be doing better
Page 2
�now. So Sarah grew into a nice, healthy, young lady and, um, she got married at 21, and shortly
thereafter, um, she got pregnant for my granddaughter. Well, my granddaughter's, uh, pregnancy seemed
to be normal, and, um, along about six or seven months pregnant, my daughter said, "Dad," she goes,
"Something's wrong. I'm just profoundly tired." And of course they checked out her iron and all the-, you
know, the normal things, and, "We can't find anything wrong and your blood pressure's okay, you know,
we just, you know, probably some people just get more tired than others, you know, during." She goes,
"But dad," she says, "They're not listening to me. This is profound. I can hardly keep my eyes open." Lo
and behold, the day that her water broke, and she went in for labor, she started hemorrhaging, and I
mean, profuse blood loss. And she actually almost died twice, and they were pumping fluids into her,
plasma, trying to keep her alive. And, uh, she basically died twice, and it was, uh, a rare form of, uh,
HELLP syndrome. There again, no sign of it, neither side of the family. And, um, [CLICK SOUND] she
actually saw her gr—, uh, deceased grandfather in the room, smiling at her, waiting for her to come to
heaven with her- with him, but they pulled her through. And by-by golly, they saved my granddaughter,
and they said for that to happen right at birth, it's almost very unlikely that both of 'em were to live.They
said usually if you can save one or the other, [CHIME SOUND] you've done—you've had a good day, and
they saved them both. My daughter was very weak. It took her over a year to get back on her feet. Uh,
psychologically it did something to her because she still gets tired. I think it's mental. I think it's mentally
tired. Um, it- it- it really goes deep into you. So anyhow, my granddaughter, we thought she was perfect,
you know, beautiful little girl, and, um, went in for a two-month checkup, and they says, "You need to see
a specialist. Something is wrong with her." And you know, here, my first son, second son, my daughter,
and now my granddaughter, oh, what's wrong? "Well, we think she's not seeing good, and you need to
see a specialist." Well, unfortunately my son-in-law was in the Navy, and he said, "Well, we're about
ready to move." And my daughter, he was gonna deploy outta San Diego, and my daughter was coming
back here with my granddaughter, uh, while he deployed for six months. [SNEEZE] Well, God bless
Helen DeVos Hospital because they got down to brass tacks and figured it out quite quickly. What they
missed is that she had cataracts in her eyes, but they weren't normal, I say_ normal cataracts that are
more visible on the outside of the eye. These were deep with inside the eye. And they said it was rather
unusual. And, uh, so they operated on her, got the cataracts out, and here she's just a lit—by this time, I
think Natalie was five months old, and, it's so hard to have, when children to have to have operations right
off the bat, it's—and she, you know, suffered through that. And then they, [CLEAR THROAT] she had
these really thick glasses that we tried to put on her, and, um, also we had to force contacts into her eyes
so that she could have enough imagery, you know, but still be fuzzy, but that she could—her mind could
develop. And, um, that got actually very arduous 'cause by six, seven months old, she could fight back,
and I actually had to leave the house because she would scream and fight not to have those contacts
forced in her eyes. Well, they can't put lenses in a little baby's eyes right away, 'cause the eyes are too
small. And they said, "We would like to wait at least till six, five, six years old." [NOTIFICATION SOUND]
Excuse me, we will delay that message.
Page 3
�Danielle DeVasto: Would you like me to pause?
Al Eberlein: That's uh, that was my daughter. [LAUGHTER] She must have knew I was talking about her.
Danielle DeVasto: She must have felt it. [LAUGHTER]
Al Eberlein: So consequently uh, they—we had to wait till she was over two years old to put lenses in.
So my beautiful little granddaughter, so she ended up having six surgeries all together. And they put the
lenses in finally, and oh, what a joyous day that was, and the next day. All of a sudden, my granddaughter
discovered going outside and said, "Oh, grandpa, look at the clouds," and she could see relatively clearly
for the first time. And- and uh, we were so happy and overjoyed for her after all the torment she went
through, and we could see her starting to regress. We could see her starting to act like she did before,
when she didn't see good and straining her eyes. And so we called up and said, "Well, you better bring
her back in." And so we took her back in and, um, they said, "Oh, we got bad news. Her eyes are
rejecting the implants." And I said, I thought you said this, eyes, that this material- material you use, that
the body doesn't reject, and they says, "For some reason, hers is." So they had to take the- the, uh,
implanted lenses back out. And that was one of the worst days of my life, right up there with my two sons
dying. And sh—I wheeled her out to the car, and she balled all the way out going, "Grandpa, I can't see, I
can't see." And I go, oh honey, I says, we're gonna fix it, hoping that we could. Well, we—the doctors had
a form online just to see if any other eye doctor in the nation, and even other countries, had any
suggestions because Helen DeVos had run out of ideas, and that's a bad place to be. So we had
everybody praying. [LIP SMACK] One man, I'd like to meet him someday, I'd like to know who he was,
one man responded, and he said, "I had a- an adult patient once that had that exact thing happen." And
this was one particular, really strong steroid, he says that worked for her. He said, "I've never used it on a
child," but he says, "You don't have anything to lose." So we did it, and by golly, it worked. And so she's
been progressing. She has to come every six months and be checked out, but from that second set of
lenses, um, her- her eyesight has held and uh, you know, every time she gets checked though, you know,
we've had so much trouble and turmoil that you always kinda tighten up a little bit, you know, and they
come back and say, "Oh, her eyesight's even a little bit better," and I go, oh, thank God, you know. But,
yeah, so my experience, you know, is—in our life is two sons with strange diseases that died, my
daughter that almost died, and her daughter that almost died and almost lost her eyesight. So to find
out—so like I said, it's like an unfolding story, right? We—I lived through all this when we know that in the
'70s and '80s, and so forth, that the PFAS was being dispersed all over. And one thing that doesn't get
talked a lot about, this river out here, the whole bed of that river that I—you dig down in that mud, and I'll
guarantee it's got layers of PFAS in it. Our water, city water here in Rockford that, well, there's about
4,500 of us now that live here, they were getting all the city water out of the Rockford Rogue River. Who's
talking about that? The water that I drank in high school and junior high school, and that I drank living all
the decades that I lived here in town. Yeah, it was a horrible thing they did, burying it out in the
countryside, and I have relatives that got poisoned by that. But in hindsight, and working at Wolverine
Page 4
�Worldwide for 31 years and seeing how they used that strike to try to close the tannery down, I believe
was nefarious that they wanted to cover up their sin.
Danielle DeVasto: Can you—do you want to say anything more about the strike?
Al Eberlein: About the strike?
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah.
Al Eberlein: Yeah.
Danielle DeVasto: Or your experience at Wolverine?
Al Eberlein: Well, my grandfather worked—my great-grandfather worked at Wolverine for 54 years.
Nobody ever worked there longer than him. He was hired by Otto Krause back in 1903, when it was
family own. And you know how it was back in these—that—those days of small towns and, you know,
Wolverine was a big business, see, I mean even then for a small town, and, um, my grandfather went to
work there at 16 years old. You know, times were hard back then. There wasn't safety nets, you know,
and, um, people were glad to have a good job. He could walk to work. He lived on Main Street. His
grandson, my cousin, still lives in the same house that my great-grandfather lived in. And, um, when
times were hard, um, uh, in- during the depression, uh, several times Otto Krause came and said, 'Boys,
I- I don't have money for payroll," but he says, uh, he said, "If you stick with me," he says, "I'll gladly pay
ya in company stock." And my grandfather held onto that stock his whole life, and it divided. And, uh, my
grandmother inherited a portion of it, and she gave it to all of us, her grandkids, that came from my greatgrandfather. You know, it was, like, a heritage. And you felt good about—we felt good about Wolverine
back in those days, you know, in the old days. And, um, geez, half my relatives worked at the company.
You know, it was a stepping stone company that a lot of people—my mother worked there in the office for
a year or two, you know, to help buy a new car. You know, it was nice to have a big company that, you
know, could facilitate and help out the local community, and everybody always felt good about it. And, uh,
when I first started working there, uh, in the early '70s, um, there was still a—Wolverine was corporate by
then. It went corporate, I believe in the '50s. And—but there was still, you know, oldtimers that- that
worked there. There was—I remember one old guy that remembered my great-grandfather, you know,
'cause my grandfather worked till 1957, from '03. I started working there in- in '72, and I worked there 31
years, but I- I remember, oh, I remember your grandpa, Platton, you know, and- and just that continuity,
you know, of community and the work and the pride that our little town, you know, is known worldwide for
Hush Puppy shoes. And I personally—I was the dye maker. I- I made, uh, [SNIFFLE] I made dyes that
made shoes for, uh, Shaquille O'Neal. [LAUGHTER] You know, hi- his personal loafers, you know, and I
thought, you know, I made, uh, I made running shoes when- when we owned Brook's, uh, Running Shoe.
I made running shoes for Greg Myers, you know, and- and you had pride in that, in- in our little town, you
know, that all this wonderful stuff coming out of our little town and from my perspective, the way that, and
this is my opinion, you know, this is the way I perceive it, but that because of PFAS and corporate greed,
that they didn't have any problem covering it up, even though it was still currently poisoning people. When
3M told Wolverine in the '90s, that this stuff causes cancer and childhood, uh, diseases and maladies,
Page 5
�okay, now I just gave you my testimony about all the childhood maladies that me and my sisters and my
brother, who never had any children, he did end up adopting, uh, boy, that's a lot of damage. And for
them, that's at the point in the late '90s, where I have a bone to pick with Wolverine Worldwide because
they had to be forced to make penance for what they did to the people out in the countryside. How about
people like me that lived in this town most of my life in or around the town and all of my—two of my sons
are in heaven. You know, I got a—my daughter almost died and had extreme trouble. My granddaughter
almost was blind. I mean, I could say if I wanted to be bitter person, I could say you owe me at least a
million dollars. I know I'll never get—that would just be a token. That would be a token, you know? But,
no, I'll tell you the strike was—so what happened. You see all this was happening at the same time. 3M
tells Wolverine Worldwide, oh yeah, you know that stuff's bad. So what do you do? Did you come clean?
No, you tried to cover it up. That's what you tried to do. And I believe with all my heart and that's why, you
know, there's times in life I- I didn't like my career, I loved my career. I loved the people I worked with, you
know, and you made my life a living hell by your corruptness, you know. And like they always say, even,
like, with Watergate, the coverup is even worse. If you said, "Oh, we didn't know back in the '70s, and
'80s, that this Scotchgard and all this stuff was so bad, oh, geez, you know, and that we went out to
farmer John and paid him 40 bucks or whatever to dump it in his back acres," you know, "Oh, what can
we do to, what can we do to make it right?" No, you didn't care about making it right. You cared about
covering up your sin. They recorded their 12th record profit that year that they drove us out on strike. And
why do I say drive us out on strike? Because they came to us with a proposal. They wanted to take a
dollar an hour away from us across the board, a dollar an hour. Well, listen folks, I was their dye maker.
I'd been their dye maker for 31 years, saving all their shows for 'em and everything, and I never made- I
never made $18 an hour. So it wasn't that we were so greatly paid, and I'll tell you what, those guys down
there, you know, I don't know what the average wage was, but I know a lot of those guys, their base pay
was, you know, $13, $14 an hour, and if they worked real hard in that stinky place that, you know, they
could make 125% sometimes on piece rate, but they worked hard in horrible conditions, horrible
conditions. And they want to take a dollar an hour away from us while they were posting their 12th record
quarter in a row. [BANG SOUND] Do you see how egregious that is? Well, geez, who would do
something like that? Who- who would risk throwing away people? I- I, like I said, 31 years, that was on
the- the small side of things. Man- many of those guys had 38, 40, 42 years. One guy had 45 years in
there as a loyal employee, and they were throwing us away like yesterday's news. Who would do
something like that? Oh, yeah, I can see a motive. Somebody that has a greater sin, they're trying to
cover up, that's who would do something like that. That's exactly who would [BANG SOUND] do
something like that. And you know, back then [SNIFFLE] we didn't- we didn't understand the PFAS thing
in- in 2003. We didn't really understand what was going on yet, but we knew just by our innate common
sense that something was terribly wrong. Something was terribly, terribly wrong. And so we stayed out on
strike and I think we kinda surprised them. And we thought, well maybe when they see we've been out for
five or six weeks, and of course, you know, Wolverine's a large company and that's gonna start hurting,
Page 6
�hurt- hurt the profit, right? They still didn't care. I remember hearing they- they hired, uh, replacement
workers. They said, yeah, we don't need you guys. And they- they kept going all through the summer and
into the early fall. Well, we heard news that, um, they received back, I believe, now don't take this
verbatim, but I think it was around 170,000 to 180,000 pair of boots, boots or shoes, because of inferior
leather, because the replacement workers were not paying 00:27:42 ___________. Did they end the
strike there? Did they try to come back to us and say, okay, okay, forget that taking a dollar an hour away,
we'll give everybody, uh, 50 cents and next year you get a quarter, and we'll keep everybody happy? No.
No, they were bald face as ever. No, not dealing with you. Went all the way past Christmas. And they
came the day after Christmas and said, "Well, we'll take a third or so of you back." It'd give you, it was a
paltry amount, I forget, 25, 35 cents, but the rest of you are gone, [NOISE] 'cause they still [BANG
SOUND] wanted—had it in mind, they wanted to close that place down. I can't believe anything else. It's
the only thing at that point. Now this is like six, seven months out on strike, and uh, they still wanted to get
rid of us. And I knew I was gone 'cause at that point I'd done—I did an interview with a Christian, uh, radio
station, and I did an interview with TV8 and I says, uh, how much is a man's life worth, 'cause most of
these people, including myself, gave the best years of their life to that place, and they were throwing us
away like yesterday's newspaper. I said, stark fact, while they were making record profit, there again, who
would do such a thing? Hmm, somebody covering up a very large sin, I would propose. So anyhow, yeah,
we had people die. So there, again, I believe they were covering up their sin. They wanted to sh—they
wanted to get us—rid of us quite quickly, I believe. Uh, they wasn't counting on us, um, putting up such a
fight. Of course, that got—that garnered, uh, attention from the powers that be, and because it was so
egregious, the- the ones such as myself that they let go, and they finally did call us back, uh, long about
the end of January, end of February, um, they- the people they let go, they had to, uh, either give a year
of, uh, college or pay half of our wages at a new job for a year to help get us hired 'cause, you know, most
of us were older guys. You know, I mean it- it's a sad fact, you know, there's nowhere in writing,
especially nowadays, if things change so fast now in technology. You're over 50, and you can hardly get
an interview, you know, especially then, things were pretty slow. So anyhow, a lot of us, uh, you know,
got jobs elsewhere, and they took some of the guys back, and they worked them for, I don't know, I- I
think around 2005, or thereabouts, they finally closed it down for good. And I did not get anything 'cause I
was long gone by then, but I heard, and I felt a little bit good about this because we had gotten enough.
We got enough sunlight shined on their darkness that they had, you know, people were watching them at
this point, and I believe that the average person got $17,000 severance pay to, you know, to go
somewhere else, and they had to help 'em out. Um, I was already at another, uh- uh, job shop, so I did
not get any of those benefits, but, uh, [LIP SMACK] anyhow, so that all happened and then just about that
time it starts being un- unveiled of the PFAS problem. And it became more and more apparent what had
happened and that they were covering up this horrible sin of burying this stuff around. Oh, come to find
out they had buried stuff right by the plant. Uh, I had—and afterwards, you know, in hindsight, now you
start looking back and putting the little pieces of the jig pu- jigsaw puzzle together. I had a very dear friend
Page 7
�of mine that used to live right next to the tannery, and he says, "Oh yeah, there was a low area there, and
they were throwing all their hides right in there to fill up the low area, and then once it got full, they, you
know, threw some dirt over it and covered it up." Well, that's one of the, you know, egregious areas that
have been, you know, dug up and taken out of there. But that river is loaded with PFAS, from that plant
sitting there. They said that- that 15 acres that sits down there now, where, you know, they quickly, you
know, tore the tannery down, they were trying to, they almost had a deal going.They were going to try to
build a, um, [LIP SMACK] a, uh, hotel there, if you can imagine. Oh, a lovely hotel on the river, you know?
Quick, cover up our PFAS, but that dirt, there's areas in there that is one of the top toxic sites in the whole
country for PFAS, and it's still sitting there. Now they've done some remediation along the river, but it's
very possible with the way these people operated over the years that there could be other spots in that
river, and I'll guarantee you, out there, how much PFAS over all those years do you think is lying in the
muck of that river? I wouldn't eat one fish out of that river. I want—I had people park behind my house
here in- in Pickett Park, and catching salmon and trout out there all the time, and I almost feel like I
should tell 'em, I won't eat that stuff. That river's loaded with PFAS. And if you go down the river a little bit
farther, the Rockford Paper Mill used to pump stuff. I can remember going behind the Rockford Paper Mill
in- in, uh, the '70s, when I was in junior high school, and there's a pipe about that big, that was pumping
red effluent right out into the river, you know. [NOISE] So we kinda got it at both ends that way, but I
wouldn't eat- I wouldn't eat anything out of that river, you know. So, but let's come back to Rockford. So
our water, until all this was coming out, our strike and, uh, the news of, uh, oh, there's a problem with
PFAS in the early 2000s, well, what about all the people, the thousands of people that lived in the city all
this year, and you fed us PFAS water. How about that? How about people like me that lost two sons andand all my families had childhood maladies, how's about that? [BANG SOUND] Where's the remediation
for that? It would be real easy to be real bitter, but, you know, [SNIFFLE] time does heal to a point, and
you have to go on living, right, and- and you can't live happily as a bitter person, but there is right and
wrong. And I don't think Wolverine Worldwide has, by any means, has gotten to the end of their penance
for what they did. And especially that they chose to do a cover-up and to throw people away that made
their company for 'em because they wanted to cover up a sin. Well, that's a nice way to treat people that
you've been poisoning for 40 years. See, but you have to go on. And so I just, you know, I thank God for
people like you, for people like, no seriously, people like, uh, Lynn McIntyre, that actually care about
people, like Wolverine used to. Oh, yeah, I got some real good memories of Wolverine. I remember when
I first started working there and Tom Gleason would come down, and he wanted anybody that wanted to
shake his hand. He'd look you right in the eyes, and,"Thank you for your service, you know, we truly need
you around here," and maybe even have a cookie or a little holiday drink with you. It used to—it was like
the last vestige of- of a good age. And somewhere in, when we started sending all of our work over to
China, and we became a human resource, it became less and less. And it always happens by shades,
right, less personable, a little less personable, and now all you are is a resource to throw you away like
yesterday's news. And that's the way—it's a bitter pill. I definitely gave Wolverine the best, you know,
Page 8
�my—I say, best years, I— that's not totally true 'cause you- you do think, you hope that you gained some
wisdom, and, you know, and- and I did home care for 10 years and that was a wonderful time in my life.
And I'm glad I did that 'cause it actually was a salvation for me because it really put some, uh, a deeper
meaning back into my life and, uh, really did a lot of healing for how my career at Wolverine ended, with
them trying to cover up their sin, you know, but uh, yeah, PFAS has done a lot of damage physically,
probably mentally, to a lot of people and so on and so forth, but when companies like Wolverine go into
cover-up mode, the mental and spiritual damage that they've done to people, you know, some people
don't have the wherewithal to come back, and I think about those people often. I think I- I know probably a
lot of 'em probably aren't even alive anymore. I- I know that, uh, yeah, there's several people I- I
personally knew. There was a maintenance man down there that died from cancer at 42 years old. My
friend's dad was having back problems, and he worked down there in the tannery, and [BANG SOUND]
so he retired early at 54, only to find out, yeah, his back problems was he was loaded with cancer. And I
think that had been repeated with maladies and cancer, people that worked down there over and over
again, you know, and uh, so I just hope at some point, you know, we keep moving into the future, right,
and then you get into, if I went up to Wolverine now there's probably not even anybody up there that I—
even remembers me, or it's a whole new set of people. And you would- you would hope at some point
they say, okay, you know, we know that our company, you know, probably did some wrong things, did
things the wrong way, and we just- we just want to do whatever it takes to give us that good reputation
again, and- and so forth. But, uh, yeah, I— for—looking back in hindsight over my life, after I knew all the
facts, yeah, PFAS did a lot of damage.
Danielle DeVasto: So then looking forward, what concerns, if any, do you have about PFAS
contamination, moving forward?
Al Eberlein: Well, for one thing, like I said, I believe it's- it's damaged my lineage. How- how long is it- is it
going to keep doing that, you know. Oh, you know, are we still learning? I- I hope the science is- is still
gonna find out more and more of, or how can we head things off at the pass, maybe. Like what happened
to my daughter with th- this rare form of, uh, preeclampsia. How can we get, you know, more proactive
about things like that? And on Wolverine side, I'm not convinced that they've totally come clean yet. I'm
not convinced that that whole river is- is remediated yet. Um, and should people like me that lived here all
my life, you know, is- is there any compensation for us, you know, is there, or- or any, uh, health benefits
or anything? You poisoned this whole town, Wolverine. You poisoned the whole town. Nobody even talks
about it. It's kind of convenient how big business and even, you know, unfortunately gov—you know,
government, city governments, this little town that was all beholding to Wolverine, how they can kowtow
down to money, but just a thought, you poisoned the whole town, the people that made all your money for
you. [BANG SOUND]
Danielle DeVasto: [SIGH] Big thought. Um, [CLEARING THROAT] before we wrap up, is there anything
that we haven't talked about that you'd like to touch on or anything that you want to go back to and say
more about?
Page 9
�Al Eberlein: Well, there's other things I could say, you know, but I better not, you know. I don't want to
get into other people's business, you know. But I'll tell you, like we were talking before you turned the
cameras on, just want anybody that might s—watch this or- or maybe even somebody from Wolverine
that would look in, do you really realize how deeply and generationally that this kind of thing affects
people? And I would think going forward, any good thing comes out of this is that you would double, triple,
quadruple down. Never, ever, ever let anything like this ever happen again [THUMPING] because if we
don't learn that lesson, then what are we doing here? [NOISE]
Danielle DeVasto: Thank you so much, Al, for taking the time to tell your story.
Al Eberlein: You're welcome. And once again, thank you for caring, 'cause we've gone through a lot of
years where it didn't seem like too many people were caring, and I'm glad to meet people such as
yourself and Lynn McIntyre, to know that there are people being vigilant out there, and, um, [LIP SMACK]
and, you know, I mean it's- it's all over, and it's not just one thing. Um, like I said, I grew up on Myers
Lake. They just found out here recently. I mean, I swam in that lake my whole childhood. Oh, guess what,
there's mercury in Myers Lake. Where did that come from? Some business at some point dumped
something in there, you know, so how many times can we exponentially extrapolate that out to the
countryside? You know, it's like there's landmines all over the place. And uh, so I- I don't think this is
anything that's gonna be solved for a long time 'cause we had a lot of industrial years where, I mean, EPA
didn't even come about to what, late '60s, into the early '70s, so, you know, it's, uh, we're just kind of
getting on, excuse me, on top of a lot of these, uh, more egregious things, you know. But, yeah, do I
believe PFAS damaged my life? Yeah, more ways than one. Career wise and personally with my family
that even has come into the future with my daughter and granddaughter. And after she had all that trouble
with preeclampsia and with the D&Cs that she had to have afterwards that, um, they scarred her for life,
and she can't conceive now. So I've got one grandchild, and [KNOCK SOUND] hopefully they'll adopt
someday 'cause we got a lot more love to give.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah, absolutely. Well, thank you again, Al. I really appreciate it.
Al Eberlein: You're welcome.
Danielle DeVasto: It was an honor to listen to your story.
Al Eberlein: Well, thanks for saying so.
Page 10
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/91265fa5b5ef620372583b34f98142b4.mp4
3a79e52cea8d4d954d85b9f2b7d67179
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0034
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Eberlein, Alan
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2022-11-29
Title
A name given to the resource
Alan Eberlein, 2022 (Interview video and transcript)
Description
An account of the resource
Al Eberlein lives in Rockford, Michigan, where he was born and raised. In this interview, Al discusses his family's history and medical troubles which which he attributes to PFAS exposure.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Moving Image
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/69a5fea26060d92e3d72e2a7d6979573.pdf
46047858a4641a92b9e986e19f81f7b4
PDF Text
Text
Living with PFAS
Interviewer: Danielle DeVasto
Interviewee: Courtney Carignan
Date of Interview: 2022-11-18
Danielle DeVasto: I'm Dani DeVasto, and today, November 18, 2022. I have the pleasure of chatting with
Dr. Courtney Carignan. Hi Courtney.
Courtney Carignan: Hi
Danielle DeVasto: Courtney, can you tell me about where you're from and where you currently live?
Courtney Carignan: I'm originally from New Hampshire, and I currently live in mid-Michigan and work at
Michigan State.
Danielle DeVasto: Uh, how long have you been at Michigan State?
Courtney Carignan: Since 2017.
Danielle DeVasto: Courtney, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in
your community?
Courtney Carignan: I sure can. Um, so I started actually first got involved in PFAS, um, when I was
doing a postdoc in Boston, and I was living in Southern New Hampshire, um, and actually in Portsmouth,
New Hampshire, which is right on the coast. Um, and I saw in the paper, our, our community, uh, news
Seacoast online, there was a woman who wanted PFAS blood testing for her kids, because PFASs had
been detected in the drinking water of Pease Tradeport, which is at the former Pease Air Force Base,
and, um, I guess the State had told her that they would do the testing and then a year later they still
hadn't done it and were saying now that they couldn't, she was getting very upset. Um, and so I actually
had training in PFAS, um, I have a degree in, a Ph.D. in environmental health from the Boston University
School of Public Health. And, um, I was trained in under a training grant called Environmental
Epidemiology in Community Settings, and I worked on flame retardant, human exposure flame retardants,
and, um, I was actually at that time doing a post doc on fertility and flame retardants at Harvard. And, um,
so anyway, so I had a lot of training, and you know, how to provide support, technical support for PFAS
impacted communities. And my advisor at BU had worked on the C health study. So people in my
research group had been working on PFAS for, you know, the past five years or more. Um, and so I just
sort of happened to know a lot about PFAS, um, and, you know, saw her in the paper. And so, um, I
asked the reporter to tell me, you know, to connect us, and I connected with her and started providing her
with technical support and started trying with her, the State with technical support. Um, 'cause I, you
know, seem to know more about PFAS than anybody in the area. Um, and you know, Andrea went on to
found testing for Pease. She was able to get PFAS blood testing for over 2000 people who worked, um,
or was at, were at daycare at Pease Tradeport. Um, from that we learned that PFHXS is, which is, which
is a PFAS that has a very long half life. It stays in the body for, uh, quite a long time. Um, that this was
something that was part of the, astroblast mixture. So people with astroblast, source of drinking water
contamination, um, have this kind of unique signature of PFAS in their bodies that, you know, at the time
really wasn't understood at all. So, um, I can remember people misunderstanding the blood test results
Page 1
�from Pease as, oh, well their levels aren't that high, but they were looking at PFOA, which is not a major
part of AFFF. Um, and if you looked over at the PFHXS, it was quite high, you know, um, a lot of people
in, in the community had levels that were elevated above, above what you see in the, the general
population. So, um, I worked with Andrea for a few years, and then we helped organize the, uh, national
PFAS conference. The first one that was at Northeastern University, um, we put in a proposal to NIHS,
um, to do more work on understanding effects, uh, of PFAS in the immune systems of children exposed
to 00:03:59 ___________ Pease and also had to community in Massachusetts. Um, and then I got
recruited to MSU and I came here. Um, and since I, you know, since I came here, a few communities
have learned about actually many communities have learned about PFAS contamination. Um, so I should
have mentioned another thing that I did when I was at, um, Harvard is I was part of a, a group that wrote
a paper, uh, using the UCMR3 data. So this is data from EPA, uh, that EPA had on PFAS across the
country and drinking water. We were able to get that out and published. Uh, we found that over 6 million
people had likely been served by PFAS impacted drinking water. Um, and we were able to sort of see
that people were more likely to have drinking water contamination if they lived, if the drinking water
system was closer to, um, a place that used Atripla for training airports, wastewater treatment plants. Um,
and so that paper really, um, set off, um, monitoring in places or helped set off monitoring places.
Michigan was one place that started doing statewide monitoring of public drinking water systems. Um,
and that happened shortly after I came to MSU and, um, you know, that's how a lot of communities found
out about their contamination, but of course, you know, um, in Rockford they had found out a different
way. And I think you have a lot of videos of people explaining that situation. Um, and then Portsmith
obviously found out was one of the first sites in the United States to discover PFAS contamination. Um,
so I've been working, you know, with those communities, provided them with technical sports. Since I
came to Michigan, um, I've been working with communities in the southeastern part of the State, um, that
had quite high levels detected in their water through the statewide monitoring. I have a small exposure
study, uh, where we're looking at exposure, via drinking water, diet and indoor environment. Um, so we
know that drinking water is the main way that, so if you have elevated PFAS in your drinking water, um,
we know that it's a, a large contributor to exposure and that's why, you know, a lot of the interventions are
focused around drinking water. Um, and so, you know, that's the main focus, but, but we also know in the
general population that the main exposure is through diet. Um, and so the question that comes up in a lot
of communities is, you know, if they have my drinking water, um, treated, and we intervene and, and
reduce or eliminate hopefully PFAS and the drinking water, um, do I have an ongoing elevated sources of
exposure? So for example, through local and homegrown foods, so some communities have been told
not to, you know, eat chicken eggs, not to eat the produce in the gardens. Um, if they irrigated using
PFAS contained water and so forth. So communities have found elevating level 00:06:59 ___________ in
fish or fish advisories for many PFAS impact communities. Um, and right, so this is a important question.
So that's one, one of the questions that we've really working on for the past few years, um, and then the
other, we got our, that NIHS project funded. And, um, I think what we've recognized, you know, through
Page 2
�work on contaminants over the years, I've been working on contamination issues for 20 years now. And I
look young, but I'm not actually that young. Um, so, you know, I've been working in this area for a long
time. And what we've, what we've found is that, um, you know, no one research group can effectively help
all communities, you know, not anyone scientists can do all the work that needs to be done. And so, um,
a big part of our project is, you know, trying to build out resources for PFAS impacted communities. We
started doing this before, you know, good resources really existed on federal or State agency websites.
Um, and we think has been, you know, hopefully have been used as a model for a lot of those websites
and help them, you know, um, give them ideas for how to improve and vice versa. Um, but we have a
website called the PFAS exchange. So ww.pfas-exchange.org, and we put up a lot of different tools to
help PFAS impact communities and also to help ourselves because we get a lot of emails from people.
Um, and it's really helpful to be able to refer them somewhere where all the, you know, things that we
think are useful for them are also located. So we have a tool that helps people understand their water.
Our blood test results, so puts them into context. Um, so one of the water tool will compare your water
results to state and federal agency advi, you know, advisories or MCLs. Um, and that's really complicated
'cause they're always changing, and there's a lot of, you know, to, to sort of dig up all that information on
your own as a, you know, even as somebody who works in PFAS is a lot of work. And so, um, it's a really
helpful tool, I think for people and also for professionals to be able to use, um, and then also compares
you to sort of a representative levels across the country. Um, and I think what you notice when you look
at that tool is that, you know, a lot of places are elevated above, you know, what the guideline, which
seems to just continue to decrease as we learn more about the toxicities of chemicals. Um, and then the
blood tool does something similar except there's no, I don't, I don't think we've come to a great guidance
level yet for whats safe in blood. Um, we see effects of PFAS in the general population in general
population levels. Um, so, you know, we think that we're, well, we know that we're all exposed, and we
think from the data that we have so far, um, in the literature, et cetera, that, you know, these are affecting
people at general population levels. Um, and of course that risk goes up as you're more highly exposed
and as you have more risk factors, um, and that communication is always difficult with people with, you
know, known occupational or drinking water exposures that, um, you know, just because you see this list
of health effects, it doesn't mean you're gonna get it. 'cause you've been exposed, we've all been
exposed. Some people have been exposed at higher levels than other people. And some people have
been exposed at much higher levels than other people. Everyone has been exposed unwittingly. Um, and
you know, there's a lot of risk factors that go into why would, why would you get a disease? Um, and so,
you know, reducing your exposure moving forward and um, you know, talking to your doctor and trying to
reduce your other risk factors and monitoring. So, um, I was part of, um, uh, community liaison for the
national academies of engineering and sciences. And 00:11:01 ___________ just did a study on PFAS,
um, blood testing and medical monitoring. Um, so as part of that group, and they came up with some nice
guidance for clinicians, for talking about to their doctors or for clinicians talking to their patients, they have
a nice guidance. Actually they came up with, um, some numbers so that people with levels in their blood
Page 3
�could, um, you know, sort of understand better doctors in particular could look at blood levels and then,
you know, make some, uh, informed decisions about screening. So there are medical screening guidance
that exist out there. We have one on the PFAS exchange on the resources page. Uh, it's a companion
guidance, so there's one for clinicians, and there's one for, uh, community members, and they're, you
know, really kind of meant to be used together. Um, and then we have a new resources page for
clinicians, and we've just put our new, um, continuing medical education video up there that we made
with, you know, um, PFAS experts and physicians and, um, people who've been impacted by PFAS. Um,
so that's up on our website now along with other tools for clinicians. So we're still building that out. Um,
and sorry. I feel like I'm like, um, going around a little bit um, this has been helpful information so far.
Danielle DeVasto: Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, that's kind of the way some of the PFAS stories works. I
feel like it kind of wins and winds its way around and kind of gets into everything in its own weird way.
Um, it sounds though like your, the PFAS exchange is still something that's kind of actively evolving or
kind of growing. It sounds like?
Courtney Carignan: Mm-hmm.
Danielle DeVasto: Are there any, um, obvious next steps that you guys have in mind or other ways that
you'd like to see it kind of keep evolving?
Courtney Carignan: Well, another recent evolution has been, um, a new map. So we have a mapping
tool on there under the community, connecting communities tab that, um, shares PFAS site data across
the country. And then also, um, my collaborators came up with this idea of, um, suspect sources. So they
actually map all, you know, kind of entities that may use PFAS in their, you know, processes, um, or at
PFAS. And so they've mapped all of those, and I mean the map just like lights up completely, and it helps
you see like all the places. 'Cause I think one of the things that is hard to communicate about PFAS is
that, you know, there's a whole lot of them. I think the, the number keeps growing. I think the last I
remember is like 20,000 PFASs um, when I started, I, I mean, I feel like just a few years ago we were
saying like 9,000 or 4,000 or 2,000. Um, so the number really gone up a lot and um, you know, I, I tend to
talk about them as legacy PFASs. So we know a lot about PFOA and PFOS health effects of these
PFAS. We've been for a long time that were faced out a decade ago in the U.S., all of a, of them. Um,
some countries have continued to produce some overseas, uh, in that time, but you know, in the U.S.,
we've been using other PFAS for many years now. And so we tend to talk about those as current use
PFAS. So, you know, there's been a focus on monitoring for legacy PFASs and a lot of the data that's out
there is legacy PFASs, it's a small panel. Um, and so a lot of our work focuses on looking at expanded
panels that include current use PFASs and talking about current use PFASs um, because, you know, it's,
it's basically doing a bunch of different jobs at the same time. You're looking back at all of the
contamination that's occurred over the past, you know, basically my lifetime, our lifetimes, right. Um, and
trying to clean it up, you know, for these bad, very persistent PFASs. And then there's all these new
PFASs that, you know, as we learn more about them, we're learning, you know, that they can act in
similar ways, a lot of them are less persistent. Some of them are precursors to the legacy PFASs of
Page 4
�PFOA, um, and the, the chemistries are very complicated. I work with a lot of analytical chemists and, you
know, part of the challenge of looking at PFAS in food is that, you know, different types of food are
different types of complicated matrices and the, um, chemistry just didn't exist, you know, to be able to, to
reliably, um, quantify large panels of PFAS and food. And then also, um, there are these interferences in
food that will give you false positives. Um, and so it's just, it's very complicated, and you know, I'm not
analytical chemist, but my work relies on good analytical chemistry. So, um, that's, that's a big challenge
for PFAS. We're just like we just been playing catch up. Um, I just feel like since I started working on it,
we're just playing catch up and, um, really communicating about, you know, moving to floral polymers,
um, doesn't solve the life lifecycle issue of PFAS, which is that you're creating, you know, you're using
PFASs to create Flor polymers, and then they're eventually gonna, um, break down back into PFAS over
time. You know, we think that hope right, that floral polymers are reducing exposure to the consumer and
during the lifetime of the, um, during the, you know, use portion of the product, but we know that, you
know, we're not completely solving the problem of PFAS that it's, um, really a life cycle issue. And, uh,
yeah, I'm not, did that answer your question? Did I just go off on like another —
Danielle DeVasto: No, I mean, it, it raised a lot of really interesting points and, um, you know, uh, wow.
And like, it actually makes me think of like probably five more questions that I could ask. Um, but one of
the things that struck me about what you're saying too, is that I'm thinking I'm listening and hearing all of
these different people that you're collaborating with to kind of, to do your work, you know, analytical
chemists, um, all the collaborators that you have as far as like creating the PFAS exchange, the
communities that you're interfacing with. And it just, um, it seems like you're, you're involved in a lot of
different kinds of conversations about PFAS, you know, whether it's talking about kind of like the, like the
chemical makeup and like the really technical nitty gritty, or talking with people who just wanna
understand like their test results or what to do next. And I guess, you know, having kind of worked in this
realm now for 20 some years, um, what, like, can you, can you say more about that or like what you've
learned by doing some of this, this interfacing between all these different groups in order to do your work?
Courtney Carignan: Um, I don't know. I, I mean, it's complicated. It's not, you know, we were talking
about this before a little bit before we started filming that, you know, it's a really complicated landscape
and that what I've learned. And I think I learned, you know, within the first decade of working on these
kinds of issues was that no, you know, so I, I got my Ph.D. 'cause I was working in a community where
they had drinking water contamination of trichloroethylene. It was a rural community in Pennsylvania and,
um, people there really weren't being told much, you know, I kind of witnessed on 'cause I was, I was
working in the community for two years doing the response action. I was a consultant. Um, we were, you
know, consulting for the responsible party. And so I got this unique, you know, I don't think it's a unique
look in, in terms of consulting. That's what consultants do, but it's unique in the sense of academic
academics, don't tend to have this perspective. Um, so I really saw what happens in a community when
this kind of contamination is discovered and, you know, understood what I thought they needed. I thought
they needed studies. So I went back to it, got my Ph.D. Um, I thought they needed people who knew
Page 5
�about contamination could help them, which is true. Um, and you know, I think in the process getting my
Ph.D. and then, you know, providing technical support at Pease, I realized that or learned, um, through
that work that again, you know, scientists and researchers do not have all the answers and do not work
on their own, which, um, I'm sure people told me along the way through my training, um, you know, you
hear that referred to the importance of community engaged work and the importance of working with your
agencies. Um, but I didn't really understand that until, you know, I started doing it and making lots of, you
know, probably lots of mistakes along the way. Um, 'cause it's very humbling to, you know, want to do all
of this work and then realize like you cannot achieve [LAUGHTER] the things that you think need to be
done without, you know, um, these relationships
Danielle DeVasto: That's, that's so true., it's so true. And because, you know, as you said, this isn't just
the legacy PFAS, it's kind of an evolving, it's an evolving story. Um, it's not just, you know, this one and
done kind of thing, which maybe leads me into my next question. Um, thinking about PFAS contamination
moving forward, what kinds of concerns do you have?
Courtney Carignan: Um, so I'm, you know, I'm concerned about our ability to monitor for and make
progress on the current use PFAS issue, right? The tap is still on, it feels very urgent, um, to make
progress on that issue quickly. Um, and while simultaneously, you know, addressing all of the legacy
pollution, you know, kind of how do we do that all at the same time? Um, the, you know, I, I do a lot of
biomonitoring and health studies. Um, that's my main, the main thing that I, if there's a main thing I focus
on, that's it, um, it's the, you know, maybe one of the things I'm best at, and you know, the way that we
monitor for exposure to legacy PFASs is easy in the sense that you do a blood draw. Um, we just
developed, um, or validated a new finger prick test, which is kinda exciting, um, because getting a blood
draw is there's a lot of barriers for people. So we've been working on those kinds of issues as part of the
reason we have the clinician resources page, we've got lots of resources there to help people get PFAS,
blood testing, 'cause that's one of the main things that people tell us that they want when they find out
that they've exposed. Um, but you know, legacy PFASs you can detect them in the blood for a very long
time after exposure. So if you were exposed five years ago, and you were exposed to PFLS or EFFF um,
and you do a PFAS blood test, um, and opposing your drinking water, you know, you could actually back
back calculate what your exposure was five years ago. Like we understand, you know, the behavior in the
body well enough that we can do that. Um, whereas with current use PFASs, they're gonna be eliminating
from the body more quickly. They're still persistent, but not as persistent. And so when, if you're doing bio
monitoring the blood, um, and you are ignoring the fact that all these different PFASs have different, you
know, longevity in the blood, um, you are not gonna understand exposure correctly. Um, and so I think
that's as an exposure scientist, I think, I think, you know, sort of the, the thing I'm thinking about the most
right now is, you know, I think a lot about like how, how not to do harm and how to make sure my work is
not harming anyone and making mistakes like that could be very big mistakes. So, um, being careful
about, you know, how do we make sure that we are understanding people's exposures and representing
them correctly, not only exposure assessment, but also importantly, in these environmental epidemiology
Page 6
�studies, because exposure misclassification is one of the biggest problems in expo, uh, environmental
epidemiology. Um, if you don't have exposure assessed well, um, you have a bias towards the mill, which
means you're more likely to conclude there's no effect when one, in fact is there
Danielle DeVasto: Can you just for people who maybe are listening and don't know, can you say a little
bit more about what biomonitoring is?
Courtney Carignan: So bio biomonitoring is, um, testing for or monitoring for, um, usually, you know, in
my context, contaminants in the body are in biological matrices. So in people, um, you know where we're
testing blood or urine or hair or fingernails, or, you know, you know, different biological fluids or matrices.
Um, and you know, before, when I was a consultant, we'd even do it. And in, in lots of people still do this,
right. Uh, you can do bio monitoring of, of IOTA also, um, but in my context I'm usually talking human
health studies.
Danielle DeVasto: Before we wrap, is there anything that you would like to add or, um, that we haven't
touched on today or anything you wanna go back to and say more about?
Courtney Carignan: Um, I mean, I, I plugged the PFAS exchange website. I think that's a really helpful
place for people to get information. Um, and you know, we do, you know, it is a work in progress.
Hopefully we can get funded to continue working on that, 'cause I think our project period is expiring, but,
um, you know, we, we always wanna make it better, and it's helpful to, you know, know from people not
only like what ways to improve it, but also, you know, sometimes we partner with people who can
volunteer their time or, [LAUGHTER] you know, can help us find funding to, to be able to continue
improve it. 'cause it is, like you said, I'm doing a lot of different things, and you know, spread pretty thin.
So it's, um, there's like the pie in the sky, what we wanna do. And then there's like the nuts and bolts of
getting it done and so people wanna, um, get connected. Uh that's great. And then I guess I would also
say, you know, I, I, I would encourage people who, you know, are exposed, and you know, wanna take
action. Um, there's a lot of different groups. So if you go to the PFAS exchange connection, connecting
communities page, uh, it'll help you find different groups that are working on PFAS and taking action in
their communities. And then we have a national PFAS contamination coalition, um, or shouldn't say we,
there is one, um, I serve, um, serve as a, you know, provide technical assistance for the coalition. Um,
and I provide technical assistance for a lot of community groups, you know, a lot of my funding, um, you
know, my salary, right. It's all comes from the public. So, you know, I see that work as, you know, as long
as I have the bandwidth to do it, you know, I'm gonna do that kinda work.
Danielle DeVasto: I imagine also find, find meaningful because it sounds like that's sort of, you know,
working with communities sounds like where your story started way back in Pennsylvania.
Courtney Carignan: Yeah. I mean, you know, I'm from a mill family. So my, um, grandfather actually was
a lumberjack in Maine and my grandmother worked at a shoe factory in Maine, Um, and you know, I'm,
you know, I'm from New Hampshire, but you know, we have a lot of, you know, my husband's family help
build the mills in New Hampshire. Um, so we kind of have this, um, history to our families that, um, you
know, we also are French Canadians, so we also have indigenous, you know, backgrounds. So, um, I
Page 7
�think I see those communities and, and I understand, you know, what challenges they face. Um, so yeah,
I do find a lot of meaning in that work.
Danielle DeVasto: Well, I have poked around the PFAS exchange website, and it looks awesome. I'm
very grateful to you guys for creating that. Seems like such a great resource in so many ways, and I'm
excited to see where it keeps going. Have you gotten much feedback about the website since it's launch?
Courtney Carignan: Yeah. I mean, mostly we get mostly we get, uh, feedback from the coalition 'cause
we meet with them and ask them, um, but, and then I have feedback from myself. Right. All things we
wanna do. [LAUGHTER' Um, so yeah, it's definitely a work in progress.
Well, I'm, I'm so glad that it's there, and I'm always happy to have it because you know, there are lots of
questions and there's so much information and confusing information. So having somewhere to be able to
send people is a really, seems like a really great thing. So.
Courtney Carignan: I guess another thing to mention is, um, that I am working with firefighters as well
cause firefighters have occupational exposures to PFAS. Um, and so I'm connected with a group that has
a website called PFAS for EPPE. Um, and I'm connected with the IFFF and, um, I'm doing a very small
exposure study on firefighters. I know that there's a bigger study going on in the State led by NDHHS, but,
um, I decided mention that as well, that, you know, occupational exposed groups, I think, um, you know,
there's been a lot of focus on drinking water. Um, and that's what I'm focusing on a lot on the last, you
know, five to 10 years. But, um, occupational exposure is something that is also very important, and
there's so many ways that people can occupation expose to PCOS and have no idea. So firefighters for a
long time were told that Atripla was like soap and water and, um, it's just, that's how they treated it. So
they, you know, exposed themselves, they, you know, spread it all over the environment. Um, PFASs are
used in, have been used in ski wax. Um, I'm trying to think of all 'cause I usually like rattle off a list of
occupations that you use PFAS and might not know.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah. What are, what are a couple of the most surprising ones?
Courtney Carignan: Well, I mean, carpeting has been, you know, something that we were working on at
BU during my Ph.D. So our group was the first to show PFAS, you know, and in the indoor environment
from carpeting, um, and that, you know, it's in the air and dust and, and people also spray Scotchguard
on their furniture. It was very common in the past. I was at my local hot tub store last summer and didn't
get a hot tub, but I did notice that, uh, no, I wish I, they had a can of that kind of spray, and it actually said
on it, you know, perifluoro-, blah, blah, blah. And I was so shocked that they still sell this kind of spray.
And I told the cashier like, do you know what's in this? Um, so yeah, I mean that, those kinds of sprays
are still in the market and, you know, people, you know, for the past, you know, a few decades used to
spray it in their homes, um, parchment paper. Um, so the paper that you used to line, you know, holiday
seasons coming up and doing a lot of baking, um, I'm curious to know what PFASs are being replaced in
parchment paper. They think they're moving away from PFASs in food packaging, um, and food contact
papers. Um, and so I guess those are the two sort of indoor environments, I think about the most. Um, I
think UFM published a study on PFASs on floor wax, um, or they had a poster on it. So they found that it
Page 8
�was being used in the, those big machines that wax the floors. Um, so that, I think that's another
surprising place they're used in extrusion of plastics. So vinyl flooring there's trace levels at least of
PFASs in, uh, artificial turf. So the plastic blades of graphs, grass in artificial turf, um, I mean, it's just like
the list just goes on and on and on places that PFASs are used that are surprising. I mean, originally the
first sort of surprising place that that was discovered was popcorn bags, microwave, popcorn bags, and
again, I'm not sure what replacements being used currently, if it's still a PFAS or something else. Um,
people ask all the time about, you know, pans, um, stuff on pans or nonstick pans. Consumer reports just
put out a nice report on that. So I'm referring people to that report for more information. Um, but yeah,
there's a lot of sources, you know, kind of lurking sources of PFAS, um, that you expect or know about.
And often don't have control over, like right in your workplace, if you have a stain resistant carpeting, like,
you know, um, what are you gonna do about that or in your home even, um, can you afford to replace it?
Um, so I did that answer your question. on another tangent, but like in terms of occupational exposure
zone, people who actually did make stain resistant carpeting, people who work, you know, in paper, the
paper industry, you know, they actually mix the paper, you know, pull up in the PFAS together. Uh,
people who worked in tanneries and used PFASs on leather goods, um, people who worked in the plating
industry and are standing over vats of PFAS containing you know, so, you know, I think about those
people and, um, wonder what's being, what's being done for them.
Danielle DeVasto: Well, thank you so much, Courtney, for taking the time to share your story and your
work today. Um, it's been a pleasure talking with you,
Courtney Carignan: You too.
Page 9
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f8e0c6b69c9bbe0f6940912b06af1206.mp4
63e6db84b89e7ecd037c554b4b98ba5e
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0033
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Carignan, Courtney
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2022-11-18
Title
A name given to the resource
Courtney Carignan, 2022 (Interview video and transcript)
Description
An account of the resource
Dr. Courtney Carignan lives in central Michigan and works at Michigan State University, though she was raised in New Hamphsire. She holds a PhD in environmental health from the Boston University School of Public Health. In this interview, she discusses her involvement with PFAS advocacy and research in her communities, as well as a new mapping tool that will collect and share PFAS site data across the United States.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Moving Image
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/38e16a26e9df94602f3e08753d765804.pdf
7a5e5b4e95c0f3f44479eb0505c4f964
PDF Text
Text
Living With PFAS
Interviewee: Kevin Elliot
Interviewer: Dani DeVasto
Date: October 17, 2021
DD: I’m Dani DeVasto, and - [Recording paused] chatting with doctor Kevin Elliot. Hi Kevin.
KE: Hey.
DD: Kevin, can you tell me about where you're from and where you currently live.
KE: Sure, well originally I grew up near the Chicago area - in the suburbs. Currently I live in
Okemos, Michigan, which is just to the east of east lansing where im a faculty member at
michigan state university.
DD: And how long have you been there?
KE: I came in January of 2014, so I guess it's been about 7 and a half years.
DD: Kevin, can you tell me a story about your experience with pfas or with pfas in your
community?
KE: Yeah, so um... I don't have a good story about PFAS in my community, but um, I have, over
the past year been involved with the center for PFAS research at MSU, and then I’ve been on a,
um, National Academy of Sciences Committee thats is trying to give guidance to clinicians as
they work with people who are concerned about PFAS exposure. And I guess maybe just a story
that might be of interest related to that is that we’ve been having these public sessions where
people who have been dealing with PFAS exposure can share their experiences, and several of
the sort of stories that I've heard through that have been some that are really striking to me. And
um, I guess maybe i'll just say one general sort of reaction first then you can let me know if you
want me to get more concrete. The general reaction that has just been striking to me as I hear
from different people who have been saying, saying they have children who ended up with
testicular cancer or you know, other sorts of effects, or um other people, you know, spouses who
have been dealing with health effects is just how frustrated they've been, feeling like their um,
the physicians they've been working with, haven't been very supportive or in some cases even
kind of minimize the likelihood that PFAS contributed to the health problems. And of course,
you know it is - you can't be sure what caused it. But it was just so surprising to me hearing
about the disappointment they've had working with doctors that either don't know anything about
�PFAS, which I can kind of understand. But then also, just plain kind of being dismissive and not
wanting to be very helpful in exploring PFAS as a potential contributor to these problems. So
that was really striking to me.
DD: Can you maybe take a step back and talk a little bit about how you got to that point of
having those conversations; some of your background in any context, I think that might be
helpful.
KE: Yeah, I mean It would be helpful to talk about sort of how I ended up, like, how this
committee ended up forming, or like sort of my background in terms of my scholarship and stuff
like that DD: Yes, yes.
KE: Okay, I'll talk about it all. So i'm a philosopher of science and I uh, - I don't know how
much nitty gritty to go into - I have a background in chemistry and then I got interested in
philosophy, and so I ended up doing my PhD in the history of philosophy and science and alot of
scholarship involved studying controversies about science, and especially environmental kind of
areas of science, and um, especially environmental pollution. And so, I would sometimes look at
the role of conflicts of interest in that science. How they all have different groups with different
financial stakes or other personal stakes in scientific controversies or how harmful chemicals
may be. So I'm interested in, sort of, what are the judgements that go into evaluating the science
in trying to say, yeah we think this chemical is pretty harmful or no its not that big of a deal. So
yeah, as a philosopher I dont do the hardcore science but I sort of reflect and look at the dates
and try to understand why are there these disagreements, how do we handle the disagreements,
how do we sort of address them responsibly and so on. So anyway, as part of that work, I have
ended up getting a little bit connected with agencies like The National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences which is part of the national institute of health. Which funds alot of our medical
research in the US, and the national academy of sciences. I don't know if it's helpful for me to
say what that is for folks, uh DD: Sure.
KE: Folks watching this may not know so much, The National Academy of Sciences put
together, actually back during the civil war, as um sort of an expert organization provided by [?]
to the federal government. And so, It will create committees to address certain issues when
government agencies want certain advice on things. Most of the time it would be science on
these committees, um, and uh so I was a little surprised when I got a approached to see if I could
serve on this particular committee, that um, was actually partly - trying to think of the right word
- commission, I guess, by a branch of the center of disease control, the ATSDR, which is the
�Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases [?] This is this group that helps deal with
communities who are facing chemical exposures, pollution, spills [?]. And so they've provided
advice to doctors in the past about how to deal with PFAS, but they've had pushback from
communities feeling like the advice they've provided hasn't really been what they hoped for,
communities feel like the current guidance isn't very supportive for them to be able to get tested
for their exposure to PFAS, and it maybe doesn't - Yeah maybe just isn't as aggressive when
accepting that their might be health effects from PFAS exposures as i think a lot of people in
these communities would want. Anyways, so this community was put together and its mostly
scientists, I was a little surprised as a philosopher that they asked me to be involved. But, I now
understand why, because one of the things the committee asked to do is to provide principals for
clinicians who are making decisions and providing advice under scientific uncertainty. I think
they use the language of substantial scientific uncertainty. Scientists often don't really like
having to provide advice in those kinds of situations. And it's just a tricky, tricky issue. So
anyway, I think they realized maybe it'll be good to have someone like me on this committee,
and I think it turned out to be a good move. So that's the background behind this, and I’m just
blabbing away but as we got started, often it would just be us experts deliberating, and we ended
up realizing this is so tightly connected with people's own experiences, maybe to be responsible,
we really need to have some open town halls where we can hear from various people and
communities who have had these experiences, and so that's where my story came from, that
we’ve been hearing these [?] experiences, and that's probably what I’m most useful for sharing
during this discussion. Because I don't have personal experiences but I’ve been struck by what
I’ve heard from people.
DD: Absolutely, were people something you were aware of before you started this project? How
did you kind of come to be aware?
KE: I was hearing about it a bit, just from you know interacting with other people in the
university setting, um so I don't know exactly when I first heard of it, but I kept hearing little bits
and pieces about it, and kind of got the sense, you know, i feel like the environmental health
community will go through these waves where there will be this new big thing we realize, “Ah”
This is a problem and there hasn't been enough work on it, then you know maybe it dies down, or
it maintains attention and something else will come up that we realize, so I just kept hearing bits
and pieces about it and thinking wow maybe this is a significant area I should try and learn more
about. And then when some of the faculty at MSU started kind of pursuing like, some research
funding to try and make a center for research on PFAS, I thought well this is a great opportunity
to find out more, and so I got involved in that center. Thats been the past couple of years I’ve
been learning a lot, I really didn't know much previously.
DD: And do you foresee PFAS continuing to be part of your research focus moving forward or
do you think this is - Like once you develop these guidelines?
�KE: I think that, so you know participation in the national academy will be over, were supposed
to have a report submitted in May of 2022, but, I would like to continue sort of exploring this
issue, kind of as a philosopher I tend to sort of explore areas like case studies where i’ll sort of
look over the research being done on them, you know, ask questions about it. So I would like this
to be uh one of these case studies that I look at in the future. I have the benefit. Scientists have to
develop all this infrastructure in their labs and really focus on something. I have the luxury. I can
look at multiple case studies, but I’d like this to be one of them for a while to come I think.
DD: So, as a philosopher then, are there particular questions or aspects of this particular PFAS
case study that interest you, or challenge you, or you know... keep your attention?
KE: Yeah um, well I think - I don't know that PFAS is totally unique compared to you know,
other things, but I think there are some issues in this case and in other cases that strike me as
really interesting. And one is, it once again highlights the question of how to engage in
appropriate regulation and policy and responses to these issues where we're just not gonna have
all the scientific knowledge that we'd like. Because, you know like I constantly hear, you know
about thousands, you know often the numbers like five thousand different PFAS compounds that
could be used, that are out there, depending on how you find exactly what counts in this
category, and so there's just no way we can test all these things in detail, it's like a micro[?] of
our general problems with, you know, chemical recreation, so we have to find strategic ways to
sort of make decisions without knowing all of the nitty-gritty details. You know, some people
suggest we should group them together as either a huge class, or as some class and say look, if a
chemical falls under this general group, then shouldn't use it, or try to minimize the use, or try to
look for alternatives for the greatest extent possible. And so, those are the things that interest me,
sort of looking at the science and the decision making and trying to figure out what do we do
given that this is just too messy, there's just too much going on to really study in great detail.
DD: So I know your report and your study are still ongoing, but do you have any ideas about
what we should do?
KE: Yeah well... so... so this is where I probably can't say a ton about the details of the report at
this point. But, um, I think a general theme in my work is to argue that it's a real mistake to think
that you have to have the science figured out, before you can make decisions. I tend to be a fan
of the folks who, you know some folks have been writing articles, saying things like given how
persistent these are in the environment and given that, you know a lot of them seem to be fairly
bioaccumulative, meaning that um, a build up in organisms and as it goes up the food chain you
know, humans can end up you know [?] in our bodies. I think we have to be willing to go ahead
and take some sort of action, even if we don't have decisive proof that there's a problem. And
that's actually a little bit different from what I’m saying from the details from what we're talking
�about in our report, our advice for clinicians. I guess I’m giving this general sort of perspective
that we cant be perfectly precautionary with respect to everything, but I think it doesn't make any
sense to say well we can't take any actions until we get the science. I think that's a mistake.
DD: Well I will be looking forward to reading your report, in the near future hopefully.
KE: Yeah, yeah. I’m hoping that it will be useful and it has been really interesting so I’ll just
mention one other thing. As part of putting it together we looked at sorts of frameworks for
making decisions under uncertainty, and it has been kind of striking to me that again, I feel like
these frameworks in general are much more geared towards making the decision when you’ve
got a good deal of evidence that we don’t have as quality frameworks for making decisions under
uncertainty, and I think the scientific community just doesn't feel super comfortable with that.
That's just the one comment I would make that's been interesting for me as I've been reading and
[?].
DD: And can I maybe ask about another- other frameworks in terms of guidance from medical
professionals. What's kind of the status on guidance for that or for medical professionals
specifically dealing with PFAS right now?
KE: Yeah, I’m not much of an expert on the medical stuff, but it's been very interesting for me
learning a little bit more, there's a well put together framework from the United States Preventive
Services Task Force (USPSTF) And I get the impression they provide all kinds of guidelines for
things like, you know when you should start getting prostate cancer screening or colonoscopies
or breast cancer screening or all that kinds of stuff. And so they’ve got this whole framework in
place for trying to evaluate evidence and decide when it's enough to definitely recommend that
people do something or recommend that people do it, um, if they want to, you know leaving
more judgement for them, and like how much evidence they wanna see in order to make these
kinds of recommendations. So it's really pretty aggressive, but again, my sense of the framework,
they don't really like to provide recommendations when there's substantial scientific uncertainty.
So that’s one of the frameworks that was interesting to learn a little bit more about.
DD: Sure. So what concerns, if any, do you have about PFAS contamination or PFAS related
issues moving forward from this time?
KE: Yeah, one of the things that strikes me, and this is coming from hearing people talk in these
town halls from the committee, was just how sad it is, that you’ll have communities where on the
one hand, people will want to find more about the contamination in their communities. But then,
they’re afraid, at least some people in the communities are afraid, that if there were more, well
then it would end up being economically harmful, like people don't want to come to those
communities as tourists or people don't want to buy houses in those communities - or um - It was
�so striking hearing about, like, farmers or ranchers like once they found out that they're, lets say,
herd of animals was contaminated. Then they are in just a total mess in terms of not being able to
sell the animals or sell milk from the animals or things like that. And so, It really worries me
realizing that there's this tension between wanting to learn more about, you know, the potential
threats one faces, then they are communities will disadvantage finding this stuff out. That can
create tension between communities, and just, - serious economic problems, and so anyways that
was really striking to me.
DD: Yeah, I can imagine that playing out in a number of different ways into communities. Well,
before we wrap up, Kevin, is there anything that you'd like to go back to, that we - or anything
you'd like to add that we haven't touched on? I know you jumped around your story.
KE: Right, right.
DD: But I wanted to hear if you had a chance to go and say anything additional.
KE: Yeah, another thing I guess - I guess that has just struck me, as I’ve been learning more
about PFAS and maybe this is more sort of, you know the cognitive and academic thing you're
looking for, but um, It's just been interesting - One of the things that I have been intrigued about
is debates about biosolids, which are you know kind of produced from waste water treatment
plants and have lots of, fertilizer potentially. So farmers will, you know, put them on their fields,
and in principle it seems like a great way to kind of have a circular economy where you know,
we're producing sewage waste, but we can take some of the good aspects of it and put it back on
the land. But, then there are concerns now about pollutants in biosolids and so on, and worries
that if we put it on farmers' fields it can cause problems, you know, potentially taken up by crops
and then be a problem for people or be a problem for people near those fields and so on. It's just
been striking as I learn more about this, I don't know enough about the scientific details on how
much you should be worried about this and so on, um, but just realizing what a problem it is to
sort of deal with these when they are so persistent in the environment, that its like they just keep
cycling around. So you know, well go into the wastewater treatment plant, and then they go to
the biosolids and the biosolids either have to go to some landfill somewhere or have to get spread
on someones fields, then it goes to the landfills and eventually seems to come out in the [?] then
that has to go somewhere, maybe back to a wastewater treatment plant, if it spreads on the fields
then it may go into water. And the ways in which - We can’t get rid of this stuff, you know,
unless I guess you burn it at 1000 degrees celsius or something, again the scientists can provide
more nitty-gritty but that has been pretty striking to me, and again has kinda furthered my
thinking, where you know, it just doesn't make sense to use persistent compounds like this, if we
can avoid it. Because it’s just such a mess if they might become a problem. And so I think that's
something that has been really striking and interesting to me as i've learned a little bit more about
PFAS.
�DD: Yeah, a whole other set of problems.
KE: Right, exactly. And I - I don't know if there's anything else, um, that struck me. [Brief
Pause] I guess just the other thing, and again this isn’t particularly profound, but it's been so
interesting to me also hearing about some of the communities, or like, uh, seeing your military
bases, or like firefighters where they are especially using these foams, they call them “A Triple
F” [?] Forming foams I think, they reason in which they were told this is just like soap and they
had no worries about these, and you know sometimes they would just use it for fun. Kids would
play in this stuff, figuring you know they could just spray this everywhere and not worry at all
about being exposed to it. And um, It just makes me wonder kinda the lesson I kind of gleamed
from this is, what things are we exposed to now, where we’re just assuming there's nothing to
worry about, and then we might find out 10 years from now, oh there was a problem, and again,
we wanna ask these questions about surely there should be a better way of strategizing in terms
of putting products onto the market. I know we don't want to halt innovation, but it's just so
striking to me the way we just produce thousands of chemicals and just throw them out there and
then end up finding out kinda later at some point that there's a worry. I'm just pontificating about
all kinds of stuff.
DD: Well I mean from a historical perspective too it's interesting right, I'm sure you've seen this
is not the first time humanity has done something like this. Like, we seem to keep doing these
things where we throw products out there and discover after the fact that we need to [?] back. So
I imagine there might be some interest for you there from a historical perspective as well.
KE: Of course, of course, absolutely. Great point.
DD: Yeah, well thank you so much, Kevin. For taking the time to share your story today.
KE: Yeah! It's a pleasure and I'm really glad youre doing this project.
DD: Thank you.
KE: Thanks.
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b2436af965122592a4d60f25d61e5d98.mp4
43143efa6ab44119f1b0a11f64e384a7
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0029
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Elliott, Kevin
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021-09-27
Title
A name given to the resource
Kevin Elliott, 2021 (Interview video and transcript)
Description
An account of the resource
Dr. Kevin Elliott lives in Lansing, Michigan, and is involved in the Center for PFAS Research at Michigan State University. He also serves on a National Academy of Sciences Committee that gives guidance to clinicians working with people concerned about PFAS exposure. Elliott holds a PhD in the history of philosophy and science, and studies controversies about science and environmental pollution. In this interview, Elliott discusses his involvement with PFAS research and education.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Moving Image
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b40c239e437e675b6583b1cf04ac05da.pdf
74e0d5e5d7ce3fab7f1efce7005146a8
PDF Text
Text
Living with PFAS
Interviewer: Danielle DeVasto
Interviewee: Tom Sapkowski
Date of Interview: 9/2/2021
Danielle DeVasto: I'm Dani DeVasto, and today, September 2, 2021, I have the pleasure of chatting with
Tom Sapkowski. Hi, Tom.
Tom Sapkowski: Hello.
Danielle DeVasto: Tom, can you tell me about where you're from and where you currently live?
Tom Sapkowski: Rapids, Michigan. I grew up on the west side of Grand Rapids, but I currently live in
Belmont, and that's been for the past 27, 28 years, uh, I've lived in this area at this location.
Danielle DeVasto: All right. Tom, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS
in your community?
Tom Sapkowski: Sure. Um, I believe my family came here __________ 00:00:44 back in __________
00:00:46 probably late in the summer. I know there was some, uh, media coverage regarding, um,
contamination of water in our area. Um, __________ 00:01:00 made the executive __________ 00:01:02
our well tested, um, but __________ 00:01:06 it was in October of 2017. And it's odd that—I ordered the
tests from a-a place called Accurate Environmental, and, uh, because there's only, uh, maybe like a
dozen, um, labs in the country that were able to test for PFAS down to a-a very, uh, __________
00:01:27 or why I decided to expand the test area so we were going to be tested by a place called Rose
& Westra. That's the test facility that they used. So, um, I was actually, I was a day early on the testing,
but the good news about that is, um, our test results were matched against Rose & Westra's test results,
you know, for accuracy by two different labs so we were basically checking the checker. Um, it did cost
me __________ 00:02:03 which I think it was just over $600 to have it done. So that didn't make me very
happy, but, um, I realized it was something that, uh, that certainly needed to be done and, um, the results
were similar. Our long story short is our well, uh, which was put in in 1985, um, before, we were not the
original owners of the house. But, uh, our well tested, uh, at a non-detect level. A level below, uh, five
parts per trillion. Um, __________ 00:02:42 a neighbor's, just across the street, and, um, their well tested
__________ 00:02:50, and I think then again __________ 00:02:54 not ridiculously though, so
__________ 00:03:00 we remain on the edge of __________ 00:03:04 and, uh—
Danielle DeVasto: Whoop, Tom, you cut out there for a second.
Tom Sapkowski: Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry about that. Um, we had a third test done just recently by the
Department of Health and Human Services. And once again, our water and the __________ 00:03:25 for
PFAS, um, but there are like, I don't know, there's probably 18 different types of PFAS, uh, compounds,
um, so, um, like I said, our-our well has tested __________ 00:03:45, but it didn't test, uh, positive for
PFAS, even though we're very, very close to the, uh, the area that is contaminated. Um, um, I'm, my
house is roughly a mile-and-a-quarter, a mile-and-a-half from the House Street dump where Wolverine,
um, put the lion's share of their, uh, leather scraps that are contaminated with, uh, with Scotchgard, which
was the 3M, um, name for, uh, their water repellent. So, um, I hope, I'm sorry, I hope that answers your
question.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah, um—
Page 1
�Tom Sapkowski: Oh, it does?
Danielle DeVasto: —it does. So, I mean it, so it sounds like you've-you've had extensive testing done,
um, with relatively good results.
Tom Sapkowski: Yeah, and I don't know, I mean extensive as far as how accurately they're able to
detect, um, __________ 00:04:43, but, um, __________ 00:04:47 our third test is only 21 so it's been a
lot of __________ 00:04:55 I've been __________ 00:04:57 bringing to continue to test because when I
was, when you're that close to contaminated well, you never know, and maybe no, it may test positive or
negative today, and positive tomorrow. So, you just don't know what's going on in the aquifer. Um, we can
make various assumptions about what's going on, uh, geologically under-under our home. Uh, our well
and our neighbor's well are roughly on the same plane. They're around a hundred-and-twenty feet deep.
Um, so you would think that we would be drinking the same water, but, uh, according to some geologists
that I've spoke with, uh, they think we might be on something called a perch aquifer. So, um, and there's a
lot of clay in our area, which, um, is not, uh, you know, it is impervious to-to the water so that may be why
our well tests clean at this point.
Danielle DeVasto: Sounds like you've, um, become quite an expert on aquifers and all manner of things.
[LAUGHTER]
Tom Sapkowski: A little bit, a little bit. I mean, uh, geology was my science in college, which, uh, a lot of
people don't, they-they-they call it rocks for jocks. Have you ever heard that?
Danielle DeVasto: Yes. [LAUGHTER]
Tom Sapkowski: That's what the ath—that's where the athletes go because they don't want to do
physics and chemistry. But, um, I really like geology so that was my science.
Danielle DeVasto: So-so what is next for you guys?
Tom Sapkowski: Well, we're obviously concerned __________ 00:06:38, and, um, we're involved in two
different, uh, health studies where three of us in-in my family have had, um, blood taken, and, uh, we've
gotten results back. Um, my wife and I test low in variou—in certain, uh, compounds of PFAS and
__________ 00:06:59, but we're very, very high in, in a, in a select few. Um, __________ 00:07:07 were,
uh, able, uh, to __________ 00:07:09 health outcomes because, uh, people around House Street, the-the
actual dump __________ 00:07:15, um, there's is what we __________ 00:07:19 around there that
they've been, it must've been pretty high level, um, for the past however many years that they've been
dumping. I think back in the early 1950s, um, you know, you have been trying to __________ 00:07:36 to
figure out how-how long it took that compound to get into the aquifer so. Um, but, yeah, there's, uh,
there's been a number of deaths that have been linked to the contamination. And, um, and, you know,
and people who are alive that, uh, have health concerns, um, because of this. So, our main, our main
concern in the family is that, you know, are there, are there gonna be any negative health problems,
kidney problems, pancreas problems, can—um, and so far there haven't so we've been very fortunate. I
have two children. Um, currently, my daughter is 20, and my son is 27. They've been drinking, um, our
well water __________ 00:08:19 for their entire lives. So, even when my wife was pregnant with, uh, with
Page 2
�them, too. So, if, um, if anything, they-they should be, uh, good test subjects for the __________
00:08:37, so. But, um, like I said, things, so far, things, um, we're in relatively good health. Um, I have
some kidney issues, but they may or may not __________ 00:08:52. Um, you know, it's very, it's-it's, it
would be difficult to-to prove that at this point. Um, I've been a mechanic my whole life so I've been
around a lot of, uh, industrial solvents and things like that, so that may have something to do with it as
well. But, uh, but that's our main concern and basically concern for others. And, uh, it's a unique situation
in that the simple part is Wolverine has, uh, you know, openly admitted to dumping what they dumped at
House Street. And, um, it's, you know, it's sort of a smoking gun as far as what's been, what's been done.
Um, you think they-they knew it was, uh, a hazardous chemical, uh, even early on 'cause of its nature.
Um, it's a synthetic compound and it really doesn't break down, uh, very easily. That's-that's probably why
it's effective as a water repellent. But, um, you know, when they make, uh, conscious decisions to keep
dumping, and keep __________ 00:10:12 them, um, I believe they're very culpable. And, um, I don't, uh,
I'm not a litigious person by nature, but, uh, I really feel like, uh, they need to be held responsible. Andand they have stepped up and done various things. Like, right now we're getting municipal water, but
oddly enough, um, the Plainfield Township municipal water, um, has like eight to 12 parts per trillion of
PFAS in it because their wells are in this area. They pump, they pump, uh, you know, the big, their big
wells that are supply-supply wells are-are around here. Uh, they've been searching for cleaner wells and
haven't been able to find any. Um, there's a whole group of people that would like, uh, the township to
start using Grand Rapids' city water, which is from Lake Michigan, um, and the township hasn't-hasn't
done that yet. Uh, but they have purchased a very expensive carbon filtration system, which does filter
the PFAS out of the water, but it's, um, it's expensive to have and expensive to maintain, um, and it just
makes me wonder how long they're going to, uh, they're gonna, you know, try to, um, you know, make
lemonade out of lemons, so to speak. [LAUGHTER] Um, so it's-it's very, and, you know, it's just very
concerning. Um, the-the township used to not have a lot of, uh, say over what happened with your, with a
person's well water in our area, um, it was up to the health department. If you wanted to get a well permit,
you went to the health department and they—but now all of a sudden there's some type of unholy
relationship between the health department and the, uh, and the township. And the township is now, uh,
they're, the township is saying that because we're getting municipal water, which is a blessing and a
curse, um, like I said, it's-it's dirtier water than what I'm actually drinking, um, even though it's filtered, um,
but now I have a water bill obviously, or will have a water bill. [LAUGHTER] So, and-and I was pumping,
you know, free water for the longest time. Um, what I was getting at before is that the township is
requiring households to give up their wells or they're gonna to have to cap your well so that you may not
use it. Uh, apparently they don't want the possibility of pumping the PFAS out of the ground, and then into
the, you know, um, you know, the-the __________ 00:12:58, uh, that live in the area and people. So they
just don't want anybody drinking it, even though I've tested clean, um, which-which proposes a problem
for me. I, we-we have a-a property we'd like to be able to __________ 00:13:13 the lot, and I'd hate to
have to pay for municipal water just to irrigate. And then I have a 30,000-gallon swimming pool, so, I don't
Page 3
�wanna have to fill my pool with, uh, water that I have to pay for either. So that proposes a, um, a problem,
as well. So, I'm trying to get the township, I'm actively trying to get the township to give me a-a-a waiver
to, uh, keep my well. And I'm aware of people, two houses on Belmont Road, uh, were able to keep their
well, but I don't know the reasons why. Um, one of my neighbor's was able to keep his well because he
has a geothermal heat, so they pump the water out of the ground and then back into the ground, type
thing. I-I'm sure you know how that-that works. But, uh, he'll be able to keep his well also. So, um, this is
a, this is a-a battle that I'm not looking forward to, but, uh, but I think, I think it'll have a good outcome. I
don't know.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah. Well, you might have touched on this a little bit, but, uh, maybe you can
expand. Um, what concerns do you have, if any, about PFAS contamination moving forward?
Tom Sapkowski: Um, well my concerns are generally health-related, um, maybe not so much about
myself and my wife, but certainly my kids, you know. You would hate to think that you fed your kids
poison for the past 20 years. Do you know what I mean? So, um, and I don't know if our well had been
contaminated previously and has since, um, you know, the aquifer's moving all the time so you don't know
if it was really high at one point in our lives and then got better. Um, but it's-it's doubtful, but I guess it's in
the realm of possibility. So, so health concerns are my, our major, our major concern. Um, I don't know.
Going forward, I would hope that Wolverine is held accountable for people whose-whose deaths have
been caused by-by PFAS or health problems. I'd like to see, um, more of that take place. Um, I don't want
to be one of those people that think that they should be sued into oblivion. You know what I mean?
Because once they quit making shoes and making money, the, you know, the-the well will have long run
dry [LAUGHTER], uh, to use a poor metaphor. Um, they may as well continue to stay in business and sell
shoes. But in-in my view, um, to really be fair and equitable, __________ 00:16:05 they should be, um,
like a for profit company, I think the money they make should be, uh, put in to trying to make up, you
know, pay restitution to people who've suffered from their, uh, contamination. And probably, um, the
people that is closest to the dump site are the ones who really, um, got the most, have had the most
problems. So, um, I don't, I don't worry every day that I'm going to die of something that's related to
PFAS, but, um, you know, as time goes on we are, we are involved in, like I said, uh, several different
health studies, and I just got a letter in the mail to be involved in a third health study, which I will probably
sign up for. But, um, as time goes on, we just seem to learn more and more and more about the effects.
So, um, I guess knowledge is power type thing. Um, Wolverine has paid restitution to, um, at least one
family that I'm aware of. But, um, again, there's like a nondisclosure agreement, so they don't talk about it
very much. But it's good to know that, uh, um, they do assume some culpability. Um, there are various
neighborhoods around here, like Boulder Creek, where they like to use, they-they meaning being, uh,
Wolverine, they wanna use the excuse, "Well, we weren't the only ones who dumped." You know? And I,
and I sort of get that. In the Boulder Creek area, they weren't the only ones who dumped. I believe there
was a brass manufacturing firm that also dumped contaminants in that area. But, um, I'm-I'm, like I said
before, House Street dump is pretty much a smoking gun. It's all their, all their contamination so. Um, on
Page 4
�my, when it comes to my, another concern is that this continues as far as, uh, the public interest. I know
they're, um, they're, you know, they're, we're learning more and more and more about PFAS and, uh, you
know, firefighting chemicals around military bases and things like that that have contaminated, uh, various
areas, so, um, you know, we're finding out more all the time, and, uh, I don't know, hopefully this can be
rectified. But, you know, once the contamination's in the aquifer, uh, it'll require another Ice Age
[LAUGHTER] because peo—I have been to public meetings where people say, "Well, what's it gonna
take to remove the contaminants?" And it's like, really? You, it's, you know, in your, you can't imagine
what, you know, what it would require to try and get, uh, that level of contamination out of the aquifer.
One the genie's out of the bottle, there's, you know, there's no putting it back in so.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah, it does seem like the more we learn, the bigger the problem gets, the more
complicated.
Tom Sapkowski: Yeah, I'm very disheartened to-to realize that, uh, Wolverine at the House Street dump,
in particular because that's the one of the most affects us, um, they as-as their-their Band-Aid to put on
that problem was to, uh, use, um—what do they call it? Uh, some type of environmental remediation
where, uh, they-they wanted the trees to soak up the contamination, and then, um, you know, that it
would, it would lessen, it would lessen the contaminants in the soil. Where, um, to me, you know, from a
geologic __________ 00:19:47 it's-it's sort of like a, it's sort of like a coffee filter where the-the most
highest concentrations of the contamination are at surface level, and I don't believe they've done enough
to remove the super, um, concentrated areas —do you know what I mean?—by lining it and burning it,
handling it, then they dump it. It is lined with clay or something. But, so the, so the, what, the percolation
effect is going on today, you know, and it's been going on and been going on, so, that's ongoing. And,
um, their solutions for the, they, who they really, they-they wanna take a very, uh, minimalistic approach
to repairing that, uh, or remediating that contamination. That's-that's really sad. I-I would've hoped they
would have really, um, taken the ball and run with it, and used this as kind of, uh, an example of how, uh,
environmentally conscious they could be. I think they would get the public on their side if they said, "Hey,
we screwed up, but we're really gonna fix it," instead of these really minor Band-Aid solutions that they've
come up with. And we still haven't even begun. Um, so Wolverine would currently like to just leave these,
um, and put some caps in place so that it minimizes the percolation effect from rain and whatnot, but, um,
again, it's just a, it's just a metaphoric Band-Aid. You know?
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah, and you'd like to see them do something different?
Tom Sapkowski: Well, yeah, really do something more. There are, there are ways to, uh, remediate this
contamination, um, and I know I believe—[CLEARS THROAT] excuse me—Michigan State University is
working on various ways to, um, break the PFAS bonds, um, but I believe it requires temperatures as
high as like 2800 degrees before it, uh, before it breaks down. So, to me that would mean, um, dredging
up the soil, running it, uh, through some type of, uh, an incineration, and then, uh, putting it back. Uh, I
envisioned something on site, you know, where they could have, um, a dredge that would pull it up, run it
through, uh, a big incinerator. I know they-they use these huge incinerators to make, um, cement. They've
Page 5
�been using them for-for years and years and years, so I know that they're there. This technology exists,
they just don't want to, uh, go that route. Um, I was involved quite a number of years ago in, um, a
gentleman who made a portable tire grinder, and it was to grind up, um, used tires. And it was portable, it
could be moved from tire pile to tire pile. And, uh, it was a pretty complex piece of machinery because of
what they had to do to separate the, uh, rubber from the steel cords. But, um, I know if they can do that,
they can certainly, um, you know, dredge up these really high areas of concentration. But it's-it has fallen
on deaf ears for the past, you know, uh, four years that I've been involved. They don't wanna hear it. It's
funny, you know, people on the, on the CAG, the Community Advisory Group, they don't want to hear it
either, and it's, it's, and I don't really think it's that complicated. Um, it certainly seems more cost efficient
to me to do that than, uh, truck it out of state, which is what they did with a lot of the material from the, uh,
the tannery downtown-downtown Rockford. They just trucked it out of state. Um, so I don't know.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah, yeah. Well, before we wrap up, is there anything that you want to go back to
and touch on more, or anything that you didn't, um, get to bring up that you'd like to make sure you bring
up?
Tom Sapkowski: Probably not. I think I hit all the bases, but I'm sure after we're done with this phone call
I will have thought [LAUGHTER] of something. But, um, you know, mainly it's, uh, the-the health issues
and, um, the lack of, uh, concern by Wolverine when it comes to removing the contamination, um, I-I'd
just like to see more done. And, like I said, we're learning more and more about the health effects every
day so, um, you know, my heart goes out to people who've, uh, who've, uh, drank heavily contaminated
water. So, I'm going at it from a lot of different angles, uh, as far, you know, including, um, essentially
being forced to go onto municipal water, which I'm not against. Of course I'm against having a dumb
water bill, but, uh, [LAUGHTER] it does not include sewer obviously either, so you have to keep your, um,
you know, your septic. But, um, I'm really hoping right now that what I'm fighting is to keep my well just for
irrigation, and just to fill my pool. So, that would be very, very helpful if I could have those things. So—
Danielle DeVasto: Well, I wish—
Tom Sapkowski: I hope my—
Danielle DeVasto: —I wish you luck in those upcoming battles. [LAUGHTER]
Tom Sapkowski: —I hope my-my, uh, issues aren't too trivial, but, um, I know there's people that have
real concerns, so I'll continue to be a member of the Community Advisory Group as long as they'll have
me. And, um, I have mixed feelings about being on that because if you talk with some people on the
CAG, they think that we've been very instrumental in all of these things that have been done, um, by
Wolverine and others, um, but I really don't see it. I'm sort of a hands on guy, so, um, I would just like to
be able to see more done rather than just a, they-they tend to pat themselves on the back for things that,
um, that, uh, we have not really been directly involved in. So, you know, it-it is sad because, uh, we have
monthly meetings and, um, you know, to try to keep the community, um, aware of what's going on, and it,
and it's been sad because there's just often little participation, um, just by a select few. And the select few
who, uh, who participate are often, uh, really, um, sort of how I feel, they, um, they're concerned about
Page 6
�contamination, but, um, they go off on-on crazy, um, you know, basic rabbit holes. They go down these
rabbit holes that, uh, they're just, uh, __________ 00:06:58, and, um, I don't know. It's it, I would like to
think, you know, work towards at least improving our situation. Um, I know it can probably never be
rectified save for the next Ice Age, but, uh, [LAUGHTER] but, um, I think, you know, I try, I'm trying to be
positive and, um, hope that, you know, make incremental improvements so that's about it.
Danielle DeVasto: Okay, all right, well, thank you, Tom, for taking the time to share your story today.
Tom Sapkowski: You're welcome. Thank you for-for, uh, for doing this.
Danielle DeVasto
Tid: 537-2
Page 7
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d9586034ef687a8f4542d4e5066e3440.MP3
fc479f20720fee5873f2b2ec0abdbbc2
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0026
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Sapkowski, Tom
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021-09-02
Title
A name given to the resource
Tom Sapkowski, 2021 (Interview audio and transcript)
Description
An account of the resource
Tom Sapkowski grew up on the west side of Grand Rapids, Michigan and currently lives in nearby Belmont. After learning of PFAS contamination through the media, Tom paid to have his well water tested. It was found to have low levels. However, his municipality is requiring households to give up their wells and he is actively trying to keep his.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c4f583dde9c54a86cd406912b007ac79.pdf
a7cd58b0ca5570f02e0e15a6c38210e9
PDF Text
Text
Living with PFAS
Interviewee: Sue and Scott Mark
Interviewer: Danielle DeVasto
Date: September 30, 2021
Danielle DeVasto: I'm Dani DeVasto, and today, September 30, 2021, I have the pleasure of chatting
with Sue and Scott Mark. Hi, Sue. Hi, Scott.
Sue Mark: Hi, Dani.
Scott Mark: Hi.
Danielle DeVasto: Um, Sue and Scott, can you tell me about where you're from and where you currently
live?
Sue Mark: Um, I will start. Um, I was born and raised in Kalamazoo, but my husband and I now live in
South Haven. We've lived here for 15 years [CLEARS THROAT], so we've been away from Kalamazoo
for quite a while. But I used to work, um, the last job I had in Kalamazoo was at a doctor's office, at 1127
South Park Street, which is, um, by the Crosstown Ponds, and there were, the ponds were behind the
office building. This building was built in 1986, and I started there in 1991. Um, I don't know if any of this
is related to PFAS, but I'm going to share my story just in case it is. Um, when I started there, we would
make coffee with tap water, and, um, we didn't get bottled water until probably, I would say, five to eight
years after I started there. It was not something we had on a—early on when I was there. [CLEARS
THROAT] I worked in the office for 15 years. We had two physicians that were employed there, and 14
ancillary staff, which really is not a very large office in today's terms. Um, there were a number of people
that had cancer in that office. Um, I can tell you that there were four people with breast cancer. There was
one person with lymphoma. There was one that had multiple myeloma. But, what I'm focusing on right
now is the diagnosis that I have. Um, I was diagnosed last year with pancreatic cancer. And what's
significant about this is the fact that I am the fourth person from that office with pancreatic cancer, and I
am the only one still living. The last person that was diagnosed with it died this past March. So, there are
four of us with that diagnosis, and I realize pancreatic cancer is out there, and there's a number of people
with it, but my feeling as a nurse is that there is far more breast cancer than there is pancreatic cancer,
and to have four of us in one office with pancreatic cancer, there's something suspicious about this. Um,
the ponds would frequently overflow when there was heavy rain. Um, it was a lowland, and it would come
up into the parking lot, and we'd have to walk through it sometimes to get into the building. Um, and
there's a lot that ran off those roads. When you think about oil and rubber, or asbestos, uh, rustproofing,
all that. And that would all drain into these ponds. In the time that I worked there, there were two vehicles
removed from those ponds. Not at the same time, but somebody dumped the car in there even. Um, there
were lots of goop and bird feces. Um, just all kinds of debris in there. I-I never even wanted to go near
those ponds. But, to have four of us with pancreatic cancer threw up a red flag for me, and I honestly
believe that that's where my diagnosis came from. It has something to do with that office. Um, I've been a
very healthy person. I have not had to take hardly any medication. I just took vitamins and supplements. I
was active. I exercised. I ate a very healthy diet, and I had a normal weight. Um, I've taken very good
care of myself, so I'm rather surprised. I don't have a family history of cancer, except my father had
leukemia, and he survived that for 18 years. So, I don't have a lot of family history. I was also tested in the
Page 1
�very beginning of my diagnosis, um, for genetic testing, and they did, they tested 55 genes. Everyone
was normal, and there were three of them that were from my pancreas, and those were normal, as well.
So, it was not a mutation in my genes. This is something that I contracted but I still, to this day, don't know
exactly where. Um, my husband is older than me, and he lived in Kalamazoo, um, when I was there, And
he has more knowledge of the paper mills and so forth in that area, and he can speak more to what his
thoughts are on this-this, um, possible contamination.
Danielle DeVasto: Okay.
Scott Mark: Good morning. I'm Scott Mark, and I have lived in Kalamazoo since 1962. And for many
years, I lived in the general area of the Crosstown Ponds, and passed by them frequently on my own way
to work. Uh, in the, I know that in the 1970s, uh, there was some water contamination in the wells, in the
wells, you know, and, uh, they were stripping, uh, those wells, uh, and the water was being pumped onto
the roadway, and then drained into the Crosstown Ponds. Now, I know that Kalamazoo draws all their
municipal water from, uh, fresh water aquifers, uh, and below the city. But there's a long history of paper
mills, uh, in the Kalamazoo area, and the two that I will speak directly to were situated, uh, near Cork
Street, which is approximately a mile from the, um, Crosstown Ponds. Um, the watershed would move
towards those Crosstown Ponds, and, of course, the aquifers are all that general area. The paper mills
had fire protection systems, and potentially could have used these, uh, uh, [CLEARS THROAT] for, uh,
fire protection. Um, there's an area on Cork Street—which I have some pictures that I'll share—that, uh,
has been contaminated for probably 40 years, and is still fenced off today, uh, with warning signs that it's
a contaminated area, and it's a hazardous area. Uh, there is a, uh, seven-foot cyclone fence around it
with barbed wire across the top, multiple signs around the property, and I would guess that there's
probably somewhere in the area of 40 to 60 acres, uh, that go to the north toward the Crosstown Ponds.
Now, I know that that the, uh, the, uh, city municipal water system draws from deep down in the, uh,
aquifers, but the leaching of chemicals of many different kinds naturally goes down to the aquifers. And I
know that there has been some acknowledgment of groundwater contamination in Kalamazoo. Uh, some
of the research that I tried to do about the contamination around the Crosstown Ponds did not yield much
because they indicate that any dredging of the Crosstown Ponds, uh, was for, uh, the purpose of reducing
the flooding that would occur in the spring or when there were, uh, significant, uh, rainstorms. And, um,
sometimes those streets beside the Crosstown Ponds would have to be closed because of high water.
Um, the one thing that concerns me is that of all the dredging of the Crosstown Ponds they did, they
never indicated that they did any testing to see if there were contaminants. But, anyone that lived in the
Kalamazoo area acknowledged that those Crosstown Ponds were contaminated ponds that sat, in, uh,
the valley just south of the main downtown area. Um, I will be happy to forward some things that I
recently, um, some pictures that I recently took of that, uh, contaminated area. Uh, this is the first time
that I noticed, yesterday was the first time that I noticed that any mitigation of hazardous material going
on or any work being done in there, um, um, for many, many years. However, I am well aware that to the
south of Cork Street, which is, you know, approximately a, approximately a mile away from Crosstown
Page 2
�Ponds, there was a very significant amount of, uh, uh, reclamation that was done, uh, probably 10 years,
10 to 15 years ago, um, which would be, uh, would, which would be in that same, uh, watershed that
moved toward the Crosstown Ponds and into those aquifers. Uh, I think that probably, uh, that's what I
can contribute at this point in terms of what my thoughts are about any contamination to that general
area.
Sue Mark: Um, I will mention one other thing that [CLEARS THROAT] back in 2018, um, I had a relative
that told me—that still lives in Kalamazoo—told me that these ponds were dredged, and that would be
around Fourth Street and, um, South Park Street. So they were dredged, and they took out, um, a pile of
sludge, and put it on a portion of Fourth Street that was approximately 100 feet long and 10 to 12 feet
high, and it sat on this road for two years. To my knowledge, it was never tested, it was just left there. Um,
I don't believe it was fenced off. I think it was just piled there. And my concern from that is that how many
children, um, animals, pets, whatever might have gotten into that could just crawl on it and climb on it and
play on it or whatever. And that sat there for two years, and this is what they dredged out of the bottom of
these ponds. Um, there was no concern for anybody's safety or, um, what could happen to anyone that
got near this. Just to leave it there for two years is totally wrong. Um, I did not see that. This is what my
relative told me, but at this point all that has been removed. But to allow that pile to sit for two years is
totally wrong. And that's-that's basically all I can think of at this point that I want to bring up. But, um, as
an individual, I don't feel that I can go to the city or the state and get anywhere with them acknowledging
that they've done anything wrong. I'm just one person. Um, and I'm focusing on my cancer diagnosis and
getting myself better, so that's where I'm at today.
Danielle DeVasto: Would either of you, would either of you be able to say anything about what the
neighborhood around the Crosstown Ponds is like? Is this residential? Is it, um, how would you
characterize the-the-the neighborhood around there?
Sue Mark: It's a combination. There were businesses in there. There were, um, um, different offices, um,
and there was a lot of low-income housing. That's the best way to put it. Um, I'm sure most of those
people were transients. They probably rented. I don't think that there were very many that owned. Um, as
far as contacting other businesses, um, my dentist office used to be across the pond from where I
worked, and, um, they are not there. They moved their office to another area, and I had talked to my
hygienist and just told her what's gone on. And I said, you were down there the same time I was, you
better pay real close attention to your health because, you know, you don't know what's gonna come from
this, and you were in that same area. But, um, there were a lot of low-income housing, and it's hard to
say, you know, I, we never talked with any of those people so I, you know, they come and go. And it's, a
lot of the businesses that were there back when I was, aren't there anymore. So, um, it was a
combination of both. There were offices and-and homes in that area.
Danielle DeVasto: Okay.
Sue Mark: Do you have anything to say?
Scott Mark: No, uh, that was what I was going to bring up is the neighborhood issue.
Page 3
�Danielle DeVasto: Awesome. Do you, moving forward from this point, I know you don't live there
anymore, but do you have any particular concerns about the contamination, um, PFAS or otherwise,
whatever it might be? Are there any particular concerns that you have moving forward?
Sue Mark: Um, I'm concerned for anybody that lives anywhere around that area at all, because I don't
believe anything has been truly taken care of. Um, maybe they're working on this one spot on Cork
Street, but if it sat there for 40 years, how many people have been affected by it? And the signs say
hazardous material right on the sign. Some of the signs that are on that fence have been there so long
that they're faded. You can't even read them. So, this has, this has been a problem for a long time, and,
um, I see the city is just ignoring it, and I think that's a shame. Do you have anything to add?
Scott Mark: I-I think it would be very hard to come up with, uh, finding people because of the time period,
uh, say from the 1990s, uh, to present, that may have been in that area and may have had diagnoses.
That would be an awesome, uh, undertaking. And, you know, the fact that the, uh, the people that rented,
the businesses that were there—some of them were medical offices, some were, um, lawyers offices,
there were, um, just many types of small offices there that came and went over the years—and you just
didn't have the contact with those people to know what was happening medically with any of those
people. So, for us it's a concern that we're bringing forward, and hoping that somewhere along the way,
somebody might ask the question, and there might be some information somewhere that they can plug
into a computer, and it'll spit out some information of some of the diagnosed people that lived in those
areas over the years.
Danielle DeVasto: Before we wrap up, is there anything else that you'd like to add that we haven't
touched on today or anything you'd like to go back to and say more about?
Sue Mark: I can't think of anything. Can you?
Scott Mark: No, at the moment, I can't think of anything. Uh, Sue and I have discussed this over a period
of time. Um, while she generally focused on the pond, um, my knowledge was focusing on the
groundwater that, uh, and the well fields, that were in that immediate area, as well as the contaminated
areas nearby that would contribute to any of the, uh, chemicals that may be in the groundwater, uh, that
the general population of Kalamazoo might be, uh, drinking from.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah. Well, thank you so much, Sue and Scott, for taking the time to share your
perspectives and your stories today.
Sue Mark: Thank you.
Page 4
�Scott Mark: And thank you for your interest, and I hope that you come up with some good solutions and
good information that point you in a direction that will help everybody.
Danielle DeVasto: I hope so, too.
Page 5
�Page 6
�Page 7
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2e0a38d78b4120bb9731016598d9a7f5.MP3
db8a52f6b1203126945f23ead0a6d646
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0017
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mark, Sue
Mark
Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021-09-30
Title
A name given to the resource
Sue and Mark Scott, 2021 (Interview audio and transcript with images)
Description
An account of the resource
Sue and Mark Scott lived in Kalamazoo, Michigan for many years before moving to South Haven, Michigan. In their interview, they discuss their knowledge of the groundwater contamination in Kalamazoo and its effects on their health and community.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/a42cf776085ca4f2471548e75f643f12.mp4
316a3c4d6b080cc13b2e6fb5271cb0ba
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ea26423f111872525bd82ab4384adea3.pdf
4454970f31735606fda33697736d32d4
PDF Text
Text
Living with PFAS
Interviewer: Dani |
Interviewee: Lynn |
Date of Interview: 7/29/2021 5:00:00 AM
Danielle DeVasto: All right. So, I'm Dani DeVasto, and today, July 29, 2021, I have the pleasure of
talking with Lynn McIntosh. Hi, Lynn. Thanks for being here today. Well, thanks for having me here with
you, really.
Lynn Macintosh: Yeah. Thank you for coming all this way.
Danielle DeVasto: Lynn, can you tell us where you are from and where you currently live?
Lynn Macintosh: Well, I'm actually from the east coast. I lived most of my life growing up on the east
coast, Pennsylvania, New York, and I live now here in Rockford, where I've lived for, oh, 30 years. Thirty
years.
Danielle DeVasto: Wonderful. Wonderful. Lynn, can you please tell me a story about your experience
living with PFAS?
Lynn Macintosh: Thank you. Uh, my experience with PFAS is really on the discovery of it and the living
in a town [CLICK SOUND] that spewed this into the river for years, for decades, and no one really say
much about it, I think, because it's white and it's foamy, and when water goes thrashing over a dam and
bubbles up, because although some of the __________ 00:01:26, it's like they were years ago, it's white,
it's not an oil spill __________ 00:01:32. It's sudsy, suds make you think of clean, it's white, and, um,
[CLICK SOUND] I didn't even notice it when I first moved here, but I started to notice it in the summer of
2009 and 2010, when I heard that this tannery, that's right behind me, location, location, location, I
happened to move, uh, just east of a tannery, coming here from the east coast and not understanding
that, and about that time when I was really concerned about this tanuh, this- [LIP SMACK] this, uh,
approaching demolition, I started noticing it a little bit more than I had before, and they started taking
pictures of the river, and I started noticing foam, and I collected them. I have a lot of them in a book here,
and I sent them all over the place, uh, of these pictures of this awful, not even so much of just the foam,
but this filmy, weird, um, substance that appeared frequently. I suppose this- this picture really shows
what it was like because it was almost a pre-foam stage and it would just sort of sit on the river and if you
threw something into it, it would make a hole and then close up, and it was really odd to me, and I started
going on the river and kayaking, and I got pictures sometimes of the foam looking like this, piled up. This
is a close up of that other picture that I had before. It's much better. I would see puddles like this when the
ice melted. I'd see big spots of it. So, anyway, I started noticing the river, and one day, many years later, if
I could have that picture again, I saw this picture from Wurtsmith in a photo, and I looked at that picture
seven years later and I thought, why did they have a picture of Wolverine's foam in this article about
Wurtsmith? 'Cause up til now all I could conclude was that it was a surfactant. As a citizen, I worked with
Dr. Rediske, who told me how to do some basic sampling on the river, and when I would go and do my
little samples, I decided to always add in checking for the surfactant level, and I had done some research
about natural foams and these kinds of foams, and I knew that this foam wasn't good for the river, but I
Page 1
�didn't know it was PFAS. [BANG SOUND] But I did start observing it. It's like my eyes were open to the
river. I thought this is really weird, and when my- my eyes were on the river and- and my concern was for
this coming demolition, so I started training myself, taking walks and observing things, uh, in that summer,
and it started this avalanche of questions and deepened my concern about this approaching demolition
on the tannery. I had seen that we live in a town and you're busy with young kids, you assume that your
town's taking care of you and your water's safe and all that. Everyone cares and is doing their job, and
after having witnessed a demolition gone awry in my own backyard with asbestos clouds flying in the air
right behind me the year before and having to report that to the DEQ and going through the whole
coverage of it, this lovely little home here was riddled with asbestos, as pretty as it is, and they took it all
down without removing any of it. So, living in Rockford, now, in 2009 and 2010, after my two older
children had graduated and one- one other daughter who, uh, was here until 2012, I said to myself, this is
a tannery, this is 15 acres. It's obvious that my city doesn't care if they're actually in, they were in kind of
cahoots with all. They got fined, everybody involved in that asbestos, they also got fined. Um, they had to
haul it to maul it to licensed, haul it to a licenced landfill, and, um, and it was a dangerous thing to do. It
was so irresponsible, and all the city did was do what happens a lot in politics, put a spin on it, downplay
it, and make it out to be my fault or other people's fault, __________ 00:07:05, and that, too, was very
clear. So, I got involved in researching this demolition, and I became what I like to talk about in my way of
doing it, I hired myself [LAUGHTER] one day without an interview [LAUGHTER] to investigate this, and I
called myself a ragtag. I was part of the ragtags. I was- I was a hub of the ragtags, and I found other
citizens, friends, people I knew, who cared, people who were recently retired, [CHUCKLE] who were
home during the day to come down and help me, first of all and do field investigations. I found a
fisherman, who knew we called on the Islands of the Lost Soles up there. It's a shoe company and that
[CHUCKLE] was the mystic. This fisherman said, "Oh, yeah, have you been north to see the Islands of
the Lost Soles?" It's pretty- pretty gruesome up there, the foam and the stench and, so I went up there
and, so I had one- one particular fisherman who went out with me- with me that day, and we also noticed
the foamy, filmy stuff. Uh, I had a friend who I would call in the middle of the day, who was recently
retired. [CHUCKLE] Sometimes I'd send him down to city hall with my camera to get photos of aerial
views 'cause they didn't want to see me too much at city hall, and I didn't want to see them. So,
[CHUCKLE] and he would playfully, and actually I think he meant it, try to get out of some of these things,
but, um, [LAUGHTER] I was persistent, and he was a friend, so I was llike, he would say things like,
"Well, I- I can't go down, I don't have a good camera." Here, take mine. "Oh." [LAUGHTER] Or, in the
middle of the day, Andrew, I need you to get down to the river right now. "What's going on?" I said, there's
14 dead fish in the river right near the tannery. "So, uh, it's a little late for them." [LAUGHTER] And I said,
no, no, you don't get it. This is a fish kill. I learned this phrase from the Department of Environmental
Quality, have there been any fish kills? He's like, "Oh, this is a fish kill." So, I knew Andrew, I knew he was
home, and I used my little flip phone, which I used in all my escapades up to 2018, actually. I had his
number memorized, I called him up, and convinced him to come down with a bucket and a butterfly net
Page 2
�and to reach through this grated bridge over the river using his length of arm, and he was six feet tall, so
he's, like, really spread across the trail and he's scooping out dead fish for me and we're putting them in a
bucket, and I'm bringing them down to the DEQ. This is forensic evidence. [CHUCKLE] I had people
taking photos for me, walking around the tannery while it was going on, getting photos of dust. [LIP
SMACK] I had people who would come meet me and get samples of the- of the river. I finally met
someone who was troubled by it, too, and I said, yeah, I'd really like to get some sediment samples of this
river and at that point, my husband had lost a lot of enthusiasm for helping me out on these ventures,
especially after I lost his- his, uh, boots, his, uh, fisherman's boots, that I left in a thicket by the river, and
he said, "Well, I'll go out with you," and so it was pretty much anybody who was tall and willing and able. I
would they became, they joined the ragtags. Yeah, they helped me, uh, collect a lot of good evidence. So,
we ended up getting sediment samples by taking PVC pipes and jamming it down in and water out. It was
really exciting. Um, so, anyway, for about two years, I was running on kind of this startled, urgent energy
that there's something wrong here. This demolition is not going to be safe. I was right, it wasn't, but the
more I asked, the more I realized I needed to stay involved because outside my little city and my city
government and my county and the Department of Environmental Quality in Grand Rapids, and my
legislators, who didn't really want to be involved outside of that, when I would get to top people at the EPA
or top people in other states or research by phone, they were like, "Really? Tell me that again. Well,
who's the project, who's the project leader?" There isn't one. "No, there has to be one." No, there's no
project leader. "Hmm, well what about the water department? Aren't they getting samples of the
sediment? They can at least do that. They don't have to get on site to do that." Nope, they're declining.
"Well, what about is- aren't there any incentives they can get to get compensated?" Yeah, they tried to get
them to do a testing on baseline __________ 00:12:22, phase one, phase two, and they were given this
amount of money, and Wolverine said, “No, thank you." Um, we knew that the people, some of the good
people in DEQ were actually concerned, but nobody felt like they had the authority or wanted to step out
and risk the ire of the company or even the governor at that time or any of that. So, [LIP SMACK] when
our facts and our findings raised eyebrows everywhere else, we knew that we were right and then started
to connect the ragtags to what I call the credibles [CHUCKLE] and A. J. Birkbeck, the environmental
attorney, who represented our little group in 2010. He was a credible. He was an environmental attorney.
Dr. __________ 00:13:15, who came in probably around the second half of 2012, and then full in, in
2015, 2016, was a credible, and someone from the DEQ, who was retired, which we loved people- good
people who are retired, because they were now neu-, neutral and they could get involved, and Janice
Tompkins heard me make a presentation at the river watershed council and I showed her a note that she
was concerned, so she joined in and so, A. J. and Rick and Janice were thither were the hub of the
credibles, and people respected them, so they could be the face, and Janice brought in other
environmental groups, so that I could take what we found here, as the ragtags and then I would, um, I
would say I was like second string on the credibles, but, you know, I was allowed into the room. We would
go to Grand Valley, and meet [CHUCKLE] in- in, uh, one of the conference rooms there, and I would try to
Page 3
�contain some of my angst and passion and- and enter into the rational looking over of evidence and
making a plan and an agenda and carefully working through in strategic ways to make the most of what
we got and never going to the media because A. J. forbid that, and he was right. We didn't go to the- the,
uh, media until, I didn't go to the media until the summer of 2017. That was incredibly important to be the
one living here, because I knew- I knew the lay of the land. I learned quickly to get permission to be on
any property that I needed to be on to get good photographs and I knew a lot of people anyway who
cared. So, I made sure I had lots of places where I could go and get photos. [CHUCKLE] And across the
river, they put in this boardwalk high up, and I remember someone saying to me one day, "Oh, look at
that over there. You could probably get some great photos from across the river." I'm like, oh, yeah, why
didn't I see that? Uh, I found the ladder on the side of the post office and it was a ladder on the side of the
shoe- shoe store. [CHUCKLE] I found all my crutches. There was a ladder I used to climb up onto my
neighbor's roof of her porch right behind me, because part way during the demolition of this tannery,
there's a __________ 00:16:09 and some people __________ 00:16:10 looking at birds. Um, [CHUCKLE]
they- they hated that I was taking photos. So, I would- I would go right up to the fence. That didn't matter
to me what this group thought of me. I wanted- I wanted photos, [CLICK SOUND] and after a while, they
realized they didn't want these photos, so, they would circle at- at the start of the day, wherever they were
working, they would take trucks and sort of circle the wagon, I think that's a phrase people used. Maybe it
comes from the days of pioneers where you, to protect, yeah. So, they would take any truck they had,
except the one that was being used and they would Lynne them up around where they were working. So,
I couldn't get photos, and so then I found out [NOISE] that I could, it was higher up over here and I was,
and I was up on that neighbor's roof with a good zoom camera. I could see what they were doing. And,
uh, I- I taught piano lessons during that time, actually. I- I taught until my mom came out in 2013, so I do
remember one day when I'm sitting here, and I'm teaching a piano lesson, and I'm very concerned in
November, because I know they're getting right near an area of the tannery that I knew was bad and I'm
concerned about dust clouds, and we had- we had at least made some progress with insisting on dust
control, even though we didn't have site testing. Again, it was imperfect, but I knew the only way I could
get, make sure that they kept up with it was to report big fugitive, fugitive dust clouds is what they called
them. So, if there was a big ka-bang, and it was in this really bad part, and I was having a piano lesson,
the only thing I could do was what I ended up doing. Uh, I remember the- my student's name was Casey
and I- I said, Casey, I said, well, first of all, I'm sitting there in the lesson, I'm listening to her play, and I'm
also half listening. You can see the window right there and like we got our ears kinda cranked out the
window just waiting and I hear this huge ka-boom and I'm like, oh, my gosh. There's gonna be dust.
Casey, I said, do your Mini Latin Jig three more times [CHUCKLE], practice scales, C major, G major, I'll
be back in five minutes, and I ran out the back door, through my yard, into my neighbor's yard. I had thethe ladder already there, climbed up, had my camera set, ready to go and got these great photos from the
November dust. I came back down, brought my camera, came back through here, as she was doing the
last- the last time through in G. Oh, okay, well, let's go back to that one section and then I would just go
Page 4
�on with my life. I, uh, I've used this phrase, and I think it was very true for me. They always talk about buy
local so, mine was, like, buy local, spy local, it's just part of your life. If you don't have time to do this full
time, [NOISE] well, just incorporate it into your life. I still get water samples and make my errands for the
day, okay go shopping, drop off water samples, um, and then I would decide, let's see, I have enough
money today to buy eggs and frozen vegetables and dah-dah-dah and I have enough money to buy
samples to get, uh, let's see, I don't know the Michigan 10, which is the, um, metals, and that's a good
deal, but it's-still don't have your $10. [LAUGHTER] So maybe today I'll just do, hmm, chromium
[LAUGHTER] __________ 00:00:07. Should I add in mercury for an extra 25? Hexachrome means I have
to get it there within 24 hours. No, I don't have time to do the hexa chrome today. [LAUGHTER] And so I
would make these little judgment calls about what I could afford, because we actually did have to put
money on the table. I have found the ragtags, uh, our group, our loosely formed group CCRR, we decided
to pay the money to help us guide us and to be strategic, and that was money enormously well spent. We
wouldn't have gotten where we needed to be without that. We needed A.J. Uh, Rick being a professor
and a citizen. And of course we didn't pay him, but we did pay for our own samples. And we did pay, um,
thousands of dollars, actually over time. And I never regret it, because you never have that moment in
time again. Money is this odd thing. You go to, uh, nonprofit groups, and they're always talking about the
budget and how to raise money. And, "If we had money, or if we got this grant dut dut dut dut dut dut da,
then we could do this." And by the time you really need the money or you could have gotten the
information, it's three years later, and it'sit's not even helpful at that point. So my dad, rascal that he was,
[LAUGHTER] taught me to love the environment, taught me to not just accept no for an answer, ifif it was
a no that was preventing good. And I had inherited some money. I never planned on it, never really even
thought about it. And part of it I decided in honor of him I would use that money in a meaningful way to do
that. It had a purpose. And my dad, before he passed away in 2011, was curious about what was
happening. And it was my dad who had gotten me out into the wilds, into the rivers, swimming, and
looking, loving. And it was my dad who taught me to roam, and wander, and figure it out as you go along.
So I was comfortable with that. So it was meaningful and necessary. And it wasn't anything that I've
everever thought back on. But I do say this to other people who want to get involved. Sometimes you do
have to take your own money and put it out there. Because if you wait, you won't have that chance. And
companies don't talk about it. They try to run up your bill if you get a lawyer. They try to discourage you in
any way. And they have thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend. And it took them
totally aback when we hired A.J., and when Rick and Janice started joining us. And when Westshore
Environmental Consulting wrote up our samples into an actual report, which we handed to the EPA. And
they were like, because they did not want there to be evidence. They didn't want facts. They didn't want
that, and we knew that was the only safe way we could get anywhere. Pe--people, a news story is up and
over in a day. They manage bad news, but they can't [LAUGHTER] samples for chromium, uh, mercury at
screening levels with the sediment there, which weyou can't expect that. They try, but ultimately can't.
Soso my story of being here with the ragtags, and reaching out to organizations beyond finding the
Page 5
�credibles, um, being loosely organized, which was great because I compared that to being like a
mountaineering group. Uh, back in the old days with mountaineering they used to have the Sherpas who
would carry all your stuff. And you set up camp, and then you wait, and wait, and wait. Then you go to the
next level. Then finally someone figured out light mountaineering. I don't know if that's a term they use,
but just carry it yourself and keep moving. That's kind of how we moved, [CLEARS THROAT] by not
being this official, organized group. We had no website. We didn't accept donations. We didn't have to
account for anything. We were just sort of had this mutual agreement to stick together. And A.J. was our
attorney, and Rick was our adviser, and Janice was our adviser, and they all worked with us. And that
collaboration and the energy that comes from that, the mutual respect without having to like write it into a
mission statement was there. And for me, I came to just simply enjoy them as characters. And yes, there
wereit wasn't perfect. There were certain members who didn't really get the other ones. [LAUGHTER] And
I was sort of the translator LAUGHTER] between different members. What I'd say is what I would sort of
like explain this and that. "Really?" Yeah. Yeah. I think that's what you're-- "Oh, okay." [LAUGHTER]
Because people are really quick to label each other and not move past that. And I guess being a writer
and loving stories, I see the complexity, and the humor, and the, uh, human quality of all of us,
[LAUGHTER] So I could see theI could be somewhat removed from it, not get entrapped in it, which was
very helpful.
Danielle Devasto: I bet. [LAUGHTER]
Lynn Macintosh: There are a few people that I encountered that I think had I not had that attitude,
people would have just decided not to work with that person, or not see the value. And somehow maybe
it's just being who I am. Maybe it's being the age I was. I was able to find creative ways to soften things
and bridge things, which was really, uh, which was really good because we've all come through on the
other side and continued to work together afterwards. And these colleagues have only become more and
more friends as we've spent more time together.
Danielle Devasto: Well, and it sounds like this collaboration has been really critical in moving forward
anything related to the tannery site it seems.
Lynn Macintosh: Uhuh yeah, yeah, it was. And then the connections that Janice made, or ideas that
others had. And finally myself bumping into or finding people from the DEQ who became interested, even
though it wasn't theirnecessarily their project. There was one at the EPA who opened the door for us
basically when he heard about early on this disaster. And he confirmed it. Hehe had the authority to call in
to the DEQ. He called the city, and he called me back. He said, "My gosh, you're right, there's a total
disconnect here. Nobody knows what's going on." And he was the one who said, "Well, if all else fails, get
hundreds of photos. Talk to the tannery workers. Get it all done, and send us a petition __________
00:08:16 , which is what we did a year later. Soso the way this story works is we all worked very
effectively. We got the EPA out. After the disastrous, very unsafe demolition they came out and, um,
basically, II think [LAUGHTER] I had showed you somewhere over here, you know, in the Rockford
Independent, um, you know, there's this big article that came out in September. They accepted our
Page 6
�invitation, or our petition. The EPA launches probe at tannery site. And, uh, there's all these nasty things
already said about us in that article by the city manager and others. I don't want to go into all those. And it
was, uh, it we got some sampling done. And then the city, and the legislators, and all of the players who
had prevented things from happening as they should have, they, uh, convinced the EPA to give them
oversight. So [LAUGHTER] then later it's kind of like __________ 00:09:28. It's almost like, The war is
over! [LAUGHTER] EPA is going away! That's kind of how we felt like, Go away, EPA. We'll take care of
it. We'll keep hiding this. [LAUGHTER] You know? Um, and so in 2012, after all our efforts, we worked so
hard, everything went back to the status quo. It went back to exactly how it was before it happened. And
Lynn Macintosh: I think anybody at that point, except for Janice and me, and Rick and A.J., would have
just called it at that point. It's like, "Okay, we tried." Um, we did everything we could and here we are. We
know that it rates high enough to be a Superfund site. We know that it's migrating in at least four areas
into the river. We have data. We were right, but now nothing's gonna get done, and nothing did for- for
five years. The only progress they made, I showed you the spreadsheet, the only progress they made in
five years was to dig five soil samples in the wrong location.
Danielle DeVasto: And at this point, did they know that there was PFAS involved, or were they just
looking for like the chromium and the mercury?
Lynn Macintosh: Well, that's what's really interesting. I'm glad you asked the question because in 2010,
at the very beginning of 2011, Janice had connected with Bob Delaney, up at Portsmouth, who broke the
whole PFAS story and had, was writing a paper about its dangers. And he had been writing his paper
about what he foresaw as a catastrophe, really. A looming catastrophe, um, from 2010 to 2012. The
same time we were watchdogging this demolition, he was up there writing a white paper. And almost to
the month when the, when the EPA handed this back over to the DEQ, our DEQ took his white paper and
shelved it. But he had asked Janice one day, "Janice, do you, do you know if they use Scotchgard in the
tannery?" So she calls me up, and she says, "Lynn, do you know if they use Scotchgard at the tannery?"
My very first interview in July of 2010, was Ralph Gould, whose nickname was Sydney because I gave
them all code names to protect them, and in that very first interview within the first 10 minutes he was
telling me all about Scotchgard. And I have that interview. I'm not going to get up and go, get it for you,
[LAUGHTER] but it's scrawled about the Scotchgard. And I said, oh my gosh, they used it everywhere on
everything. Tons of it. So, interestingly enough in 2012, partway through the EP's- EPA's investigation, we
followed up our big petition with a second one, uh, Summary of Concerns Part Two, Connecting the Dots.
And in that we updated our chemical list concern, and we included PFAS. So, they ought to have seen it,
the EPA and the DEQ, it was, it was made known to them, and by 2011, I knew about it and I was
concerned about it by that time. But they didn't test for it. This was a really odd thing. This was right- right
before Flint, too, and the same director who shelved this report was the same director, Dan Lyon, who
was also there during the Flint crisis. Uh, I don't know all the reasons why it got shelved, but if you ever
talked to Bob Delaney, he was not to bring it up. He was, you know, hi- his job was on the line. They did
Page 7
�not want this. So, he came forward and 2017, after this all blew up over here, and he finally came out and
told about that paper. And then after this big explosion with Wolverine, and there was site after site after
site after site, there were more sites than I even knew of. We knew of some of them, but there were
others we hadn't known about. We knew about House Street. I had been there and walked around its
perimeter a number of times, and I'd gotten all my facts that I needed to know about it to make me really
concerned. But, um, but I'm glad you asked that because if you go back to 2012, here's Bob, all his work
seems for naught, here were are, all our work seems for naught, so- so anybody after spending that
amount of time and energy and putting, and getting so much grief without getting into all the grief that I
had and all the intimidation that I experienced, and I did have some, a couple things that were, um, quite
alarming happen, that would've been the time to thrown in the towel. Except that the tannery site and the
interviews had led us to House Street and areas of outside __________ 00:05:08. All those interviews
told about dumping, and we started to get more and more information about where specifically. And I kept
meeting people and getting more clues. And Janice and I, and Rick, and A.J., because they don't give up,
they just wanted to wait it out and keep meeting 'cause the last thing you do is stop meeting because
that's Wolverine and everybody's thinking that you are gonna do, so you just keep meeting and hope. You
don't know. So, we kept meeting every six months, and for Janice and I it was this burden, this heaviness
inside that there could be people who live near these dumpsites, because she worked for the DEQ she
understood groundwater contamination, that it could be affecting people's drinking water. So, like, I- I
showed, I've showed this picture before. These are some of the children who live out on House Street
and Chandler. They're- they're older now. This was in 2018. The best way I can describe it, it was like
deep down somewhere you knew that there were people in trouble. It was like voices in a mine shaft. It's
like so faint, but you still think you hear something. And it was like it was fate. Didn't have proof. Anything.
But it was palpable. That this- this could be a very real danger to people, and we couldn't give up because
I was a mother, you know. I'd- I'd raised two children, and that mother bear [LAUGHTER] clicked in,
would not let me give up. Um, I just couldn't. It's like nothing told me to stop. Everything told me to keep
going. I wished it hadn't some days. I wished that voice would go away some days, but I couldn't. I even
would go, uh, one day after I, um, had interviewed Earl, the truck driver, who gave me the most important
interview of all, someone who had actually driven stuff there to the House Street dumpsite, and after all
these years, and hearing about people who gotten sick in that area, sought me out because I had talked
to his son. And he sought me out because he wanted to tell me what he did. He wanted this to be known,
and ultimately was wilLynng to have it notarized, and signed and sealed to stand up in court, which it did.
And after realizing that what, hearing from his own lips what he did, how it was disposed of, in deep
unLynned trenches, raw sludge just hauled out day after day, and poured in and left, he told me about
two other locations as well. I'm like, oh my gosh, it's and nobody's listening. Now, I went to House Street
one day, and I knocked on the door of five homes, including Sandy Wynn-Stelt's. I looked at there where
the dump was, and I saw those five homes, and I thought I don't have a shred of evidence, I have an
interview, I have what the tannery worker said, I'm not allowed on that property, I can't test that, but, if
Page 8
�there were five homes I'd be concerned about, it would be these five right here. South of it, top grading of
it, and just as one citizen to another, I'm gonna at least let them know that I know that this site was highly
contaminated, and they took sludge from this site and dumped it there. I knew that. I didn't have any test
results. But that if I lived there, I- I would be concerned about having my groundwater tested for safety.
And so I did. I systematically knocked on all five doors. But what are you gonna do when someone
knocks on your door. Right? I still felt I needed to do it, and what was really hard for me, Dani, was that
when I went to Sandy's house, her husband answered the door, and then he died in 2016. So, when this
all came out in 2017, then I had learned about that he, that he had died. And I remember meeting this one
father with two young kids, and he listened. He was, but I couldn't offer any- any, uh, any proof. So, what
we did is we decided, Janice and I decided to get the river tested using a program for Michigan, a Surface
Water Monitoring Request, that any river that's not been checked in five years you can request that it gets
tested. And, uh, some fisherman had already requested that the river be tested af- down in Plainwell
'cause they heard about the demolition. And the same guy at the DEQ who just took none of this seriously
just wrote back and said, "Oh, it's all been tested by," you know, da-da-da-da-da, "no- no need to do this."
[LAUGHTER] And then we found out that he had said that, and I'm like, are you kidding, they didn't test
any of the river during that time, and you're the project manager. So, then we waited another year, and
then we put together our own request, and they accepted it. And, Bob Delaney knew Janice, and Janice
had found documents in Grand Rapids that proved that they used Scotchgard, showed where they stored
it. Documents that the EPA had requested, and were too burdensome and cumbersome for the company
to produce. She went through and found them all, and sent them to Chris Bush at the DHHS. And she
worked with Bob, she looked 'em over and she said, "Bob, why don't you work, I- I think that we should
bring Joe Bohr in, he works with fisheries there, I mean fish- fish toxicologist, and, uh, when you do the
surface water monitoring request include testing for PFAS." So, we waited two years. It's normally a year
process, but we waited two years, and in 2015, there was a, uh, fish advisory for PFAS in the fish in the
river, and that's what we needed. So we had that, we had Janice's records of Scotchgard, and we had the
interviews, and, uh, Rick, doc- Dr. Rediske, Rick Rediske [LAUGHTER] met with Rose & Westra, Mark
Westra and Mike Robinson, from the environmental attorney at WMEAC, in an office and they told him
that, "Well, no, we- we didn't use PFAS." They- they, like, eh, I have the copy of his memo. They feigned
ignorance, and then I think reali-, they think realized they weren't going to be able to get very far with that,
but that was their immediate response that we didn't use it. And by then Garret Ellison had started
reporting on Wurtsmith, and he had proved his worth as a req-, as a res-, in- in terms of research, and
credibility, and in-depth reporting, and I was reading his articles. I heard there was PFAS in Plainfield
Township's water and they couldn't figure out where it was coming from, and I was the one based on my
interviews, called 'em up and said, I think I know where, and I said, and I gave them documents that the
DEQ had in their office there showing that there had been dumping at this Boulder Creek Golf Course,
and over here, and, you know, this is the tannery, and __________ 00:14:13. So, in 2017 we took every,
we had indisputable proof of their use of it, of their dumping of it, of that people lived in wells around these
Page 9
�places, and that Plainfield Township talked about it in their own parks and recreation plan as a former
dumpsite for- for the Wolverine Boot Company, or whatever, and that yes, chemicals used at tanneries
are known to be hazardous, but as yet there have been no reported problems. Yeah. And then we found
out that in 1966, that Plainfield Township had decided to not let Wolverine dump there anymore because
everyone was complaining about the smell, and stench, and fires, and everything, and, uh, Wolverine
sued Plainfield Township for not letting them dump there. And so the township settled under the condition
that, and it's all in that timeline I showed you, they settled with Wolverine and allowed them to use the
dumpsite as long as they didn't contaminate the water supply. They contaminated 25 square miles. There
are 25 square miles contaminated __________ 00:15:33, and they contaminated the lakes nearby and
streams. The plume, um, goes off in, like, the rays of a, like a daisy, like a flower, and the puddles are
actually the rays. The- the flowers are the center part of the daisy. But, the- the plume goes this way, this
way, this way, this way. It's just, there couldn't have been a worse place to have dumped it, and they
dumped it deeply and in great quantity there, and in another place on Logan Street that I didn't know
about. So, so we kept going because we kept getting clues, and 'cause we were concerned about the
groundwater, about people drinking contaminated groundwater. I- I- I, that's what I'm concerned with. I
mean, if the tannery got cleaned up, I knew it needed to be cleaned up, but it was outside here now
'cause we were on city water. And we had just contacted Garret, I did on July 19, 2017, when I realized
that the DEQ was sitting on all the information we gave them, just biding their time, and playing around
with sampling. Um, the geologist, I don't know if I have it over here, I think I probably do but if I don't I'm
not gonna worry about it. [LAUGHTER] I use binders, lots of them. It- it kept me fit, in shape.
[LAUGHTER] But there is a, yeah, there's an e-mail that Garret found. Somewhere in my vast array of- of,
uh, 3-ring binders there's one that Garret found where the geologist Mark Bohr, the day after- the day
after we talked to him in Ja-, uh, on January 24, 2017, the day after he was already concerned and
mapping out plumes, and was already concerned about if there was a plume where it might go, and when
he realized that they were just playin' around in April, after they finally did some testing to the east, not
south which is where all indications were to go south, he wrote an e-mail to his, um, to David Donald and
said, "I have a list of 150 addresses here and all my calculations say the plume is gonna go south, and it
could go as far as Chandler Street. We need to get testing south of the site." And this was ignored. It was
ignored. So, what happened was I finally July is my feisty month of the year [LAUGHTER] when I realized
after we were trying to get updates about what the DEQ was doing, and they were just still playing
games, this one person in particular, [LAUGHTER] I finally, was upstairs, it was a hot day, humidhumidity, and I said, that's it, that's it, I'm gonna call up that- that MLive reporter, that Garret Ellison. I still
have that in my journal entry. It's like ENOUGH, and it's all in caps. It's like it's Garret or no one.
[LAUGHTER] That's what I wrote and I called him up, and he first did the fish story, and he was all set to
print that when everything came out about House Street. Now, here's something that's really interesting.
We found out about House Street getting bottled water through a back door, so to speak. Happenstance,
you might call it. I'll- I'll call it Providence because that was hush-hush. They weren't even telLynng the
Page 10
�people on House Street that it was Wolverine. They were just calling it a potential responsible party, a
PRP. Well, there's a PRP, and then we'll- we'll try to figure this out, you know, where it's coming from.
You know, meanwhile, we said, "Wolverine dumped here," [LAUGHTER] you know, and they're, and
they're not even telling them where it came from or why. And because I spoke up all these years, a
colleague of my husband's, the colleague's wife had a cousin who lived on House Street, and my, andand the colleague's wife was an attorney. And the cousin called her cousin, who was an attorney who
would, got up and read all about PFAS, and was so upset and realized how serious it was. And then did
the whole Google thing, you know, and then found this and that, and was reminded that, from the
Rockford Squire, that we'd been involved. So she calls me one Saturday morning in August and wants to
talk to me about bottled water that's being delivered and do I know anything about it. I'm like, what?
Where? "Well, I can't really tell you the location, but it's, you know." And so through her, and she was
pretty clever, too, she would go and meet with her cousin, and when they were going around, they had
this like in-house map that showed the houses with high readings, and this and that, and, uh, she got a
couple of phone shots of this map, and got a lot of the back- back story about what was happening and
why. And she shared it with me, and she finally told me where it was. And I called up Garret asking him,
well, what do you think we should do about this? I just found out they're delivering bottled water on House
Street. This is one of the sites that we had been so concerned about. It's bad enough that they're, you
know, not taking any chances, you know. [LAUGHTER] And Garret was like, "What do we do about it?"
He said, "This is a public health crisis. We report on it and, like, what do you have?" And so I sent him
that little map. And it was fascinating because, and I'm gonna use the name David O'Donnell, because
this is the person who he interacted with and this is the person who delayed our efforts from 2011 all the
way till then, um. When Garret was doing the fish story and was trying to get documents and FOIA them,
David O'Donnell, as a courtesy, took Garret's FOIA and first gave it to Wolverine. And Garret found out
about it, and Garret was really mad about it. And David O'Donnell knew that. So, Garret goes down I'd
love it if he would tell this part, I wasn't there but he goes down to the DEQ, walks into David O'Donnell's
office, and says, "So, David, I hear there's a- there's a map for people out on House Street. People are
getting water delivered to their homes. Do you have anything you can tell me about that?" And that's how
it got out. It wasn't supposed to get out. The right information got to the right person at the right time. I
always teased Garret, it was like this baton pass. Like CCRR, our core group, it's like we're running a
relay, and you're like doing this third lap that goes forever, [LAUGHTER] five years we're running this third
lap, and then there's Garret, who we identify who we need, and like we're exhausted, and we like give him
all this information, and he knew exactly what to do and how to do it. And he ran that fourth lap, and then
he just kept going, started his own investigation. But he got the story out, and everybody was taken by
surprise. That is why it was so effective because they thought we'd gone away. They thought we were
just little play things, and just pat us, hush puppies all will be well, right. Just pat us on the head. Well, you
know, it didn't work. They tried to get the EPA out, you know. We won, the war's over, and no one is
gonna make us do anything. [LAUGHTER] And then they got completely caught off guard, and so did the
Page 11
�DEQ, and so did the city, and so did Plainfield. Everybody was completely caught off guard, and it was
one wave of news after another. It was House Street, it was this, it was this, and it was such a big, like,
almost like a tidal wave effect or a tsunami effect. I don't know the best way, I still struggle for words for
that. But it- it couldn't be put back in. That's the thing. For all these years, the city and the company had
been trying to keep it all in and covered. And going back to my image of the mine shaft, you know, it's like
we had finally reached the people. That's what it was like in 2017. Yes, there were real people, and oh my
gosh, I'm so glad we found them. Oh my gosh, what could we do to help? Like, when people were pulled
up from a mineshaft, you know, they need triage, they need care. It's like it's still not a pretty picture at all,
but at least we reached them before too much more time went by. And that's what's interesting about the
outcome is that it was so quiet. We were so quiet all those years. And then just there's this huge knockout
punch. They didn't have time to plan for it.
Danielle DeVasto: Garret knew just what to do.
Lynn Macintosh: I still- I still just shake my head thinking about it. I and I, none of us expected it to be
that big. And now it's statewide, nationwide, worldwide. I told, I told Garret I think the story is Wurtsmith,
Wolverine Worldwide. And that's how MPART got formed, because good, this is right on the heels of Flint.
I asked myself, would Flint, would this have happened without Flint? I'm not sure it would have. I think
Flint showed that you can't necessarily trust the people that you think ought to be looking out for you. So
that, unfortunately, is a sad way to prepare the soils for the fact that, yeah, and this does happen, you
know.
Danielle DeVasto: Um, so what concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward at this
point?
Lynn Macintosh: Oh, it's so hard for me. I- I have a hard time even riding my bike on the trail because I
see it, and I know how long it's gonna take for things to get done, you know. And I've seen how litigation
works and how that takes so long. And they've been talking about putting in some kind of pump-and-treat
system over here. It's four years now. And whenever we have these rain events, I don't know why I do it,
but I have video after video where I go down to the river, and I stand there, and I take photos and video.
And I do it on days when the foam level is low, and I do it on days when the foam level is high. And I
always say, look at this, 365 days a year, 24/7, these foamy trails of water, these paths, them form like
little paths so it's like these stripes 'cause they stick to each other, these striped paths flow down the river,
into the- the Grand River, and they do leave a trail. And it's still not being treated, and the company's still
playing games about it. Just do the work. Just do the work. Get it done. Pump and treat here, pump and
treat where it's entering the river. Just do it. Do it now. You're gonna have to do it eventually. Why- why
cause that much more harm? Stop paying so much to your lawyers. Just get the work done. What would
it be like to actually be the company that did the right thing? That owned up to it? That exceeded our
expectations? Imagine what that would be like. You could be that company. No one's stopping you. All
that grief, and I see it. I see it in creeks, I see itm and I report it, and now the DEQ doesn't have time to
follow-up on these foam reports. But I still track it. I'm still trying to find some sources in Cannon
Page 12
�Township, 'cause I- I- I do, I track the creeks, I track it to the ponds, I track it to vacant land, and I
research the history of the land. I've learned pretty much what to look for, what- what signals, I can judge
vegetation
Danielle DeVasto
Tid: 579-2
Lynn Macintosh: I- I can judge vegetation that's distressed. I use my nose, and my eyes to judge, um,
and I have to figure out which ones to report, which is what they have to do. Which are the worst? But
there's 5000 of these chemicals, and we're still, we're still letting them be manufactured. It's actually, it's
that there's an- an- an inanity to it and an insanity to it, both. Why are we doing this? Because it doesn't
go away. I remember, um, Dani, I would be swimming in Lake Michigan a few years ago, and I was
thinking, oh my gosh, I'm thinking about this too much. Like I'm imagining, like, these PFAS bubbles are
following me because I'm swimming and I'm seeing this trail of bubbles. I'm like those are just air bubbles.
No, they don't seem to be just air bubbles. Oh, you're just thinking about it too much. Well, each year
there's more of 'em. Well, yeah, now I get it. It's confirmed. There's PFAS in Lake Michigan. People from
Grand Rapids are taking their water from Lake Michigan. Okay. Also, __________ 00:01:29 may need to
filter their water like __________ 00:01:35 Township's doing. I don't know. Kids on the beaches are- are
near foam. They take foam, they pick it up, they put it on their faces. This is dangerous stuff. And I see it,
and I see it, and I've always seen it before everybody else. And in these weird times where I thought I'm
just imagining it, like, oh come one, you're just seeing it everywhere because you're thinking about it.
Clearly no. It's there. I know it's there. I know what it is now. I just like, in my, I didn't get this out for you
today, but in my bottom drawer there,may- maybe I will because I wasn't planning amongst all this other
stuff that I have here, um, which is a narrow pass, [SIGH] I keep finding things, and in here I have my
journals from seventh grade. And I- I go back and I look at these and I see myself sort of as like a young
sapling. And I go back and I'm reading some of these entries, and I start, I- I write about pollution in here,
and how upset I am about it. Pollution. "The USA has many problems right now, but I feel pollution should
be our largest concern. [LAUGHTER] Fighting wars and sending men to the moon is what is on
everyone's mind. But, if you don't start realizing how pollution is affecting your lives, we will all be in
danger." And I, and I go on about it. I'm talking about DDT, and- and the birds. Like it must have been
shortly after Rachel Carson had come out, and- and how troubled I was. And then I'm, like, hear myself at
the end as a seventh grader, "Now I feel I want to help stop pollution for we were given this world, so why
should we wipe it out? [LAUGHTER] With further study of pollution, I will even understand it more, and I
might be able to think up a way to help stop it."
Danielle DeVasto: Wow, wow.
Lynn Macintosh: Isn't that something?
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah.
Page 13
�Lynn Macintosh: And I just came upon this 'cause I'm going through things now, and I thought, oh my
gosh, I've cared about, I've cared about contaminated air, or smokestacks and air, and water, since I was
in elementary school. I did. I- I- I noticed it then, and I- I couldn't understand why we would let, we would
put all this- this stuff up into the air. I think, well, it was before the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.
So, I grew up before that. And I would, as a kid, I would just shake my head. And I remember one time I
took, um, white water canoeing lessons in the Schuylkill River in, near, outside Pennsylvania, and the
river was warm, and I could, it, I mean just being in that river, too, I could tell it wasn't clean, and I didn't
like being in. But the thing that hit me was that it was warm. Why is this river warm? It's pretty, so I and I
moved out here, ba-, we came back here. One of the reasons we came back here, Dani, from the East
Coast was because of Lake Michigan. And I love swimming in that lake. I love it. And I can't swim south of
Muskegon anymore. I can't swim especially south of where the Grand River goes in because the water's
different from 40 years ago. I've seen it. I've seen the water quality diminish, and it's- it's disheartening to
think that this big, beautiful lake, I feel like after I swimming, I need this shower afterwards right about,
right afterwards. So, I really, I- I want to do what I can to protect people's drinking water, but I- I want to
continue to do things to help shake people awake a little bit. And I think that might come more through the
arts and writing, and these stories like this getting out. I- I don't know how. I don't know how, but
sometimes you wish you didn't know all that you did.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah. Before we wrap up, is there anything else that you'd like to either go back to or
emphasize? Any last points that you wanna make?
Lynn Macintosh: Yes, I do, and there are two things, that- that happen quite a bit. Um, a story like this
has a lot of dark underbellies, and there's a lot of things I found out about people and about organizations
I wish I didn't know. And there was one point where I- I really felt like giving up. I was so tired and I had a
friend tell me, to say to me, "Well, you know, you love to tell stories." 'Cause I do, I'm Irish. [LAUGHTER]
Comes with the territory and the curly hair. She said, "You should write about some of this place." And I
says, I don't even, I don't want to write about it. I said, I'm just so sick of it. It's just, it's just, it's awful. I was
really worn down by it. And she said to me, "Well, you don't even have to, like, you don't even have to
even write it in a book. You could just record yourself while you're doing things. Kinda have fun with it,
and pretend you're this person or, you know, as you're doing it." So. I thought about it and I bought myself
a little handheld recorder, I have one in the other room. But, [LAUGHTER] I-I invented a character based
on Lake Wobegon, Garrison Keillor. He had Guy Noir who, late at night on the 10th floor of the ACME
building, was finding the answers to life's perplexing problems. [LAUGHTER] And I thought, I'll be Gal
Noir, and my Gmail was already 003, I don't know why. Lmarie003, and I was just like, Gal Noir, eco spy,
sleuth for truth [LAUGHTER], and I started writing about all of it in the third person. And, uh, th- this is my
first journal, you know, and I- I would decorate each one. The secret life of Gal Noir 003 eco spy .
[LAUGHTER] And I started writing and filLynng these journals. And here's a picture of me on my friend's
roof. This is not a good picture, but it happens to be in my journal. Um, but I might try to retell my story
through this character or parts of it. But I- I took it to heart and I have recordings. I have recordings from
Page 14
�2011 on tapes, and I have journals that span every year, you know, and here's 2013. This is, uh, part two.
This is part five the storyteller is born. Um, this is another part here. Every journal is different, you know. It
was, interesting to me at the time. This was a sketch book. So I thought I was really funny on this one. I
took and I added a lie. Sketchy, you know. [LAUGHTER] And my poem here, Gal Noir, Part Three, The
Story Continues. [LAUGHTER] And this was my little quote that I- I had to find some humor, and it was
very difficult speaking to my city council when they, you know, they sit there, you know, if they're awake,
[LAUGHTER] and, um, they're- they don't like you to go on and on and on either, so I- I said Gal Noir has
her own poetry, Gal Noir, la poetess, you know, like I collected all the poems she wrote. Um, [CLEARS
THROAT], "Upon addressing one's city council, ration passion, keep it brief, spare yourself and others
grief." [LAUGHTER] I learned that the hard way. But when I put it in those that little format, you know, it's
like, okay, I get it now. [LAUGHTER] I've gotta ration some of that passion. You know, I can't, I can't, uh,
be spoutin' it all the time. Sometimes I felt like when I was going into the city council meetings, like I was
like getting off, like I was actually riding a real horse, like getting off my high horse and walking into the
city council. The doors were like saloon doors, you know what I mean, and I would walk in and everybody
would look, "Oh no, it's Lynn Macintosh." [LAUGHTER]
Danielle DeVasto: Sounds like your imagination was
Lynn Macintosh: It was.
Danielle DeVasto: a useful tool for you.
Lynn Macintosh: It was very helpful. Yeah, I- I- I pretend, I- I told people it felt like I wore the scarlet A for
activism. I'm like other, but no, I- I befriended my imagination, and I had fun bringing certain people into it.
Some people can't go there with you. But like another friend, Gail Mancewicz, who I hope you talk to, she
was so upset that I had a, this little code 003. [LAUGHTER] And she says, "Well, who am I gonna be?"
And I said, well, you could be 004. She goes, "Well, why 004?" I said, because then together we're 007.
[LAUGHTER] You know? So, it was fun to carry certain people into that with you. Other people couldn't
really be interested, and that's fine, too. It's who I am. The other thing I wanted to say was I was myself. I
used what I was comfortable with. I used my simple cell phone. I used my bicycle. I used the real phone. I
talked to people face-to-face. And I don- not, I do not think I ever would have gotten to the bottom of it if I
had relied on Google and e-mail. I had to bump into the information. I had to bump into real people
because then that connects you and people start to trust you and share and then they bring other people
to you. That was absolutely, there- there's nothing, that's one reason I didn't want to do a Zoom call.
Face-to-face, real life is so important. Conversation. And then lastly, from 2017 to 2018, for almost an
entire year, I couldn't talk about the story with anybody because I was grieving that my worst fears were
true that had been harmed. And I didn't want to bother the people on House Street. I didn't want my name
to be out there because they were, they were deaLynng with this tragedy. And I kept a lot of it inside, and
I was burdened by it. And I was out there on the front porch talking to Garrett and I was feeLynng very
heavy-hearted, and he said to me, "You know, you should call up, you should call up Jen Carney." And I
said, well- well why is that? He said, "Well, she said she'd like to talk to you sometime. She's really proud
Page 15
�for what you've done. 'Cause I didn't want to be looking for that. And I said, "Really?" He said, yeah, yeah,
no, I, she's, you know, they And he said, "Listen, I'll give you her number. Call her if you want." So, I
called her, and it was lovely because her name is Jennifer Lynn, my first daughter is Jennifer Lynn. She
has a lovely personality. We enjoyed talking. And then she told me, what she said made all the difference
to me. She told me how sick she was. She told me how she thought she was going to have to get into a
wheelchair. That family was gonna have to move in. No one could figure out what was going on. She was
that sick. It was a total mystery. And it was that bad. And then I asked her, so how is it now? And she
said, "I've gotten better every single day since I stopped drinking that water." She says, "I'm not having
these symptoms anymore. I'm not having these symptoms anymore." She says, "Every day for a year, it's
not been all at once." But she says, "But I've gotten better." And I just, I was on the other end of the
phone Lynne and I just started crying. To hear that from her own heart and from her own mouth, that all
this work, because it was a lot of work, it was really hard work. I look back, I- I say, who was it that did all
this? That was me? You know, 'cause in the middle of it you don't think that. But seeing, like, a real or
talking to a real person that you just have a sense that there's something wrong and actually hearing and
hearing that they're getting better, that- that broke a log jam for me, but I couldn't talk about it much till
then. And I'll never forget that day. In fact I probably could've started with that story because, yes, your
imagination helps you, yes, working with other people help you. All these things, but it's like the fire trucks
finally showed up. We've been talking about it for all this time. No one believes you and they tell you, "No,
it's not fire," or "No, that's not smoke, that's mist." "Oh, no, it's where you're standing," and just, "It's a
mirage." And finally, the fire trucks showed up in 2017, and things are changed and will continue to
change, and, um, that makes all the difference. That's really what it's been about. And that's what it was
about for me, and for- for AJ, and for Rick, and for Gail, and Janice. There wa- there was nothing that we
wanted for ourselves. We just had a burden that we carried together. So, yeah, I think that's probably a
good place to leave it.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah.
Lynn Macintosh: Because we need to care for each other. We do. We- we can't just like it someone
else's problem, right? So, anyway, and I'm so glad I've gotten to know some of those people out there.
I've gotten to know Tobin and Sandy and Jen some, so yeah, completing that.
Danielle DeVasto: Thank you, Lynn
Lynn Macintosh: Yeah.
Danielle DeVasto: for having the time to tell your story today, or at least
Lynn Macintosh: Yeah.
Danielle DeVasto: part of it. [LAUGHTER]
Lynn Macintosh: Part of it.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah.
Lynn Macintosh: Yeah.
Danielle DeVasto: Okay, thank you.
Page 16
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0024
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
McIntosh, Lynn
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021-07-29
Title
A name given to the resource
Lynn McIntosh, 2021 (Interview video and transcript)
Description
An account of the resource
Lynn McIntosh grew up on the east coast but has lived in Rockford, Michigan for about 30 years. Lynn noticed foam and filmy substance in the river in about 2010, and began taking photos of the contamination. In this interview, McIntosh discusses her work to bring public awarenss to PFAS contamination.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Moving Image
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b81d490ff7b321e5a2cb4883f49d53c4.mp4
305e31c64497dd331dc8176fa050a23e
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/737d88c51bfbc58b9323802a6c088c52.pdf
57fde8ab4b92d0817be4c9bb7b35893e
PDF Text
Text
Living with PFAS
Interviewer: Danielle DeVasto
Interviewee: Gary Pettyjohn
Date of Interview: 7/28/2021
Danielle DeVasto: I'm Dani DeVasto, and today, July 28, 2021, I have the pleasure of chatting with Gary
Pettyjohn. Hi, Gary.
Gary Pettyjohn: Hello, how are you?
Danielle DeVasto: I'm doing well. How are you?
Gary Pettyjohn: Uh, we're freezing up a little bit here. Soon as you started recording, it started.
Danielle DeVasto: Oh, yep, my internet connection is unstable.
Gary Pettyjohn: Oh, okay, so it's you, not me.
Danielle DeVasto: It's me. Yeah, it's me.
Gary Pettyjohn: Okay.
Danielle DeVasto: I'm even hard wired in.
Gary Pettyjohn: Oh, interesting.
Danielle DeVasto: Yeah, it's unfortunate. Um, am I sounding better to you now?
Gary Pettyjohn: It is.
Danielle DeVasto: Okay, I'll just- I'll just start over, I guess. Uh, I'm Dani DeVasto and today, July 28,
2021, I have the pleasure of chatting with Gary Pettyjohn. Hi, Gary.
Gary Pettyjohn: Hello.
Danielle DeVasto: Gary, can you tell me about where you're from and where you currently live?
Gary Pettyjohn: I currently live in Northville, Michigan, uh, but I was born and raised in Grayling,
Michigan, uh, north, in northern Michigan, uh, near the Camp Grayling, uh, uh, National Guard Army
training site so.
Danielle DeVasto: And you said you currently live in North?
Gary Pettyjohn: Northville.
Danielle DeVasto: Northville. So—
Gary Pettyjohn: Yeah.
Danielle DeVasto: —I'm still learning some of my Michigan geography. [LAUGHTER]
Gary Pettyjohn: Oh, no worries, it's on, uh, it's in southeast Michigan.
Danielle DeVasto: Okay, how long have you lived in Northville?
Gary Pettyjohn: Uh, in Northville about three-and-a-half years. Before that, my wife and I lived in South
Lyon, Michigan. It's over by Brighton, uh, north of Ann Arbor, for close to 25 years so.
Danielle DeVasto: All right.
Gary Pettyjohn: So.
Danielle DeVasto: Gary, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in your
community?
Gary Pettyjohn: Yeah, I- I, you know, my experience with PFAS all centers aro-, centers around where I
grew up. Um, I had heard of PFAS, you know, in the news most- mostly related to either Oscoda or, uh,
you know, at- at around the Air Force base there, Portsmouth, and, uh, and over on the west side of the
Page 1
�state around was it Rockford, um, I believe. Um, so, I mean, those were the most noteworthy PFAS
stories I had heard of. Um, but back in, uh, 2017, 2018, uh, I was driving home from work and, uh,
listening to NPR, as I usually did, and I had one of those NPR moments where the story just grabbed me
because it was a story about PFAS, and then they mentioned Grayling. And that, you know, perked my
ears up. [LAUGHTER] I, um, I, and, uh, I got home, I stayed out in the car, listened to the rest of the
report, came in, ate dinner, and got on the internet. And, uh, you know, the rest, they say, is history. Um,
it was just, uh, it was like going down a rabbit hole, you know, because, um, it just kept getting worse and
worse the more I, the more I looked into it until I found a heat map that, uh, that the military had put out.
Uh, and then there's two, there's two groups that are dealing with Grayling. There's the military and
they've got this RAB group, um, that's dealing with the PFAS contamination. And then you've got the state
of Michigan in part doing their thing. Um, I, you know, I wasn't aware of either. Um, but I found this heat
map and, uh, and, you know, the- the green and yellow and red dots all around the airfield, which is, you
know, the area that I grew up in. I grew up in, um, uh, two separate homes that were in the testing area,
and, you know, there were yellows and reds and, you know, a few greens sprinkled in there. But I- I also
know that even though we lived in town, we had a private well, and, you know, and so that was, that was
concerning . Um, uh, these heat maps showed, you know, where the PFAS was flowing, and it was like
flowing right through my backyard, you know. Um, so, you know, that's- that's- that was the beginning of
my awareness [LAUGHTER] of, uh, PFAS, and- and then I started, you know, wondering about, you
know, all the health issues that my family's had. Uh, my mother, when she was in her late 40s, um, uh,
needed her appendix removed, and they did a biopsy on it, and there was some rare form of cancer in
this, in this appendix. So, they, um, you know, she did, you know, did a- a round of treatment, and, um,
and ironically, the day that she was declared terminal was the day she got a notification that she was
cancer-free. I don't know how that works, but, uh, [LAUGHTER] I, uh, uh, it just one of those ironic things.
Um, so it, you know, it- it took, she had about five years from the initial diagnosis to when she- she
passed away. Um, right about the same time, my father became ill. He had turned jaundiced, and so he
went into his physician, and he told him to go immediately up to, uh, the medical center up in Petoskey,
Michigan. Um, uh, and, you know, they ran tests and couldn't determine what was causing it, um, so they
did exploratory surgery. They opened him up, they went in and they found, um, tumors, pre-can- is what
they call pre-cancerous tumors on his pancreas and then on his liver, and they performed a procedure
called a Whipple. And, you know, if anybody's curious about it, Google it. It's, uh, [LAUGHTER] it's almost
medieval what they do, and they don't, they don't use that procedure very much anymore becausebecause of the horrible side effects of it. Uh, but they, you know, they basically removed part of his
pancreas as part of his liver, sections of his, you know, bowels, part of his stomach, and then they
somehow plumb it all back together. And, uh, um, and, you know, true to what I, the research I had done
on Google about the Whipple, uh, he had terrible side effects. He had, he suffered from pancreapancreatitis attacks, uh, on a regular basis. Uh, they finally got that a little under control with his
medication the he had to take like once a month with a syringe. This, you know, it looked like it was
Page 2
�meant for horses. Uh, used to get these shots, um, to try to keep his pancreas under control. Um, but hishis liver slowly, uh, you know, basically disintegrated, and, you know, cause of death was cirrhosis of the
liver. Um, I mean, he did have, you know, he lived with that for about 20 years. So, I mean it wasn't an
immediate, um, immediate thing like it was for my mom, but, uh, you know, it certainly wasn't much quality
of life. You know, constantly, uh, being afraid to get too far away from the hospitals because, you know,
he had a bad experience going into a- a different hospital they didn't know his history, and, uh, you know,
they really messed him up. Um, so he was always afraid to venture too far from home. Um, and, you
know, I've, you know, I, in high school I developed asthma, which was, you know, doctor back then said it
was kind of strange that, you know, that I developed asthma, you know, that late in life. Um, you know,
I've had, uh, I was hospitalized once with vasculitis and I- I was at U of M Hospital for, you know, almost
over a week, and they would bring in the- the- the wannabe doctors and to- to poke and prod me because
they never seen anything like it. And I came out of it with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease. Um, I don't- I
don't- I don't think I had Crohn's disease. I think I had, you know, some kind of inflammation in the bowel,
but I don't think it was Crohn's disease. I have a cousin that has Crohn's disease, and, you know, I've
seen what it's done to him, so I'm pretty sure I don't have that. But, you know, they did the best they
could. So, you know, and my sisters, both of my sisters have had, uh, children with autism. Uh, one- one
child was born with cerebral palsy. Uh, and, you know, my- my- my one sister had- has one severe
autistic child, one I'd say mildly, uh, another one that's probably on the spectrums, like an Asperger's
type. Um, and the oldest girl, I, you know, I think she's, uh, she's been, you know, pretty healthy. But so I
mean, you just, you go back [LAUGHTER] and you- you learn about this PFAS chemical that likely was in
your water when you were growing up. You know, one of the frustrating things for me has been as a
nonresident, you know, [LAUGHTER] you know, I requested and- and, uh, information about any of the
testing that they had done at the house where I used to live, and, uh, and I was told that that was, you
know, that was not gonna happen, that, you know, I- I didn't live there so, therefore, they wouldn't release
those- those figures to me. Um, so, you know, that's- that's been a little frustrating. Uh, I think something
that's sorely lacking in- in- in these conversations is, you know, what about the people that used to live in
the house that's been found to have PFAS? And I understand that priority number one is, you know,
identifying where it is, and, you know, get clean water to those people, whether that's through filtration or
through hooking them up to municipal water supplies or- or whatever- whatever's got to happen. I
understand that that's the first- the first priority, but, um, you know, it's- it's like if you lived there, if you
lived there, you know, your- your exposure doesn't count. You know, that's kind of the way I feel about it.
Uh, I had joined the, MPART started a, uh, a Citizens- what, a Citizens Advisory Workgroup, um, and, you
know, in hopes of getting more information and, you know, it turned into, in my opinion, I don't know, it's
just kind of a bureaucracy. And, you know, I attended a year's worth of meetings and it was going
nowhere, so, you know, I politely said, you know, I'm out. Um, so, I've been rambling. [LAUGHTER] I, you
know, I, uh—
Page 3
�Danielle DeVasto: Where did you go from there after MPART, or what have- what- what for you was the
story at that point?
Gary Pettyjohn: Um, you know, I- I just, I kinda, I'm- I'm obsessed. I have a thumb drive that's full of, you
know, everything from, you know, news articles to scientific papers to, uh, just anything you could
imagine. I spent a week downloading all the- all the documents, uh, related to the Minnesota vs. 3M, uh,
lawsuit that they concluded in 2018 or 2019. Uh, the attorney general for the state of Minnesota, uh,
kindly put all those out there so for everybody to see. That's been very interesting. Um, you know, I
monitor the- the- the RAB, the military side of, you know, Grayling's remediation and test, you know,
water testing activities. And, you know, any- anything that MPART puts out, I'm still on the mailing list, so I
get all the e-mails. Um, so, you know, it's, it- it- it, I guess I- I don't know anything for sure. I don't know
that- that our water had PFAS in it. I- I don't, you know, it's- it's a tale of, I don't know, I guess. Um, I find it
hard to believe that we weren't impacted given all of the health issues, um, especially, you know,
especially with my dad. One of the- one of the PFAS issues is, you know, liver, panc-, you know,
pancreas, kidney- kidney type problems. He certainly qualified for that. But, uh, um, you know, I'm angry.
I'm angry that, you know, that these chemical companies knew what, you know, that- that these were
toxic chemicals, and, um, and touted 'em as some miracle, you know. Uh, some miracle product that
would put out, you know, fires from, you know, crashed aircraft and, you know, fuel fires, things like that.
And, you know, I can remember growing up, uh, seeing plumes of smoke coming from, you know, the
airfield, and, uh, you know, they just used to, you know, light stuff on fire and put it out, you know,
weekend after weekend after weekend. So, you know, I, uh, I think there's something terribly wrong with
the chemical regulation process in the United States and probably throughout the world. The EU seems
to have their act a little bit better that we do. Um—
Danielle DeVasto: What problem is it that you think there is?
Gary Pettyjohn: Well, I, that- that they're allowed to use chemicals in manufacturing and, you know,
consumer products, and- and there's no responsi- they have no responsibility for figuring out what the
toxicity is, and how these chemicals move around in the environment, and if they're bioaccumulative. You
know, they, you know, they, you know, they came out in, uh, what 1976, they came out with the- the—I
forget the acronym. It's for- for the legislation, but it was supposed to tighten up regulation. But then they
grandfathered, like, 65,000 chemicals that were on the books at the time. You know, um, you know, the
chemical companies want to- want to vet, you know, one PFAS chemical at a time, but there's thousands
of, you know, it'd that the next couple centuries to- to figure out all the nasty effects from these chemicals.
But, you know, they're okay with that because, you know, they're making money all the time while, you
know, they're delaying, you know, they're running their delay tactics. You know, I- I don't, and- and PFAS
is not the only one. I mean, there's all kinds of chemicals out there I'm sure that are benefiting from the
poor, same poor regulatory structure that we have. Um, you know, in my mind, you shouldn't be able to,
you know, at least with the FDA, when they release a drug that they had to go through some testing. They
had to understand side effects, and document side effects, you know. But the chemical companies, they
Page 4
�can just Better Life Through Chemistry, and then, you know, people are left holding the bag. You know,
people get sick, people die before any action's taken. It just doesn't sit right with me. But, uh, so, you
know, I troll 3M, DuPont and ChemOrgs on Twitter. You know, every time they pet, you know, they
dislocate their shoulde- you know, what terrible citizens they are. [LAUGHTER] It's about all I can do, you
know. I write—
Danielle DeVasto: And you said and you, and you said you weren't aware of PFAS before you heard that
NPR show, right?
Gary Pettyjohn: No, no, and my sister still lives in, you know, she's actually lives in my, the last house
that my dad owned in Grayling. And even that house is- is inside of- of the testing area. Um, the house is
only, I'd say, maybe two miles from the airfield, but it's- it's not, it's- it's not in the- in the flow as the
geologists have- have, uh, identified of the PFAS plume. But, you know, but she- she lives in that
community still. And I called her up and I'm like, why didn't you say anything? And she's- [LAUGHTER]
she's like, "Oh yeah- yeah, I heard of PFAS. They've been drillin' wells up and down our road." And, uh,
so, um, I, you know, I gently tried to get her to do a little research on her own, you know, just to try to
understand what it's- what it's about, and, um, you know, my sisters are 15 and 17 years younger than
me, um, so, you know, my- my mom after I was born, she miscarried a couple of years later, and then she
was told she would never have children. And something corrected itself, [LAUGHTER] uh, and my- my
oldest sister came along you know, they didn't grow up in- in those houses. They- the only one that they
grew up in were- was the last one that my sister lives in now. So, but, I mean all the studies say that it's
passed from, you know, mother to child. So, you know, if my mom had high levels of PFAS in her, likely,
you know, they were impacted, um, you know, and we're all- we're all exposed to it to a certain degree,
uh, as it's been shown that, you know, every American, you know, virtually every American had some
level of PFAS in their blood, um, so, in addition to these extra exposures, you know, by people that arethat live near air bases or live near these- these chemical company facilities that, uh, get a lit- little extra,
uh, you know, we're all continually- continually exposed, so I, you know, it's—I, uh, read that, uh, Robert
Billot, I read his exposure book, you know, and, you know, it didn't help my attitude towards __________
00:01:27. [CHUCKLE] I'm sure that was the intent, uh, but, you know, it's just, uh, I don't know, it's- it's
been frustrating.
Danielle DeVasto: I know.
Gary Pettyjohn: I just, there's, and I doubt that I'll ever get any answers, you know. So.
Danielle DeVasto: Well, you might have touched on this a little bit, but what concerns do you have about
PFAS contamination moving forward from this point?
Gary Pettyjohn: Uh, just the glacial pace of- of, you know, trying to get the EPA to do anything about it,
you know, the last four years, and nothing was going to happen on PFAS, so, you know, as soon as the
2016 election was over, I was [CHUCKLE] pretty much, you know, that was a done deal, but, uh, um, you
know, I- I'm just—I think at its core, you know, this is just another example of, you know, a poor regulatory
system, you know, a poor that allows chemical companies to create chemicals in the lab, find a use for it,
Page 5
�and, you know, they just put it out there and, you know, it basically turns us all into lab rats, you know,
um, and once they start identifying, you know, people start going, "Hey, we live next to this __________
00:03:16 plant and, you know, everybody's coming up with testicular cancer and, you know, liver
problems and all this stuff," and, you know, people start putting two and two together all of a sudden, you
know? Yeah. And then they fight you tooth and nail, so, to prove it and I don't know why it's incumbent on
us, you know, as- as citizens, to prove that your product is harming, you know. Uh, you know, the terrible
thing about, you know, chemical contamination is there's no smoking gun. You know, it takes decades
sometimes for these cancers and diseases to- to manifest and, uh, I mean, trying to prove causation is- is
very difficult and, um, you know, it's just- it's, I- I don't understand why they don't have to prove that their
product is safe before—or if it's not safe, then let everybody know it's not safe and don't let it be
discharged into, you know, surface waters, you know, used indiscriminately, [LAUGHTER], you know. Uh,
you know, I can remember, uh, the local fire department in Grayling, uh, they used to have this,
[CHUCKLE] like at fourth of July or something, they had this big- big ball on a rope that they strung
across and then they had two fire trucks on either end and they were trying to force the ball over over the
line with- with the fire hoses and one year as an added special thing, they used this foam, [CHUCKLE]
sprayed down, you know, sprayed down everybody. People were playing in it. You know, you look back
on that stuff and you're like, oh, my God, you know, you're so ignorant. But there were people that weren't
ignorant, and that's- that's the disheartening thing, people knew. You know, some people tried to warn us
__________ 00:05:39, you know, but then they were just, you know, crank employees ushered away, you
know, but, you know, I think, you know, that's disappointing. It's disappointing that companies put profits
over people, you know.
Danielle DeVasto: There were people like that in Grayling, in your community, that you remember
growing up that tried to say things about the foam?
Gary Pettyjohn: No, no, no. Uh, people that worked within the chemical companies. If you read any of
it—and I found that out because of the 3M law, the Minnesota lawsuit against 3M, there were documents
in there that there was an employee that famously, you know, fired off a- a resignation letter and, uh, it
was funny because the anti PFAS people use that as a big example of, you know, here's somebody that,
you know- you know, tried to stand up to them- stand up to 3M and I guess event—you know, like a few
months later, he went back to work for 3M and ended up retiring from there. Now he grows organic
vegetables out in, you know, Iowa, somewhere, so- [LAUGHTER] so much for having a conscience, you
know. Maybe he- maybe he went back 'cause he thought he'd- he'd be able to make changes, but, um,
obviously not so much, you know. I mean, 3M knew that this stuff was bad, which is why they got out of
business. You know, they stopped making, they stop- stopped making, uh, you know, what was it PFOA,
was there a big thing, I think, uh, they stopped making it back in the early 2000s, uh, 'cause they knew.
[CHUCKLE] I'm sure their- their people told them, "You're gonna lose your shirt on this stuff if you don't
stop put it out there" So, they sold the patent rights to, uh, to DuPont, who had absolutely no problem, uh,
taking up the mantle and producing those terrible chemicals. So. [LIP SMACK] So. Yeah.
Page 6
�Danielle DeVasto: Well, before we wrap up today, is there anything else that you'd like to add that we
haven't touched on or anything you'd like to go back to and say more about?
Gary Pettyjohn: No, I don't think so. Uh, that's my story, I'm sticking to it, I guess. [CHUCKLE] You know,
it's- it's not so much of a story as, uh, I wonder if there's a story there, you know. Again, I don't know that
I'll ever- ever get the answers I'm looking for, you know. Nobody can tell me what the PFAS levels were
like in my private well when I was growing up on 802 Plum Street in Grayling, Michigan, during the '70s,
you know. Uh, you know, don't know that I'll ever know. So.
Danielle DeVasto: Well, thank you so much, Gary, for taking the time to talk with me and share your
story today.
Gary Pettyjohn: Sure. Thank you.
Page 7
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0023
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Pettyjohn, Gary
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021-07-28
Title
A name given to the resource
Gary Pettyjohn, 2021 (Interview video and transcript)
Description
An account of the resource
Gary Pettyjohn grew up in Grayling, Michigan before moving to the southeast region of the state. His experiences with PFAS in his community center around the Wurstmuth Air Force Base in Oscoda, Michigan. After learning about the contamination in about 2017, he began to connect his family's health conditions to PFAS.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Moving Image
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b533094def8d73b9ff3272f207becacc.mp4
b1eeaf39f7018b3ef431df7706c7a984
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/9406c11ecdc441af6d4d29523b9de8d7.pdf
d10832a8b7f468ee10032eff6354baca
PDF Text
Text
Living with PFAS
Interviewee: Kevin Ferrara
Interviewer: Dani Davsto
Date: September 29, 2021
DD: I’m Dani Devasto and today, September 29, 2021 I have the pleasure of chatting with Kevin
Ferrara. Hi Kevin
KF: Hey Dani how are you?
DD: I’m doing well, How are you?
KF: I’m doing well.
DD: Alright, Kevin can you tell me where you’re from and where you currently live?
KF: Sure, I grew up here in central Pennsylvania, and after doing 20 years in the military I came
full circle. Came back here. Right now I live in Wolrich, Pennsylvania, which is, for those that
are unfamiliar it’s between State college, home of Penn State, and Williamsport, home of little
league baseball. So if you look at a Pennsylvania map I’m almost smack dab in the center.
DD: Awesome, and how long have you been in Wolrich?
KF: Moved back here a couple years now. I retired from the Air Force in 2017. I grew up in
Avis, Pennsylvania which is about 3 or 4 miles down the road from Wolrich. But born and
raised here in Pennsylvania, grew up here all my life with the exception of the military.
DD: Okay, Thank you. Can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAs
in your communities?
KF: I absolutely can. I started a volunteer firefighter service here in Pennsylvania in 1988. Foam
really wasn’t an issue, the firefighting foam that contains PFAS [Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances] that we found. It really wasn’t being used here in central Pennsylvania. I only
became a aware of it and started seeing it in 1991 when I entered the United States Air Force.
We went through the DOD [Department of Defense] fire academy at the time. Which was at Son
Nhut Air Force Base in Ranto, Illinois. We were exposed to it, slathered in it, ya know, covered
in it. It got in our eyes, our ears, our mouth, you know, on our bare skin. And then after I left
Cant-or, Son Nhut Air Force Base. My first assignment was Cannon Air Force base in Clovis,
New Mexico. And That's getting a lot of attention now because of the dairy farmers, that are
�nearby. Their dairy cows are contaminated, the Aquaphor systems are contaminated. And the
reason for that because we release each trip firefighting foam that contained PFAS pretty much
every day. So I got out for 6 years in 1995, I returned here to Pennsylvania, only to return back
to the Air Force in 2001. Different bases I was assigned to. It was the same thing. We used the
firefighting foam that has PFAS in it pretty much every day. I eventually got to Langley Air
Force Base and their combat command headquarters started seeing some emails about PFAS and
everything. But throughout my 20 year career I was exposed to A-trip firefighting foam that we
now know contained toxic PFAS. And you know, unfortunately we are learning now that the
turnout gear, the firefighter turnout gear, that we wore for all of that time contained PFAS as
well, the protective coating. So, firefighters, we got a double dose. There was really no way we
could get away from the stuff. And you know, that was my experiences, you know. Either, you
know, being physically exposed to it, you know with the products the firefighters use, in the
drinking water. You know so, firefighters, we have a larger exposure than what the normal
everyday citizen gets.
DD: Can you say a little bit more about the, you said that you were using foam almost daily or
daily. What kinds of things were you doing or why were you using foam?
KF: Sure. So, at Cannon Air Force Base, what we, this is where I got the routine of, they call it
an operational check, and all of the airport rescue firefighting vehicles or crash trucks. As a lot
of us call them. We would take the trucks on the flight lines, somewhere on the flight line and
discharge, and actually turn on the foam system. And discharge foam to make sure the trucks
were operational. We did this every day, ya know, 365 days a year. We had 2 shifts. My shift
would do it every other day, the other shift would do it every other day. It wouldn’t be, it
wouldn’t be a lot, but it added up over time, and this happened at every military installation that
had a flying mission. So if you had a crash truck, the crews took the trucks on a flight line or the
training areas, somewhere on the installation and discharge foam to just simply make sure it was
operational. Aside from that, if we obviously had an emergency, and aircraft incident where we
needed to spray foam we would do that. And you know some of the incidents it was copious
amounts. We had foam trailers, there was a few incidents, 1,000 gallon foam trailers, where we
would have to, employ that and start using that foam, some incidents, depending on the size of
the incidents. It would not be uncommon to discharge, hundreds of gallons of foam, concentrate,
that was pure foam, into the environment. Training exercises. We would do live fire training, and
use copious amounts of foam, to suppress that as well. Because for liquid fuel fire the only way
you can put it out is to sit there for hours let it burn out or discharge foam. That would snuff it
out and extinguish the fire. And that happened at every installation that had those capabilities.
So, you know, Air Force alone there was over 200 plus military installations, just here in the
United States. That would do that almost every day. You know. Operations checks you know,
monthly live fire training.
�DD: You mentioned earlier, drinking water, can you say more about that?
KF: Sure, so at Cannon Air Force Base, in- I only learned all this in the past couple years, you
know. While I was active duty in the military nobody ever told us about, you know, the hazards
you know, with firefighting foam, PFAS, and contamination. And I’ve since learned with
drinking water contamination at Cannon Air Force base, like I said, we would discharge the
foam every day and that seeped into the aquifer system. At Cannon Air Force base, the city of
Clovis, that was a mile down the road from the base, and residents in between. Their drinking
water came from wells that pulled water out of these aquifer systems. So the entire time I was at
Cannon Air Force base, you know, the four years I was there, I was polluting the aquifer system,
and then as unknown to us we were drinking that polluted aquifer. So we were drinking
contaminated water. So it came full circle. I don't know if it was karma for us or what [chuckle]
you know, I feel guilty. You know. Had i known then there is no way I would have discharged
the foam you know. There are so many people, and it’s not just in New Mexico. I mean it’s
across the country, Michigan is getting a lot of attention because of the contamination up there.
Here in Pennsylvania we just recently learned one-third of the state has PFAS pollution in
drinking water. And it's shocking to know that and the more and more research that goes on the
more and more water systems we find are polluted with PFAS.
DD: How did you, start to learn, that, about PFAS and that is was a problem?
KF: Well, like I said, I was at air combat command from 2010 til 2017 when I retired and about
2014 I started seeing a few emails that popped up that had the acronym PFAS in it. So it PFAS,
P-F-A-S, and then we say the acronym PFOA, P-F-O-A and PFOS, P-F-O-S. But there was
really no other emails or clarification that specified or defined what those acronyms meant. So I
sort of just of- I'll be honest, I brushed them off. I like okay, you know, they are talking about it,
but there is no other guidance behind it. And after it retired, the environmental working group
sort of got in touch with me, through a fellow firefighter, and during some conversations that
when they started sending me information the military timelines, of H triple F and PFAS and the
more I read through it, I could physically feel my body just start tingling in frustration and anger,
in shock and awe because since 1973 I found the military knew about H triple F and that it
contained PFAS and it was hazardous. Up until, you know, from that point up until probably a
few years ago nobody really said anything. And it was, pretty much left up to me and other
firefighters to dig for this information and that's really the only way we found out what PFAS
was. Through a network of environmental groups. Fellow firefighters that really started digging
into this, and you know it was it was just unbelievable that the foam manufacturers, the military,
there was people that knew about this. We as firefighters, we as veterans, we as military
personnel were never told about this. And definitely the public was never told about this. Which
is, it’s alarming to know, only 50 years this stuff has been going on and only now are we really
�scratching the surface of the amount of damage PFAS had caused within our environment,
within our communities.
DD: So you post retirement, sounds like, you pretty much started kind of uncovering and
learning about the situation, and then what for you?
KF: Well, I sort of got trust into the whole PFAS and firefighter safety thing. I have no regrets of
doing it, you know, like you said you know, I’m retired, I do my own fire service consulting, I do
a podcast with firefighter health and safety, and I’ve gotten so much feedback with these
firefighters. Not just here in the United States but really across the globe that are impacted by
firefighting foam that contains PFAS, turnout gear that contains PFAS, and I’m getting
bombarded. And I appreciate it because it is a learning for both me and those that are sending me
questions. I’m getting bombarded with questions though. One, what is PFAS, because, you
know, it’s simply not out there, and I keep foot stomping education, education, education on
what PFAS is. I’m dealing with legislation, I’ve talked to congress you know, participated in
some of the hearings down there in DC, on PFAS, for mediation and protection of firefighters.
You know. I’m doing surveys, you know, I guess at the end of the day, I'm doing what I’m
doing. I’m trying to educate firefighters, protecting them, because really nobody in, I’ll say
leadership, you know, the government entities, it simply doesn’t seem that they are doing
enough, if anything at all to really educated and protect firefighters. So, you know, like I said
before I got nothing to lose as a retiree. I got a lot of time on my hands, so you know. I’m happy
to go ahead and-and do all the-the behind the scenes effort to help firefighters. Cause the last
thing I want them to do is worry about, what is PFAS, what their health and safety when they are
on the job. They got to focus on the job and not worry about, you know, these other things. You
know. If I can let them focus on their job and then on their off days get them spun up on what
PFAS is, then that’s what I’m happy to do.
DD: I mean there's already so much risk in firefighting though. {chuckle}
KF: Yeah, that's what I tell everybody. You know, firefighting is inherently dangerous, we know
that. You know, but the products that were supplied to us, you know, the firefighting foam and
the turnout gear. The last thing we expected is the products we used to perform our jobs were
actually harming us. You know, we know going into a burning building, you know going into a
hazardous material situation it’s going to be risky like you said. But you know for god sakes
provide us with some products, some equipment that isn't going to harm us before we get to the
incident scene.
DD: Yeah, It sounds like PFAS is really impacting your life in multiple ways. Both, you know,
personally and through your work as you worked with the foam and the gear. But also now it’s
�shaping your life and the activities that you are doing. The service and leadership you are
providing.
KF: It has. I’ll be honest, when I retired, I did 20 years in the military, 20 years in the air force
and I was ready to hang up firefighting. You know I was like, I did it and I was like let me move
onto something else. And then, I got involved with a local volunteer department down here and
then of course that the PFAS issue came up and it brought me, it sort of sucked me back in. And
like I said I have no regrets of doing it, I’m actually excited, you know, to be able to help. But it
is, it’s a life changing issue. I got some health concerns with my exposure, not as bad as a lot of
the firefighters I’ve talked to. PFAS whether it’s physically impact, mentally impact, its causing
people to think and rethink the way they operate and the way they live.
DD: What concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward?
KF: You know, I’ve always said until you cut off the source of contamination you can’t fix the
problem. You know. The problem being that PFAS contamination is ongoing. You know.
Remediation efforts are years down the road. There's still a lot of research and testing going on.
Until you cut off that source of contamination you really can’t start doing anything else. And
now with firefighters, the DOD they are now looking at replacing the fluorinated foams with the
non-fluorinated foams they have to do that by 1 October 2023. Which is fiscal year 24, but
that's, I've always said, that time frame, that gap in there, you still have firefighters and nonpersonnel still being exposed to fluorinated foam. It’s still in use. A lot of the volunteer
departments, the municipal departments are not getting a lot of the conversation with this. A lot
of focus on military with DOD and federal level, but the same foam, the same turnout gear is
being used within our municipal, fire departments or local communities. And that is where is a
lot of the exposure is occurring. So I think going forward education is number 1. Getting people
informed with that, meeting with their local leaders, local fire departments and really pushing the
issue and saying look, we have to cut off the source, and then go from there.
DD: What kinds of advice do you give to people who are active still in firefighting, when they
learn about PFAS, but then they ask then what now?
KF: The first piece of advice that I tell them is personal protection. Don’t rely on others, you
know, and that goes for everybody, is that, your personal safety starts with you. In terms of your
situational awareness, if you are around the foam, make sure you have proper, you know,
personal proper protective equipment on, gloves, you know, certain clothing, definitely eye, you
know, eye protection. Don’t for the volunteer firefighters that take their turnout gear home, I
can’t stress this enough, don’t take it, and put it in your vehicle. A lot of firefighters will just put
it in their truck, on top of the gear, on top of the PFAS, obviously, you know is the soot and other
products or combustion that absorbs into the turnout gear. So, you know, I tell them all of that as
�you transfer, gets onto your clothes, your skin then they take it home and now you have crossed
contaminated your home. You know, that with fire fighters that live in the fire station. The same
thing. Don’t wash your personal clothing with, you know, your duty clothing, your work
uniforms and everything. You know, it’s really a matter of, you know, just taking personal
precautions, wash your hands, use gloves when you using turnout gear, don’t use turnout gear if
you don’t have to, obviously we can’t get away from that as firefighters. But if you don’t have to
put it on, don’t put it on. It’s that simple. Showers, after every call, take a shower and wash all
of those contaminates off because we’ve learned that turnout gear especially is creates what is
called PFAS dust. And you may not see that, and you know it covers the inside of the truck, it
gets absorbed into the air condition systems, and it just, like I said you know just, situation
awareness is the big thig. Be aware of your surroundings. Be aware of what you are using and
then personal hygiene, decontamination procedures and then go from there. If you are worried
about the drinking water, look at different filtration systems that are out there. Now there's only a
few that’ll filter out PFAS and there are a little expensive, you know. But, again talk to your- I
would say talk to your local water suppliers in the community, and say hey are you testing for
PFAS? Are you filtering for PFAS? If there not, you know, it's a judgement call. You may want
to look at bottled water. I know the military handed out bottled water to some communities
because of the PFAS contamination. It's tough, we could go on and on and on and talk about
what should be done and you know, what needs to be done, what's not done, but at the end of the
day, you know like I said, it comes down to, you know, everybody is responsible for their own
safety and to do their homework. That's a big thing, you know, research on this.
DD: Are there particular things on your agenda, your next steps, or things that you're looking
towards?
KF: Yeah. There are a few pieces of legislation, right now, that I'm trying to get pushed. There's
the Mike Elestic Firefighting Protection Act. Um. And that pretty much talks about military
firefighters, and with PFAS contamination. Cause I worked with Mike, I had a little bit of a
crossover with Mike who's a former Air Force firefighter and then he went as a DOD civilian
firefighter. So that’s sort of near and dear to my heart. There’s a Neil Hogan piece of legislation
out there as well, for federal firefighters. We're just trying to get, whether it’s local, state, or
federal officials to really get involved in this to make this a priority. It should be a bipartisan
matter, but it seems like it’s not. There’s you know. You know there’s as with any piece of
legislation there’s back and forth on it but at the end of the day for me, you know, I’m really
passionate about this, put all your differences aside and look at the big picture and say hey, this is
a health and safety issue. Not just for firefighters, for everybody, Americans, people overseas,
cause it's a global issue. It's, you know, not just an isolated issue. Then really you know,
personally just educating firefighters. You know, I'm an instructor here in the state of
Pennsylvania, so, you know, I’m working with the state fire academy to push this out more, and
more, and educate firefighters. Obviously with my podcast you know. I do that. Any opportunity
�I get to talk about this, you know, I get excited about this because it, that tells me that this topic
is getting the attention that it needs to. So that's where I am today. The more I can talk about it
the better.
DD: From an education standpoint, do you find that this is something that, is being included in
instruction and education, that these kinds of topics? Or is this something that is maybe, is still
coming or could be included more?
KF: Depending on where you're at. Here in Pennsylvania, you know, I had the pleasure of
working with the state fire academy on their administrator on a PFAS awareness program. It’s a
short program, its baby steps, it's the first step towards getting to the bigger picture. I don’t
believe the department of defense is really doing much. They sent out a few fact sheets, a few
brochures. I’m not really sure what they're doing at the DOD fire academy. I think they do
mention it a little bit but it's not getting the attention it really needs to. Like I said within the
volunteer fire service community, you know, its hard getting, you know first and foremost, its
hard getting training with volunteer firefighters, simply because of funding. But they get the
word out, it's a challenge. And I say that because for the longest time firefighters have been using
foam and there's a big misconception that foam is safe. You know, it's simply soap and water.
There’s nothing wrong with it and it's time to get that mentality out of the fire service and
educate them and prove to them that, no, firefighting foam that contains PFAS isn’t soap and
water. It's actually harmful, it's actually toxic. But I found that once you change the mentality,
once you open their eyes and ears to it, they're more receptive then, you know, they sort of lean
in and their like hmm maybe, you know, there is something to be concerned about here. But
that’s the biggest challenge, is getting the word out and educating folks. I wish every state fire
academy across the United States would incorporate, similar programs that they have here in
Pennsylvania. Overseas they’re starting to do that, it's gaining a lot of attention. I know in
Australia they have a really great program. They got rid of, you know, a lot of the PFAS foams.
So there is some success stories out there. I just wish it would reverberate across the oceans and
you know, where everybody would be on the same page but unfortunately were not there yet.
DD: Well it sounds like you’re working to make that happen.
KF: I’m trying {laughs} I’m doing the best I can. {chuckle}
DD: Well, Kevin, before I wrap up, is there anything else that you would like to add or anything
you would like to go back to and say more about?
KF: The big thing is, you know, like I said with the water contamination, I would just encourage
your audience members to reach out to their local community leadership and start asking the
questions. Be like, hey, you know, PFAS is on the radar, we heard a lot about it in the media,
�What are we doing locally? Don’t be afraid to ask questions. And you know, especially for the
firefighters out there don't be afraid to ask questions. Because at the end of the day, like I said
before you know, health and safety is the big thing and if you don't ask the questions you're
never going to know the answer. And you’re never going to know if those that are responsible
are doing what they should be doing to protect those they serve. You know, with news media,
any type of media, please pick up on this and talk about it cause the, you know almost with any
topic, the more and more you talk about it, the more and more people listen to, and you know, as
they start uniting. That coalition, that network becomes stronger and stronger. As a team, that's
where we all come together and get rid of PFAS. Or at least, you know, regulate it and minimize
exposure. Because I don’t think we will ever get rid of PFAS but you know at the very least we
need to minimize unnecessary exposure to it. The other thing is PFAs blood testing. That’s
something that I’m really pushing for right now is PFAS blood testing cause we really don’t
know what's in our body unless you test for it. Something that I found with firefighters is that
they have high levels of PFAS in their blood. Unfortunately there is no magic pill to get rid of it.
But that’ll tell us, do we need to, you know, it's almost a threshold. The EPA said 70 parts per
trillion of PFAS in drinking water but if we see elevated levels of PFAS in firefighters blood,
then we can say, okay let's get you away from PFAS so we don’t add to that. You know
unfortunately it has a huge half-life so it’s going to take a while. And that's something a lot of
firefighters have contacted me about is their medical concerns. If I have a high level of PFAS am
I going to get cancer? Am I going to get some other medical illness? And that's a big concern,
and it goes back to what I said before, is that. I don't want to see firefighters focusing on that and
getting hurt on the job because their mind is elsewhere. You know, worrying about am I going to
get sick, is my family going to get sick. There's a lot of work to do, you know, with PFAS, I
appreciate you getting involved in this. And many others cause like I said I mean, the more
people involved the more attention is going to get, and I think the faster action is going to be
taken to protect citizens, fire fighters, everybody that either is or could potentially be exposed to
PFAS.
DD: Yeah absolutely. Thank you so much Kevin for taking the time to share your story and
experiences today.
KF: Great, like I said before I appreciate the invite. Thank you, Thank you.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0031
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ferarra, Kevin
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021-09-29
Title
A name given to the resource
Kevin Ferrara, 2021 (Interview video and transcript)
Description
An account of the resource
Kevin Ferrera grew up in central Pennsylvania and returned there after spending 20 years in the military. Kevin discusses his work exposure to PFAS through firefighting foam used on air force bases.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Moving Image
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2d78d6d94563d28930982ca61f3eaa0c.mp4
22491f9ba048278e2d8dd9643a079a11
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/55a40c932540d996abf4dcbe3c8193e1.pdf
82042907c93efdb20d9d73755a0aa8dc
PDF Text
Text
Living With PFAS
Interviewee: Rick Rediske
Interviewer: Dani DeVasto
Date: 5/25/2021
DD: I’m Dani DeVasto and today, May 25th 2021, I have the Pleasure of chatting with Dr. Rick
Rediske. Thank you so much, Rick, for being here today.
RR: Good morning.
DD: Good morning. Can you tell me about where you are from and where you currently live?
RR: Well, I'm originally from the Milwaukee Wisconsin area and moved to Ohio and then
moved to Ann Arbor area to finish my doctorate there and then move to West Michigan. So
[chuckling] kind of did a little bit of a circle there.
DD: And how long have you been in West Michigan, roughly?
RR: I've been in West Michigan since 1980 ― so.
DD: Okay, all right. Can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS [Per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances] or with PFAS in your community? I know you likely have many.
RR: Yeah, I guess the one to talk about mostly is House Streets in the Rockford area. So I was
asked by a group of concerned citizens that were watching the demolition ― they watch the
demolition of the Tannery and they took all sorts of pictures and were concerned that
contaminants were still present. The contaminants were taken off the site, and they wanted an
expert to help them tie the discussion together and get the EPA [Environmental Protection
Agency] involved. So I originally turned them down because there was ― a lot of stigma about
what they were doing, because Wolverine was a exemplary corporate citizen. They paid for you
know ― a real nice boat launch, they paid for river improvements, the Rogue River. They were
certainly active in the City of Rockford. And I had friends that have businesses in Rockford etc.
And they said you know, steer away from these people, they [chuckle] don't know what they're
doing. And ― and like I said I told them no, and then they came back a year later and actually
came to visit me in my office and brought me a whole bunch of pictures. Lynn McIntosh who is
the ― I guess the leader of the CCRR [Concerned Citizens for Responsible Remediation of
Rockford ] ― she is a former art music teacher and she likes to draw things and ― anyway after
seeing what she put together and some of the records, I became convinced that there was an issue
at the Tannery. We weren't looking at PFAS back then but as I went through all of the data and
looked up what was done at the Tannery, where they have the Scotchgard and made Hush
Puppies, yeah I became more and more concerned about PFAS [computer notification] being at
the Tannery and then wherever they disposed of their waste.
DD: And what ― roughly when was all of this happening? What time?
1
�RR: Well this was a ― I think about 2012, 2013 in that time frame.
DD: And were you aware of PFAS at this time? Cause I know many people were not.
RR: Yeah, I've always ― I have taught classes in environmental chemistry and toxicology, and I
always mention PFAS as being one of those materials that was a miracle. Scotchgard when that
came out, I mean it’s changed the carpet forever and the Gore-Tex clothing. So I had you know
both of those in my household. And I tell all the students that we thought everything was safe
and then we found out that it wasn't. And 3M got out of producing it. So I do include that story in
you know my lectures every year.
DD: So once you were convinced that there was an issue, then what? What came next?
RR: Well then it was my job to put the information together that would help get the DEQ's
[Department of Environmental Quality] attention at the time. They were very much supportive of
what the ― DEQ was very supportive [computer notification] of what Wolverine was doing. So
they were trying to redevelop the property for commercial and residential. And the DEQ, didn't
you know, didn't necessarily approve of the plan but they certainly weren't finding any fault with
you know what they were up to. So there was concern about the chemicals that were left behind.
And what got me interested in PFAS was that there was a fish study in the Rogue River right
outside of the Tannery, and the Smallmouth bass and White sucker were at levels that would
triggered the Fish Consumption Advisories, so I knew there had to be PFAS coming from the
Tannery getting[chuckles] into the water, I mean you wouldn't have a Fish Advisory there if that
wasn't the case. And then probably about a year later in 2000 yeah 2017 ― well 2016, Lynn
McIntosh and Janice Tompkins, two of the CCRR members did some personal interviews. They
found the waste hauler that actually was willing to give an interview saying that he took waste
from the Tannery and dumped them on House Street and dump them in a few other places. So
once we found out about House Street, we were really concerned because that had residential
breaking wells around it, water wells. So yeah it's kind of the history. I was kind of reluctant
person and then I got really involved and ― I helped bring the issue to the forefront with the
interviews for the newspaper and things like that.
DD: And are you still involved now?
RR: Yes, I'm involved with the Community Advisory Group or the CAG. And we don't have a
super fun status, the site is not a super fun site. But given all of the interest, the EPA is allowing
for the formation of a Citizen Advisory Group or Community Advisory Group. Excuse me.
Which is ― we don't have a power to reject something, all we have the ― we got all the
information so, all the information is given to the CAG members and then we can comment on
whatever the EPA and whatever Wolverine is doing. So we have a ability to comment that a lot
of citizen groups do not have, we have a direct channel that was formed because it’s a
Community Advisory Group.
DD: What concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward?
2
�RR:Well the biggest concern is cleaning up the contaminated groundwater. There's 25 square
miles of contaminated groundwater that need to be addressed in one form or another. And then
the other big issue is all the health studies that are going on. There's a number of blood and
public health kind of related studies that are going on for people that have been exposed through
contaminated drinking water. And I think they have already 1000 participants I think I heard that
number. So it started out really slow, there was only a couple hundred, and again the Community
Advisory Group got involved with helping to recruit. We had a couple committees and we got
that number back up so it's going to be a pretty solid study.
DD: Is the Community Advisory Group involved with the groundwater remediation at all, too?
RR: Well we’re involved with everything Wolverine. So we’re involved with the Tannery clean
up, and then we're involved with the Wolven Jewell and the House Street groundwater cleanups.
So we’re ― there’s I think four different types of work plans that are coming out this year that
we have to review. So we just completed reviewing the Tannery poultry system and now we're
reviewing the groundwater and surface water interface, the GSI [Groundwater-Surface Water
Interface] interface for House Street.
DD: Sounds like you are going to be busy.
RR: Yeah, they’re quite lengthy. And they’re technical documents and they have to be ― made
more friendly to the general public. So you have to explain why they’re doing things and [clears
throat] trying [chuckle] explain why they are not doing things which is a challenge. But yeah it's
― I think we’ve got almost 30 people, 27 or something like that and each one has a different
perspective. So we have to all reach consensus on how we want to comment on these documents.
DD: Sounds like a challenging process.
RR: Yes.
DD: Before we wrap up, is there anything you'd like to add that we haven't touched on today?
Any part of your work with PFAS or is anything you'd like to go back to to say more about?
RR: Well I think we're just scratching the surface in the Rockford area as far as trying to fix the
damage to the Rogue River. I think that's our big challenge. And you know the ― I think the
public health ― I mean they responded for the blood levels and getting safe drinking water. But
we have a big challenge to be able to fish and enjoy the Rogue River again so that's out there.
And then the other issue is there are so many PFAS compounds out there that were ― every day
we find out something new. And you know if I would have done this interview a year ago I
would have said 4 to 5000 compounds [unclear] it’s 8000 compounds.
DD: Wow.
RR: There is just a plethora of these materials that are out in the environment. And you know
we’re ― we have to deal with them because they contaminate our drinking water and they're in
our food. So it's really a long-term problem that we’re faced with.
3
�DD: Can you say any more about the fish that ― the dealing with the fish and the river? You
mention that’s something that we're going to have to address.
RR: Yeah. There are several places across the state. Most notably Wurtsmith Air Force Base, the
Au Sable River, and then the Rogue River and the Clinton River, excuse me not Clinton but the
[hand hits the table multiple times] ― Huron River its got a lot of contamination. There is a lot
of areas in the state where this water has been discharged and the fish have accumulated the
PFOS [Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid] [spells out letters] is the compound. It's one of the more
toxic ones and it's one of the few that does bio accumulate like that. So there is warnings out at
different places around the state for not being able to consume fish that contain PFAS. And it
was just recently the smelt runs up in Lake Superior had contamination so it's not just limited to
our locations. And it doesn't take very much. I mean we’re dealing with parts per trillion all the
other contaminants were parts per million and parts per billion. So we're down in a much lower
concentration level than we are from most other compounds.
DD: Parts per trillion sounds like something that would be really tricky to deal with. Tests you
know― test for, communicate about. ―
RR: It is it is. And that’s my analogy of cutting a dollar bill which is a grand. You cut that into a
thousand pieces then you cut one 1000th into a thousand pieces, and you cut one of those 1000th
of a 1000th into a[chuckle] [computer notification] thousand pieces and that's a part per trillion.
[chuckle] So you know it's a very small amount of material. But as I ― when I talked about it it's
one of the few contaminates that circulates in our blood. So it catches a ride on our major carrier
protein that carries are antibodies and carries our hormones. And it's just not something that we
want you know in our bodies or in the environment.
DD: Well, thank you so much Rick for taking the time to share some of your story today.
RR: Sure, sure glad to do it.
4
�5
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Living with PFAS Interviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devasto, Danielle
Description
An account of the resource
The Living with PFAS interviews were recorded during 2021 to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a group of chemicals used to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. These products include clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, and heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces. They are considered "forever chemicals" in that they do not break down in the environment, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and they build up in fish, wildlife, and in the human body. Studies have shown that exposure to large amounts of PFAS may affect growth and development, reproduction, thyroid function, the immune system, and may injure the liver. More research is needed to assess the full health effects of exposure to PFAS.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In copyright
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
DC-11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
audio/mp3
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Motion Picture
Text
Sound
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
PFAS0008
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rediske, Rick
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2021-05-25
Title
A name given to the resource
Rick Rediske, 2021 (Interview video and transcript)
Description
An account of the resource
Dr. Rick Rediski is a professor of Environmental Health Sciences at the Robert Annis Water Research Institute at Grand Valley State University and has lived in West Michigan since around 1980. In this interview, Dr. Rediski discusses is involvement in the PFAS contamination situation in Michigan. After learning of chemical dumping in residential water areas, Dr. Rediski helped to bring the issue to the forefront with interviews to news organizations.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeVasto, Danielle (interviewer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Oral history
Personal narrative
PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals)
Groundwater--Pollution
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Living with PFAS (project)
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a>
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Moving Image
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
video/mp4
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng