1 24 45 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/de2b660352e5037db0dafaf86a58d40d.mp4 b2f17065cbef332f8f70648daabd8299 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/79b9c08b8c380db250d0d17a76a2645c.pdf 21a285522a55c52bed4dd5a0066d73c6 PDF Text Text Living With PFAS Interviewee: AJ Birkbeck Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: May 19, 2021 DD: I’m Dani DeVasto and today, May 19th 2021, I have the pleasure of chatting with AJ Birkbeck. Thank you so much for being with us today AJ. Can you tell me about where you’re from and where you currently live? AJ: Well I grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan and went to school in Ann Arbor and after that moved to Chicago where I worked for many years as an environmental attorney. DD: And are you still based in Chicago right now? AJ: I do maintain an office in the Chicago-land area, and I’m still licensed in Illinois but I’ve been focusing pretty much exclusively on Michigan of late, so that’s my focus and especially when it comes to PFAS. DD: Alright, can you tell me how long you’ve been here? AJ: Well, I spent all but 17 years of my life, so over 50 years I’ve been in Michigan. DD: Okay. So AJ, could you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in your community? AJ: The main story is just unfortunately the lack of information that’s available to everyone. You know, critically, lawmakers don’t have accurate information, and many times they’re being informed by the chemical industry exclusively, not necessarily by science. As science is coming online, not only in Michigan but across the country and around the world, it’s becoming evident that this problem is a lot bigger than people thought, because these chemicals are everywhere. So, the story is: how can we get information out to people and how can we inform people of risks related to PFAS, and that’s what we did when we discovered the wolverine contamination in Rockford, MI, which is one of the most contaminated locations in the US. Even worldwide, people have heard of it. DD: Do you want to say anything more about your efforts to help get out information to people? Especially kind of surrounding the Wolverine West Michigan area? �AJ: Right. Well as a group of citizens, to say resources are limited is kind of an understatement. It’s something that people in the neighborhood do in their spare time and there was a lot of footwork done, a lot of discovery. It’s when we clearly determined there had been releases of PFAS in and around Rockford that needed to be addressed. The next big step was informing the regulatory community because still to this day, these chemicals are not effectively regulated at the federal level, which is just incredible. But in Michigan, fortunately they moved very quickly in legal moves with regulation that happened to be exactly timed with pleadings that came down and legal actions between the state and federal government and wolverine. So it all was a simultaneous recognition that something needed to be done. The regulations were passed and wolverine agreed to step up to the plate and really move forward with a lot of what’s been happening out at that site right now. DD: Can you tell me a little bit more about your role in this process? AJ: Well, I’ve spent my entire career out at locations working in communities on large contaminations. The biggest client for many years was actually an instrumentality of the federal district court in San Francisco with the Northern district of California. We worked directly for the court working on cleanups that were driven by community concerns. I had experience in doing things like that, and I received a call one day from a small community group, that’s the CCRR, and they needed legal advice as to what they could do with respect to the tannerring. I heard about some of the things that were going on, and I tried to reach out to city government at the time, but they really weren’t interested in finding out what was going on, or in any investigation. For the first time in my life, I met active resistance from a unit of government. I worked in my day-job for decades with municipal leaders in a very constructive way, and here, the door was slamming in my face. So I agreed to work with the CCRR in bringing action in Belmont and Rockford, and that effort so far has resulted in, my guess, and wolverine hasn’t disclosed any costs, but at least $125,000,000 in response costs. So, it has resulted in what I think is a significant improvement, not only to the environment, but in human health, which is most important. It’s unfortunate that the exposures were there as long as they were there, but I think, you know, as a result of literally, concerned neighbors saying something isn’t right here and digging deeper, and deeper, and deeper, we have prevented all those folks from Belmont from drinking what was the most contaminated drinking water I would argue in the nation. I think there was a couple of commercial wells that were tested at slightly higher levels. But I mean this is one of the most PFAS impacted sites that there is. The fact that people were sitting there drinking this water everyday, you can't taste it, smell it, or see it, it was just insidious. The fact that we cut that off by who knows how many years, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, any day is too long to continue drinking what those residents were forced to drink. As we got more and more into it, I got more and more passionate about communities really needing help. What was going on in Rockford was the impotence for the founding of the PFAS alliance, which is- the motto is “From Communities, For Communities”. Taking everything we’ve learned in an area with very �little guidance as to what you should do as an impacted citizen, if it’s just finding out that you’ve been drinking PFAS for 25 years, you know, that's a scary prospect. There’s a lot more resources now than there were, but at the state level they’re really stretched. We need a lot more focused [?], which means a lot more resources, which means a legislature that’s willing to vote those resources into place in order to deal with this problem which is just getting bigger. I mean literally, go online to MPART and every week its 2 or 3 new sites. We had a big jump with, I think over 50 sites when the regulations finally came in. It’s so many communities being impacted and each one is related but in a unique way. So, how do you address that? It’s a huge problem which comes all the way back around to: I see this as a communication issue. A need to get information to the people who need it most, especially people living in impacted communities. DD: Do you want to say anything more about the PFAS alliance and either how that came to be or any of the work the PFAS alliance is doing right now? AJ: Some communities like to keep what’s going on behind a wrap, so if there’s a community that wants to remain confidential, we honor that request. We’ve reached out to a number of communities. Unfortunately, we are strictly an all-volunteer organization. We’ve received just a couple of very small grants, and on top of that it’s all volunteer work. So we have a dedicated group of directors and other folks that are members and work with us to really reach out, indepth, to communities. One of the communities we’ve recently worked with was down by Gerald Ford International Airport. There were, I believe, 247 households there with impacted wells, and we are working to ensure that they get hookups to the city of Grand Rapids water, which is very clean in respect to PFAS. So it’s the kind of thing that, as a community, they can’t do those things themselves, they don’t have the expertise and scientific help like we’ve gotten from GVSU with Dr. Richard Redinski, and with my experience with working with environmental laws with big cleanups in communities. Whenever we see success, like we’ve seen in several of the communities, it only makes us want to work harder and try to get the word out to more and more communities. Right now, we are just limited by assets. We do not have, you know, the grants behind us to really make things work as we’d like to. Because if we could expand and get out into 10s of communities, instead of just a handful of communities, which is all we can do at one time now. There’s 160 communities waiting for help across Michigan right now. DD: Wow. Before, I know you’ve mentioned that you’ve been involved for a long time with large community cleanups. But before you got involved with this, were you doing work with PFAS? Or is this a new contaminant that you encountered with CCRR? AJ: You know, it’s interesting. I used to go every year to these events that were hosted by the state of Michigan, DEQ at the time. You would sit around the lunch table with people that you mostly don’t know, and I happened to sit down next to a gentleman named Bob Delaney. Bob �Delaney is truly the biggest hero we have with the PFAS movement. He identified this stuff at one of his sites where he was project manager. He was researching into it and the more he found, the more terrible it became. He tried to elevate that within the state to an issue that should be addressed immediately. He even came up with a plan on how to address it, and unfortunately, it was placed in the circular file by those who made decisions, and there was no action taken. It turns out that literally 10 years later, actually it became more like seven years later, it became the template of how Michigan has handled this. So, you have a man that seven years beforehand was screaming, “something needs to be done about this”, I happened to sit next to at lunch. He started to explain this [?] and asked “have you heard of it?”, and you know, I hadn’t. I stay on top of these things, but the industry had done a very good job of making this appear to be a miracle group of chemicals, and it was like this isn't great? Science at work. “Oh so we have some evidence that it does some really bad things but we’ll just keep that quiet because this is extremely profitable and we don't really have proof.” That's basically what they ended up standing behind for nearly 50 years: We don't have proof that it's bad. The fact that there’s so many of these, 5,00 on a recent international science call. I meet every month with this group of PFAS scientists from around the world, but there has now been 9,000 categorized of them, and we know the health effects of approximately 2, maybe 3. The information we have, even there, is limited. So, this group of chemicals is out there and I think it’s something that ultimately, I became active in the environmental side of things as a geologist and in the light of when it happened with the love canal. That opened a lot of people’s eyes and I think when PFAS hits the mainstream media, there’s going to be a lot of eyes that are opened, as far as, “wow, I had no idea something this toxic was this close to my life every day”. They’re talking about going into camping stores where they have rack after rack of waterproof parkas and there could be a serious inhalation risk associated with that. Who would have had any idea? Dental floss, you know, wrappers for your burger, it just keeps coming up. The information that’s coming in daily is just mind boggling, and I actually suggested at a think-tank meeting that we create a worldwide information repository, scientifically vetted, because a lot of what’s going on right now is happening in the European Union. They tend to look more at human based health studies. So it was suggested that we start this, myself and Dr. Rediski are co-chairs on it, 2 and 3. We are working with China, Australia, the folks in Washington, and the European Union to get as much relevant health information in front of people in an easy to use interface and try to make that happen. But again, it’s all volunteer time by 20 people, no funding, no nothing, so it’s very frustrating unless you're plugged into that whole system of applying for grants and doing all that kind of stuff. We just have so many communities that need help, that we haven’t done that. DD: It seems like sometimes the timeline for some of those things like applying for grants and working through certain processes is not in sync with people’s needs too, adding to the challenge. �AJ: Yes, although I will say there’s been a number of groups, I can’t even list all them here, but one group in particular, Freshwater Future up in the Traverse City area, and they’re international as well, they’ve helped us with several grants. They’re helping us with our website right now. They are the group that came up with the $80 alternative to the $300 water testing alternative offered by the state. $300 is a lot for a lot of people, and the fact there’s an $80 alternative out there is great. Unfortunately, they had to shut their labs down due to COVID, but I’m trying to find out when they’re going to be back online. Ultimately, in my opinion, the way to address this is an initiative that I started with former chair of MPART, Steve Slyburn. We came up with computer systems to track, using PFAS, everywhere [?], then goes a step further to model groundwater flow to tell you if it’s moving towards you. So you can go and enter your address and it would say “you’re a quarter mile away from a landfill, where we know there’s PFAS, but you don’t have to worry about it because the water is flowing in the other direction.” Or, “you should be worried about it because it’s coming in your direction.” Those are the people who can’t know on their own, due to low funds, to test their wells. They could at least spring for the $70 and say “okay I’ve been drinking poison water, what do I do? Okay I get a filter, now what do I do?”. The state just doesn’t have the resources to deal with individual hits like that. There’s going to have to be a structure put into place, but the best hope right now is to come up with a system that allows any member of the public in Michigan to enter their address and find out if they’re at more risk or less risk. It can’t be able to say, you are definitely impacted. But I think people, if given the opportunity to check into risks, often will. We’re hoping that would be the case with this system. DD: That sounds like a great idea. I hope it comes to fruition. AJ: It’s been promised by the state by the first quarter of 2022. We’ve been told that certain aspects of it, the most difficult is the ground level water modelling as far as direction of groundwater, nobody’s ever tried that at a statewide basis based on well logs. They have to verify the data, because often well-logged locations often list the wrong location. That’s the element that’s taking the longest, but there’s 32 other layers of information, including manufacturers who utilize PFAS, in most cases in strict accordance with the law and there’s no spills. But, shouldn’t the person who lives right next door to that plant be able to say, “Okay, I’m going to spend $70 and test my water, and if it comes up clean then I can say I have a good corporate neighbor.” If it doesn’t, then we’ve got another site added to the ever growing list with MPART. Each one is a community with their own stories. DD: To go back to that original problem, the one where you said, “how do you get information, especially information about risk out to people?”, this would really help to address that lack. AJ: Right. Unfortunately, it’s come up against some real roadblocks. With respect to EPA, they have not really been allowed to look at PFAS until recently. The plan that they came out with in �the last year of the Trump administration was: “We agree to look at it, we’ll get back to you in a year.” They’re saying they could be as long as a year away from regulating this at the federal level. Which, by that time, Michigan’s regulations will be years old. Good for the folks in Michigan for recognizing how important water is and getting regulations in place to protect them. DD: So this kind of leads into my other main question, what concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward? AJ: It’s just that- I think unfortunately there’s parallels with what happened with Covid, which is initially ignoring the potential gravity of the problem. Then when it hits, really going through a period of denial, “oh it’s not that bad yet.” You know, I found that even immediately in a case in Rockford, you could go up to almost half of the people you run into, and they won’t even really know what PFAS is, because Rockford has been on clean water since at least 2000. It’s one of those problems that unfortunately unless it’s happening to me, it sounds pretty complex. These 5,000 or 9,000 chemicals that the federal government doesn’t even regulate. There’s a very high degree of apathy, but when people begin to realize they are being exposed, it’s in 99.9% of people in the world. You have it in your blood right now, I have it in my blood right now. The question is, how much? The question that very few people have been able to look into is, how much is too much? What we know about the current PFAS contamination is that they’re really bad. Instead of being measured in parts per thousand, parts per million, or even parts per billion, the regulations for PFAS are as low as six parts per trillion. It’s difficult to comprehend how minute that is. An analogy I’ve heard is: when there’s one drop of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool that renders the whole pool undrinkable. That’s some pretty toxic stuff. In the 50s and 60s, people were disposing of it in tanker trucks, thousands of gallons a day. Sometimes a local dump would take it. [?] turn on the spigot on a truck and just drive along the side of the road. This stuff can pop up anywhere, and it has been. In surface water, it’s pretty easy to identify because you have foam, and it’s a different kind of foam. It’s not that brownish-yellow natural foam, it’s bright white. Frankly, [computer stalls] [inaudible]because they’re PFAS in the Grand River, it doesn’t take much to generate foam. DD: So before we wrap up today, is there anything else that you’d like to add that we haven’t touched on? Or is there anything that you would like to go back to? AJ: Sorry, my internet is absolutely horrible. I used to have these fancy offices downtown and now I’m in the middle of the country in a rundown old town and we have to rely on cell towers that are miles away, [?] the phone companies lobbied….[inaudible]. DD: Uh oh, Aj I think you might have cut out...you’re back! �AJ: Can you hear me now? DD: I can. AJ: [Inaudible]...so now even though these phone lines [?] they won’t connect it. So actually, 100 years ago in 1921 there was better phone service here then there is today. DD: Wow. AJ: Anyhow, did I mention the one drop in an olympic sized swimming pool? Because I don’t remember when the question interjected into my line of thought. So I’m just trying to think where I left off. DD: Yes, you did talk about the one drop in the swimming pool. We had been talking about the concerns you have with PFAS contamination moving forward, and some of that conversation was helping people understand the magnitude of the problem. I don’t know if that helps jog your memory at all. Wait, are you still there? AJ: I mean without hearing what I really said before, I really risk repeating things, and that’s kind of embarrassing. It’s a result of the medications and everything they have me on right now. I don’t know if I could just listen to it and then we could ask that third question in a follow up in a day or two. That way, I could just say, “oh i left out these two or three points” and we could wrap it up that way. Does that sound like something we could do? DD: Yeah, absolutely. I can send you the recording. AJ: Unfortunately, with the recording also I’m usually a little more honest than I should be with the things that I mentioned to you earlier. � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0006 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Birkbeck, A.J. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-05-19 Title A name given to the resource A.J. Birkbeck, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource A.J. Birbeck is an environmental attorney based in Chicago, but originally from Grand Rapids, Michigan. In his interview, he discusses the lack of information available to the public about PFAS and his work in communities with large contaminations, such as the the one in Michigan. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/202e63b7f08efc99b8528ccee82dc72d.mp4 b23d1bbb8402bcebbd3eec8715f7e8cd https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/3c8079565f3e6e43fc0f62d5ac6fa5b8.pdf 40acf0d95534eb88182f866ccaffc3de PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Abigail Hendershott Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: August 13, 2021 DD: I’m Dani DeVasto and today, August 13th, 2021 I have the pleasure of chatting with Abby Hendershott. Hi Abby. AH: Hi Dani. Nice to be here. DD: Yes, thank you for being here and talking with me today. Abby, can you tell me about where you’re from and where you currently live? AH: I am currently living in Rockford, Michigan though I am from the Bay City area originally, but I do have a residence up north as well, so I seem to be on the west side of the state quite a bit. DD: How long have you been in Rockford? AH: Since 1996, so 20-since 25 years. DD: Abby, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS [per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances] or with PFAS in your community? AH: Yeah, so PFAS, for me, folded in a very personal way and we-you know working with-at the time that PFAS started unfolding with Wolverine it was 2017. I was the assistant district supervisor for the remediation redevelopment division in the Grand Rapids district office. The supervisor at the time-the district supervisor at the time, was handling the-starting the project. Had the-some of the initial meetings-was kind of handling the situation as the initial sampling and discussions with Wolverine started happening. We were-you know the communityconcerned citizens came to us at the end of January. I was not in that meeting but then in subsequent meetings as things started to unfold, the health department got a request for a well permit right next to what was known as the house street dump area, and we didn’t have really good record on the area, it wasn’t something that was on our radar, it wasn’t something we had worked on in our division in a couple of decades. So, it wasn’t something that we were intimately familiar with, but when the well request came in for the health department we thought, well we’d better take a look at it. Things quickly escalated. The first 8 houses were sampled, those were okay, but then when the Belmont Armory tested their well as part of a National PFAS testing for all the armory sites across the state or across the country, they got a PFAS hit that indicated we needed to go back and resample some more. So, what started as a few houses, I think the initial sampling was 35 houses, quickly escalated to-and this was July of 2017-we had staff out there trying to figure out, you know, which houses would be most at risk. We didn’t have any monitoring well data, we didn’t have any ground water data. And so, it was a very, very intense time and so once it really started getting kicked off, for myself, I was working as the Assistant District Supervisor helping to support staff as we were going through this, but then the 1 �District Supervisor actually got a promotion and by September of that year, and was in Lansing, and so I took over as the District Supervisor in the middle of this. So, by, you know, July we had sampled 35 houses by September we were recommending sampling 300 houses. By December we were up to 650 houses, and the [laugh] the real kicker was that in addition to the residential drinking water sampling that-that staff were doing, Wolverine was actually doing it the staff were actually out in the field with the Wolverine consultants trying to make sure we were talking with residents, giving them enough information, it was a tremendous strain on-one of the most intense periods of my entire career because we had so many people calling us and at one point we didn’t understand that-we didn’t know where else Wolverine would have dumped. We had a lot of concerns that there were other locations around the county that Wolverine would have dumped. [coughs] And so this started trickling out into the-into the community, and so we were getting hundreds of calls from the community about people finding barrels, finding what they thought were leather scraps, finding all kinds of things, and so we had to basically stand up by the-by the end of October we had to stand up our instinant command system and have our instant managers, there were 8 of them that came over and helped us through-through the next six months to really investigate all of these complaints, help us talk with residents, help us make sure we were, you know, getting back to the 650 residents that were being sampled, and at that point then by November we were-I had set up with-with the team and with Wolverine that we would do daily meetings. So, every day we had a team of, you know, remember we had two staff working on this in July, and by November we had basically 15 of us working on this daily. DD: WowAH: It was-it was so intense. Seriously one of the most intense things that we did, and so, at one point, we are sampling, you know, one of the Rockford Middle Schools, we’re sampling some of the Elementary Schools to make sure the schools are okay. You know, the Rockford High School was-was served by municipal water so that was good, but all the way around it had neighborhoods that were served by the drinking water wells. And so, these constant meetings and-and, you know it was very stressful for staff, but it was very stressful for the community. And so, the first meeting that happened in September with the town hall was-was before I kind of took over as the District Supervisor, but that first meeting was with our-our field staff were up there to try to kind of explain what was going on and-and as well as Wolverine as well as the Health Department. And it was, you know, like a four and a half hour meeting with, I don’t know, probably-there were probably 600 people in the room. It was huge. The next meeting we had in November we coordinated a little better and had the whole Freshman Center gymnasium set up, plus we were televising it, so we had, we figure, over a thousand people in person, plus all the media crews, plus the Sheriff, plus probably another 200 people live streaming from theirfrom their thing. So that was, you know again, that’s still on YouTube if you want to-[laugh] if you want to go take a look at it. So that was November of-of 2017, and so by, you know, by that point then we are fully in the midst. People are all on bottled water, people don’t understand what’s going on. Wolverine is starting to install full house filters but we just don’t know that we’ve gotten the full extent of that contamination going on, and through this whole thing I’ve got you know friends of mine who live in the area, people that I go to church with, people that I go to the gym with, people, you know, stopping me to talk about what’s going on. Are they at risk? Should they be drinking their water? Should they be, you know, all these questions, and the fear and anxiety was at a level that I had never really, really experienced before, so-so it was a pretty 2 �intense time. Things shifted by the time we got into 2018, we-the state had established a drinking water-a groundwater cleanup criteria for the protection of drinking water. So, we had then a-a regulatory limit for PFOA and PFOS, so, all through 2017, we were having Wolverine go out and assess these homes, but we had no regulatory authority to-to establish an actual cleanup limit. So, all we had at that point was a EPA health advisory limit, which they were working with, but it wasn’t, you know, it wasn’t a regulatory inforcible criteria that we could enforce this as a state. So, 2018, early on, we got that and we continued then to have Wolverine assess more and more houses. December-December-beginning of December we got results. So, one particular story, I’ll tell you about that I think is really-wow it was pretty unnerving, we had had conversations all through this fall we were doing township meetings, we were doing neighborhood meetings, we did a lot of after hour meetings trying to just get the information out to people, but one of them was a neighborhood up in-in the north of Tenmont, in an area we thought would not be impacted by the house street dump. And, you know, when looking at the data, all of the groundwater from the house street dump went Southeast. This particular area was to the Northeast so they should have been out of the range of any contamination. We said, we don’t really think there’s anything in your neighborhood. You know, we talked to them, we said it-it’s pretty unlikely, but they-everybody at that point was -there was a lot of people trying to get their own testing done because they didn’t know what they were finding, so we had people not only sending us complaints about barrels and leather scraps, but also sending us their private testing data, and one of those-one of those houses that was close to this particular neighborhood was-we had been talking to the township or to the Neighborhood Association President for a while and one of them came back as being a-like a thousand parts per trillion of drinking water. So, I got Wolverine to-to agree to do the whole neighborhood. They gave them bottled water, they agreed to do all the testing in the neighborhood. [cough] Three weeks later, we get the results and it’s a Saturday. I’m seeing the results come in. They-usually, because it was a laboratory that worked on the West Coast, the results would all come in on a Friday night, late, like 10 o’clock. So, Saturday morning I’m sitting there looking at these results going oh my god, there is house after house after house in this neighborhood, in this Wellington rich neighborhood, that was at eight thousand, 20 thousand, 10 thousand, I mean like, the whole neighborhood was so severely impacted it was just like oh my god. And again, these are-these are people I know, and one of the families that I was attending church with, you know, she’s pregnant, she’s got four little kids. You know, they’ve raised all-all the kids drinking this water, and it was just-it was heartbreaking. So, for me I think that was one of those pivotal moments where we just go, wow I can’t believe this, because it was not-it was not something that we would have ever been able to identify except through his very extraordinary set of circumstances that brought us to this point-you know in a normal investigation you stick with the area, you know the contamination, you define it. And, we had the house streets contamination somewhat defined, but this was an entirely new area, and it was something that, you know, Wolverine said that it didn’t have any records for. They said they never dumped there. We think that somebody dumped a whole-whole barrel of scotchgard, whether it was something that somebody took home and just dumped in their backyard or what happened, it was such a-a high strength source that there’s just no other way it could have been done. And, unfortunately, where this was dumped at, was at a topographic high, and it was part of a-a-because the Rogue River goes around the whole area, it was not only at a topographic high, but it was at like a groundwater divide, and so groundwater went in five directions. We ended up, from that one source area, having a very strong plume that went off to the Northwest, some fingers of plumes that went off to the Northeast, another plume 3 �that went to the Southeast, all following the Rogue River but from different locations. And-and we were guessing at this, completely guessing at this. Had a Geologist working on staff that did a fabulous job and trying to figure it all out but hours after hours, I mean, the-the staff, you know, we had literally the Incident Managers work with us from like November to March, but even after that it was full time for myself, the project manager, the Geologist, another person on staff, and then all the other resource staff that we needed to keep going for two or three years. And so, you know, in the end we were able to get some agreement with Wolverine to actually get an incentive degree written, get the almost 70 million dollars to get municipal water hook-up for a thousand homes, which we’re very proud of. Plus then they’re going to go back and they have to access all of these different locations where the groundwater is benting to surface water, because we know that there is, you know, the groundwater continues to be a source for PFAS, and it is going to continue to impact the Rogue River for the long term, so that’s something that is moreone of their ongoing obligations. So I’m gonna stop there and see what your next question is. [laugh] DD: [laugh] Well I’m just struck by how much PFAS is bringing the personal and the professional together for you. I’m wondering if this is typical for you in the work that you do, or if this is kind of a unique or maybe a more intense situation? AH: Very, very intense, very unique. I mean, we’re always striving to make sure residents know what we’re doing, and that we talk with residents about their concerns, but this was-you know, this was a project that was one of those lifetime events. You-we hopefully will never have another project quite like this. And when I, you know, now I’ve gone from a District Supervisor in Grand Rapids for the last couple years, and I’m now-have the privilege of being the-the Executive Director for the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, so I’ve actually stepped up to the state level. And when I look at the concentrations that we’re finding around the rest of the state. When I look at the magnitude of what is at other sites, this is still the worst. This is by far the first-the worst of the contamination, the worst of the impacts to residents, the-the-just the amount of contam-the high strength of the contamination as well as the-the distribution of how far that it has gone. It’s probably got a full 23, 24 miles-square miles of contamination of groundwater, surface water. Soils, of course, not so much but definitely have an ongoing source. So, this is one that I think will, you know, I think somebody will-it’ll somehow end up in a story in some way, so it’ll be your story but the-but it’s really a very unique situation. We just don’t have that-we will have other sites that will, yes, we’ll have to do town meetings, and yes, we’ll meet people, and we’ll try to get them clean water. You may find one or two houses, you may find a couple of houses, but you’re not going to find this. So, we’ve got other sites where we’ve sampled, you know, a couple hundred homes, but we’ve not found concentrations like this. And as you know from talking with people who have been impacted, you know, we had one house that topped over a hundred thousand parts per trillion drinking water well. That’s probably the highest one in the country I would-I would guess. DD: Just sounds overwhelming. [laughs] AH: It was overwhelming. It was overwhelming. Our team did a great job, but I can’t, you know, as with everything we had a physical breaking point where it was just-it was-you just sat there and cried. Because, you know, I had people in my office talk to us one-on-one and it’s, you 4 �know, you’re sitting there after hours talking with these people, and they’re just crying their hearts out. So, it was not just a job at that point, it was really everything we could do to try to make it-and then you’re balancing it with the constant, constant media requests. The trying to balance the-the narrative that’s coming out of the media, and the narrative that’s coming out of Wolverine, and the narrative that we’re trying to promote, that, you know, we’re trying to do the best job we can. It was overwhelming, and there’s no doubt about it, so, that job was much harder than this job that I’ve got now. [laughs] Which seems weird, but it really was. DD: [laughs] Can-would you say more about the work that you did with communicating with the community. I mean I know you said that the whole situation was more intense, but it seems like, especially like the community engagement communication part was also kind of a really key part of your work and just, maybe unique to this situation. AH: For sure and I think this-this really, you know, started paving the way for how we do community engagement now for MPART overall. As things started to unfold, you know the firstthe first townhall was in September of 2017. It was-it was an eye opener for us. We figured people would be a little upset, we figured that yes, you’d get people to come but the visceral anger and a lot of it was pointed at Plainfield township. Which we didn’t expect, we didn’t understand that there was already this residual tension between the residents and township which is something that we had not even expected or understood. And-and then, you know, at that point they-they didn’t really understand the whole wolverine thing so much, so, you know, they didn’t take their anger out on them. But that was a real eye opener for us and so at that point we started getting [coughs] requests from some of the townships, Algoma township specifically, that they wanted to have some neighborhood meetings. And I said, you know I think that's a good idea. So, we started meeting with some small, you know, small subdivisions basically. We had probably, I want to say in between 2017, 2018, we probably did 20, 25 neighborhood meetings in addition to the September town hall, the November town hall. We had a, I want to say there was another one in there as well as all the media stuff. So we were trying to kind of attack it at all of the different levels, not only to try to get the word out to the media, who's kind of controlling the narrative, but try to reach to the Township, make sure that they were supported because they were just as overwhelmed as we were trying to answer resident calls and questions and then getting in there and-and really talking to people one on one, I think, is where we were able to turn that narrative around. Me, you know this-I think, personally, despite all of the contamination, despite all of the-the anxiety, there’s some-one of the things I think that became very evident was that there is a very much that seven stages of grief that goes with finding out that, you know, if it's a death in the family or some major trauma or some major shock, that's what these people were going through was you had the whole-they were very angry, then they were very sad, then they were very resigned and then-. And it probably took a full-it probably took a full 18 months for some of these people to work through those [clearing throat] those stages. And it was very obvious that it was easy to blame, you know, Eagle. It was easy to blame Wolverine at the time. [clearing throat] And obviously, you know, the contamination did come from them. So that was justified. 5 �But they didn't get the response that they wanted from Wolverine. They didn't get any kind of personal connection. [clearing throat] They didn't get a way to talk to them because they were so insulated with lawyers that they-they had no connection. So, we provided that ability for them to, you know, ask us the questions, try to give some sort of feedback to help them feel justified or- in what they were doing. You know, I think over the-the timeframe from like September to November, December, I think we ended up with, like, 600 calls that went to our environmental Assistance Center. When they couldn't get one of us, they would call our 800 number. And so, you know, it was crazy trying to deal with it. But I think the best way you deal with it is on that personal contact, that one on one contact where you're really sitting down and talking to people. And we did. We went into people's homes. We had-we went into if any of the neighborhood Association invited us, we went in and talk to them. We did a ton of night meetings and that really is what changed the attitude and changed this. And so, despite this being the worst of what I see in the state, I think it's the best example of a good response, a great response from not only Eagle, but all of our partners as we work through this. You know, we worked daily at these daily meetings with Eagle or DEQ at that point was not only all of our staff, but we had local health Department, Kent county health Department there every day. We had Plainfield Township there just about every day. We had the state health Department, Department of Health and Human Services was there with us every day. And so, you know we had 20 people. Plus, we had Wolverine there every day. Plus, we had their consultant there every day. We soon hired our own consultant to-to help take samples. And by December-December, January of 2018 is when EPA showed up and they started meeting with us every day. And so, these team meetings were big, but it was the only way to keep the wheels on the bus. And it was the only way to keep the coordination and the communication going. And so, I think because we forced that model and we forced everybody to come together every day, it really turned out to be hugely successful in the way it was implemented. Not to say there weren't bumps. There was always bumps. But considering how long some of the other litigations can go on, how little the-the, you know, actual residents can get out of these things, I think we did pretty well in trying to negotiate a response for, you know, municipal water hook up for 1000 homes, plus some sort of a capping for House Street, as well as a investigation for all of the groundwater getting into surface water and those kinds of natural resource damage stuff so- I think we'll leave-I’ll leave that one there then. DD: Okay. What concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward at this point? AH: You know, that's a great question. I worry about what we don't know. I worry about what we're not looking for that five years, ten years down the road. We wish we would have known when we're doing our investigations now. I worry about the other types of PFAS light chemicals that are out there in our world that we aren't paying enough attention to. But yet they're pervasive-they’re, you know, PFAS is unique in that it has- [clearing throat] it's not only a persistent biocumulative toxin, it’s-we're finding it everywhere. We're finding it in our soils and 6 �our groundwater, in our air, in our-in our bodies. And without a full worldwide response to this and the fact that we are already, you know, consuming so much of this, we expect these-we expect the luxury of our first world country, which includes the use of a ton of PPAS chemicals. How do we turn that expectation around to-to be able to eliminate some of this stuff? And I think that's going to take a long time. And I fear that-[laughs] that the long-term ramifications of what we've allowed to happen in the last 60 years will take, you know, the next 180 years to rectify, because that's-that’s really the big piece. We started using this stuff in the 50s, and it's now 2021, and we're just starting to get our hands around it, and we still don't have federal standards, and we still don't have a national response to this. So those are the kinds of things that-that I worry about. And unfortunately, so far, PFAS has not become-it's a political thing, but it's still getting bipartisan support, which was one thing that, when we started off, when MPART was first established in the fall- in November of 2017, really indirect response to what was happening at Wolverine. Governor Snyder at the time saw what was happening at Wolverine, saw us go from 50 houses to 200 houses to 600 houses and said, okay, we can't have that happening again, set this up. And he kind of threw this MPART structure at us, which, you know, we didn't even, we didn’t realize was coming at the time, it’s all being done at the governor’s level. But it is really what has shaped us. And so, one of the things that we were pretty careful about doing when we were going out and doing neighborhood meetings, when we were going out and doing town halls, was we included all of the legislators because, you know, Senator McGregor at the time, Peter McGregor, was, again, very involved because this was his neighborhood. These were his people. These were his neighbors as well. As well as Kevin Green, who is Algoma supervisor again, very-very involved. And so, that kind of-that kind of legislative personal stories was taken back to the legislature and was really the reason that we were able to get some of the first pots of dedicated PFAS money for response. And so that next year, then in 2018, the legislature actually gave the state, you know, 25 million to handle some of the PFAS response. We were able to go out and do statewide drinking water sampling for all the municipal systems, which is huge. Nobody ese-I don't think anyone else in that some of the other States are just starting to do that. But we were the only one, and I think we still are the only one that has consistently gone through and done all of our municipal water supplies. We've done all of our daycares. We've done all of our schools, we’ve done-you know we're working on all the type twos and type three water supplies. And so that was huge step forward in what Michigan-so we've taken the situation that started with Wolverine, started with this one community. It's expanded now to making MPART really be at the forefront of what's going on for PFAS across the whole country. So now we're getting-we’re getting asked, how do you do this? How do you make this happen? And for me, MPART is one of those things that I think again is a once in a lifetime opportunity because we have an opportunity to be collaborative with and cut off all of the normal chain of command type of situations that you have with state government or you have with any 7 �government and really go to the experts in each of the departments. So, we have seven different departments that are all participating in MPART. Eagle, Department of Health and Human Services, DNR, our Department of Military Veterans Affair for all their bases. We have our fire Marshal, we have our Department of Transportation who handles all the airports, and I'm missing one. There's one more. [laughs] Anyway, we bring all of that team together, and we meet with them weekly. We're all in the same room together, at least weekly, talking about things because, you know, has become very evident. As with our airports, PFAS is much used in all of our firefighting foam, which the airports have to use for airplane crash and rescue. And so, they trained with it. So, we've got large parts of the state with pretty high concentrations from what we call AAFES. But that coordination has to happen with everybody because you got people out there taking surface water samples, taking groundwater samples. DOT actually regulates the airport themselves. You've got Eagle regulating all the media contamination. But you’ve got-in some cases, you've got DNR who may have migratory birds that end up on the airport. You know, they end up in their holding ponds. There's all these weird connections that go in there. But the thing that's so successful about it is that collaboration, that communication, that coordination happens in a structure that is set on top of-it’s like an umbrella that sits on top of the state government and allows us to do and leverage really great work at an exponential rate beyond what we would normally be able to do. If you have to work through a normal chain of command, you can't have those conversations. So, it's almost like what we did in Wolverine with actually getting into the neighborhood, talking to the people one on one, only flipped and reversed. So now we're getting into those agencies and talking one on one with, what do we need to do with Peacocks? What do we need to do? What's our next steps? Where do we need to go as a state, as a country, as a world? And so, I'm very proud of the fact that we're going to continue those personal conversations and keep those things going on. One of the things that we're doing this winter is having our second PFA- Great Lakes PFAS conference. So last year, we were able to have about 1600 participants, all online, but we had three different countries, 35 different States. We had presenter from Germany, we had presenters from Australia, and it was a way to have that conversation about what's going on with KBAs. What do we know? What don't we know? So, this year, same thing. We're going to do another virtual conference in December, and my hopes are that-that we can continue that conversation about where do we need to go with PFAS? I think some of the big unknowns are still, what does it mean to have PFAS concentrations in soil? If-if it's an okay concentration for soil, that it won't Leach to groundwater, is it an okay concentration that it can't be taken up into plants, or that it can't be taken up into the silage for the cows, and then it doesn't get into the milk. So, there's a whole lot more that we don't know. I mean, I think we've just hit the tip of the iceberg for what we do know about PFAS. And so, when I think about what's to come, we've still got a long, long ways. But I think we've at least at the state level, I'm very proud of the work that 8 �we've been able to do. And the [laughs] you know how you-the old expression is, you never get more than you can handle. God doesn't allow you to handle more than he-he thinks you can handle. So what-what was allowed, what we went through for that whole experience with Wolverine has really shaped not only our state responses, but also the way that hopefully we can go forward, because I think the best thing that we can do for PFAS, the best thing we can do for our state, and for our Great Lake States, especially is to make sure that we continue to have those conversations around collaboration of data, collaboration of responses. What do we know, you know, what's truly a fluorine free foam? We've got a lot more conversations that are going on behind the scenes. DD: Absolutely. Before we wrap up, is there anything else that you would like to add that we haven't touched on today or anything you'd like to go back to and say more about? AH: You know, I don't know that there's anything in particular that sticks out. I think that this will this particular experience with Wolverine will always be one of those special experiences in a lot of different ways. But I think-what, you know, for me, it's not just been a project. It's about the people. I’m very much a people person. And so, when I think about getting to know the people around the area who have been most impact, I think of Sandy Windstalt and I think of Jenny Kearney, and we've gotten to know the people on our Community Advisory group or the Wolverine [keg?] very well. A lot of those people then stepped up and are not just concerned about Wolverine but their also now actually participating on our statewide citizens advisory work group, that I’m now chairing as well. So, they’re the people that are great voices in the room to be able to provide perspective. 9 � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0025 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hendershott, Abigail Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-08-13 Title A name given to the resource Abigail Hendershott, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Abby Hendershott is originally from Bay City, Michigan and now lives in Rockford, Michigan. In this interview, Abby discusses her work as a District Supervisor in relation to the PFAS water contamination at former Wolverine dumping sites. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/25c314b9654a34509ff2c59a7c874a46.mp4 3a79e52cea8d4d954d85b9f2b7d67179 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6406ae1b9118fd892e2c0cb2d2a8d8df.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 � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 can be attributed 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. Lemmen Library and 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/836a13c38e936443effbf5034abd889f.mp4 e2af5c96a3d378d8ac6f7a99f8896749 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/20900ff7830055b61eb8f83574a068d6.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 � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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. Lemmen Library and 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/61541d81fa10a4026050495269a8ed4c.mp4 df058693fe8bb74efc52e954f902362a https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b9617f94af9f55e5e2c52076e7677866.pdf dcce55740b9c6ab4cc3c6f82517932ac PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewer: Dani Devasto Interviewee: Beth Markesino Date: June 3rd, 2021 [PFAS0010audio] DD: I’m Dani Devasto, and today, June 3rd, 2021, I have the pleasure of chatting with Beth Markesino. Hi Beth. BM: Hi. DD: Beth, can you tell me about where you're from and where you currently live? BM: Okay, I am originally from Grosse Pointe, Michigan and I live now in Wilmington, North Carolina. DD: And how long have you lived in Wilmington? BM: Gosh, about 7 ½ years, now. Yeah, about that. Yeah, somewhere around there. [chuckles] DD: Tell me a story, Beth, about your experience with PFAS, or with PFAS in your community. BM: [sighs] Oh gosh, okay. Story about P- I would probably start off with my contamination story, and, just, how I found out about our contamination. And that was basically- In 2016, I was a marathon runner, you could see, like, all my medals back here as a marathon runner. As a marathon runner, you drink loads and loads of water, you know, I would run with, like, a camel back, you know, and, just, chugging my water along. And in Wilmington, it's, like, great weather, so you can run, like, all year round and it's awesome. And in April of 2016, I ran, like, two marathons back-to-back a week apart, likeDD: [chuckles] BM: -full marathons, like, 26.2 miles. I was in, like, the best shape of my life, you know, I was, I would say, 37 at the time, you know, so it was just, like- I was feeling really good at that time of my life, you know. Wilmington is a beach community, and my daughter, at the time, I think she was about two and a half at the time, and so I was just enjoying life, you know. My husband had great job and we had just moved here not that long prior to that, and, yeah, I had no idea that the water that I was drinking was contaminated. And so, just after running those back-to-back marathons, I got pregnant with my son, Samuel, and it wasn't a pregnancy that we planned, but we were, like, over the moon to have, like, a second child. And, like I said, I was in the best shape of my life, like, health wise and with, just, everything. And the pregnancy was going great, I mean, even though I was, like, 37, I was still, [laughs] you know, in good shape, even though they say, like, “oh, you're older,” I was still in good shape, and everything was going great in my pregnancy until it was, like, 21 weeks of pregnancy. 1 �I got a very sharp pain in my stomach and it was on a Wednesday and I called up my OBGYN (Obstetrician-Gynecologist), and at first I thought, like, maybe it was just gas or something. And my OBGYN told me to come in, and I brought my daughter in with me and usually, you know, when you go to the OBGYN they talk with you and you're all chit-chatty and stuff, and they were, just, like, really, really serious. And then I remember the ultrasound tech, like, ran out of the room and grabbed the doctor, and the doctor came back in and was doing, like, the ultrasound on my stomach, and then, like, told me, like, you have next-to no amniotic fluid. And it was just, like, at that time I remember, like, feeling the room and it was, like, so, like, bitter cold and, like, looking over and seeing my daughter, and she was, like, on my phone, like, watching a YouTube video. And I, like, I can remember, like, everything that happened at that exact moment, you know, it was, like, frozen in time. And she said, you have next-to no amniotic fluid, you have to get to the hospital, like, right now. And I couldn't cry. I had no idea what any of this meant, and I just got in my car, took my daughter home and my neighbors took her, and then they rushed me to the hospital where my husband met us. And then once we went to the hospital, that's when they told us that my son, Samuel, was going to die, that he hadn’t developed his kidneys, bladder, or bowel. And then they started, like, pumping me full of water. They kept, like, filling up, like, a mauve pitcher of water and, like, kept me on bed rest and, just, having me drink more and more water. And, again, we had no idea that the water that I was drinking was contaminated. We had no idea that that water had, like, the highest levels of GenX, like, recorded, but it wasn't like public knowledge. We had no idea that we had, like, over 50 different PFAS chemicals in our water. Like, I had no idea that I was, like, poisoning my unborn son, you know? I had no idea, like, the health effects that are along with PFAS chemicals to an unborn child, you know? And then, so, they kept me on bed rest, and they kept giving me water, trying to raise, like, my amniotic levels, and we couldn't get them raised, and Samuel just kept getting, like, worse. So then I went to a specialist at Duke University a couple of weeks later, and, at that time, I had placenta previa, which meant if I gave birth to Samuel natural, that I was going to bleed out, and Samuel then had, like, water around his heart, and his heart was, like, failing and stuff. So then, because we're originally from Michigan, we decided to come back to Michigan, and the doctor said I had to give birth to Samuel. And we came back to Michigan and the doctors, then, at Harper University in Detroit checked Samuel out and everything was exactly the same as they said in North Carolina, and so I gave birth to Samuel. I had to do a Cesarean and they had to cut me, like, both ways so, you know, I wouldn't bleed out, and it was, like, it was so awf- I literally felt like I was dying and, but Samuel, like, was dying, and we got to hold him, and we got to baptize him. We had our priest from our old parish came to the hospital, and our family all got to hold him, and we got to bury him at our family's plot. And we had no idea what was to come, what we were to learn, you know. Me and my husband then came home from Michigan, and was just trying to heal from losing our son, you know, especially because it was, like, I was healthy, you know, I had a healthy daughter, you know, we just – the doctors had done one of those DNA tests, and there was no markers or anything like that, and they just couldn't figure out what it was that had gone wrong. 2 �And so, Samuel had passed away on October 19th, 2016, and then on June – it's almost four years now- And, June 7th, 2017 was when we found out about our GenX contamination, and it was like front page news. It was, like, GenX and the Cape Fear River, and it was everywhere. It was like that phrase was, like, over and over again, you know? GenX and the Cape Fear River, GenX and the Cape Fear River. And because I lived in Michigan prior, I had experience with water contamination. I had volunteered working on the Flint water contamination. Even though I didn't live in Flint, I would drive from Grosse Pointe to Flint and volunteer at the Catholic charities and help them out. So, I knew a bit about water contamination, even though it wasn't PFAS, but I did know some information. So then when I heard about that we had a water contamination, it was, like, – I was shocked, but then once it became public in the newspaper, it was, like, I knew that this had to be going on for a long time and that the public was just finding out. So, it's, like, “Okay, how long has this been going on for us just to find out,” and – so then, at that time, I created a Facebook page which now we have, like, over 10,000, I think, members, and so that people in my community could go to find out information about GenX and, I – it's unbelievable, the lies and deceits that DuPont and Chemours has spun to make a profit off of poisoning people in not only my community, but communities globally. And, PFAS is just, or GenX, is just one chemical in a class of over 5,000 that are unregulated. And when I found out about our contamination, I remember going to a city hall meeting, and standing in front of our governor and other elected officials and telling them that they need to warn our community members and pregnant women about the harm of these chemicals, and they need to bring in bottled water, and- but, yet, our elected officials did not see that there was enough data or information about GenX to put out any alerts, or even bring in bottled water. Because the thing is, is that GenX is a new chemical, and because it's a new chemical, companies like DuPont and Chemours, they can use this chemical until the health information is out there showing that it causes harm. And, back in 2012, there was a chemical called C8, and they were told- DuPont was told by the EPA because they knew of the health effects and that it causes harm to pregnant women, and also to – causes liver cancer, it causes kidney problems, it causes, just, high cholesterol, all of these things. And so, the EPA said, “You can no longer use C8 anymore,” and DuPont said, “Okay, that's fine,” but then they ended up taking C8 and they just added an extra oxygen molecule, and that’s how they created GenX and was able to call it a whole new chemical and now it's - instead of a of a Long-Chain Perfluorinated Chemical, it’s a short chain. And even though it supposedly leaves our systems a lot faster than, like, a long-chain chemical, we're finding out that it causes a lot more harm than shorter chain perfluorinated chemicals do. And, I mean, it's really scary, you know? It's [pause], like, our department of environmental qualities, they knew about all of these chemicals for years and years. They never told the public. There were lawsuits, there was all of these spills and things like that. The public, like, never knew. Never knew. They knew the health effects. The public never knew. I mean, they knew there was- they allowed Chemours and DuPont to self-monitor the waste-water. I mean, it's, like – and nothing was done until, you know, 2017 when angry moms like myself just said, “Wait a minute, these are toxic chemicals in our water, and they cause all these health effects. Why aren't you doing anything?” 3 �And for, like, a long time, people looked at me as a crazy mom who lost a child and wondered if, like, these chemicals caused, you know, this harm to my son. And then we have some of the most world-renowned scientists in our field in North Carolina, and then we're having people like Dr. Detlef Knappe, Dr. Jaimie Dewitt, Dr. Hopkins, all coming out and supporting that saying, you know, these chemicals pass through the placenta to the child and it's, like, here's that information, here's that data, you know, that supports it, you know? And we're having so many other mothers coming forward and saying, “Yeah, I lost a child too. I wonder if this happened to me,” or, you know, and it's – even since then, since losing Samuel, I – my cyst, or I got cysts on my ovaries the size of oranges, and I had to get a full hysterectomy, at, I believe- I think I was, like, 39 when I got a full hysterectomy. So it was like, I can't have any more children, I have a tumor on my adrenal gland right now, and I have problems with my thyroid and my parathyroid. I have, like, cysts and nodules, like, all on them right now, and, like, my levels are just all over the place, and I have high cholesterol. I never had any of these things like years ago. Ever, you know. Like I said, I was always in, like, such great shape, and I take good care of my health, but it's these chemicals that are in our environment, here, at such high levels, and it takes years to get them out of our bodies. And it's just- it's nothing I did or anybody else did, but it's, just, these chemicals need to be regulated, and our elected officials need to be looking out for our communities and our health and our environment. And, another thing is, is even as citizens- I remember when I learned about our PFAS contamination, I remember thinking that we need to be more active about what's going on in our lives instead of just listening to what a politician says and “oh, he's for the environment. Okay, well, I'm just going to vote for him” and then thinking that he's going to do his job, you know, and I think as citizens, we need to be more proactive and not just think that politicians are going to do this job, because a lot of them don't. They say that they're going to do environmental things and they say that on their platform, but they never follow through on that, you know? So, I just really think that, as a community, we have that power to get that – get these regulations pushed forward. And I mean, I've seen this in my own life that, I mean, I don't have any scientific degree, you know. For a long-time people would say, “Oh, she's just a mom,” but you know what? I would go to all of DEQ’s meetings, Department of Environmental Qualities, I would go to their meetings, and I would speak in front of scientists. And I mean, I read- every single day, I read scientific papers and you could figure out the, you know, the language, [chuckles] you know, you read enough papers, you know, you'll understand it. And I speak at forums, and I go to our utilities meetings, and I speak to them about what our communities want and what we're seeing, and I address those concerns as a community activist. I'm even working right now to get a grant for a study for filters for our community and it's- and I talk a lot with our local senators about fighting for regulations for our state because states like Michigan, they already have regulations on the book, and so does New Jersey and New York, but we don't in North Carolina we don't have any regulations for PFAS. We do for GenX, at 140 parts per trillion, but we don't have anything for PFAS yet, so it's just really – there isn't anything that says as a resident that you can't go to these meetings, you can't speak up for yourself because you're being poisoned, you know, and you do have a say in all of this, you know, you really do. I mean, I have a daughter, she's going to be nine years old, you know? I mean, she’s – I already lost one child and I can't lose another, you know, and I want to make this world a better place for her. I want to solve this 4 �contamination, and stop these chemicals and future chemicals, because I know companies like DuPont and Chemours, they're always one step ahead with creating something new to replace, you know, a chemical and things like that. So I don't want my daughter to have to pick up this battle in the future, you know, I'm really hopeful that this is something that I can help solve within my lifetime, you know, as something for her and her generation so that they don't have to then fight, you know? But I then know that she's exposed too, she has these chemicals in her body, you know? We do have a GenX study going on. It's the first ever GenX study, and I've had my blood tested, I've had my urine tested, I've had my water tested, and I do have high levels of these chemicals in my blood. And so, I can say that, you know, I know that these chemicals are in my blood, and even though my son was never tested for them, it's like, if these chemicals were in my blood, then they did pass through the placenta to my son, and so it's just – I do this, everything I do in fighting for clean water and regulations, it's as for my son, it's for my daughter, it's for my community. And it's like, I can't get back my son or my ovaries [chuckles], you know, unfortunately, but maybe I can prevent somebody in the future from being exposed to these chemicals if I speak up, you know? DD: You've kind of started to answer my next question. BM: [chuckles] Yeah, sorry, I was – [chuckles] DD: No, it’s okay, I'm loving listening to your story. So if you don't have anything more to say in response to this question that’s fineBM: Yeah. [chuckles] DD: -but maybe you could say a little bit more about the concerns that you have about PFAS contamination moving forward. BM: Yeah, yeah, it's- the contamination moving forward is – regulating PFAS as a class is huge, so, like, in our state we have PFOA and- regulated at 70 parts per trillion. So those are just, likewe have two chemicals, you know, regulated. And so, we have to regulate everything as a class because there are so, so many chemicals under that, like, one umbrella. Yeah, and, I mean, we've already seen with a case of GenX, that DuPont and Chemours will make more replacements. And so if we don't regulate them as a class, then it's, like- it's trying to catch them in their own little game and the little loopholes of- and trying to regulate those chemicals. So, it's really, yeah. Regulating them as a class and holding them accountable for any potential new chemicals that they can use because they're very good at manipulating the system and finding loopholes in doing what they do. I mean, a lot of times Chemours, here, like, they say- at first they said that GenX was a byproduct of another chemical, you know, a lot of the chemicals that are- that we're finding in the Cape Fear River are new chemicals that are not on their discharge permit. And, they just keep saying, well, that's a by-product of another chemical. That's a by-product. And these are, like, PFMOAA (perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid), like, these are all chemicals that we're, like, “Wait, 5 �we don't know much about this chemical,” you know? So, it's just, like, our scientists here in North Carolina, keep finding, like, new and new, like, PFAS in our river. And then it's just, like, finding out, like, okay, well, what are these health effects? You know? And it's, like, this toxic, like, soup of chemicals. And it's, like, what are the combined effects of all of these chemicals that we don't know? So, it's just really regulating them as a class, stopping any new chemicals being introduced into production, really, because there shouldn't- they shouldn't need 5,000 chemicals. [chuckles] I mean, like, come on for, you know, sticky stuff [both laugh]. I mean, like, you know what I mean? Stop the slide off. [both laugh] Why do you need 5,000 different ones? You know? I mean, like, me personally, I mean, isn't one enough, I don't know. [both laugh] Can't one do the job? I don't know why you need 5,000 different ones, so it's, yeah, so it’s just really- That's what I really think it comes down to is just stopping all of that. DD: Before we wrap up, is there anything else that you would like to add that we haven't touched on today, or anything you'd like to go back to? BM: Just really a lot that- a lot of people – I remember when we found out that our community was contaminated. Some people had said, “No, our- we're not contaminated because, you know, that couldn't happen to us, we're not like Flint.” That's what people had said: “We're not like Flint. We're not, like, a low-income community,” or that's what people had thought. And water contaminations do not discriminate. It can happen to anybody anywhere. And if we tested everybody's water, they probably have some level of some type of contamination, so it can happen to anybody. And it's a shame that this is happening and I hate that it’s happening to my community, but it's a wakeup call for everybody. And, I mean, I'm sure if we tested your water, you would have PFAS and your water, lead, I mean, just high fluoride, just, a lot of different chemicals and, just, I just want everybody to know that it could happen to anybody. And if you got that call that yes, you have a water contamination, that it's your turn, then, to speak up about it and do something for your community to stop it because these chemicals are very harmful and it's not just some- it's just not some- I want to say it's not just some type of, like, person that's crying wolf that these – you know, sometimes people say, “Oh, it's just some hippie person talking about these chemicals being harmful.” No, it's scientific data that this is truthful, you know, these chemicals are harmful to you. There's data that supports it, and it really can happen to anybody, and it is. If we test water across the globe it’s probably in everybody's water. And these- DuPont, 3M, Chemours, we have to stop these corporations. I mean, my family in Michigan, like throughout Michigan, I have family in Wixom. They're contaminated. I have family in Gaylord, in Grayling. They're contaminated, you know? And I think about them all the time, that no matter where my family is, whether it's in North Carolina or in Michigan, they're dealing with the same thing I am. They have contaminated water. I mean, I grew upwhen I was younger, I grew up in Warren, and we had a 3M facility just down the road from us, across Eight Mile. And I remember, oh, 3M, like, the tape, you know, never thought anything about PFAS until now – I'm thinking, “Wow, I wonder how much of my early exposure did I get from that facility?” You know? DD: Mhm. 6 �BM: So, it's just- it's this buildup, you know. How many times did I go to my grandma's house in Wixom, and did I get exposed at her house to PFAS, too? You know, it's like that build up through the years. And then on top of it, my long exposure here to just so many PFAS. So, it's, yeah, it can happen anywhere, a contamination, and nobody is exempt from being contaminated, you know? It's in your food, it's in your clothing, it's in your beauty products, and we have to do something to stop being exposed to these chemicals, you know? DD: Mhm. Yeah. Well, thank you so much, Beth, for taking the time to share your story today. BM: [chuckles] Thank you. I hope I covered everything. I'm very passionate about stopping this PFAS and GenX. Just, I've seen too much happening in my community and, like, in my own life, you know, I mean, it's just been – it's hard when, like, you have to take- I have to take so much medication daily and go to so many doctor's appointments, and still I fight, [chuckles] you know, because that's all I know now is to fight for clean water. You know, it’s become my life now, you know? And, I know, just, so many other people, that's what they're doing too. So many people are called water warriors, because that's what they are. They're, just, they're having the same thing happen to them. Their families are sick, too, from these chemicals, [chuckles] so, and I hope that you get to talk to all of my friends too and hear their stories because they're all just so brave and doing some great things and fighting. So, but thank you so much. [chuckles] I’m like, crying. DD: Well, we know how important water is, and, so, thank you for the work that you're doing. BM: Thank you. I appreciate it. [chuckles] 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0010 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Markesino, Beth Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-06-03 Title A name given to the resource Beth Markesino, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Beth Markesino lives in Wilmington, North Carolina and is an avid runner. In her interview, she discusses the impact PFAS contamination has had on her life and health, and that of her son Samuel. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/4584a08af3877edd2c552c594af6a135.mp4 502a957b3518dee8a5ec857cb1eb750b https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ef91903aafff181b946c400aef5d06f5.pdf f3c941f94a96ee70e899b460c8a5fb33 PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Brian Steglitz Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: October 8, 2021 Dani DeVasto: I’m Dani DeVasto and today, October 8, 2021, I have the pleasure of chatting with Brian Steglitz. Hi Brian! Brian Steglitz: How are you? DD I’m fine, how are you? BS: Good! DD: Brian, can you tell me about where you’re from and where you currently live? BS: So, I originally grew up in New Jersey, and have lived in several different locations. I was working in Washington D.C. for a consulting firm before I moved to Michigan 25 years ago to take a job with the city of Ann Arbor, as their weather treatment services engineer, so I’ve been here since 1997, currently live in Ann Arbor, I am president of our water system, too, and currently serving as the manager of the water treatment services unit for the city. DD: Alright. Brian, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS, or with PFAS in your community? BS: Uhh sure, so for us it really started back in 2014 when we had to sample this drinking water as part of a safe drinking water act requirement, part of the monitoring rule, which is part of what EPA looks at for evaluating emerging contaminants. So we had data from our water system dating back to 2014 but we didn’t hear anything about it for several years. You know, EPA comes up with lists of these things, utilities typically don’t know what the health issues are, or really much about these, we just know that these are what they want data on so we continue to investigate and explore. So, it wasn’t until probably 2016, 2017 it sort of started to become more, the media picked up on some of these contaminants, the environmental working group did a piece on utilities across the country that had PFAS in them, the water in Ann Arbor was featured there, there was a news article that, “There are poisons in the city of Ann Arbor’s water,” and the next thing I knew is Channel 7 news was showing up at our doorstep, wanting to interview me about what we’re doing about these poisons in our waters. So, it was sort of a trial by fire, we had no, we really didn’t have any information about what these things are, what they did. No real indication that the levels we had were or were not problematic, so I mean, once again the media sort of dictated the conversation so at that point we were really scrambling. So we began to do our homework and understand what the science was around these chemicals and where is this coming from, you know you, and back at that time, a lot of the contamination associated PFAS was groundwater related in airport bases, it’s used as part of firefighting foam, so A-FFF is a common thing sprayed on fires in our airports, it can get into groundwater, we actually have 2 sources of water for our water supply, the first one being huron river, and the second one being wells, and the wells are on our Ann Arbor airport property, so we were like, “Let’s go, let’s sample the groundwater and then we can figure out what we can do about it, we can replace the FFF that’s at the airport with a safer firefighting foam, maybe that will take care of the issue. So this is what was going through our minds, originally the samples that we were �doing were regulatory sampling, it was just in our finished water, so we didn’t know what the source was, so we were just checking what the finished water contains. So it turns out it wasn’t our well water, our wellwater had non-detectable levels of PFAS, so we were like, “Wow, that’s really weird,” and we were at that point, no one had heard of any contamination levels associated with PFAS, so we started to explore and we measured it, and it was in the heron river. We started doing some analytical testing and we went upstream and we were trying to see where, was there a certain distance upstream, does it just disappear, like can we find out where maybe it’s getting into the watershed? And we might’ve gone up maybe ten miles north of Ann Arbor in our watershed, and we just continued to see it at similar concentrations, so there’s this background, on the river? We really didn’t know where it was going, we started engaging conversations with the state of Michigan, they ended up putting together a really robust sampling unit, and they went way upstream, like they went over 50 miles upstream, and they quickly found that there is a creek entering the huron river that is 50 miles upstream that had extremely high levels of PFAS. I think at the time it was tens of thousands of parts per trillion, and just to give you a magnitude, we were seeing like somewhere between 50 to 100 parts per trillion of total PFAS at our intake down in Ann Arbor, so it it was getting into the river at tens of thousands, then being diluted as it mixed in with the main stretch of the river, so then they started exploring this creek, so what’s coming in from this creek? The wixam waters treat plant empties their discharge into this creek, so their affluent was sampled, extremely high levels of PFAS. So anyway, to make a longer story shorter, it ended up that there is a manufacturing company that called Tribar, who manufactures parts for the auto industry and they use PFAS containing chemicals as part of their suppressant to protect their workers, and it’s in their wastewater, and it’s all over their property, so it’s getting into their storm drains, and so they were, they’re probably the source of at least 50% of the PFAS that we see in Ann Arbor. So this took a while, this wasn’t something we discovered right away, this was maybe years in as we went through this investigation. So the state began to intervene, they’re out of our jurisdiction so we had little control, and there’s also limited to no regulation, so there were some health advisory levels at this time, but no regulation, so a lot of this was just collaborative work, like, “are there things you can do?” so the polluter was not very responsive to taking any voluntary action, so it took some litigation involving attorney, and consent degrees to eventually implement some changes, and in subsequently they put in some treatment on their discharges that go to the wixam plant and now there are guidelines for the wastewater, that comes out or wixam that gets to the river, unfortunately they’re still out of line with what the drinking water standards are, so we are still responsible for taking out PFAS from our source water, which I think is very unfortunate, because customers in Ann Arbor are paying for PFAS remediation which should be handled, but that’s the philosophical discussion, but it is part of our story, and it’s something that I’m still fighting for, and I think we should be looking at this more holistically at a water shed level and make sure that there is alignment, they’re putting it in, I think they should be responsible for taking it out, so my customers don’t have to deal with it. So that’s the story of how it got into the system. Through this time a lot of other things have happened, also. So, there was Sconan Michigan where they had some surface water bodies that had this very bright white foam accumulating, and there were some stories about PFAS accumulating in the foam, and it’s a health issue and people should stay away from it, well, we operate and maintain four dams on the river, and as the water cascades over these dams, foam is generated, and in some cases �there’s standing foam on the river, and one of my bright ideas is, “Let’s sample this, just to make sure that there’s not high concentrations of PFAS, and of course where you look you will find, and we found PFAS in the high tens of thousands of parts per trillion, and in foam sitting in the heron river where we have people recreate. So we share this information with the state and people were just freaking out, because no one had had done this type of sampling in this type of environment, so very quickly, all the health departments in the state were together in a meeting explaining our situation to them and we’re deciding, “What do we do about this,” and in parallel with this, the state was taking samples from fish that were living in the heron, and analyzing them for PFAS, and very quickly we finding that there were hundreds of thousands of parts per trillion in certain species of fish, so they’re just trying to deal with all these different issues, we have the drinking water issues, we have the environmental exposure issues, so very soon there was a “do not eat fish” advisory and it still exists, due to PFAS along the huron river and we have a lot of anglers who fish. Ann Arbor also has the largest livery in the state of Michigan, in terms of people, and we have people who canoe and kayak and paddleboard across all these areas where we have accumulated foam. So subsequently to this there was a “do not eat foam” advisory, and we never thought that people were coming to Ann arbor just to eat foam, but we had to post signage to reflect that risk and people had dogs swimming in there keep them away, so it became a big thing where we were dealing with this from a lot of different places. We eventually tested things like our compost and we found PFAS in our compost and there’s still really not a clear direction that has been given to customers that are using this. If you’re putting your compost into your vegetable garden, there’s a chance of getting some uptake in your food, so should we post the PFAS levels, and what does that mean? Are there hazards? We’re still dealing with this evolving issue, and it’s not just a drinking water issue, it’s a community issue. I think we’re been very transparent about how we handle this and sharing data with our community and we’ve been very upfront about talking about it even when we didn’t have the answers and I think that this has built up a lot of trust in our communities. We completely revamped our public strategies once this hit because if you look at our media coverage of Ann Arbor in 2016-17, it was all about poisons. This is not the type of coverage you want as a drinking water utility. You want people to be drinking your water, and if they’re not, you can’t serve them. So we hired somebody to help with this conversation, so we rebranded the utility because of PFAS, and we developed a new logo. We have this URL that’s called qualitywatermatters.org and we use that to talk about this issue. Quality associated with us was really important to us. If you look at how the community has responded after several years, we’ve completely changed the perspective on Ann Arbor water, and we’re seen as a leader, we’ve participated with the state, I’ve testified on PFAS in congress. We are seen as (Audio cuts out) Ann Arbor Handle it. We have a newsletter called quality water matters and we have as close to real time information as we can, that we send out monthly. Normally we’d submit our report yearly, six months into the next one, so the data is old, but now it’s every month, with these emerging contaminants. It’s been a big part of what I’ve been dealing with these past several years, but I think we’ve learned a lot and we’ve done a really good job of dealing with a problem that was fatal to the water. We’re on the cusp of a $100M water improvement plan and we need to get community support for this. This is the largest water system project in history of Ann Arbor, and right now what we’re finding is that one of the alternatives is connecting to Grand Rapids water authority. Should we maintain water autonomy or should we join with the �water system and make the investments in Ann Arbor? Our township customers in Ann arbor township are all saying we’re able to deal with these water threats. We want to keep control of the water system, and 5 years ago they wouldn’t have said that, so being transparent tells them we’re able to handle this, which helps. We’ve been part of research. We’ll do whatever we do to make our water drinkable, and I want people to know we’re looking for solutions for everyone in the water community. We have pilot systems we’ve set up to study how to better remove these, with types of filtering media, exchange resins, things that we don’t have at our plant, we’re building and looking at capabilities to remove these, and we’ll be publishing this, so we’re part of the solution, developing answers. DD: That’s awesome, that’s inspiring, so it really sounds like you’ve been busy! BS: We’ve been busy, yeah! DD: So you mentioned before, you kind of told the story of how the PFAS got into the water, can you say anything about how it’s now getting out? BS: So we quickly started to look at the tools in our toolbox, and we already had an inland water river. In Michigan, that’s unusual, we’re surrounded by the great lakes, there’s a lot of groundwater, but an inland river has very significant water quality variability because it rains and the water river could change rapidly, so our plant is probably the most complex in Michigan, so we already had a lot of technology to deal with stuff like this, so we have filters that contain grano activated carbon, that’s probably the best available thing that can remove PFAS, but we weren’t using the right medium, a different type of carbon. There’s lots of variables, and we settled with one, and we used it for all of it, and it took a couple of years. Our filters are mixed media, they have sand and carbon. Sand is a marble, but carbon has a bigger surface area, and PFAS will stick to it, and the carbon will absorb the PFAS and other things, so you have to replace it, which we already did. Once we started doing that, we looked at how long it would take, so we started sampling filters to predict the life expectancy, which while costly, helps. So we settled on a 2 year life, increasing costs by 3K a year. It used to be landfilled, but we’ve been working to regenerate it, cooking the carbon to get rid of the PFAS, one of the best ways to destroy it. They bring it back to us so we can reuse it. We’ve made some graphs for the community about PFAS and how we want to keep from landfilling because that doesn’t help the environment. PFAS strains are different, some we’re able to remove, but not the smaller ones, because the bigger ones will kick them off to stick instead through competitive absorption. We’ll get pretty good removal of all the big ones, the ones we know the most about, but the shorter ones will be coming to. Looking into the future, we’re keeping an eye on what we can do about these little ones, and the public health impacts. This is not going away, we’re still learning, and we’re just trying to stay one step ahead of science so we can be prepared. DD: Well, it sounds like you guys are doing a lot of really good work, and being really proactive which is really nice to hear! So, you did hint at my other question about moving forward, are those the two that you would say, or did you want to add anything else? �BS: I’m concerned about our ability to deal with this that our current tools don’t have and the challenge of making affordable safe water depending upon what the rules are. There is a cost element. We could regulate something at a low level, but nothing exists to do that, so seeing how technology develops for this, and there’s a lot of research and money, and the university of Michigan is looking at using plasmas, I don’t quite understand it, but there’s a lot going on trying to figure out the best solution is. To me, it’s very clear what the best solution is, which is keeping it out of the environment. We’re lobbying the EPA about the toxic substances control act as they look at new poisons, we need to be looking at this ahead of time as opposed to afterwords, which has been the biggest flaw. We need to prevent them from getting in the environment before we do anything, so we’re pusing EPA to use existing tools to protect all of us. DD: For sure. So before we wrap up, is there anything else you’d like to add that we haven’t touched on or anything you’d like to say more about? BS: I don’t think so, unless there’s anything I missed. DD: I very much enjoyed listening to your story and all the work that you’re doing, so thank you so much, Brian, for taking the time to share your story today. BS: You’re welcome. � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0032 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Steglitz, Brian Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-10-08 Title A name given to the resource Brian Steglitz, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Brian Steglitz moved to Michigan in the late 1990s and currently lives in Ann Arbor. Brian is the manager of the city's water treatment services. In the interview, Steglitz discusses work and response to the presence of PFAS contaminants in the water. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/abb100d30c73b82a187bbf4d334e65cf.mp4 b9bb1b7b937a5a4448554a0f168554ef https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/04b07625422151fcecd8a258aca09db3.pdf b50f9ed446a5081bcadcc81b13b86ef6 PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Cathy Wusterbarth Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: September 22, 2021 DD: I’m Dani DeVasto and today July 13th, 2021, I have the pleasure of chatting with Cathy Wusterbarth. Hi Cathy. CW: Hi Dani! DD: Cathy, can you tell me about where you’re from and where you currently live? CW: Sure! I’m from Oscoda, Michigan which is in Northeast Michigan. We’re on Lake Huron and it is a coastal tourist town, and it has a former work smith airport base in the area which was decommissioned in 1993. So, I’m born and raised here. I did move away for about 20 years, went to North Carolina. But now I’m back and this is where my heart and soul is. DD: Can you tell me, Cathy, a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in your community? CW: Well, Dani, that's a tough question [chuckles] because there are so many different experiences I've had since 2016, when I first heard the word or acronym PFAS in our community. We were told that there were community members or residents that were sent a notice that said that they couldn’t – they shouldn't drink their well water. So the state of Michigan held some town halls so that they could educate the community on, first of all, what are PFAS? Not many people know what they are until they are told they have it in their water or it's you know, in their bodies. So, the town halls were created, and we had lots of community members that, that came and had lots of questions, and some were angry because they were unknowingly contaminated with these substances. So, so, I managed to just listen and hear what the concerns were of the community members. I do believe that I was exposed to PFAS while I was growing up in Oscoda this picture that is behind me is an image from the Lake that I was a lifeguard on for three years. And so, we spent lots of time in the water when I was in my, you know, teenage years. And about five years later, I developed breast cancer and an immunological disease, Rheumatoid arthritis, which could possibly be linked to my exposure to PFAS all those years, and possibly it was in our drinking water source for our community, because the Air Force used the PFAS in their firefighting foam. So, [chuckles] that's sort of the beginning of my involvement with PFAS. When the community had questions and they wanted action, of course, because they wanted these things cleaned up and they didn't want to be exposed to PFAS anymore, we looked to the state. We looked, of course, to the polluter, the Air Force, and had some expectations that they clean it up and maybe test us – test our bodies to see if we had PFAS in them. None of those things have really happened, and that was in 2016. So now we're in 2021, and we've had very little remediation or cleanup of these toxic plumes that are going into our surface water, into our 1 �groundwater, and into the drinking water supply for hundreds of thousands of people in Michigan on Lake Huron. So, we created an action group called Now Need Our Water, and it's comprised of community members, scientists, activists. So, now I'm an activist. Never been one before, but they're called accidental activists. So, that's what I am [chuckles]. We just, we work with legislators, the scientists, the Air Force, the state, the other communities, you know. We've, we’ve joined forces with other impacted communities around the state, around the US and around the world, really. Because PFAS are everywhere, and we will have to deal with them. Everyone will have to deal with them eventually, even though they don't know they're necessarily being exposed. They're produced in such mass quantity and put in so many things that were all being impacted. So that's, that’s just the start of the things that – my experiences with PFAS. We created a 501C3 called Oscoda Citizens for Clean Water, so that we could raise funds and use those for edu[coughs] education, excuse me, and just making sure that everyone knows about the issues. One question I was going to ask you, Dani, was that they’re – we're creating a video, right? Oh gosh. A video so that people can watch this in the future. But we did have a journalist. Her name is a Sara Ganim. She’s a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. She came to Oscoda to hear about our story. She was going to write a little story about what was going on with PFAS. Then she came to one of our meetings with the Air Force, and she saw what was happening and how they were treating us and the – the lack of action that was occurring, and she said to herself, this story needs to be told. So, she produced a movie called No Defense. I can't remember the tagline, but it's like the military's war on water or something like that. But she created this movie and it's been released. But it's about Oscoda and Wurtsmith Air Force Base and the contamination that's occurred from this base. And there are, there are stories told in the movie that are [nervously chuckles] very sad. So, there were many military families that were exposed to these chemicals, of course, because it was in the groundwater [chuckles] underneath their bases. One of the impacted veterans was Craig Meiner. He had a son, Mitchell, who was born in Oscoda at the base hospital. And, subsequently, they found out that he had been affected in Utero by the multiple contaminants, including PFAS. And so, he was severely disabled and just recently passed away. So, Mitchell is a special person for us in [pause], in that we're fighting so that more children are not affected by these chemicals. But Craig continued, Craig and his family continue to work on this cause, and we're hoping that the movie itself will be something that people can look at and learn more about, especially if they’re, they learn about PFAS in their communities. [chuckles] The Meiners are special people. DD: So, you mentioned that you have become an accidental activist. CW: Mhm. DD: Can you tell me more about that? Either how that changed your life or the kinds of things that you've been doing because of coming an accidental activist? CW: [chuckles] Yeah. I started looking into the concerns of my community related to PFAS, because, you know, I just want the best for Oscoda. Again, it's close to my heart, and I think it's a real gem, actually in our state. So, just –I was actually running for office in our community, just 2 �a local elected office. I didn't actually win that election, but it was a blessing in disguise because I probably wouldn't have been able to be an activist in this issue had I won. So, so, I moved my efforts to this issue for our community. So, we, again, I had no activism experience. I didn't know where to turn, or who to ask or who to trust. And over the years have learned, that there are people that you can rely on that are experiencing the same things. So, we have created coalitions and alliances and action networks and all sorts of groups where we can, you know have more power in numbers. So, I've learned a lot. We've met with the activists related to the PBB crisis in Michigan. So, we had a – there was a conference I think it was called PBB to PFAS. So those, those activists were rea helpful in letting us know what their experiences were. It accidentally came about. I'm not an environmentalist. I don’t, you know, I just want the best for my community. And I want these plumes of PFAS that are in our water to be cleaned up. I think it seems pretty simple. DD: Yeah, it does, doesn't it? [chuckles] What is the status of things in Oscoda right now? You mentioned that not a lot of progress has been made? CW: Right. So, in the, let's see... It was reported, I think, in the, in the, the early 2000s that we had these PFAS clones in our groundwater. And so, they implemented a – what's called a filtration system. Granular activated carbon filtration system was placed into one of the most highly contaminated areas on the site. And so, that was implemented in 2013. And they added another filtration system in 2018, maybe 19. So that's two, right, two systems. We need 18 systems. So, we haven't made much progress. And actually, it's been about nine or ten years. Well, no, it's eleven now. The years just keep [both laughing] flying by. So, eleven years now, when we have two filtration systems, we estimate, or it has been estimated that we need about $280,000,000 to address just this one military site. So, you can see why it's been such a problem for the Department of Defense. If they start, and they told us this, if they start with their remediation and with their actions here, they have to be replicated at all of those other military sites. And now we're working on 600 plus sites that have been identified. DD: So, it seems like your situation, Oscoda situation, because of its connection with the former military base, is, is unique or is complicated in that, say, other locations are not. Is that fair to say? CW: No that, that the firefighting foam, the AFFF foam was used, actually at all military bases. So, it's in the ground of ground and groundwater around most military bases. They used it without hesitation, in excess. They used it for practice. They used it to play in. They thought they had foam parties. It's just unbelievable. And unfortunately, the companies that produce this or created these chemicals, knew that they were dangerous and did not stop creating them or selling them. So – so here we are, 4700 PFAS later. So, that's how many there are. DD: What concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward? 3 �CW: Well, I think, like I said, because it's so pervasive in all of our products. It's being used in so many products. And it's so effective. You know, have probably used a Teflon Tan in your life and um, that clothing where the water just like repels. That's great, because you don't get wet! So, what's scary is that it's so effective and we're so attached to using it and so used to using it that we're not going to be able to stop using it because we like it so much. We'll have to be the industry or, you know, companies will have to be forced to stop using it because we are not going to voluntarily do that because we're so used to it. We don't want grease all over our car when we get our fast-food, you know, container and we set it on, we don't want grease, right? So, they fix that for us by using PFAS. So, the industry will have to, it will have to be illegal to use these products. And it's scary to think about that because you just follow the money and that money [chuckles], they're not going to make any money doing that or they'll lose money. DD: Yeah, I've heard a lot lately about how they're finding replacements, but the replacements are also not great. CW: Right, they unfortunately – they're introduced as, you know, there's these long chains. I'm not a scientist. These long chains PFAS. And the short chains and the short chains were initially introduced as a safer alternative, but – but, they're not. They have health effects just like the long chains and we should be very concerned about their use also. DD: Yeah. Before we wrap up today, is there anything else that you'd like to add that we haven't touched on or anything you would want to go back to and say more about? CW: Oh, yes. One of the initiatives or priorities that I personally have is ensuring that PFAS blood testing is available for anyone who wants it. Right now, you are hard pressed to be able to find a physician that will order a PFAS testing, and a lab that will test it. And you certainly aren't going to find an insurance company who's going to pay for it. So, there are rare instances where people are getting their blood tested, maybe for a lawsuit or because they just took on the costs, you know, themselves $900 for testing of about 14 PFAS. So, it's very, very expensive. But these tests should be created and encouraged for anyone in an affected area such as ours. So, we are working, you know – the PFAS leadership throughout the US are working on with the National Academy of Sciences on their guidance to physicians on PFAS. So, I just encourage people, if they want to know what's going on in their body related to this contamination, then they need to ask their physicians about it. They need to get their physicians educated and know that we have a right to know what is in our body and the contaminants that we've been exposed to. DD: That sounds like really important work. [pause] How is it going? CW: [chuckles] Well, six years, I have piles of papers everywhere, and I hold a full-time job. So, you know I, I actually am, I do a community work also unrelated to PFAS. So, I want to be able to contribute, and it – it's just so complex. And we're having such resistance, on so many levels that it can be frustrating and there's some burnout. So, we, we do try to take a break sometimes 4 �and just make sure that we're taking care of ourselves so that, you know, we can fight the good fight. DD: Yeah. What are some of the complexities that you're running into? CW: Well, like I think I said about money, you got to follow the money. So, when you have the Air Force saying, “okay, we need more money”. And then you have the Congress saying, “you just need to tell us how much money that you need”, and they're pointing fingers at each other like you didn't tell us. And it's – it's just amazing at that level of just denial, really, [chuckles] I think on all parties just denying that there's an issue and that these monies need to be diverted to keep people safe, their health safe. So, I find that very complex. Why this would be denied that this issue exists when it's clear [chuckles] from the foam in this picture behind me, that there's a problem. This is not, this is not natural foam. So, there’s just – that part is complex. The chemicals themselves are very complex. We're continuing to study the effects of those, oh gosh, [pause] getting the word out. As someone who doesn't do this full time, I don't work with an environmental group. I'm not paid to do any of this work. So, how to find the time to do these things and then developing the relationships with the people that can help you. So, I can say as a person, I've definitely grown and learned a lot, since I've done this, there are some benefits in terms of my personal growth in learning how things work. So, I've learned a lot, but it's unfortunate it had to be under these circumstances. But – so, yeah, developing the relationships, understanding the issues, just figuring out how to get around the roadblocks, you know, maintaining your sanity. [chuckles] Things that are complex. DD: Is there anything else that you'd like to add that we didn't touch on or anything else that you wanted to go back to? CW: Nope. I do appreciate your – this project's, effort to get our stories out because people do as you can see. I could just talk and talk and talk [chuckles] about this, but I really appreciate you trying to get the stories out there so that anyone who's willing to listen can hear what really is happening. DD: Well, thank you for taking the time to do this. I know you’re very busy and I appreciate you taking the time to share your story today. CW: Sure. Thank you, Dani. 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0020 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Wusterbar, Cathy Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-07-13 Title A name given to the resource Cathy Wusterbarth, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Cathy Wustarbarth is from Oscoda, Michigan, on the coast of Lake Huron. In this interview, Cathy discusses her exposure to PFAS and its impact on her health. Wusterbarth has also been actively involved with the Oscoda Citizens for Clean Water, advocating for education and awareness about the issue. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b5c54c29d9bd0dde27d330f89d732d07.mp4 9adc279610ce2a47a044b44769a8783e https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/0ae3455606e94ca69f92985f702e6989.pdf a5c8375ec745f4152b9b1b19aa6e8887 PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Colleen Linn Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: April 30, 2025 Dani DeVasto (DD): I'm Dani DeVasto, and today, April 30th, 2025, I have the pleasure of chatting with Colleen Linn. Hi, Colleen. CL: Hey, how's it going? DD: Great. I'm so glad to have you here and talk with you today. CL: Yeah, thanks for having me. DD: Colleen, can you tell me about where you're from and where you currently live? CL: Yeah, I grew up in the Upper Peninsula, Michigan, in the Houghton-Hancock area, so that's in the left thumb of the state, if you will. And I'm currently in the metro Detroit area, southeast Michigan, attending Wayne State University in Detroit. DD: And how long have you been in the metro Detroit area? CL: Since about 2016. That's when I started the master's in anthropology program that year. So I've been in graduate school the entire time I've been in the Detroit area. (0:52) All right. DD (00:58): Colleen, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in your community? CL: (01:01) So I really got into looking at PFAS from the perspective of a researcher. It became a huge topic in Michigan at the same time that I was trying to figure out what to do in my dissertation research specifically. And I was originally interested in drinking water issues. And so when everything started coming out about PFAS, those two very much so overlapped. And it was a topic that the state kind of took in full, especially after the Flint water crisis, which is a place, which is an issue that I also had been doing research on. So it was really curious to me that there's this other drinking water crisis that kind of came out in the state. And at the same time, I was working with some folks at Wayne State, working on an interdisciplinary research project. And one of my colleagues in that capacity was interested in groundwater issues. So we were trying to figure out an interdisciplinary project to work on together that combined all of our expertises between engineering, pharmacology, and anthropology. And groundwater contamination kind of is able to capture a lot of those, all of those together at once. So when I started formulating my dissertation research plan, it seemed kind of like the natural progression. �But since starting it, I've been thinking about it in the context of like other chemical issues. Because once you start talking about PFAS with other researchers, they constantly refer to the other types of chemical issues that they've worked on before too, like PCBs and mercury and VOCs and microplastics, things like that. So as I started my dissertation research, I was kind of approaching PFAS as like a way to think about how we deal with chemical exposure in general, and also how it relates to these other kinds of chemical problems. So I don't know if that's a story specifically, but that's how I got into the dissertation research and what I wanted to do, to do my work on and kind of how I started thinking about it, but yeah. DD: One follow-up question, were you aware then of PFAS before you started your dissertation or much before you started your dissertation research? (3:16) CL: Barely. Yeah. Just barely before I started that. Um, yeah. DD: But just it coming up in the news was kind of how you started learning about it? CL: Yeah. Because I heard the stories from West Michigan specifically that there was, and it was so quickly after Flint, it was like, well, what is this happening all of a sudden? I think it was the idea that, or a strange idea to have so many drinking water crisis in a state, with so much freshwater resources, that really, that issue really does not compute with me, especially having grown up in the Keweenaw next to Lake Superior. So my perception of water is just like everlasting and never ending and always accessible and always there, always present. So the idea that people wouldn't have access to clean water, like it just does not compute. It does not work in my head. DD: And then you moved down to Detroit and you're hearing all these new stories. CL: Yeah. All these different stories. And Flint was such a specific case. And then of course, the Detroit water shutoffs too, which came, which kind of like escalated, was escalating in the early 2010s and had continued up until the pandemic as well. So all these different ways that we were managing water just became clear that, you know, it's not about the presence of water, but how water is managed, you know, from a political standpoint and a social standpoint that really contributes to how people are able to access it and use it and the safety and affordability of that and at that too. DD (04:49) : Yeah. Would you be willing to tell us more about your research? CL: Yeah. So I, what did I do? I traveled to three different sites in Michigan and my goal was to connect with private well users who were impacted by PFAS specifically and talk to them about their kind of household experiences with having, you know, basically a letter from the state saying that they're drinking, their well water is unsafe. You know, how do people �process that and how do people adapt to that? And then I also wanted to connect with those kind of working in the state governance capacity to kind of work on the issue. And that includes local government officials and state government officials. You know, how are they helping households and how are they also like in the community and environmental context to try and fix the issue if there are solutions possible for these different parts of groundwater contamination. And then also the community activism, because that includes folks who weren't directly impacted by a well water, but they were still concerned about this issue in their community broadly. So it works to connect with all those different stakeholders in three different sites across Michigan and conducted interviews, did some door to door canvassing to get kind of like a neighborhood perspective. I did these in Rockford and Grayling and then in Hawley, Michigan, which have very different experiences with PFAS. And that was another part of what I wanted to understand was how the state approaches different pollution scenarios. And so Rockford represented a corporate polluter, Grayling represented a military polluter, and then Hawley represented a kind of an quote unquote orphaned site who didn't have a direct owner. And they had less people directly impacted by the PFAS contamination, but still like this like historical dump site that just hadn't been cleaned up. And so that affected social land orders and land owners in the immediate vicinity, their experiences with their environment. So all this was done for a comparative context to see just like kind of like the energy and the work that it takes for a community to be able to like effectively respond to groundwater contamination, which not only affects drinking water, but like recreational, environmental resources and just the idea of water resources into the future. Because there's always this concern with groundwater that maybe it's not affecting you now, but it's going to affect you soon if, you know, things travel a certain way. It's such a difficult substance to predict and track because everything is underground. And so anthropologists love that kind of stuff. Like, how can we know what we what we can't necessarily physically see? How do we how do we map that? How do we model that? And how do how do kind of different social groups make sense of it when they when they can't know certain things? Because that's where that, you know, our cultural ideas come in is when we the gap between our ability to know and what we what we know. DD: So I know that the research is still sort of in progress and we should all go read your dissertation and anything that gets published from it once that's done. Do you have any, like, initial findings or conclusions that you're drawing from your research that you'd be willing to share with us or lessons learned or? �CL (8:14): Yeah, I think the uncertainty that comes with folks having to deal with this was really prominent throughout everything, but then also just the I think what what I was noticing specifically was just the the complications that it came up with, like health care, like conversations with health care professionals and just the need to focus on health care access in general. When we're talking about not just PFAS, but just all kinds of chemical exposures, it became very difficult to not understand PFAS in relation to other types of of chemical issues. But having that like health care access seemed like a way to kind of address it like the end point instead of focusing on the prevention and exposure, which is which is super important. But since there's like already all these exposures, how are we, you know, how are people able to access those resources? And then also just the necessity of having multiple actors across scales, like in alliance of values to make anything happen. You know, you can have support from the state and you can have support from local officials. But if you don't have that citizen component, things don't go as far as they could. And then also, if you have that citizen component and that state component, but not that local governance component, there's also going to be like a, you know, kind of a break in the road and how things are able to kind of get done. And that's really tricky to do. And that's really dependent on the capacity of municipalities, of water treatment departments and also just cost. You know, there's a lot of stuff, environmental pollution issues that get tied up in legal stuff. And that is dealt with in a very like case by case basis. And hopefully, you know, those cases set precedent for other communities. But it's really hard to have like one community’s success expand to to other areas as well, if that makes sense. So that alliance of values, I think, is a specific one that I'm working on fleshing out at the moment. DD: Wow. CL: Yeah. DD: It's a lot. CL: Yeah. It’s a…yeah. DD: Tell me about any concerns, if any, that you have about PFAS contamination moving forward, either for you personally or like as a researcher thinking about these questions about, you know, how states approach and communicate these kinds of issues? Do you have any concerns about PFAS contamination moving forward? CL (10:55): I do. Alongside kind of the other major global issues, I think my biggest concern is things like this not receiving the attention that it was, you know, a couple of years ago. Changes in administration affect how certain issues are dealt with, including PFAS. So because it's such a big problem, such an expensive problem, I worry about it being �normalized, the exposure being normalized and people not taking it seriously over time because they don't feel that they can escape, you know, not just being exposed to PFAS, but other other types of chemical issues as well. So like VOCs especially. So that's so I think awareness and communication like public health education and just general community awareness is is a big concern of mine. But I think Michigan has been setting a lot of precedent for that. So and then I think it's just the funding thing again, municipal water departments are, you know, without, you know, staff funding expertise in a lot of places to to to retrofit their infrastructures. So it's kind of like we have to go back to, you know, when we first initial initially built our our water infrastructure kind of like system and we're in this place where we need to to update everything that was done, you know, 80 years ago, 100 years ago. And that's a huge task. So but and I, you know, once people know about it, they they want to be able to find the tools to to fix it. But when there's an absence of those resources, you know, I just worry it gets it like slips through the cracks, if you will. I hope that made sense. DD: Yes, I mean, funding is funding is a huge component of addressing this and being able to address it. And when you don't have it or you have other issues, it is easy for something like this to become normalized and fall through the cracks, especially when it's, you know, showing up as being everywhere. CL (13:03): Yeah, yeah. And I think something that should always be said is, you know, how are we using chemicals and, you know, in our society in general? I think that was the hardest thing to really get answers about was just like the manufacturing use of it and kind of like it's used in the corporate corporate industries. So I think transparency there, like, I don't know. That was the one thing like I just don't know how to like I can talk about the governance side of things and like, you know, critique it to, you know, whatever ends. But that there's a lot of like corporate obfuscation, if you will, and just opaqueness and how it's used. And I don't know how to address that. But I have a feeling that's going to continue. And that's where a lot of these exposure possibilities kind of remain. DD: I just had another question that kind of goes back a little bit more to your research. Speaking of, you know, not always remembering the questions right away. You mentioned that, you know, a big part of the research was thinking about (14:05) the process or like trying to better understand people's reactions when they get these kinds (14:10) of water notices and just like that, that process, that reaction, like, like just looking at kind of that whole scenario. Am I understanding that correctly? CL: Yeah. �DD: So I just was curious if you would say more about that. Like, what did you I'm just curious, what did like what did you find? Like, how did how are people responding to that? And how, you know, I don't know anything around like what did you notice about that part of it? CL (14:35): Yeah, I think they were very individualized responses, which kind of tracks against kind of the individualized nature of well water management in the first place. From my my sample size, it wasn't enough to kind of understand like a very specific pattern. But, you know, a lot of people, people who were, you know, they were, you know, they were there were certain people who could be very pragmatic and they could just, you know, call the call the county and get the water filter that they needed to to get to reduce PFAS exposure. And they got it installed and they just never really thought about it again. For others, that process was a lot trickier. And so it became, you know, a question of of procuring enough like bottled water resources in the meantime until they could figure out how to implement that. And for others, they just it was just like another piece of paper on their counter that they never really looked at again or were concerned about, or it was just, you know, the thing on the list of to do on a person's to do list that you just couldn't really like get around, get around to because everyone is is working and overloaded and, you know, in many different capacities. So the range of reactions was kind of surprising because it was very clear that the toxicity issue, like the the the risk of being exposed, I felt like that that part of it wasn't always communicated the most clearly. I think there was a there was a gap in that specifically. And it became more challenging, especially when I met, you know, I met people who were not affected. You know, they had a slight detection in their well. They didn't do anything to their water. A lot of people had like the habit of drinking bottled water anyway, so they weren't necessarily concerned about the water coming out of their faucets. They weren't using that for their personal consumption anyways. But there are some people who are very severely affected to, I think, an unimaginable degree to the folks that, you know, weren't affected in the same capacity. And so it was just it was just so much a lot of up and down, if you will. And so it's like, how do you take the person's experience who, you know, lost a loved one who's dealing with a very serious health effect and then have somebody be so apathetic about it? That was that was difficult to kind of make sense of, but it really was a wide range of experiences. (17:01) And I think it kind of reflects that that individual nature of well water use where you're not always talking to someone else about it because your well is your well. And so somebody else's well is a different context. You know, stories about people who their well water was testing very high price for trillion and their neighbors were not detected. You know, that was there's just such a variance of pattern. That's why I think the original testing that was done in Rockford in 2017, those folks who were who had �contamination very early on had a point of connection because, you know, we didn't necessarily know what to do about it. I think as the kind of response became a little bit more standardized and regulated, those points of connections weren't as prominent because they had that intermediary of the state. And so they were just it became a very one directional transaction instead of understanding what it was like at a community level. And of course, there's, you know, variances of this. But, yeah. DD: Well, it's so interesting to be able to think about it like over time and as because PFAS is kind of still in some ways an unfolding, emerging situation, right? To think about how that response was handled and received in the beginning versus, you know, like, as you said, once the once the kind of state response became more codified, perhaps, or like the process for handling and responding to it. It's so interesting. CL: Yeah. Yeah. There's a huge difference there between 2017 because I talked to a few folks who were (18:44) part of that. But then the newer identification in Rockford area in 2023 was tied back to Wolverine headquarters. And so just much different. Those are the same two neighborhoods of multiple people in those neighborhoods and very different experiences and kind of levels of engagement with it. And more limited options because the lawsuit had already been filed and settled. And so Wolverine's responsibility was, you know, kind of already decided upon. And then another instance kind of came up and they couldn't quite directly prove. And just the ability to not quite directly prove something and not having the reasons for the lawsuit results in a different household experience of this. DD: That's fascinating. Wow. I was just thinking about how many how many variables there are. Right? As you said, the resources, finances, you know, time, people's own knowledge and just…Wow. CL: It’s one chemical. (19:52) And we think like, I think one chemical class, you know, should maybe experiences are more uniform. But no, it's it's it's it's very, varied DD: Yeah. Wow. Before we wrap up today, do you is there anything else that you'd like to add that we haven't touched on or anything that you want to go back to and say more about? CL: Um, there is a specific thing. It's, um. I think that this idea of chemical exposure and how people are affected by it. Actually, the experience with this helped me reflect more on what happened to my grandfather specifically. (20:35) He passed away by senior year of high school from mesothelioma, which is from asbestos exposure. And just on a personal level, it was interesting to kind of revisit and rethink about what happened to him, because I think at the time being like a senior in high school and not really understanding, just understanding that, you know, your grandparents get, you know, they age and they get �older. But I think the the randomness of the PFAS experience and hearing people, you know, what happened to their loved ones, I kind of re-reflected on on what happened to other people that I knew, basically, to understand, you know, why certain why or how different health health issues are managed later in life. So it became a very personal, self-reflective project because of that as well. DD: I can imagine. (21:28) I mean, as you said in the beginning, conversations about PFAS were naturally kind of lending themselves to also conversations about other kinds of chemical exposures and certainly water-based ones like lead. But I can definitely see how like something like asbestos would again kind of fit into that and allow for that kind of reflection and comparison. CL (21:53): Yeah, yeah. It's made me wonder how we how we how we approach all these issues. They're so segmented by type, but I'm just wondering how do we how do we approach them not necessarily by type, but just by by experience and by like health outcome, if you will, instead. DD: Yeah, I often hear people talking about how, you know, pulling lessons from other ways that we've we've handled lead or PCBs or things like that. Like, can we pull lessons from those in order to think about how we deal with exposures moving forward or the defenses of like, well, this is that's this and this is that and they don't compute. (22:42) CL: Yeah, yeah. DD: Well, thank you so much, Colleen, for taking the time to share your story and your research today. I really appreciate it. Yeah, thanks so much for having me. It was great talking with 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0039 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Linn, Colleen Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025-04-30 Title A name given to the resource Colleen Linn, 2025 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource In this interview, Dani and Colleen discussed Colleen's research on PFAS in Michigan, focusing on how private well users and communities respond to water safety issues. Colleen's research also led her to reconsider her grandfather's experience with asbestos exposure, highlighting the broader implications of chemical exposure studies. 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. Lemmen Library and 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/6fb64d87b8d476cfa944fa70ab9b59b9.mp4 63e6db84b89e7ecd037c554b4b98ba5e https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ac530960811b9ba2a67ae1b77ab770c3.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 � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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. Lemmen Library and 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/87f88291b83ac519bcd902c793fd93f6.pdf fccd3431f2272db0ae0479e5baf888ba PDF Text Text Defenseless but Fighting: A Personal Battle with PFAS and Infertility PFAS is a group of chemicals known scientifically as perfluoroalkyl substances. Even more concerning, according to the CDC, is there are more than 9,000 different types. These include PFAS, PFOS, PFOA, and others. PFAS chemicals are incredibly stable both chemically and thermally. These are forever chemicals, meaning they bio-accumulate, bio-magnify, and will not degrade. These substances are in everything from carpet, furniture, camping gear, makeup, non-stick cookware, firefighting foams, fabric, and firefighting gear. These chemicals are in every living organism and virtually every body of water. As a 14-year Fire Lieutenant, I have been heavily exposed to PFAS. Here is my story. In May 2020, my wife and I thought our dream of having a family was about to come to fruition. A short time later, we quickly realized that wasn’t the case. My wife woke me in the middle of the night, stating that she had intense abdominal pain, severe cramping, and heavy bleeding. She was 10 days late, but never showed a positive pregnancy test. She informed me she thought she was having a miscarriage. Unfortunately, all this was taking place during a global pandemic. We immediately called my wife’s OB to be told that they weren’t accepting patients. After many phone calls, her doctor finally agreed to see her. Initially, the focus was on my wife. After many invasive and humiliating tests, we were surprised to learn that no abnormalities were found. We never found out whether or not she had a miscarriage. The focus quickly turned to me. I immediately referred to EVMS, where multiple blood tests and semen analyses were ordered. Ultimately the results from those tests were heartbreaking. They found no sperm and noted abnormal hormone test results. What followed still seems like a blur. First, there was a brain MRI. The results from the brain MRI came back and showed a tiny benign tumor on my pituitary gland. The tumor was ultimately ruled out as an issue and deemed not a concern — next, more rounds of bloodwork. Then, genetic testing is followed by more physical exams. No abnormalities were noted during my genetic testing, and no deletions were reported from my chromosomes. I then underwent hormone therapy via Clomid to increase my testosterone. I’m still recovering from what Clomid did to my body. I seemingly gained 60lbs overnight and always felt like I wanted to crawl out of my skin. My urologist then suggested doing a testicular biopsy. The testicular biopsy was scheduled for December 3, 2020. That biopsy would serve two functions, to check for testicular cancer and look for any sperm residing in my testicles. Unfortunately, again the results were not what we hoped. While they found no cancer, they also found no sperm. They diagnosed me with Sertoli-Cell Only Syndrome, NonObstructive Azoospermia with an unknown cause. Following that procedure, my wife and I discussed getting a second opinion at VCU Health. Our initial consultation was with Dr. Smith-Harrison in January 2021. He felt that he might still find sperm by doing a procedure called Microsurgical Testicular Sperm Extraction (micro-TESE). Following that consultation, I was placed on chemo. The goal of chemo was to control hormones my body was overproducing, specifically Estradiol. Chemo was single handily one of the worst experiences of my life. To this day, I deal with random bouts of hives, forgetfulness (chemobrain), and chemo rash. March 30, 2021, I had the micro-TESE surgery, and once again, the results were negative. While heartbroken and frustrated, my wife and I vowed to press forward. Dr. Smith- Harrison referred us to VCU endocrinology. My first appointment with Dr. Madan �Defenseless but Fighting: A Personal Battle with PFAS and Infertility was on April 20, 2021. The initial meeting again involved more blood work. The blood work was for thyroid, hemoglobin, and additional hormone testing. No abnormalities were noted. In May 2021, I was placed on testosterone replacement therapy. One definite is I will have to be frequently screened for testicular cancer for the rest of my life. The testicular cancer screening will occur twice a year. By all accounts, Sertoli Cell Only Syndrome is the precursor to testicular cancer. Having NOA is in 5% of males in the world. Having NOA along with Sertoli Cell Only Syndrome resides in 1% of males globally. Have Sertoli Cell Only Syndrome and NOA with an unknown etiology only occurs in 0.5% of all males globally. At the end of May 2021, I received a small piece of information that was significant. My liver enzymes were shit. The results indicated borderline non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. As a curious person, I went back in my records to see if the result replicated or if it was just due to the chemo. Come to find out, the first poor liver enzyme test I received was in 2019! Unfortunately, I never heard a word about looking into it. In June of 2021, I participated in the 2021 National Firefighter Cancer Symposium when Dr. Angela Slitt began to present. A few minutes into her presentation, a slide detailed the relationship between liver enzymes and PFAS. At that moment, a light bulb clicked. I rushed to my computer and immediately sent a screenshot of the slide to VCU with my liver enzyme report attached. Both the doctors noted the significance of the findings and are actively researching. I received two more vital pieces of information in June. First, Dr. Graham Peaslee notified us my 2018 gear tested positive for PFAS. My station wear did not. However, it did contain brominated flame retardants (banned since 2004) and Benzene, a known carcinogen. The combination of Brominated FR and Benzene mirrors the effects of PFAS on the human body. Unfortunately, for my testicles, they were given a high dose of toxic chemicals for 33% of the year, every year, for 14 years. Let that sink in. Now one more test to go…PFAS. This test will not confirm whether or not PFAS is in my blood; we already know it’s there. This test will indicate how much. On June 26, 2021 at 0530 in the morning I received the results. Keep in mind there are 9252 PFAS. I was tested on 6. I popped positive on 4. The highest were PFOS and PFHxS. It is important to note; I have kept two pieces of information out. One question asked at EVMS, Urology of Virginia, VCU Urology, and VCU Endocrinology was whether or not I have been exposed to any toxic chemicals. The answer I provided was yes. This question alone started us down a rabbit hole my family never imagined. We began researching firefighter fertility, firefighter endocrine issues, and firefighter testicular cancer. That research led me to have conversations with Diane and Lt. Paul Cotter (who is mentioned in a NY Times article), Captain Sean Mitchell from Nantucket Fire (IAFF Resolution 28), IAFF President Ed Kelly, Dr. Graham Peaslee of Notre Dame, Lt. Neal Sinatro from West Hartford, Ct, Dr. Madan at Virginia Commonwealth University, and Dr. Smith- Harrison at Virginia Commonwealth University regarding firefighter fertility research. I have reached out to many others in hopes of finding answers and getting the word out. In a profession where we encounter many hazards, we should not worry about the consequences of donning our turnout gear and putting on our station uniforms laced with chemicals. The second piece of information is a report from Dupont scientists. Lewis (2005) stated, “Beginning in 1992, scientists began to publish papers addressing how PFOA causes testicular tumors and other harmful effects on the male reproductive tract. First, they found that PFOA increases blood levels of Estradiol in male rats” (P. 29). Scientists �Defenseless but Fighting: A Personal Battle with PFAS and Infertility also found males who have been exposed to PFOA and PFAS having difficulty regulating testosterone. Consequently, my body has yet to regulate both of these hormones, verified with blood testing, Clomid, and chemo (Lewis, 2005). As a society, we must sound the alarm. Our blind trust in chemical companies and the EPA has led to arguably one of the worst environmental catastrophes known to humankind. PFAS is in everything, everyone, and has polluted every one of our waterways. Only recently has this began to garner attention. In June 2021, articles have been released detailing PFAS is in newborns, every citizen of the US, sparkling water, fish, makeup, and our waterways. We must hold the companies that have polluted our country responsible. Or this story will become all too familiar. Folks, we need to be better. Go to the DOCTOR! Trust me; I was that guy who didn’t want to go. I thought it was all BS, and I was fine. I wasn’t okay. I don’t know who out there needs to read this. But trust me, there is no shame. Talk about it. Write about it. Just get it off your chest. You are not alone. One Last thing, Our dream of having a family is still very much alive. We are actively navigating this next chapter and look forward to what the future has in store. � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. 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 PFAS0014 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Goodman, Bryan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-06-17 Title A name given to the resource Defenseless but Fighting: A Personal Battle with PFAS and Infertility Description An account of the resource Personal essay by Bryan Goodman discussing the impact of PFAS on his family and fertility. Subject The topic of the resource Personal narrative PFAs (Perfluorinated chemicals) Groundwater--Pollution 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 <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/4261c43fc4cfdde943fc51c943939c6a.mp4 65a14a1e93a25d1c195b7c0c092a61e9 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/47edc50b31794ea1ab13157e2c5fb60e.pdf 70f9c411d28a0297f683dfe8ffec5901 PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Elaine Isley Interviewer: Prof DeVasto Date: April 9, 2021 DD: So, I’m Dani DeVasto, and today, April 9th, 2021, I have the pleasure of chatting with Elaine Isley. Uh, thank you for being here today, Elaine. EI: Sure. DD: Can you tell me about where you’re from, um, and/or where you currently live? EI: Uh, sure. Those are two different questions for me. Um. I– I’ve been in Grand Rapids for 20-plus years, but I still kind of, where I’m from. I grew up in the Washington DC area. So I’ve– I’ve, I’m not a Michigan native. Uh, I moved here to go to professional school, and I just stayed. Uh, particularly, once I moved to West Michigan. Um, I currently live in Grand Rapids Township with my family. DD: And you said you’ve been in Grand Rapids Township for the last 25 years or so? EI: I’ve been in Grand Rapids metro area for about 25 years. I’ve only been in the township for a year. DD: Okay. EI: We moved– we moved right before the pandemic started. DD: Oh my. [chuckle] EI: Yeah. [chuckle] DD: At least you were settled before the pandemic started. I can’t imagine– EI: We have a little more space in this house than we did in the last one, and we’ve been really thankful for that. DD: I bet– I bet. So, Elaine, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS, or with PFAS in your community? EI: Uh, sure. So, uh, the first– the personal story, which is not super exciting, uh, when we moved here uh, so Grand Rapids Township abuts Plainfield Township, and I am on the upper border. Um. I live on 4 Mile, and 4 Mile is the dividing line between Plainfield Township and Grand Rapids Township, so when we were looking at purchasing this house, the first thing we did was look for, um, PFAS drainage in the ground water and because of my work. Uh. We had 1 �a general idea of where it was, but um, that was a consideration for us when we were moving. And there is a super-fund site not far from here, so there actually were a lot of wells and there had been a lot of tests. So, we were able to find definitively that we are not in a PFAS groundwater plume. So, uh, that’s– that’s where the– the personal impact came from. It– it was certainly a consideration for me, um, in moving a little bit closer to the affected area. Um. But I am the Director of Water Programs at the West Michigan Environmental Action Council, and we have been working with the citizens group in Rockford for almost 10 years. Um. It was the– one of the first meetings that I went to when I joined WMEAC in 2012. We went to, uh, Rockford City Hall and we met with, uh, Wolverine Worldwide’s council and some representatives from the city. Now this was before PFAS had actually been identified on the site, um, and we were, uh, what was happening was the downtown tannery that, um, Wolverine had in Rockford had been torn down years before. But a small citizen’s group had raised some concerns about what had happened to those materials. How had they been removed from the site? Was permitting appropriate? Is there still a danger? And unfortunately, because Rockford is so entrenched as a company town, they– the citizens’ group kind of got a raw deal. Um. The city did not take them seriously. The local newspaper sort of painted them out as-as, just wild and crazy people. And-and so they– it became really contentious for these individuals personally. And so our organization got involved to make sure that they had a seat at the table. Um. On their own, they compiled a pretty large dossier, and they sent it to the US Environmental Protection Agency, ‘because they weren’t getting a lot of cooperation even from, um, then it was the Department of Environmental Quality, um, now it’s the Department of um, Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. So, if I go between DEQ and EAGLE, that’s why. Um. But the EPA came back and said, “Look, there’s a lot here. You should be looking at this.” So then-then the DEQ got involved, and things started to move a little bit. But there was still a lot of tension between this local citizens’ group and Wolverine and the city, and so we’ve remained involved and we’ve sort of helped them kind of work through how to raise these issues. Um. [sigh]. They didn’t need a lot of guidance. This group is very dedicated. Uh. I don’t-I don’t wanna name names because that’s not really my place, but they were affected or they had neighbors who were affected. They were worried about the air quality. There was a lot of concern– they were worried about what was getting into Rum Creek which flows right into the Rogue River, um, which ultimately flows into the Grand River and out to Lake Michigan. So this is a very interconnected system. Uh. It was a regional water quality issue. And it was during that time frame that we had, uh, started working with Dr. Rick Rediske. He is an environmental chemist at uh, Grand Valley State University at the Annis Water Resources Institute. I– he was actually one of my graduate advisors. And so I knew he had a background working with tannery contamination. He had done some work in White Lake up in Muskegon County, and there had been a tannery on the lake that had contributed to some of that pollution. There were other issues on White Lake. White Lake, um, was, uh, an area of concern, a designated area of concern in the Great Lakes, but they have been delisted. So I knew that he had that background for the tannery waste, and so they- we were finding documentation and- and sampling, um, data that showed contamination of ammonia and, um, hexavalent chromium, and there were some bad things there. Um. At some point, and I don’t recall exactly when, Rick started talking to us about PFAS, and none of us really knew what that was. To this day, I’m not sure I can give you the long chemical name of it [laughter]. [intermittent beeping] 2 �EI: So, it’s PFAS. PFAS and PFOS, PFOA. DD: [laughs] EI: It’s -it’s this horrible family of chemicals, and they’re forever chemicals. They-they can affect people in a number of different ways. Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot of data on it. Or there wasn’t at the time. But, um, Rick was- Rick was positive that we would find it in- on this site. One of its primary applications was Scotchgard. DD: Mhm. EI: And we know that Wolverine Worldwide used Scotchgard. I mean, Hushpuppies shoes. I mean, we just knew that it would be there. And, um, I think it was 2017 when we were able to get documentation. And when I say “we,” that’s the global “we.” It was really the citizens’ group. So, [laughter], um, of which Rick was a part– he became very invested in this project. And um, that sort of broke the whole thing wide open. And all of a sudden people started coming out of the woodwork, like “what is this stuff?” Uh, and then the House Street dumpsite was identified, and the woven jewel. [stutters]. It became very clear that this was a much bigger issue. And while my organization– which we go by our acronym, so WEMEAC, which is a little easier to say, um, we remained involved with the citizens group and we had a policy of-uh, on our books that we would support the citizens group and we would make this more public. We hadn’t really done a big push on that. All of a sudden with these concerns about PFAS and then it blowing up and it's coming from other parts of the state, people are seeing this as a bigger issue, we started getting a lot of questions. Um. There were people who, well-educated people, who could not find any information about what this body of chemicals was, what– where this plume was, was it affecting them? How concerned did they need to be? And it just became really clear that we would have to be much more present about, uh, getting information out there. And so, we started putting some information on our websites and Frequently Asked Questions. When uh, Rick started really pushing this issue of having a citizens group involved, um, with the cleanup because of his work in White Lake– there had been a citizens group that was sort of the liaison between the cleanup site and the local citizens, and he wanted something then put into place there. The one in White Lake, because it was an area of concern, there was a pot of money that was able to fund that. Um. We weren’t a designated area of concern. We’re still not a designated contaminant site, but right now the EPA is helping fund um, the community advisory group, or the CAG, um, through superfund. It’s not a designated superfund site and will not have um, indefinite funding. I think we have a few more months from the EPA, but the EPA helps set up the group. Um. And so we have been able to be a much better link for that information between what’s happening at the you know, at EAGLE, at EPA, at Wolverine, and the local citizens group. So that’s– so that’s really my PFAS story, is trying to elevate the issue uh, in a way that gives people the information and resources. Um, because communication has been sort of the big push there, I- I’ve taken– I’ve joined the CAG, I’m an official member, and I sort of, by default, have become the chair of the communications team. And so uh, we’re transitioning a few things, but right now I’m making sure that things are posted on the website and on our social media and we’re working with some other volunteers in the group who are trying to get um, a little bit more of a voice in the local Rockford Squire newspaper. So um, so 3 �yeah, it’s– my-my story is a bit more from the professional side of it. Uh, but it’s important because it– the people who are affected or the people who are potentially affected need more information. They need to know about the health studies that are going on. They need to know about what is happening on the cleanup. Um. They need to know what PFAS is to the extent that we’re finding out and what that effect would be for them. DD: Mhm. Is your sense that the, um, communication or the information available for people now is better? Is improved? That what is was- when you first- when people first started asking and looking for this information? EI: To some extent, yes. There are a lot more sources of information, uh, because of Rick’s work. Uh, Grand Valley State University has a lot of information. Um. The Annis Water Resources Institute has been putting up more information about that. The state has been doing a better job. They’ve created MPART, which is the PFAS uh, response team. And so there’s more information out there for people to find, but it’s still hard for people to find it. Um. I mean, that’s one of the things that my organization does. Uh. We are an action council, an environmental action council, and what that really means is we teach people how they can take action. And our organization does that in a number of different ways. Sometimes it's individual action, sometimes it’s municipal action. I mean– but in this case it’s really trying to empower people to find that information on their own. Um. Since PFAS is so complicated, we’re trying to pull as much of it together so that um, there’s a better sense of it. But I’m still- I’m finding that it’s not that easy to get information. When you listen to the– in some of our monthly meetings, you know, people will, you know, “well, where’s that information?” How do- you know, “how does my attorney find that information?” Because there’s a lawsuit now, um, against Wolverine. We’re not super engaged with that but a lot of the people who are engaged with us are engaged with that. And so there does still seem to be difficulty in finding the information, and I don’t-I don’t know– this isn’t meant to be an accusation but I don’t know if it’s because, you know, the industry is trying to be so secretive about what’s in these chemicals. You know, that’s often an issue. It’s a- It’s called “proprietary.” Um. Or if it’s just because it hasn’t been studied as widely, until recently. [stutters]. Or if it’s just because it’s one of those technical issues, that people just don’t quite know how to find– DD: Mhm. EI: – the studies or the information out there. DD: Mhm. So, that kind of might lead into the next question a little bit. Um. My- my last question for you is what concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward? And if you have a totally different answer, that’s fine, too. EI: [laughter] Um. [clears throat], My– [clears throat] Excuse me. I-I- my biggest concerns about PFAS moving forward are– that’s really interesting. When we spoke with uh, Representative Peter Meijer this week, we talked a little bit about this. And one of the things that he had raised, which I thought he articulated very well, was the concern about the prevalence of the contamination. We’re seeing higher rates of-of PFAS in Michigan because Michigan’s looking for it. 4 �DD: Mhm. EI: When and if other states start looking for PFAS contamination, they’re going to find it because it’s in so many different materials. Um. We’ve been utilizing it for so long, and really just unbeknownst how– what the big problems were. Um. Or at least, unbeknownst to many of us. And Representative Meijer’s comment was when that happens, his concern is that there’s going to be this shift of “oh, well we need to take care of ‘the PFAS problem,’’’ which, at that point is gonna be somewhat global, as opposed to a site like this Wolverine tannery site where there’s an actual hardcore contamination site and people are– have extreme levels in their systems. Um, I- I forget what the numbers were– and there’s still debate about what’s a safe level in a human body, but 70 parts per billion was- was one of them. And there are people who have like twenty thousand parts per billion. I mean, it’s just– there are people who are going to have much more severe impacts than others. And if, when we start realizing how big this problem is, will we be able to really truly help the people who need it most, um, and soonest? So that’s a concern. Um. That’s a big policy issue, though. That’s not something that an individual’s gonna be able to tackle. That’s not something that even my organization will be able to do. We can advocate for that, but, it’s- I mean, that’s going to take a lot of effort and a long term solution. Um. The other things that really concern me is just making sure that the people understand and how I–you know, I wasn’t around when people were really starting to understand the impacts of DET, uh, and what that did to animals and ultimately who that affected us, so I don’t- I don’t have a memory of what– how we responded to that. But now, 50 years later, we’re seeing another legacy problem like that, and how long is it going to take before we really can do something about it? Um. You know, life is politics. It- there’s always a give and take. And you hope, you hope that when somebody raises the alarm, that people listen. But they’re– there’s just so many different obstacles and challenges when it comes to- to these complex scientific, um, issues, even when they can be disastrous for individuals. DD: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Before we wrap up, is there anything else that you would like to add that we haven’t touched on today? Or anything you’d like to go back to? EI: Um, I- I guess, from my perspective, this is one of– I mean, my background is in water quality. So I- I feel really comfortable talking about things that create problems in the water. But I don’t feel comfortable about talking this– to this with people because it is so complicated and complex. And I feel like I could go back and get my whole– a PhD in this, and still not feel like I have a grasp and- and do this. But I do understand why this is a hard topic for people to find information on. Um. It’s- it’s- it’s intimidating, and so I– It’s- even for me as a professional, it’s like “ooh.” Yeah, I wanna know enough to be able to talk to people about it. But I don’t want to do what Rick does. DD: Mhm. EI: Rick is the one who helps lead our technical committee in really delving into some of the technical aspects of the remediation plans and “will,” you know, “this method of cleanup really tackles these things?” And I really appreciate having experts who can help us work through those things. Um. So when I’m- when I’m saying that I’m concerned about how people learn about 5 �this topic, I mean, there’s a lot packed into that. It- I mean, doing this oral history project is going to be really interesting, because there will be a lot of people who have some personal stories about how that’s impacted them. Um. But I think it’s really something that’s impacting more of us than we realize, and we just all don’t necessarily have the story because it’s- it’s a frightening topic. It’s a complicated topic, and people sometimes don’t want to know, they don’t wanna spend that time, because unless they’re having something that they see as an immediate impact, they’re not as concerned. DD: Mhm. EI: So, so yeah. This is- This is not a small, small issue. DD: No. it’s really complex like you’re saying. And I think made even more complex by the fact that we’re– it’s still evolving and we’re still, you know, we’re still learning new things and uncovering this and figuring out how it works, which makes it, you know– even if we knew all the things it would be hard to talk about it. EI: Yeah. DD: But we don’t know all the things. [laughter] So. EI: And it’s not that it– the information is some place. DD: Mhm EI: I mean, DuPont’s been manufacturing these chemicals for decades. It’s not a brand new thing. It’s just the awareness is brand new. Relatively. DD: Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you so much, Elaine, for taking the time to share your story and perspective today. EI: No problem. Thanks for having me. 6 � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0003 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Isely, Elaine Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-04-08 Title A name given to the resource Elaine Isely, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Elaine Isely is the Director of Water Programs at the West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC). She grew up in the Washington, D.C. area, but has been a resident of Grand Rapids for more than 20 years. In her interview she discusses community activism related to water contamination in the Rockford, Michigan area and the leadership of Dr. Rick Rediske, an environmental chemist at Grand Valley State University. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/29e74ae2cbcbbd32c0975fb437c08e2e.mp4 0bf5e3bef3799a6a1622dc00e27a71cf https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/8ded1b5182f5895b2e11bd487afe22af.pdf 87dbf7a9b54bb397a7a7588c9d61781a PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Emily Donovan Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: June 18, 2021 DD: I’m Dani De Vasto and today June 18, 2021 I have the pleasure of chatting with Emily Donovan, hi Emily. ED: Hi. DD: Emily can you tell me about where you’re from and where you currently live. ED: Yeah, so I am originally from South Carolina. I'm currently living in North Carolina and I’ve been a resident of North Carolina for, little over half my life now. I live in Brunswick county, so I live in a town, Leland, we’re right outside of Wilmington. And we’ve been here for going on almost twelve–over twelve years now. DD: Ok, Emily can you please tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in your community? ED: Yeah, so three years after moving to this area my husband started losing his eyesight and we didn’t know what was happening. We were terrified, we thought he was going to go blind. He had an MRI and this was around our ten year anniversary because he did the MRI and then we went on vacation, and I just remember that experience as having this kind of dark cloud looming over us. We get back and we find out that he had a brain tumor and it needed to be removed immediately or he would lose his vision permanently. So we did all the things, found a really amazing neurosurgeon, got the tumor removed and miraculously his vision was fully restored. We met with the surgeon six months after the surgery and the surgeon just looked at us–and this was literally the world's best skull based neurosurgeon, he was from Japan and had a teaching facility at Duke university, and he looks at us, and he’s like I’m good but I’m not that good. [Chuckles] That is–that is God and I had always kept that memory. I mean it was a very traumatic experience for our family but at the same time, just remembered that miracle because you hear about them but you don’t ever feel like you–would you recognize one if it happened to you. So that happened and then we fast forward to 2017 which was probably five years maybe six years later and I wake up and–actually it was in June, and so wake up to a news story that there’s a chemical plant upstream of Wilmington and they’ve been dumping large quantities of PFAS into the Cape Fear River, which it turns out is our drinking water supply. I didn’t know any of this so I start doing all of this research and like everyone else in our community, we're scrambling and we’re pulling together and we’re sharing information, and we’re reaching out to scientists. And I can’t help but wonder if what caused my husband's brain tumor was tied to these industrial chemicals that have no business being in tap but were in our tap water. And not just in questionable amounts these are insanely large amounts. I think a scientist did a study of a sample that he had taken in 2014 at the–the kind of the height of the contamination and one hundred and thirty thousand parts per trillion was recorded. It’s still questionable in my mind, it's 1 �unclear, was that just the PFAS’s that he could detect with where science is at right now, because the one thing that we are learning too, is that these labs can’t fully detect all of the PFAS, because they don’t have analytical standards for them. So there’s still this question mark of how much we were exposed to. It also was–it also started coming more into focus you know not just of what happened to my husband but, you know, my daughter’s childhood best friend. Her mother had breast cancer, at a very young age. She was in the military and then lived in this area. Her parents both developed rare blood cancers or diseases within months of each of other, and we were all living in the same neighborhood. And then I at the time was a youth director at a very small church and in our program I would you know end every evening that we met with prayer requests, and I just started realizing that we were praying for some very serious problems in these teenagers' lives. A father who had terminal brain cancer, bone and brain cancer. A mother who had colon cancer. A sister or a brother who had intestinal disorder and was so severe that he was hospitalized. So there was just all of these things, there was a kid in my youth group who didn’t even know his mother because she died of breast cancer before he was–right when he was born and so you know I just started looking around and this seems like too much disease, too much illness. I didn’t even have to go outside my inner circle to hear stories. And that just kind of resonated with me and furthered solidified that something needed to be done. Someone needs to speak up, so I helped–I was part of a group that formed in our region called Clean Cape Fear and we are a grass roots all volunteer coalition and we have just focused on trying to hold elected leaders, government bodies, and pretty much everyone including ourselves accountable. With a focus on making sure the polluter pays, and in this case the chemical company was DuPont which then spun off to Chemours. DD: And how is that work going? ED: It's been a really interesting journey, and I think–I feel like things are going good but you know I have very high standards of what I think a resolution should be. I think, you know, in a perfect world this chemical company, regardless of its name, should be making communities whole again. For the devastation and harm they caused, and we still don’t have safe drinking water. My tap water, our utilities, still record some of the highest levels of PFAS in the finished water that comes out of my tap, in the nation. But my work, what I’ve done is, I’ve testified before Congress twice. I testified in August of 2018 and then again in July of 2019. I organized to bring community members with me in July 2019 and meet with representatives, and that was a really positive experience. The community members that came convinced our local congressional representatives to cosponser the PFAS Action Act and make it a bipartisan bill. I know they weren’t the only ones that made it a bipartisan bill there were others, but that was positive to see that happen. We also, when we formed Clean Cap Fear, we–the first thing we did was host the first ever public forum on GenX. Because GenX is what was in the news it was supposed to be the PFOA [Perfluorooctanoic Acid] replacement. So everyone’s like what’s GenX and then we come to find out that really it’s not just GenX but it's all PFAS. So I think one positive thing that my group has done is we’ve shifted the focus away from a chemical by chemical approach and we’ve changed the narrative to let's talk about this class of chemistry. We really worked hard and intentional to do that. We noticed early on, one of the things when we sat around this dinning room table and were figuring out what we needed to do as a community. We realized that information was important and getting accurate information, that the chemical industry for–not just the chemical industry, but industry in general has a play book. We see it 2 �with tobacco and we see it with oil and gas and the same thing is happening with these chemicals, is that they play this game of hiding the information and making–casting doubt and making it really difficult for communities to advocate for themselves so we felt it was important to really bridge that gap of reliable information and so we focused on having public forums because there was so much silence and confusion and a lot of misinformation getting spread online, and we’re like let’s get scientists in front. Let's get scientists and medical experts, let's get the experts in front of the community and have some good conversations, and that's exactly what we did and in fact this is the–last week was the four year anniversary of our first public forum on GenX. So I don’t know, I mean obviously I don’t know if other forums were happening around the world in GenX, but I would like to think we were the first ever globally [laughter] on GenX. But it was a powerful standing room only event. DD: Wow. ED: And from that we had a second event and our second event was focused on equity and making sure this–that the information was communicated to all communities. Communities of color, low income communities, communities with English as a second language, and so we brought in a lot of nonprofits on our second forum and we made sure that everyone was networking and working together. That public officials, that the water utilities were working with the homeless community to just make sure that everyone understood. Hey, you know what, maybe we need to be careful about our tap water and we need to figure out how to get everybody access to what we feel is safe and comfortable drinking water. And then our third forum was really focusing in on the science and so we brought in a lot of scientific experts from the universities in North Carolina that had unlocked, uncovered or had been working on PFAS. And so they just really got into the weeds on that forum and by that time the media had caught on, and the media was starting to host their own public forums and so we were–there was just like a public forum on PFAS every week. And so by that point we felt like we had really initiated a concept and so we didn’t feel that we needed to host any more public forums so we just stepped back and let those continue. And so we started focusing on just network building, and alliance building, and coalition building and also just holding public leaders accountable and making sure that they did what they said they were going to do and not just talk a certain way and then act a different way. And so we’ve always just tried to maintain that perspective. Some other things that I’m really–you know I’m really proud of some of the work that we’ve done, is that we brought Mark Rufflo to town and we hosted two “Dark Waters” screening events, and so I worked really hard to make that happen. And we had–I did a ton of lobbying in D.C. and [chuckles] this isn’t even my job, I have a day job. My day job was working for–you know, building up a youth ministry, and I say was in the past tense because right before the pandemic in the beginning of January 2020, I actually retired from youth ministry and then I started working in communications for another local church so I’m still in the faith community. I just kind of shifted my gears away from doing teenage ministry more into helping communicate, with– digitally, with the church. So–but anyways in all of that I do this on the side [chuckles] this is kind of like my ministry and I think that’s what was happening is that I couldn’t really keep doing all of this, so I had to figure out what to do. So it kind of goes back to, that miracle that I felt my family had experienced when my husband’s eyesight was fully restored. It should have never been–he has twenty-twenty vision and we can’t explain it. And so I do feel that I have been called into this space to bring–to be the conscience and the humanity for society and remind 3 �public leaders that there’s a reason why you are elected. To remind scientists that the work is for the people, you know–that yes the betterment of humanity, and all aspects of humanity and that this work, you know even into the chemical industry to you know have a soul and make things right [chuckles]. So this is kind of the space that I keep trying to remind myself that I feel called to be in. I’ve also just done a–I know I didn’t go into to great of detail about the screening events but some really positive change that came from both of those events is that we got our attorney general to file a lawsuit against DuPont and Chemours seeking natural resources damages for the state. We’re kind of following up to see where that's at right now, because again there’s that accountability piece. And then we also saw the most PFAS legislation filed in the state legislature this cycle then we have seen ever, then we saw in 2018 when the legislature was supposed to be at the peak of our contamination story. So I really think that was a direct result of those screening events. So, North Carolina legislature woke up a bit about it. Unfortunately, North Carolina legislature did not progress the bills that were filed, so there was some really fantastic representatives in the house who filed some really good, thoughtful bills, and the party in control of the General Assembly right now, the Republican Party, did not move them out of the rules committee and so refused to advance them, and that has been really dissatisfying to watch. But again until we could convince the community that this is a voting topic, and not just our community, because our community is very aware that this is a voting topic, but it's the rest of North Carolina. We’re stuck, and we’re also know that behind the scenes the North Carolina Manufacturing Alliance which is the main hub that Chemours operates through is doing some heavy funding to make sure that their interests are maintained. So it's been a very eye opening experience to see how money flows through politics, to see how industry can capture public bodies, and can capture elected officials. But then also how industry can just capture the scientific narrative too, and so that has been an interesting experience. DD: Can you say any more about the kinds of legislation that were trying to be forwarded? ED: Yeah there was a Polluter Pays Bill, a local representative, Deb Butler, she had sponsored a Polluter Pays and basically it would have required any responsible party that put PFAS into a public source of drinking water was responsible for making sure that the utilities could filter it out. And so not putting the burden on the ratepayers, and it was pretty much a very specific bill that would have helped not just the Wilmington area because there are three utilities that have been impacted not–three utilities and three hundred thousand residents are impacted by this, but there’s also communities upstream along the Haw River that feeds into the Cape Fear River and Pittsboro, and their water district has high levels of PFAS that almost–I mean they’re just as high as our levels here, and that’s coming from the textile industry in Burlington, North Carolina, and so the concern is making sure that industry is being held accountable for what they’re dumping into these public bodies of water, because we can’t filter them out easily it requires very advanced technology to filter it out of the drinking water, and that’s very expensive. And as it stands right now Pittsboro residents, Brunswick county residents, CFPUA residents, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, which is–it which services New Hanover county and Wilmington residents and then portions of Brunswick county residents are all having to pay for upgrades themselves because Chemours is refusing to do it voluntarily. That’s the big one, it did not go forward, and it did not have bipartisan support even with some–there’s republican representatives in our district who live in this contaminated area and they didn’t cosponsor–one of them didn’t cosponsor it. It was really odd like [laughter] this is why–what are your–who do 4 �you want to pay for this, it’s a real problem, and they’re just–yeah, there’s just no explanation for why he wouldn’t champion it or wouldn’t co-sponsor it. Because we had the Brunswick County representatives, our both republicans and they both co-sponsored it, they were like we’re on board [chuckles] so it just is such a bizarre situation. There were some other bills that would band–band PFAS and firefighting foam and that bill, I worked really hard with the state level coalitions to introduce that bill back in 2019 and it did not progress on in 2019. And I don’t know why because in Congress, Congress has already banned PFAS and firefighting foam, the military will no longer be using it. So it’s banned immediately from I believe training, and it will be banned completely from use by 2024, I’m not like–I can’t remember, I think that’s the date but I’m not sure. So the writings on the wall it’s inevitable, the military’s already doing it. Everybody sees how expensive it is to keep using this product, it’s a huge liability for the military, our military bases, it's a huge liability for municipalities to keep using it, so it seems like a no brainer North Carolina should actually pass this bill and go ahead and just fall in line with where the world is headed and they refuse to. The bill got resubmitted this past year and it was resubmitted by the Republicans but only as a lets catalog an inventory on firefighting foam. So it was not a firefighting band bill, it was a let’s have the state fire marshals create an inventory tracking system so they know exactly where it is but let's not touch–let’s let it still being used, and so that was just a little bizarre to me. There was movement in the house to get the bill to add banning it from training. So the house did eventually agree and pass their version that said fire fighting foam or AFFF would be banned from training and that was a modest win. But again it should be banned completely, especially when we see the military’s doing it. The Senate is debating it, and it’s my understanding that it's not going anywhere right now, but I haven’t checked in recently to see what the Senate side is doing. So this bill hasn’t been–it hasn’t fully passed, it hasn’t been signed by a governor yet. Other things, the only piece of legislation if we’re going back to 2018, so we found out in 2017 in June about our contamination. 2018 was when bills were submitted, and the only bill that got approved was this Water Safety Act Bill, and basically it gave the state agencies five million doallas to address PFAS. Compare that to Michigan, Michigan spent fifty million and North Carolina has like–DuPont and Chemours here, and they could–they only wanted to spend five million, and by the way North Carolina has a billion dollar rainy day fund. Like–is it a billion–I will have to double check, they have a massive rainy day fund and, they have the money, like there’s money they can use, it’s not that we’re a poor state at all, we're not. They just didn’t you know didn’t want to spend the money. That money was used, I believe–here’s where I have to like, I don’t want to misspeak, because I can’t remember everything that that bill incorporated, but it was modest, and it gave them–it gave money to establish a group the PFAS network which is North Carolina, education–like universities that are all supposed to start studying PFAS but the problem with doing that is that it didn’t give the state agencies like DEQ [Department of Environmental Quality] and DHHS [Department of Health and Human Services] authority to regulate. So even if the big thing that came from it is that they gave these independent scientists money to go and sample all the water supplies in North Carolina to find out where PFAS was, and so that’s good, we kind of want to be able to see it. But they wrote it in a way where they didn’t want utilities, they didn’t want any research to be done on the finished tap water only on the raw water. So it's just raw water sources that are being tested. And that’s fine that that’s being tested but DEQ can’t regulate off of any of that testing. So our DEQ said we still need a chain of command, we still have to do testing of our own in order to regulate. So that’s great that you’re letting us know but we’re still going to have to spend money and do our own work. So, it was kinda just like this silly–I mean I don’t want to 5 �call it silly because it’s great work what the scientists are doing, and the scientists just did some phenomenal work because they looked at more than just five or six, they were looking at, let’s open it up and do a wide view, you know a wide view and find out what we're seeing. So that was important for us to kind of see where it is, that was public surface water, I think they were then going to start looking at ground water across the state which is a little more tricky. And so I think they are working on that right now, but again in all of that in these four years the state of North Carolina still has not officially regulated PFAS. We do not have any drinking water standards for PFAS, we don’t have any surface water or groundwater standards for PFAS, we don’t have–any discharge limits or regulations set for PFAS. So nothing has been done in four years. On, officially and legally and that is frustrating because this is really just feeling like they’re running out the clock. It shouldn’t be that difficult to say, hey lets do something. There’s been a lot of back and forth on well, the federal government should do it, or the state government should do it. And there’s been a lot of waffling, and the most interesting thing is that the head of our EPA now was the head of North Carolina’s DEQ so secretary Regan, Michael Regan is now administrator of the EPA. Michael Regan–and super excited to see what he is going to do, and no one knows more about PFAS probably than he does, with his experiences here in North Carolina. The concern being will he act on PFAS because North Carolina was such a tricky place to be and we still don’t have regulations in North Carolina, will get regulations out of his EPA at the federal level. So there’s a lot of questions there and one other thing that I’ve done is I’ve partnered with center for environmental health, and we filed a petition to the EPA last year too [unclear here] to do human health and toxicity studies on fifty four PFAS that we documented we were exposed to either through our food, water, our air supply, or was in our blood. And the previous administration denied the petition and so we resubmitted the petition to the Biden administration, and we’re waiting to hear back and we also filed suit. So we are poised to go to court with the EPA regardless of you know which administration, just to show that this is something we feel should have been done. These chemical companies should be forced, or should be showing the toxicity data on anything that they make before they release it into the air, or the water, the soil, the food supply, you know this is just–it makes sense. You know you should have to get permission before you dump, not afterwards, but we understand that, the past is the past so let's fix it now. And it's my understanding that Chemours is actively fighting this. And so again it seems like Chemours says one thing publicly and then does one thing privately. Which is that they fight, they fight all these lawsuits there–my water district and Wilmington water district has been in an active lawsuit with Chemours for the last two or three years to get them to pay for utility upgrades, and they’re actively fighting it. And we are–and my coalision is working to get Chemours to pay for human health studies for the ones–the PFAS that we can document we were exposed to and they’re actively fighting against it [chuckles] so it's been a really not surprising journey because we knew they would play this game. But I know–what I think is interesting is will the agencies step up and do right by the public, you know who–what entities are they here to serve. Are they here to serve corporations or are they here to serve the American public, the taxpayers that pay for them because we are realizing that corporations don’t always pay their taxes, or you know find funny way to not pay taxes, but I’m paying taxes [chuckles], so I’d love to see this work for me, so. DD: So, you’ve hinted at this a little bit, but maybe you could say a little bit more. What concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward? 6 �ED: Oh-gosh, this is where I get sad. Sorry [sniffle]. DD: I’m sorry. ED: Will I wake up one day and find out that something is wrong with my kids. And it was related to doing what I thought I was supposed to be doing as a parent, giving them water. You know our pediatrician–every time we would visit the pediatrician, they were like giving us–you know encourage to drink water, encourage to drink water, and you know we did that, oh my gosh my children love water. And for the last four years they have been afraid to drink water at their school. So you know there’s– I’m worried–yeah like I just don’t know–there’s mother doubt you know. Why didn’t we have a filter on our sink just as a precaution. There’s rage of why should we have a filter on our sink just as a precaution. And then there's an aching heart for those who simply can’t have filters because they can’t afford them. But like I see and read and talk to so many people that have to choose. They’re like I can’t keep buying bottled water, or I can’t keep filtering this out and keep paying for my utility bill. You know and so then there's this over rationalization of maybe it’s not that bad, maybe this isn’t an issue. But it gets kind of alarming when you read the studies and you see what the effects are, and the information is still emerging. So that’s the biggest one is, will we wake up in five or ten years and have major medical issues because we’ve had so many in the past, and that trauma comes back to the forefront of I don’t want to deal with another trauma, another medical problem, because it was really hard. I mean we got through it, people have been through worse, you know like I get that. This is avoidable, this is preventable, there is a solution to this problem, and it's just people having the courage to stand up and do the right thing so that’s what I worry about. Oh, there was one other thing, that, that I did that I am proud of that has been successful, is that we finally got two–we petitioned two school boards. I participated in an environmental working group tap water study and I pulled water from my children’s public school and it ended up being the top. The top of the study, and it ended up being an underreported moment because we get our water from the river so the levels fluctuate. So, when EWG [Environmental Working Group] called me and said you're at the top of this list and by a lot, I was like [we're by a lot?]. I was like okay so we had the highest levels in our tap water in my children’s schools and that’s not even a full representation of what I know is in the tap water. Because they used a commercial lab and our utility is also looking for Chemours compounds that weren’t included in that so. So we are always reporting higher than what some people will test for, and so I took that information to Wilmington–[or New Hanover?]county’s school board and I took it to Brunswick county school board and I got them to install reverse osmosis filling stations in all of their schools. So forty nine public schools at the start of last school year had reverse osmosis filling stations in every school so that children and teachers and staff could access healthy drinking water and its–I’m proud of it but I’m frustrated because Chemours should be doing that. You know and here a mom in Brunswick country you know whose [son and school teachers is begging people?]to do it. So, I’m happy it's done but sometimes it's bittersweet, but the person that’s doing it, you know it shouldn’t be just me, it shouldn’t be just my group, and by the way it wasn’t just me. I have a really fantastic team of supporters–a leadership team that I work with–so yeah again I have to state that it is not just me this whole Clean Cap Fear is a collaborative effort, and there is a lot of people who make the work I couldn’t do it alone. 7 �DD: For sure. Before we wrap up today, is there anything else you’d like to add that we haven’t touched on or anything that you want to go back to and say more about? ED: No, I could talk for hours about this [laughter]. It’s been a long journey, it's been a good journey. I do want to mention too that the national PFAS contamination coalition, this is–that has been really great group to be connected to. It’s other community groups just like mine across the country dealing with similar contamination stories. Whether it's industrial or military and I’m just grateful to lean on them because I think this whole experience is–it can get isolating if you think you’re doing it alone. You know and advocates are stronger when they can collaborate, and it's been really great to have that network of support. And so I think that is the biggest takeaway from this, is that coalition building has really worked, locally, we have a really strong coalition. There's a strong coalition at the state level and then this national coalition to be a part of so it's been a really, really important for emotional health and mental health when you're going through a contamination crisis and you’re trying to advocate for better solutions. DD: Absolutely, thank you so much Emily for taking the time to share your story today. ED: I appreciate it, thank you for having me. 8 � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0015 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Donovan, Emily Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-06-18 Title A name given to the resource Emily Donovan, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Emily Donovan is originally from South Carolina, but has lived in North Carolina, near Wilmington, for almost 12 years. In this interview, Emily discusses how her husband's sudden loss of sight led doctors to identify a tumor. A few years later, the Wilmington area was identified as a PFAS contaminiation site. Since then Emily has been involved in community action for PFAS awareness. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/408938bc0d8864d0b4ea06cad66e1789.mp4 64920388a8ef05f7e9b71c3605783f15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/89773faf1331a5ce4851ac6e07683ff7.pdf 1d7268b4b89cc3ac172b5e593d4ff1f3 PDF Text Text Living With PFAS Interviewee: Gail Mancewicz Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: September 28, 2021 DD: I’m Dani Devasto, and today September 28th, 2021, I have the pleasure of chatting with Gail Mancewicz. Hi, Gail. GM: Hi, how are you? DD: I’m doing well. How are you? GM: I’m doing wonderful. DD: Gail, can you tell me about where you're from and where you currently live? GM: I’m from Rockford originally, the Rockford area and then I moved to Grand Rapids in 2017 I believe. I and that – and that kind of goes along with this PFAS story. Originally, I moved to Rockford- I lived in the Rockford area all my life. I lived in Cantford. And then I moved to Rockford in 03’ and then I moved from my house, I lived down on a little side street, to Mainstreet in 09’. And then that summer, I’m standing out on my lawn talking to my mother and the [Macintosh?] comes up and she starts talking about the demolition of the [tannery?]. And would you be interested in meeting with residents and talking about this? Sure, sure. So, I go and low and behold they’re - they literally- we wind up babysitting the site as far as proper demolition but were also trying to get them to test. They destroyed all those buildings without doing any testing whatsoever. Of a hundred-year-old [tannery?]. And I was like huh? You're really going to put us all at risk. And then the more we started to dig we realized; this is nuts. We found a 1994 – 90 – yeah 94, inspection of this site. I think it was by MIOSHA. And the housekeeping was deplorable. DD: [laughs] GM: And – And that’s putting it mildly, and when you're dealing with- I mean there's scraps all over the place. And some of them treated, and you can still find scraps. You could put up a telephone pole and find scraps. And – And so that even further encouraged us to keep going. And then we find these waste reports. And they would say, oh no there's no known contaminants on the site. And they’re saying we didn’t use any [unclear] or ammonia or anything. And they're saying we didn’t use any of those and were seeing it in the waste reports. So, no, they’re lying to you, to us. And the city is pushing back on us and I’m sure everyone has heard of the expression of company town. Wolverine was and yes, still is a company town. I’ve heard stories from- my mother heard stories actually, from an old time, he’s no longer with us, business owner who said he couldn’t even practice his religion of Catholicism because he 1 �wanted to be a businessperson. He wound up going out of town to do that and still keeping his business but that’s how much of a hold, that company back in the 50’s had. DD: [mhm] GM: So, but we’re still seeing this when there's pushback, we really don’t want to predict residents from chemicals. This is before we even knew about PFAS. I got into it, I called up Glen and I said I’m worried about this rearing its ugly head 20 years from now in our groundwater. And this was in 2010- 2011. I’d be sitting in there – these meetings with my neighbors and they’re talking about runoff, and I'm saying guys, what about the groundwater? And they’re like no no no no, this is all historical so it’s gonna be runoff. It turned out to be, it's both. We still have - there’s still chemicals in that, but the PFAS has been removed or most of it. It's still going underneath the river and stuff and invading the water supply. And – And so, it is both, there was runoff into the river but then there’s also this water supply issue. And my worry of 20 years came way way too soon. I wish I had been wrong. And so, we're being bullied, and there's articles in the paper. We put out a petition to the EPA, because we weren’t getting anywhere with the [DEQ?]. So, we - we make this petition to the EPA, and they liked it and they came on board. Well, there’s articles in the squire saying how we shouldn’t have done this, and they even printed our names which was supposed to be confidential. Michael made sure that our names got plastered and vilified in that article, which the squire does what he told them to do. And my hunch is he wrote the article. And later, situations with other sites- the editor made it mush, so I knew he was helping her write those articles. So, then I decided I wanted to be in city hall, so I ran for city council, and I won. DD: [chuckles] GM: By 30 sum votes. I beat out an incumbent by 30 sum votes. 300 or something, I forget. It was 3 something, but it was a really close margin. And I still- they would even interrupt me when I was speaking but I couldn’t interrupt them. It was all – it was 2 women and 3 men, and they ruled the roost. And at one point [it was – we were going to have-?] I go to this council meeting, and they say oh yeah, we’re having a meeting that’s, ya know exempt afterwards from public meetings act. And it was - the original part of it and this wasn’t even on the agenda, it was supposed to be on the agenda, and it was about labor, but it still should have been on the agenda. We should have gone out and come back, but they do it all after, and then after that was gone all staff was involved in those labor negotiations left. And then they started to attack me, for my stance on [unclear]. And it was - they were saying oh it's just a Hail Mary and its only ammonia. No, it was a year or so after that PFAS got on our radar. And I left that that meeting and I’m like [I’m not stopping?] this is too important, because lives are at stake. And sure enough, as this progressed and PFAS got to be known, that wound up being this baby jack [I think you’ve- I’ve talked with mother?] and I told people that [hate?] is like a grenade with a pin out. [You don’t know where it’s gonna come?] there's so much PFAS, you don’t know where its gonna manifest itself and how its gonna impact this life. And that’s scary. DD: [mhm] 2 �GM: And that’s why I was in this for decades so that years down the road people don’t say what were they thinking. And I’m still wondering what the town of Rockford was thinking. Because they made people who are impacted sacrificial lambs for their, Wolverine’s, profit margin. And for the town's public image. Of being this nice, cute town. Which, I’m sure you’ve seen some of the articles in the squire, if you haven’t, we will get them to you. Because it was unbelievable, the length they would go to, to stop us. And here people are having cancer because of what they put in the ground. And they didn’t want anybody to know about it, so you wanted people to die without being able to save their lives, without being able to have testing and catch it early. The earlier you catch cancer the better you are surviving. You really wanted to rob people of that? And that’s - that’s what got me into it. I mean, Rockford is supposed to be this predominantly Christian community, but yet there's nothing Christian about what was going on and still going on as far as I’m concerned, [there’s still pushback?]. And it drove me to law school. You know, after age 50 I went to law school, because I wanted- I knew I was being lied to, but I needed to know the laws. DD: [chuckles] GM: And so, I went to law school and that’s why I wound up moving into Grand Rapids. Because I’m visually impaired, I don’t drive. And [Trying to get back from?] law school. [I was going to Cooley law school?] in Grand Rapids. And I needed to move. So, I lost the election. Get this, it was another site that’s not connected to Wolverine that’s contaminated. And they wanted to put, and they are putting a [development?] on it. And I was against that and so they literally pushed me out of that office by getting the Widow of Michael Young on there and really propaganda, I didn’t have a voice and it’s only one paper and she was [unclear] line of Rockford, the city of Rockford. I didn’t have a voice. And it’s crazy and that’s what hurts. Not that they attacked me, it's that they were stopping people from being able to have agency over their own health and knowledge of what was being put in their bodies. DD: When was that? That the – that you lost the election? GM: 2016. DD: Ok. GM: Yeah, I served one term. I thoroughly enjoyed my time. I love representing the people and I like politics. And so - But it was just heartbreaking that they were willing to go to such lengths just for PR and money, and human life is way more valuable than that, way more valuable. DD: [mhm] So, what happened after that? You're-You’re not on the city council anymore, you're in law school. GM: I graduated. 3 �DD: Congrats. GM: In Grand Rapids, I’m still living in Grand Rapids. And I’m still involved in the CAG, and I’m still involved in CCRR. The CAG for those who hear this is the Wolverine Community Advisory Group, its connected with the EPA. And then CCRR is Concerned Citizens for Responsible Redevelopment which is the whole group that started this in the first place. And so, that’s where we’re at now. But there is another story I want to tell of how far they went. That really doesn’t have to do with me but has to do with a member of our group. Janice she was working for [Elboro?]. What does that stand for, it's part of the Grand Valley Metro Council. [And it’s the lower] Grand RapidsDD: Organization of water sheds? GM: Yes. Yup, yup, yes. She was working for them, and Michael got the director, Michael Young go the director to leave, either you work for us entirely and stop working with CCRR or you leave. And she said fine, I’ll leave. [unclear] she said to us later [inaudible] I could work for them full time, and they put out things that were helpful and she did a lot of investigating for us that was so helpful, and she had a knowledge of the DEQ. That, and she could connect us with people, and it was the best thing that ever happened. And God was walking with us. But that’s how, they were even-and it was illegal, but yeah, they impacted her employment just for his own gain, and Wolverine’s own gain. DD: And just for those listening, can you say who is this Michael Young? GM: Michael Young was a city manager of Rockford; he is now deceased. And he was the city manager for 20 years. DD: Ok. GM: Over 20 years. DD: [mhm] GM: And for his 20-year anniversary they had the retired judge [Cervas?] there. They had the news people there, and they were giving him this award about doing environmental work. I had every-and I was on the council at the time. I had everything to do, not to just vomit right there on the, at the table. DD: [chuckles] GM: Because his work paled in significance to what he could have done to help bring proper testing and accountability to Wolverine for the citizens of Rockford and the Rockford area. So that we could stay healthy, so that people could know if they were exposed to carcinogens, and he did nothing for that. His work paled in- Yes, having streams that are shaded and nice are 4 �great for trout fishermen, yeah and I applaud that, but it pales in significance to what he could have done. And I had everything I could do not to vomit right there sitting in front of everybody. DD: It sounds like you’ve been involved in a lot of different ways in your community for dealing with PFAS both through the council and the CAG and the CCRR group, it sounds like you’ve been busy, Gal. GM: I have. I’m not really- I mean now I'm going to be going in a different direction because I’m looking for positions with diversity, equity, and inclusion with my law degree because of my disability, that’s an important thing for me too. And so, there’s a lot going on and it’s pretty amazing and I’m very proud of what I did and what, I, we are continuing to do. In fact, for that group an absence of any one of those people; you know myself, Lynn, Grant Mittich and Lynn’s husband: Mike, Lynn MacIntosh and Mike MacIntosh, we could not have done what we did, it took all of us. There’s no one star, it’s everybody. And that’s what a community is all about, is everybody, not just the businesses but everybody including the residents and Rockford’s forgotten that. They forgot that we pay your taxes too and we need to be listened to and they have still forgotten that. DD: How did CCRR form? GM: That was-that was first the Central Rockford Neighborhood Association. And I was a part of that too, I was the secretary, I ran unopposed, it was really funny. A month into it, I’m running for an office and here I am secretary. And-but some people didn’t want to be a part of the Wolverine thing. So, we split the 2 groups in half. The paper still smushed us together they want to paint everybody in that neighborhood with a bad light. So, then we started CCRR and kept CRNA, Central Rockford Neighborhood Association separate. So that’s how it all started. And I respect some people didn’t want that much drama in their life and it [it is?] a lot of drama. And it’s unfortunate that we- unfortunate because human life is human life and if you’re a right to life [you should be about?] protecting people from carcinogens. [both speaking unclear] DD: How have you handled the drama in your life? GM: I do a lot of venting [laughs] and I for a while was eating my stress. And then-and then I got into law school and that helped because then I was doing something constructive and also that’s why I got on the council because the stress I needed to be doing something, I had to put it in action and that’s what you do when you see something that’s important to you, you put it into action. DD: So, moving forward what concerns do you have about PFAS contamination? 5 �GM: I’m worried about where [unclear] are going and we’re still finding stray barrels around and I’m worried that they're not testing about- with it- and there are other areas in fact I’ve got to even get my mother’s water tested and I’ve got to figure out how to do that. She lives out in [Canonsburg?] and whether it’s connected with PFAS, I mean with Wolverine PFAS I don’t know. Because there are other things that cause PFAS. So, I want to make sure that people are aware of where those [tubes?] are going and I want more action by Wolverine on clean up on House Street and what is actually happening, and they literally use the court system to insulate themselves from more action. And they really-and they also need to be accountable for what's going on in Plainfield and that bothers me too. They really broke the law already and unfortunately the AG’s office, the attorney general's office didn’t see that because they were, they said, okay you can put-you can continue to dump here in Plainfield, but it can’t enter the ground water. Well, it has and that was in a court order, and they're not being held accountable for it. So, where's our court dollars and tax dollars in the court going? To help Wolverine, and that’s, that’s disturbing, and it don't look right. And we-they did this in the federal court with only the EPA, Eagle, what is now called Eagle [inaudible] EQ which is now called Eagle, and Wolverine. citizens weren’t involved in that negotiation on what was going on there. What their cleanup is supposed to be, so all those people affected on Health Street had no voice and if they did it wasn’t listened to much because it’s not enough. And you just can’t just be comfortable as Wolverine [inaudible statement] with your water you’ve gotta be darn sure there’s nothing wrong. Not just comfortable like a shoe or mattress, but one-hundred percent sure. And it was not taken into account very much in my opinion. There’s work going on and we have a great relationship and credibility with the EPA and with Eagle so that is very helpful, and we have been able to say uh-uh it needs to be- there needs to be more action here and they’ve listened to us. There was a plan they wanted to do for Health Street and it was a non-starter, it was - it was like doing nothing and so they had to go back to the drawing board and that’s where we’re at now with it. So, it’s just keeping them to the fire, and that is what I told the EPA, none of this can go away because they’ll just drop the ball and that’ll be it and people will still be impacted, and this is a forever chemical and so it’s going to be forever that we keep an eye on it. DD: 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? GM: No, I think, my outline is on my phone so I’m not texting anybody I’m just[both laughing] GM: I had my outline on my phone and I want to make sure, I do have some articles here, but I couldn’t read them on my phone. Oh yeah, the city council- oh what year was that? It was before I was even on it, so it was like 2011 or something or 2012. Before I got on it. I sent a letter to John Biles, he was a part of Wolverine, and all five city council members were on at the time signed it, trashing us and saying how they support them and they will help them and it was just- it was not helpful at all. I mean, it definitely showed their colors of not wanting to protect the citizens. Because that’s where environmental action starts and prevention starts, the city 6 �and municipalities can protect the citizens that where it starts. And if you don’t do that, and if the state who also has this duty to protect the citizens as part of their police powers that the constitution gives the state, then where are we? We’re lost. And we need more people to step up, there are some good people at Eagle at the beginning of this, they would say oh wait, I would hear, oh yes, they really see what's happening here and they agree with us and then they’d be moved to another project. So as soon as someone saw what was going on they would be moved to another project. No, no more. And thank goodness now we have the same people but, in a way, it was, you know it was only really after the whole it exploded with PFAS that I really started to see the same people. And there was one particular person who was on there, David O’Donnell who literally was helping Wolverine. They-we have a picture of Michael Young, David O’Donnell and someone from Wolverine standing by the river and their [unclear] it and there was no permit for this, I think it was right where the wastewater treatment plant used to be. You know, kind of the highest contaminated spot, no permit, no regulations they’re just [unclear] away. They have been known to even, during a rainstorm, they would spray it with water by hose, it was a solution to pollution with dilution. And he’s still in the Eagle, they moved him to Lansing. I’m like come on, I mean as a person with a disability it’s hard to get a job, and here he’s doing all these horrible things and he, yet he gets a job? Uh uh, and I justthey've gotten better, and we’ve gotten a good relationship with them, and we’ve gotten credibility and that’s why that other site that’s not related to Wolverine did so well and was cleaned up much better than would have been had we not had that relationship with Eagle. And so, it’s gotten better but I think there’s more that can be done because your gonna have these [unclear] and not just here in Rockford but also [Portsmith?] and Portage and there’s other places I think in the state and they’re going to need to be on top of it and they're going to need to inform the residents not way after the fact, so they can be doing proactive health screenings and testing and know where they’re at. So, they can either you know [inaudible] water system or bottle their water way before, I mean that’s why we really gotta keep an eye on [inaudible]. Right now, the technology isn't there to scoop it out of the ground and out of the water supply. We don’t have the technology for that yet. They are working on that, but we just don’t have it. DD: [hmm] GM: That’s all-I think that’s it. DD: [chuckles] Well thank you so much, Gail, for taking the time to share your story today. GM: Oh, you're welcome. 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0030 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mancewicz, Gail Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-09-28 Title A name given to the resource Gail Mancewicz, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Gail Mancewicz lives in Rockford, Michigan. In this interview, Mancewicz discusses the demolition of the old Wolverine tannery and the environmental and public health impact on the 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/333878650df1713a98e60a16fc187dd7.mp4 5efafdf197a5b009cf009e22f4641453 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6e6649c770d20570bf2c1db8567cc9dd.pdf 94164b265ecfe1d51f5225df0120f49e PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Garret Ellison Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: June 29, 2021 DD: I’m Dani DeVasto and today, June 29th, 2021, I have the pleasure of chatting with Garret Ellison. Hi, Garret! GE: Hi, Dani. DD: Garret, can you tell me where you are from and where you currently live? GE: Well, I’m, [chuckles], I guess I’m from Traverse City. I grew up and went to school in Traverse City. Graduated high school up there in 2001 and then, I went to the community college there at [MC?] and started a journalism career — or studying journalism brought me to Central Michigan where I got a bachelor’s degree and I now work for MLive as the Statewide Environmental Reporter. I’ve done that since 2015-2014 and I currently live in Kalamazoo. I’ve bounced around — Traverse City, Mount Pleasant, Grand Rapids. I did a lot — a lot of the stuff we’re going to talk about today happened when I live in the Grand Rapids-Kent County area. DD: And how long have you been in Kalamazoo? GE: Since 2019. I moved down here to be closer to my daughter who moved away with my ex in 2018. So, [chuckles] I’ll get into some of that because it ties into the story a little bit. DD: Alright, let’s just get rolling then. Can you please tell me a story about your experience with PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] or PFAS in your community? GE: Sure, I guess what I can tell you is a little bit about the — the best story that I have to tell is the way the news broke around the Wolverine Worldwide contamination in the RockfordBelmont area and I think the place to begin is with an email that I got I — I pulled it up. So, it was July 19, yep, 2017, and I was in Alabaster Township over on the sunrise side of the state — near Tawas. Just south of Tawas. At what would be — would’ve been my father and mother in-laws’ bedroom where I was working— you know had I gotten married to my ex, my daughter’s mother. So, we were up visiting during the week, and I was working, you know, remotely and they were, you know, my daughter was little over 1 years old at the time. She’s still pretty little. And so, we were up near — Haley is her — my ex’s name and my daughter’s name is Olive. And so, we were up with Haley’s parents, and I got an email from a woman named Lynn McIntosh. And her email is lmarie003, right, and I didn’t understand it at the time but the 003 is sort of a cute James Bond reference [laughs] — like she’s [Agent 003?]. 1 �DD: [laughs] GE: And she said she had read a lot of articles that I had written, and she follows the PFAS issue pretty closely and she wanted to tell me a possible lead on a story about related to PFOS [perand polyfluoroalkyl substances] sources in Northern Kent County other than Plainfield Township. And so, at this point, I had written fairly extensively about Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda which like is the first place in Michigan that PFAS had ever been discovered. And through that reporting, I had learned that the chemicals were in the township municipal water supply in Plainfield at sort of moderate levels. I think were — nothing that really exceeded the EPA’s 70 parts per trillion health advisory level, but nevertheless, sort of concerning. So, I had written in 2016 an article about that, right so, Plainfield, Ann Arbor, detection of these chemicals in public drinking water— and it was some of the first reporting in Michigan about PFAS and drinking water. So it was real early — you know there was a reaction to it, but it wasn’t like, you know, had you written that story now, people would — “oh, no” — they’d really go nuts. People didn’t quite understand it then. So, I got this email from a lady named Lynn talking about possible sources in Kent County — Northern Kent County and it really piqued my interest because nobody knew why it was getting into Plainfield Township’s water. There was a suspicion that it was a [super fun side?] on the East Beltline but hadn’t been determined yet. And there was suspicion that it could from a gravel pit on the other side of the — the Grand River which subsequently would discover was a Wolverine dump site. But none of this had been discovered yet. And so, Lynn McIntosh asked to meet. And so — I didn’t get back to her right away. [laughs] I got back to her few days later on the 21st. And I said — I apologized for — the delay — sometimes it takes me a few days, you know, — just to — I get emails from lots of different people, and you’ve got to decide, do I respond to this person? Because everybody promises they’ve got a story, and they’ve got a big scoop. And it’s like, some of them are just cranks. And you just don’t — you just don’t want to — want to give them a reply because then you get pulled in. DD: [um-hum] GE: But Lynn had enough detail. And she mentioned something — she mentioned something in her email — or emails — about a tannery. And that — triggered something in my mind because — I had moved to Sparta in October 2016 from Grand Rapids with my, you know, ex and our — our infant daughter. Sparta, I don’t know if you’re familiar with Sparta, but it’s not — there’s not a lot to do there. [chuckles] DD: [chuckles] 2 �GE: But it’s close to Rockford, you know, it’s, you know, a 5-10 minute drive. So, in the evenings, we would go to Rockford and we would walk the White Pine trail with Olive in the stroller. And, you know, it’s kind of nice downtown, and there’s the dam. And just, you know, if you’re going to go for a stroll with a kid, it’s a — it’s a more desirable place to do that. And so, we’ve been walking the white pine trails a few times, and we’re walking past this big, empty property north of downtown Rockford and I keep looking at it like, why is there a fence here? What is this? I just didn’t know what the property used to be. But it looked like a pollution site, right? I’ve been doing environmental stuff for a while, and I was kind of like, [hmmm] something’s going on here. This is prime real-estate downtown. It would be built on if there wasn’t some sort of contamination error issue going on here. So, I remember flagging down a police officer, one of the bike cops that just sort of [roams around?], and I was like “Hey is there something wrong with that property?”. And I got a “Oh, no —no I don’t know anything about it, you know”. And I’m like, “you don’t know anything about that property, you know, mister police officer who live in Rockford and works in Rockford and this is downtown Rockford?” [mimics garbled response from police officer] DD: [chuckles] GE: So, I had kind of been like [huh]. Through this email with Lynn, I learned that this was the Wolverine Worldwide tannery. And — it — it just sort of clicked that — that could be interesting. And so, I agreed to meet Lynn a few days later and we walked — we walked from the Rockford Dam up to — a spot on the river right next to where the foot depot is, right. So, there is the existing building on the tannery site — the only thing that is left. And it used to be the manufacturing facility itself, but now it’s just a shoe store. DD: [um-hum] And so, Lynn’s kind of like, you’ve got to see this. There’s still a ton of leather and stuff leftover from the tannery itself right here in the riverbank. And I’m like, really? And so, we push all this brush aside on the riverbank, it was pretty overgrown at the time, I mean you walked the trail and could see the river but it’s not like it is now after the EPA clean up, where, you know, it’s been — all that underbrush and vegetation has been removed. So, we push aside this — all this vegetation and just look down and it’s just leather litter. It’s — it’s — like old scraps of the leather, the trimmings, right, from the manufacturing process. And — and — pieces of shoe, rubber soles — rubber shoe soles. And it was obvious right? Anybody could’ve figured it out. I mean — there was even a— a— a sole, a full rubber sole of a shoe that said hush puppies on it. [laughs] So — I mean it’s like, huh. DD: Yeah. GE: So, I took a bunch of pictures of this, and immediately I’m like, well, if a company is going to leave this here, right here on the riverbank for anyone to find, it’s got their name on it — what else have they left, you know? So, everything was sort of [hmm] — this is —Lynn McIntosh is 3 �definitely not just a crank or someone who was just emailing me, right? There’s something here for sure. So, I started to really get into, alright, what’s going on? And so, she shows me the leather scraps — which those photos really caught people’s attention, right? Just that — the idea that this stuff is still littering the river and it has the company’s name on it and it’s been there for years. And it’s been there for so long that like, it had become a part of the riverbank. Like trees had grown up around it. Big trees. And you know, to hear Lynn tell it, it was just the tip of the iceberg. You know, I mean like, the whole riverbank was made of leather, more or less, you know, in fact there’s and island on the river that they call the “Island of the Lost Soles”. DD: [chuckles] GE: You know, because it was supposedly built on leather trimmings, and leather hides and stuff that hadn’t been, you know, used as infill. DD: Wow. GE: So, [sighs] so she — you know I go over to Lynn’s house, and she drops theses huge binders of like, you know, paperwork, old reports [foil materials?], emails, her own sort of, you know, sketches and drawings like her decade of —near decade work on the tannery and the contamination issue there. And you know, it was like, it was overwhelming — like oh man. [laughs] And so, I started to go through it and talk to her and sort of understand what the concern was which ended up being they put a ton of scotch guard on that leather and — they had — you know her group, CCRR, [Concerned Citizens for Responsible Redevelopment], was initially the “R”, but they changed it to be “remediation” later on — you know had learned about all the scotch guard use and was arguing with Wolverine to try to get them to do more with the remediation at the tannery site. And they were having all kinds of problems because there was a guy at Michigan Department of Environmental Quality who was real friendly to Wolverine, and you know, he just didn’t take them seriously at all and didn’t like Lynn clearly at all. She seemed to have rubbed him the wrong way. [sighs] And so, we start to scope out a story about, you know, this issue with the PFAS in the river. It had been found with some surface water testing a few years prior that’s they knew for sure it was there — and like look at all this, I mean the leather scraps, and the river, and the tannery, and the fish was the first story that we worked on. And that was — I think we finally got that ready to go in late August. Let me Google the date. [typing sounds] August 23, 2017, right. So, it was ready to go about a week or so before that, but the Corner Bar in Rockford caught fire on like, the day that we were going to publish this story. And so, we held on to it. To not, I mean —sort of for us — just community sensitivity reasons. I mean it was like, okay, we’re not gonna — [laughs] the community of Rockford is mourning the loss of an institution right now., we’re not going to just the same day put this story out there about how there’s this big pollution problem in the river right downtown. I mean, it’s there, it can wait a week. 4 �So, we waited a week and then published it on the 23rd of August — and [sighs][chuckles] I feel like I already glossed over so much just by — at this point — so while I was reporting out that story in August, I got a phone call from Lynn, who, you know, [sighs] had just found sort of just through the grapevine that the DEQ [Michigan Department of Environmental Quality], they’re now called EAGLE [Environment And Great Lakes Energy] — it’s a cute acronym —they were handing out bottled water on a street in Belmont — where the chemicals were being found in people’s private drinking wells. DD: [huh] GE: And she was all excited — like not in a good way but like “oh my god, they found — they found this stuff at like, eighteen-hundred parts per trillion”, probably more, but I’d have to go find the notebook, but she was like, “really high levels at someone’s well on House Street”. And I remember writing it down like, “House Street, where the hell is House Street?”, right, like I didn’t even know where that was, and I thought, what a silly name for a street — like “building avenue”. [chuckles] DD: [laughs] GE: So, before the first story about the river published, we learned about what was happening on House Street— but, I mean, at that point it’s like, “oh, man, you know, what do I do?” You know, I’ve reported on this story, it’s focused on the river, and this issue with the tannery, and it became — so I started looking at House Street too and it became clear that this is a Wolverine Worldwide problem as well — and so, you know, the focus — the decision was — well let’s get the first story out and then follow up pretty quickly — as soon as you can. And so, you know, by the time the story was published on the 23rd, I had already started pivoting to House Street and I was trying to — I was — I had gotten a good briefing on the issue from the guy at the DEQ. His name was David O’Donnell. And he kind of ends up being a villain in this story. [long sigh] I don’t know if villain is the best way to put it, but he does not come across well. I mean like, you know, if you go back and look at some of the decisions that he made, you know, he not a [sighs] — the people who live on House Street, right, are not a fan of David O’Donnell — neither is Lynn McIntosh or anyone who, you know, works for the CCRR because he had been sort of a gatekeeper at DEQ — in charge of sort of the site, the Wolverine tannery site. Come to find out, he had been really — he had been a bit of an impediment to this stuff being discovered and being dealt with — something of a poster child for regulator captures in some ways. But what had happened, you know, CCRR and Lynn McIntosh — her group had been gathering all this evidence about Wolverine’s scotch guard use and had been taking it to David O’Donnell and the DEQ and trying to go, “Hey, look. Look at where they — this stuffs in the river right here in Rockford, you know, Wolverine’s patent [chuckles] clearly demonstrates that they use these chemicals, there’s all kinds of references to is even if” — but of course their lawyers are denying that they did and you know — you know even denying that they knew anything about scotch guard or PFAS and just the way that lawyers deny stuff like that. 5 �[sighs] So, once I found out about House Street, I had been back and forth with David O’Donnell about the river story, you know, just sort of reporting that stuff out and I had followed the [foyer?] request for, you know, Wolverine’s investigation — river investigation workplan, and so once I found out about House Street, I called David O’Donnell and said “What are you doing on House Street?”. This was like one of those “oh shit, caught us moments” because I had been talking to him about Wolverine and the river and PFAS and all this stuff for weeks, but he never mentioned that up in this neighborhood Belmont, nearby, we are investigating whether this stuff is in drinking water and ground water around an old landfill that they used to use. And they had been doing that — they started doing that in the spring. DD: [hmm] GE: So, months before Lynn McIntosh had ever emailed me, they had started doing work out there. The reason that they had started doing work up there is because of the Kent County Health Department, right, and — and there’s a big backstory there involving Lynn’s groups and trying to get information to the DEQ and trying to get enough evidence to force them to start investing this issue. There’s a woman at the health department named Sarah Simmons, who really played a big role in sorting of forcing David O’Donnell to move up a timeline for investigating this — this stuff there. He would’ve sat on that until 2018 or later, you know. And so — [chuckles] so my phone call with David O’Donnell was very much like, “Oh, you found out about that. Well, okay, why don’t you come on over to our office and I’ll sit you down and tell you everything that’s going on there”. And so, he — I went over to the State Office Building in Downtown GR [Grand Rapids], where the DEQ had it’s — Remediation Division Office, and it’s just a walk from MLive’s office to the State’s Office downtown. He put a map in front of me, you know, with like a color-coded — like oh here’s the property with really bad — red [laughs] — where we think there’s really high levels [sighs] and it was like “oh, man”. So, he laid it all out for me, so I had enough for a story, right? I have an official source from the government confirming that there’s an investigation going on — here’s what the investigation is about and here’s the properties, you know, that are at concern. But [sighs] you know, [sighs] that’s — that’s like the bare minimum for a story like this and I wanted to get some people who live in the — who live in the area, who live in the affected neighborhood. And so, I was really — working hard to try and get like anyone on House Street. [chuckles] The first story that I wrote doesn’t have anyone who lives on House Street. It had someone who grew up on House Street — a woman named Brandy Glaskey who is actually a loose family connection of mine — who is like [sighs] my grandma’s sister’s son’s wife. I think that’s third cousin or something like that or something removed? I never really figured it out, but I remember seeing her at family gatherings growing up anyway so somehow I put together because we were like friends on Facebook that she grew – oh no I saw her name -I had gone down the street, writing down all the -y’know knocking on doors but you know you are working during the day, nobody is home, nobody is answering. Those people that do answer like don’t want anything to do with a reporter, there was a pregnant woman answered, you know a pregnant woman answered. I don’t remember the exact address but, there were these bottles of water like 6 �four little twenty-ounce bottles of water sitting there with like a note on top. And like you know pregnant woman answers with a little kid behind her, and I’m like thinking “oh man” you know, contamination in the drinking water, its never good for -I mean pregnant women and kids are vulnerable populations. So, you know everything just- you know shaping up that this was bad news but. And so, I’m writing down addresses and and searching the people behind those addresses and trying to find phone numbers and stuff to call them and figuring out who lives here and sort of this sort of this basic investigative backgrounding work. And then I googled 18-50 – It think [sighs] I didn’t google – no 1850 house street, and I put that together with Joel Stelt. And I googled his name and an obituary popped up immediately, and it was recent. Like a year old, 2016. And it mentioned cancer? And it was like “oh no” you know? I mean it was just like one of those -all the pieces are -all the red flags are just you know stacking up. [sighs]. So, I eventually was able to get enough information out of DEQ, I was able to get a FIAO request with a lot of old files, historical sort of records showing that yes Wolverine dumped here on this property, and this was the dates, and there was a lot of old water resources commissions records and stuff. And so, I had a lot information and I had a lot of experience with the chemicals and what they can do and how far they can go and what the safety thresholds and stuff were, and who the experts talked to about this stuff because I had spent a lot of time at -reporting wordsmith. And so [sighs] the story about the river didn’t get a lot of attention, because that’s just the way it goes with environmental stories you know if the impact is primarily to the ecosystem, its, and ecological concern fore most. [DD agrees] people are upset about that sort of thing, get upset about it, but the more of the mainstream reaction tends to just shrug at it. But when you write a headline that says “toxic chemicals pollute drinking water” near old tannery dump, that gets attention and so that story went up, [pauses] [typing is heard] August 30th, 2017, so, about a week later, a week after the river story. And that was really the, you know, the sort of the damn broke on Wolverine and on PFAS and Rockford and that’s when it became like WOOD TV and all the TV stations suddenly jumped on it, you know Ken Kolker who is a former press reported you know is camped out on house street trying to get [sighs] TV reporters are intrusive, print reports we try not to be predatory but we are more the guy that comes up with you with the notebook and is like “hey how is it going try not to be a jerk here with the camera” whereas the TV reports are right in your face with the microphone you know they camp out on your lawn. But that approach can be effective because Ken Kolker was the first one to get Sandy went stealth actually to talk [laughs] I have bene calling and leaving voice messages and stuff before, but I was just too early you know? [DD laughs] the first one and nobody wanted to deal with the reporter but eventually when you deal with one its sort of like pandoras box is open and they start to deal with all of them. [sighs] so [pause] you know that story goes up and pretty quickly its- its big- its huge new right all the TV, all the Aps picking it, TV stations are doing stuff and immediately they schedule, a big public town hall meeting on it and you know it’s like, it’s a different thing you know? Chemicals in the river, that’s generally a concern for people who like a limited population right? People who eat the fish, [DD agrees] um, the chemicals in drinking water, that you know, that freaks people out rightly so. That’s a major problem. And it being that it wasn’t just the chemicals in drinking water, it was like these sort of new unregulated chemicals that people had never really heard of and understood. They understood the products associated but the underlying chemistry was a big mystery and its hugely complicated and you know this one woman’s property has got record levels of this. Like the regulators are like “we have never heard of anything this bad” right? 18.. what was it? [sighs and thinks] in the story it said that 27,000 parts per trillion in the well. Has the highest combined PFO as PFOA concentration the 7 �state health department toxicologist had ever seen in drinking water well. And that was just the PFOS and PFOA number, not the total PFOS number, which ended up being much much higher and subsequent testing showed you know just astronomically high levels. I think Sandy, that was Sandy [unclear]. [DD agrees] and I think later on I mean its tested at 88.000 parts per trillion its like pure scotch garden at that point. You know her husband was drinking that, and she was drinking that, and you know and then he its like [sighs] its one of those situations where you know as a reporter you always want a big story and then one lands in your lap and suddenly “ok now you gotta do this well! And you need to be respectful and and and not be predatory about it”. And you know so it was a delicate, delicate thing I think – I think I handled it pretty because the first two -well the first three stories because there was a third one here. Hold up I have gone back to you know years- you know the last few years to kind a like, read -reread through them, I mean like there is a lot of really good information here that holds up still. [DD agrees] And so part -one of the things that Lin Mackintosh had given me, one of the pieces of information -I think like the most crucial piece of information she ever got, the best document she ever got, was notarized in her view from my a truck driver -a dump -you know a guy that actually did the dumping on house street. She had found him one of her fellow group members had done a notarized interview with him, and that had they had given that to DEQ and that ended up being [pause] a really key piece of evidence that really forced the state to start invest- forced the state force Wolverine to start investigating around the house street dump. And so I had that too, you know I knew that not just -the chemicals weren’t only here on house street, they were, he dumped this stuff at a couple other places and so there was a third story um in that I was working on as well, um, [clicking] I can’t remember the headline there. [pause] [sighs] [typing] ok so, on September 7th I published the third story. Which is “Tannery waste dumped at landfill tied to municipal water pollution.” So here I was kind of able to bring this stuff full circle in some ways with the dump truck driver Earl Teft, he had said that we had dumped this stuff at house street, we dumped this stuff at old dump on -off of 12 mile and Algoma. Kind of up the river from Rockford, north of Rockford a little ways right on the river like a old dump on the river like, what a terrible place to put a dump. And the state disposal land fill on the beltline south of at like right there at four mile and [unclear] sort of like kitty corner of Robinette’s there a supper fun site. Used to be an old dump. Thankfully its downgradient from the apple orchard. So, I looked at that. You know cuz then you are like “oh my god” people are eating contaminated apples -but they weren’t. And so that was able to tie the Wolverine dumping to the Plainfield township municipal water issue. And that ended up being a really important thing because it sparked a lot of online activisms that resulted in people showing up in droves at Plainfield township board meetings demanding filtration and demanding something be done and that pressure for Plainfield township responded to that pressure by seeking state grant money to install activated carbon filtrations on their municipal water. And so that really kind of sparked the first [sighs] filtration efforts? And on municipal water in Michigan it was sort of a pilot project which is you know pretty, it created a water supply that could then be used as the solution you know that’s what’s happening right now right so Plainfield townships water is filtered for these chemicals and now they’ve extend -with the consent decree with Wolverine they’ve you know the company you know and three [unclear] are paying for Plainfield township watermain extensions to neighborhoods with polluted wells and stuff. So, it was like the first three stories in the span of about two and a half, three weeks you know. Established Wolverine the polluter, problem with the river, huge drinking water problem and ground water and Belmont and it’s tied to the municipal water issue in Plainfield township AND there are probably more dump sites, right? So, 8 �it was all of these things came out in the span of a few weeks and they didn’t go through the corporate PR downplay, spin washing machine, right? This was -there were no press conferences there were no press releases. There was no filtration of the news through you know the the through the government [sighs] or the corporate sort of polluter lens before it reaches the public, it was just pure information straight from primary sources and it was really strong reporting. And it at point -the community there was no denying it. Wolverine could not put the genie back in the bottle. And it, you know sort of spun into this enormous search for dump sites around the Rockford, northern Kent County area. And that turned up the woven jewel, Welling Ridge sorts of area that’s almost in terms of concentrations strength. It’s almost worse than house street a lot of people don’t know that. And it you know put a lot of pressure on the state government, especially after Flint. This is still Rick Snyder’s administration and so his response is, well gosh you know, I can’t be seen having another drinking water crisis, so you know he creates M Part, which and and and in M parts first big mission is to test all public drinking water supplies around the state. And what that does is it -that directly results in the discovery in contamination in parchment, and you know it you know it would not of happen if Wolverine had not broken in that way. If you know there hadn’t been enough -all this pressure being put on Lance and to act, [sighs] [sighs] that’s kinda where it becomes a personal story to me in some ways because, the work [sighs] on Wolverine and this story strained a relationship that was broken with my exgirlfriend. To the point of no return. We separated in December 2017. And That was very hard and and she met somebody within a few months, and he happened to live in parchment, [laughs]. And so, in mid-2018 she moves to parchment with my daughter. Mid, maybe it’s, its summer 2018 and off the top my head I don’t remember the exact date but thankfully by that time they had discovered the drinking water contamination, right. So, my daughter was in a you know, not exposed to that stuff [DD agrees] you know at that point I am really thankful for that, right? Because without all of this stuff happening, you know she’d have gotten down here and [pauses] you know I mean its high levels in the municipal water, they react really strongly to what happened in parchment, and they turn that- I mean they got the test and turned the tap off at the plant that day. And so that’s a weird you know, its sort of this roundabout way they I like kinda like I didn’t -I’m not Rick Schnyder, I didn’t make the state do this statewide water testing. But I do believe the that the way the news broke around Wovlerine and Rockford and sort of the community response to it and the fact that this stuff came out, [hand chopping] boom boom boom, like really solid reporting on this came out without a bunch of government or PR spin on it, forced a lot of action [DD agrees] I think that’s one of the more consequential actions that forced and and it did end up protecting the things that I love the most [laugh] so that’s, that’s a good feeling in that -that sense. DD: Can IGE: [stretches and laughs] I feel like I have been talking for a while [laughs] DD: You have, but that’s okay. 9 �GE: Did I -you know there is more to all -like there is more detail I could definitely like go back in and fill out detail on this stuff, [pause]. But [sighs] it oh [laughs and clears throat]. There is one interesting element to -to kind of go back to this point where [clears throat] I am just discovering this stuff, starting to report it as seek information about the Wolverines use of the chemicals and what’s going on with the river and what not. Back in August 2017, [sighs] one of the very first things I did, I almost the first thing I did after Lin Mackintosh identified Wolverine worldwide Tannery. As I sent a FOIA request from the DEQ for you know its investigation -I think it was -excuse me- [tisk] I forget the wording -exact wondering about a FOIA, it was information about what Wolverine was doing to investigate FPAS in Rockford. And that FOIA request [laughs] you know through subsequent FOIA requests in in you know reporting and stuff I [sighs] that FOIA request really hit a fire, under the state and Wolverine and I David O’Donald, I caught him before he gave me – FOIA materials to me, he gave them to Wolverine’s attorney a day prior. [DD agrees] Which is a no- no, you do not do that, I mean that was the kind of thing that never like I never fit it in any of the initial stories because it was seemed to be this sort of behind scenes inside baseball stuff that wasn’t directly relevant to the matter at hand which was drinking water contamination and health threat. It was you know corporate regulatory issue; you know involving the media. I was able to kind of, some oblique references to it in later stories, but that was how I knew that David O’Donald isn’t a voice right actor in this point right. You know the guy that is in charge of- you know overseeing the regulatory response is giving -media FOIA requests to the polluter before he gives them to the media. That’s an issue and that’s a big transparency shown, -it may just of sort of hammer home when Mackintosh has is saying to me at this time which is in some respect, going back to now this stuff sounds a bit extreme. And then you deal with something like that, and you are like “wow okay so there really is some bullshit going on here” [computer notification] So that’s an interesting piece of this you know DD: Yeah GE: There is more things like that, but I am thinking of writing a book [laughs] with this whole issue. DD: Wow GE: These initial interviews and [sighs] outlining and chapter and it’s a lot of work it’s a lot of work to write all report and write all day and you know. DD: And then write some more. GE: Yea [laughs] so I haven’t moved very far on that but there is just so much there that I don’t know how there really just is no other way to present it besides just documentary film or 10 �something like that it needs to be some sort of big, [sighs] you know substantial, depth, of [DD agrees] presentation for this matter because I am newspaper reporter and I can do long form stories and I can do regular updates and stuff but they’re all there is a limit to the newspaper format [DD agrees] and so I try to work the best I can within those limitations but there is still like like if she got -its been a few years at this point and you know there is, there is a lot of details around this story that you either have to know or know how to google search you know a whole bunch of old stories to find and stuff you know so I’d like to just, I’m really interested in a presentation that puts it all in one place. DD: Yea, that sounds fascinating I would read slash watch it. GE: Yea? Well, I hope but thank you. There is a kid working on a documentary eh he is a film maker in Ypsilanti. He kind of started working on it a few years ago and I have been trying to help him but he is kind of doing it on a shoe string but its not moving very quickly but you know I -it its an interesting story -I I I find the Wolverine story is -has a lot of drama [DD agrees] it effects a lot of people, chem- but its you know and in that respect its -its [sighs] you know its not like the military, where you know at an air force base -sorry about the pulsing black that’s there it’s the back lighting, like at an air force base, you’ve got the military they use this A FFF triple fighting foam, that creates the contamination there. It’s a different thing then when a company, you know, like Wolverine, which is this huge, global footwear company, headquartered in the same small town Kent County area, that it was birthed from, you know, it’s this sort of company town aspect to it, you know, pollutes the environment and the people in it’s hometown, right, in it’s backyard. It’s a different stor- I mean the contamination is the same, the result is the same. I mean if you’re drinking it because the military used AFFF foam and that’s how the groundwater polluted versus Wolverine Worldwide dumps scotts yard waste into an unmined landfill and that’s how the groundwater polluted. I mean if-if-if- you’re the affected person it doesn’t really matter. I mean you’re- I mean guess maybe it does in terms- if you want to get and sue them or something. You know you can’t sue the military basically. But in terms of storytelling and narratives and you know sort of things like that, the Wolverine Rockford story is much more compelling and I think it grabs people’s attention in a different way than a lot of the military contaminations, because I think when it comes to military there’s- people aren’t conflicted you know it’s like well this is the military weyou know- we support our troops. You know it’s hard for people to grasp the notion that- thatinstitution would be a bad actor. DD: “Mhmm” GE: “Versus you know a copr- major corporation. It’s almost like people just sort of expect you know, that sort of thing, right? You know, when profits, you know are on the line and- you know that’s the way business is done, you know kind of thing. 11 �DD: “Mhmm” GE: “There’s differences there in terms of, you know the residents I guess of the story. DD: “mhmm, absolutely. Yeah. So for you, after this kind of really intense period of reporting, what happened for you after that? Like as- as- in your work with PFAS? Did it have an impact for you moving forward or was this kind ofGE: “Yeah. [chuckles] I- so- it never stopped for me. It still hasn’t stopped for me. It’s- It’s been PFAS almost continuously since then. In fact, mLive recognized, thankfully, with a little bit of cajoling, sort of the mLive busts recognized this was- we were- we were way ahead of something that you know most other media outlets around the country hadn’t figured out yet. And so theynot only did they keep me on the story, the PFAS story, Wolverine, Rockford, all of that, but statewide and nationally, they added somebody so I started working with another reporter named Paula Gardner in early 2018. And, you know, because the M part situation quickly snowballed into statewide testing and now, we’re looking into wastewater, which, you know, is a huge pathway for the chemicals into the environment. Suddenly there’s a ton of interest and audience for this stuff in Michigan, and so and we had been doing great work on it, so, you know, there was about a two and a half, three year period where I wrote about nothing besides PFAS. Which is remarkable for a newspaper. You know it- it- just doesn’t really happen anymore. Especially in a time of consolidation in the media where everybody, you know, even specialists, are forced to do more generalist type stuff. It, you know, it’s still looking back, shocks me that I had A) I was writing about more or less one story, one subject for several years and I was doing it with someone else who was doing the same thing, it wasn’t like oh she’s going to help you part time, it was you two are a team and this is your subject and we- really proud of the work we did over 2018 and 2019. We really followed the drinking water testing and the results closely and it had a pretty big- it had some residence with Gretchen Witmer, who started talking about drinking water on the campaign trail a lot. It was like ‘fix the damn roads and clean up the drinking water’ like those were the two things. And so, when she gets elected, suddenly the process of developing drinking water standards is initiated. The groundwork had been laid under Rick Snyder, but nobody was expecting him to follow through with a regulatory process that, you know, imposes cost burdens on a regulated community, that’s just not what Republicans do. When she gets elected, you know, Whitmer’s a Democrat and she initiates the process for setting PFAS drinking water standards, you know, and now we have those. I threw some- just talking to people in this community, I remember talking to a donor, a Democratic donor, who is heavily involved in PFAS issues in Michigan. He- he tells me this story of you know, one of my- you know he’s at like a town hall presentation, like a- like a- campaign appearance with Whitmer and, you know, he gets an alert, and it’s one of my stories, it’s about like the first big results of drinking water testing around the state, you know showed, you know, if you total up the 12 �population of the systems with PFAS in them it’s about 1.5 million people are being served by filter systems right, so you know, that’s the headline. And so, he takes that headline over to Whitmer after their appearance, and she reacts pretty strongly to it. This is per my source but, you know, all of her actions today around PFAS, you know back that up that she took it pretty seriously. So that was nice. Anytime as a reporter you can point to policy action, you know, especially in the public health realm where people are being protected against a danger and a threat, you know that feels really good. That’s what journalism is supposed to do, right? I mean it’s sort of the larger importance of you know, journalism and what the news media can do and you know this is [chuckles] and this is all happening in the Trump era, you know where at nationally journalists are being, you know, vilified as enemy of the people, you know, interestingly I never experienced that. You know, most of the Trump years I spent writing about this issue DD: “mhmm” GE: “And just the amount of appreciation I’ve received from people who are affected by it or interested in it. I mean… overwhelming. You know, you get emails as a journalist, you get hate emails. If you’re writing about politics much more than about environmental issues, but I get some. Just the ratio is very much [chuckles] way way way way more people writing like ‘thank you’ emails versus you know what are you some kind of liberal doom sayer kind of stuff. So that’s been really encouraging. Right? It’s the kind of thing that, you know, makes the editors, you know, happy, your bosses happy, they can kind of sell the newspaper on that, a little bit on that. Look at what we’ve done, and here we got this guy, buy a subscription. And so that helps… job security. [chuckles] DD: [chuckles] GE: So yeah, I guess it’s a long way of answering your question, but yeah, I expect to be writing about PFAS for the rest of my career, you know, it’s like, every- you know, you talk to scientists, and you talk to experts and they’re like it’s the new PCB’s, it’s the new bestest, it’s the new this and that, you know and those things are still around, and those things still make the news now and then. I mean, I’m here in Kalamazoo, not far from the Kalamazoo River where, you know, there’s still dredging, sediment dredging going on from all the PCBs in the river from the paper making, you know, industry. They call that legacy, you know pollution. I jus-You know, PFAS is clearly on that sort of trajectory of being, you know, like it’s an issue that-, you know like PCBs, there’s clearly an effort to get it out of products where it’s not necessary, clean it up from the environment, more strictly regulate its uses, you know and that sort of thing. And because there is so much going on with it, there’s a lot to keep track of. And because that’s where my expertise has kind of been developed I kind of have to follow that. Which in some regards, creates a conundrum for me because I would write more about things like Climate Change, or 13 �Environmental Justice, which are really hugely important topics, but I have to kind of play a little bit of triage with my time because I go well, you know those things are being covered pretty well by other reports in Michigan and nationally. This is something that I have a lot of experience and knowledge in, and you know, I can do the most good by following that path, you know, instead of, you know, go where the herd is going. DD: “mhmm” GE: “But that’s hard to explain to some people, you know in Ann Arbor who are very upset about, you know rightfully so, climate change. And so, you know, over the years I’ve had to kind of say, you know look I can’t do everything, and this is the one I’m kind of following and I’ll get to climate change when I can. There are other really good reporters, it’s not like that topic isn’t in the news. DD: “Yeah. Well, I know, we’ve talked for the hour I’ve told you we would talk, and I want to be respectful of your time, and I’m sure you’re busy. GE: “Well, if you have more questions, I’m happy to answer them because right now you’re keeping me from a staff meeting which I am all about that.” DD: “Well I have one more question.” GE: “Okay.” DD: “Given your expertise, and all this experience. What are your concerns about PFAS contamination moving forward, either, you know, from human perspectives, personal perspectives, from work perspectives, what are your concerns about PFAS contamination looking into the future?” GE: “I guess my concern is that people become kind of a nerd to it, before there is very strong national regulations to keep them safe from- from this stuff. You know, and I think that is a big concern among the activists, community and some lawmakers who are trying to push for national drinking water standards. I don’t know if I have a great perspective on that because I’m in Michigan, which, you know over the last few years really learned- you know there’s a collective knowledge about it in Michigan to a much higher degree compared to states like Ohio even, well I guess not Ohio because they had the parkersburg, but other Great Lake states, and other states around the country where the testing hasn’t been done to show that, you know, it’s ‘Yes’ it’s ambiguous to the environment, it’s probably in some drinking water. You know, I guess last year during 2020, when the pandemic hit and everything, you know Covid was the only thing people were paying attention to, it was certainly the only thing that news editors cared about, you know 14 �followed by racial strife, you know in the summer, it was sort of- frustrating to have watched interest amongst the readership as well as, you know, your bosses just [plane noise] nose dive on that and I think we’ve gotten to a place now in 2020 you know where people are vaccinated and life seems to be kind of resuming in a normal fashion, where PFAS issues are kind of coming back and people are paying attention to that again. I can see it in the numbers on a particular headline, because we get- we can see how many people are reading stuff. There is the other concern that we keep replacing the chemicals that are in use now with newer versions of the same stuff. That’s what they’ve been doing right? Like PFOS has been phased out and so they bring in PFBS which is the same thing it just has a different number of Carbon atoms. It’s supposedly safer right? Well, is it? Probably not, right? We’ve talked to health experts and they’re like well it’s not any less toxic. It may not persist in the environment quite as long, but you know, you still shouldn’t be drinking that. And so there’s, you know, this sort of issue with manufacturing of these chemicals, which are obviously lucrative, and so it’s like as the problem evolves in this sort of industry, you know, looks to kind of keep that gravy train going, how does it evolve in a way- will it evolve in a way that we can kind of keep track of it and make sure that it’s not getting into the environment again or are we going to be repeating this years down the road. I remember even in the midst of Wolverine and all of this stuff breaking, people going ‘what’s the next PFAS going to be?’ and I’m like the next PFAS? Let’s deal with this PFAS right here instead of worrying about what the next thing is, but now I look back on that and think well that’s probably a smart thing to be worried about, right? Maybe we should be having that conversation now while this is happening versus ignoring it, you know, until we discover a new problem down the road. Those would be- I’ll probably think of a better answer once [laughs] we hang up, and I’ll be like oh there’s this thing. I wonder what it all means for people in general like what is the larger outcome of this science experiment that we’ve been playing on the human population with, you know, mutagenic chemicals that affect people’s DNA? What does that look like 50, 100 years down the road? What’s the world going to look like when my daughter is older, and she’s grown up? Those are things I think about too. DD: “Yeah. Before we wrap up, is there anything else that you would like to add that we haven’t touched on today? Or anything you’d like to go back to? I know there’s hoodles of things you could say but- “ GE: “Oh so much. You know, I- there’s a guy named Bob Delaney, who you may have heard of. Who really deserves just all the credit in Michigan for- and in some ways nationally, for being sort of the one who was out there kind of shouting that this was a problem, years before anyone was in a position to be able to understand that, or to acknowledge that. And he- you know, when I first called him about [?] in 2016, I didn’t know who Bob Delaney was. He’s a geologist, he’s a state scientist, well he’s retired now, at the time he was the state’s lead site manager for [?] and I expected that phone call to be ignored or to get an email back saying you know what you need to contact the PR people in order to set up an interview, in the way a lot of State and Federal 15 �employees do when a reporter calls, they’re like uhhh talk to the PR guy, but he didn’t do that. He recognized that what I was doing was important and he talked to me. And talked to me very frankly about the issue, and that was so different than most interactions you have as a reporter when talking to a government official. Without that, none of this would have happened I think in terms of the reporting and the stories and what not. Because I would- you know, the way he explained it to me and the knowledge I gained from him was absolutely crucial, to knowing that you’re on solid ground as a journalist on a topic you’re unfamiliar with, you know, you need sources you can trust, who are credible. If you have those, that's gold. He was that. I mean I can’t say enough about how important that was in order to, you know- because you know, writing about this sort of thing, you’re going to get people who try to knock it down right? And there’s going to be big, powerful institutions, you know, Wolverine Worldwide, 3M, attorneys for major law firms- they’re going to pick it apart, they’re going to, you know, try and find problems with it and I’m not a PhD, you know, I feel like I’m a smart enough guy, but I need to be able to trust the scientists who I’m talking to who are saying this is a huge problem, it’s worldwide, we’re not really dealing with it, here’s the potential health implications- I have to be able to trust they know what they’re talking about, and Bob Delaney did. He just deserves all the credit in the world for being, not only smart enough to figure out that this was an issue and start looking for it and taking actions to try and spur protections for people, as well as being open enough about it to speak to the media, and speak to journalists, and trust that they’re- you know, trust that process, you know, trust that that is still a valid way of getting good information out to the public-” 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0019 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ellison, Garret Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-06-29 Title A name given to the resource Garret Ellison, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Garret Ellison is an investigative environmental reporter at Mlive and Grand Rapids Press in Michigan. In this interview, Ellison discusses PFAS contamination in the Wolverine Worldwide site in Rockford, MI and his role in breaking MI-based PFAS stories. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c9d2ce8837367e77bb5ff56c1a419662.mp4 2790c3b82ab7b06d806de46046085c0d https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/220e95d4388f6039be518dab0ff141a3.pdf d841667a5fc7b90fc81a272ce9646cb0 PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Graham Peasley Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: September 2nd, 2021 DD: I’m Dani DeVasto, and today, September 2nd, 2021, I have the pleasure of chatting with Dr. Graham Peasley. Hi Dr. Graham. GP: [chuckles] Hi Dani. I- I’m Graham Peasley. I’m a professor at the University of Notre Dame, and I am now spending a g-good deal of my life studying PFAS. So, the story I’d like to tell is just, how did I get into this. I was a nuclear physicist of all things, and I have, or I, trained as a nuclear chemist, and I began studying environmental issues back in the 2000s—early 2000s—and it revolved around a lake. I didn’t know anything about lakes, but I needed to get tenure, and I decided I was gonna study the local lake. But in that process I met someone looking at brominated flame retardants, and we studied brominated flame retardants with our technique. And, I met a woman who's probably the leading PFAS scientist in the country at a conference, and she said, “That’s great work on the brominated flame retardants, can you do that with fluorine?” And I laughed and said, “Nobody can do that with fluorine.” It’s not got any-any ways to detect fluorine that are quick and easy. I had a quick and easy way to detect bromine, and I thought about it for a couple weeks after the conference, and there is an old technique that could detect fluorine quickly, but, gee, it wouldn’t really work, would it? And so I-I called the woman back up—this was Jennifer Field—the-the- one of the leading PFAS experts in the world, and I said, “can you send me something that’s fluorinated? I would like to see if I can see it,” and she knew my technique, and she—her grad-her grad student sent a piece of a pair of pants to me, and I stuck it in the beam, and in less than an hour we had the signal that was predicted to be there, and it was really strong. It was like—wow, that was easy. We had no idea whether it was all material that had to do with this or just this one pair of pants, so I had to get a t-shirt off a student [chuckles] Said I assume a t-shirt isn’t fluorinated, stuck it in the beam, and there was not a signal, and it was like, okay, so we see fluorine and we can prove it. And it took, oh 2 or 3 years from that point to get it published and cause we saw more fluorine than there was PFAS, and the world’s leading expert tells you, “that’s too much fluorine” and we-we only measure this much. But the techniques are different—ours measures all fluorine. And so, it took us a couple years to understand that and to our credit, the leading scientist understood what we were seeing, and published several papers at that point saying, “look [chuckles] we don’t see most the fluorine that we measure, most standard measurements we’ve talked about, all publishments to date have been on less than 1% of all the fluorine that’s out there, and so that’s the scary news. These PFAS are everywhere and we aren’t looking at most of them. We’re looking at the ones that are recognizable, that we know have health concerns, that there's a whole bunch that are being made, 1 �and have been modified in their environment that, sort of, they’re starting to decay, but they don’t decay very rapidly, or not at all when they reach the base unit, and so these final products are-are always measurable, but there’s a lot of what we call precursors that turn into these final products, and that’s been my scientific career as a sort of change from that moment in 2013/2014 to now, where a good fraction of my research group and effort is in PFAS. We still do lead and brominator flame retardants, and a few other things, but the funding and the interest is really gone into PFAS. And the reason is that PFAS is used so widely. It’s used in every product that is a [unclear] that came out recently, and Europe has showed 200 different uses of PFAS in our society from clothing to papers to flame retardants that we use in the airports and things like that—everything that people know about, then dozens of other uses— fluorinated ski wax. The Olympic Committee has contacted us to see if we can tell fluorinated ski wax, which is now banned, from non-fluorinated because they need something they can test for the-the doping in the Olympics. Well, okay, and it turned out not to be my technique because I could not put it up on a hill but— DD: [laughs] GP: They found a way that they can measure that. And so that was fun, I mean, it-it was a project that walks in the door, we answer a question and we can help somebody measure quicker. What has really made an impact is the-the human impact of what our stories have done, and the fact that we can change things, as scientists. Which, you know, scientists don't do anything except study things, you need politicians, you need lawyers, you need somebody else to change something, but we can actually make a difference. And it began after this discovery that I can make rapid measures of fluorine, I was hired away to Notre Dame, where I was asked to do the applied physics program here, and we had an accelerator that I could devote to this type of study, and they allowed me a lot of resources this time doing it, and we ended up looking at all sorts of products— food packaging was the first one we did before I came— but then we looked at textiles for occupational exposure for firefighters, and we looked at most recently cosmetics, and we’re still looking at dozens of others things that we’ll eventually get published, and everywhere we look we see fluorine. And so, the next question is, is that fluorine PFAS? Cause there are some natural forms of fluoride, but we don’t see a lot of that, except in rocks. So, unless there’s rocks in the product, there’s unlikely to be, you know, organic fluoride. You know, toothpaste, okay, but very few other things have organic fluoride in them. And so, the inorganic fluorines are all man-made, they’re all PFAS, all the ones of concern, and they, as a family, there’s you know, 4,000, 5,000 of these things that are known, probably more, based on our studies there’s even more that are unknown, and these chemical compounds persist forever. 2 �Then-so what we started looking for were ways we could get rid of them out of the products, and bringing attention to them as a scientist is one way we can do that. So we published a study on food wrappers, originally, and it was brought by a student. We were measuring these pants, we were measuring samples from soils, we were measuring water samples, and suddenly a student says, “can I test the food wrapper that I’m eating off?” “Sure.” And it had fluorine in it. And so, then we commissioned a study and a bunch of students all over the country went and got, from 7 different states, a whole bunch of food wrappers, and we could do them rapidly, we were measured 300, 400, 500 of them, and we found that about 30-40% were fluorinated. And we published that, and we were completely unaware how big a story that would be— because the media got a hold of it— and it was just the right time that the-the news story broke, and people were looking for a feel-good story or an alarm story, and ‘oh my god I’ll never eat a hamburger again.’ Well, the hamburger doesn’t spend much time in the wrapper, as people were quick to point out, and we even said it in the paper right, I’m not worried about the hamburger, I’m worried about where did the wrapper go after you eat the hamburger: It goes in the landfill. These are forever chemicals, and in about 60 days they all wash out a landfill and they’re back in the drinking water, and you and I, and our children drink- that’s not good, okay, and so we made that story, they didn’t read the second part of that paper, they just read ‘oh my god it's in every major fast food chain,’ and then the remarkable thing happened. A- the story was popular, er, okay, and I-I have wonderful scientific publications of lots of people haven’t read, and then this one paper everybody’s read. And it’s like, okay, it wasn’t even that big a study. Some students read some papers and we got a measurement and- but it was the impact, it was in what people ate, could be in what people ate, more importantly what everybody was gonna be drinking, and so I kept trying to make that point. But then- oh a few months later I got invited to give a talk to the packaging industry, and I thought oh my god they’re gonna throw darts at me. No! They were delighted by my paper. Come tell us about this technique and how did you find that out and-and why were they so excited? Well, it turns out for almost all applications, the companies could switch, and when they were contacted by a Senator who out of Illinois that wrote them a letter saying, “I understand from the Washington Post you have this in your packaging, but your policy for removing it, how soon will it be done?” When a sitting U.S. Senator writes that to a CEO, you know, they had a meeting somewhere, and the CEO said, “Make this go away; we sell hamburgers, we sell tacos, I don't want anything.” And they-they change packaging three times a year anyway. It’s Christmas season, so they just switched, and they switched away from it based on a scientific study, and the fear of it, of-of regulation coming down the pike, or worse yet, lawyers. Litigation is a-a big tool in this country to force companies to do the- to do what they should be doing, and most companies do it long before the litigation stage. They say, “whoops, this isn't good,” and they didn't know it was there; they just were told it was a better packaging material, and it is, its better to keep grease off, but they could go back to the old stuff; they could go back to double wrapper, they could use middle foil, so they switched and everybody did it without a law being changed 3 �for the next two years. Laws have now started to change, based on the paper, but, I-it was remarkable that a paper caused all the big named brand industries you know of to switch without me having to go to boardroom to boardroom to come persuade them to do that. They just said “Nah, brand impression is important, and we don’t want to be associated with this chemical, it-it isn’t necessary for what we need to sell our product, it’s gone.” And that was what we call a-a, you know, a low-cost effort to change an industry. And I was amazed cause I was not aiming for anything so grand other than, we found an observation that nobody had seen before, let’s see what we can do with it. And the next story comes, related to that, is- I got a- based on the publicity from that, we got- I got a very nice email from a spouse of a firefighter. And Diane Carter had written to, at that point, 6,000 different emails to various government officials, to various manufacturers, to various people, her husband had cancer. And she knows she can never prove where the cancer came from, but she found the suspicion that, you know, PFAS is a chemical that causes cancer, and firefighters are very well aware of it cause their firefighting foam is made out of it, and now the whole country switched away from that type of firefighting foam, which is a huge progress being made, but she said, I think the gear’s made out of it too. And she got some hints from what she read online, but she couldn’t prove it, and nobody would listen to her, and say, “nah nah nah, go away, it’s all safe.” And she wrote to me, and a heartfelt letter; she talked about her husband’s cancer, he survived, and- but he’s no longer able to work, and he’s too young to retire, so she’s pissed, and-and wrote it in a very eloquent way. And I said, okay, I’m at an institution where I’m supposed to work with the public. I can do that. Can you send me a sample of the gear? And they did, a couple swatches of gear, and it was through the roof in fluorine. It was very high and fluorinated. And I said okay, is all gear like this? Or is it just yours? Does it come off? Or does it just stay on the gear forever? And does it get into a firefighter if it does come off? I kinda answered the third one— that’s an exposure science question— but I can answer the first two. And we got a group of volunteers in the fire services to send me samples of used turned-out gear or new, sometimes they had new gear, and it’s very expensive, the- so they couldn’t get a lot of samples, but I got 30 or 40 samples, and the students loved it. They ran with it. We discovered that it was all required by law to have the same type of treatments, which were all fluorated, and heavily so. And, it came off, our students have found garment-to-hand transfer— that’s not good. They were wearing gloves, they were after- we measured the glove before and after, and we could reproduce them. We could get rub-off. You could rub it off. It wasn’t easy to get off, it wasn’t; it was still water-proof after we did this, but it was a- added to the garment to be waterproof. And we found it everywhere, and nobody had recorded this before, and the companies all said it was safe, safe, safe, but they’re just- they don’t have a chemist on staff, they just, sew the textiles from the textile manufacturer who said it was safe, safe, safe, we don’t have a chemist, they just buy the chemicals and use it. And the chemical manufacturer says it’s safe, safe, safe, and here’s the [unclear] rap sheet saying it’s safe, safe, safe, and I said, oh wait a 4 �second, I know these companies. I know they’ve been using that [unclear] rap sheet for years— that’s not what is actually true. I mean, they’ve moved their workers out of the assembly line back in the 1960s; they know it isn’t safe, and so took a couple years to publish that because it was so out of the area of the- that anybody had published before, that we weren’t convinced that anybody would believe us. So we did a lot of tests to confirm it, and I had a independence done in Australia and tested it and said, okay, we get the same answer, and so I published it in July of 2020, and the students who did it did a great job, we-we got the results and that one didn’t go as viral as food packaging, for a couple reasons. One is, there’s only one million people who are firefighters, there’s 1.2 million in this country, but there are 300 million people that eat fast food, so there's different audience. It was occupational exposure, so ‘I’m not a firefighter I don’t care.’ But, it was also a- behind a firewall, so you had to pay to get the journal article. So it was like, okay, I didn't have $2,000 to spare to make it public access, and then, I didn’t think it was that important, but the firefighters did cause they felt like they’d been lied to. DD: Hmm. GP: And they had been. Not by anybody who's making money off of it except for the manufacturer, the gear you know. It’s all safe because I was told it was safe. Well, there’s a lot of evidence that PFAS aren’t safe, and there’s evidence now that it’s on the gear and comes off. And they couldn’t really squirm out that it was on the gear cause they kinda knew it was on the gear, but, well, the amount that comes off is very small. I said, well, it’s 10 times higher than what’s in your blood, and you wear the gear every day; is that a possible source in addition to what-what could elevate a firefighter’s blood level? And in that process, I started a series of talks, and I talked to firefighters and chiefs and all the people that made decisions and being hit with a-a triple F- the-the firefighting foam the year before, so they were pretty keenly aware of PFAS on the firefightng front, and nobody wanted to believe it was in their gear because they were told it wasn’t, and it was safe, safe, safe. Well now it is but it’s the safe form. Okay, and so I said, well, so we looked at the gear, you wear-you wear the suit for 10 years before it’s out of service, and it all became safe in 2016 by switching to the short-chain PFAS right? I claim that that’s no safer, but even that you know, half your guys are still wearing gear that has got the old stuff on it. Well, it’s only trace amounts even if it wasn’t as safe, and so they're just back paddling. And it was just me giving talks, but the firefighters heard it, loud and clear, and this woman who’d been on social media for a year complaining, that, you know, nobody’s listening to her, was really grateful. We published this paper, and it was just in the right time because companies were starting to get mad that anybody would question them. And I-it was confirmed in science-peer-reviewed science paper, and we got some publicity. Notre Dame decided to make a movie of it, and put it on the half-time show. Which is just, you know, a three minute infomercial for the University. But they thought it was pretty neat, and they didn’t. Food packaging was a little controversial because there’s some big companies out there 5 �that might not like their name associated with that, but this one- these are just textile manufacturers. They didn’t know any of those names, so they-they didn’t mention any names in the commercial, which was good, but they showed me fighting to protect the brave. Oh, what I was doing was trying to make the gear safe for them, and it was a-it was a-very [phew]- they did a professional job and they made me look good, which is hard to do. And they-they did this commercial at halftime, and it got 7 million viewers in one halftime show- it was a big game. And it got the award for the most-watched commercial that year, and so it ran again the next year— they always take one from the year before that was best— and so its been seen by millions of people, and it shows a very nice scene of the staff in the fire department. They even, they asked them to run the trucks out for them can you-can you run the truck out of the- and I was like, you did what [laughs] always asked, they did, and-and they had the rookies run the truck out to show how it works, and it was like, oh my god, I didn’t in-intend them to do that, but we-I been working South Bend fire department; they-they’d help me get the message out, and they were happy to be on that commercial. And it-it-it-it resonated with— I’ve got 500 Facebook friends that, you know, I haven’t met any of them because they’re all firefighters. I’ve met some of them, but they all thank me for bringing light to this issue, and this January they had a meeting that they- reunion meeting- National Association of Firefighters, where they introduced two resolutions. And they named one after me, which was a little embarrassing, but it was one of those things that they voted to take the manufacturers out of their conference; they’re not allowed to take any money from them anymore until they offer a PFAS-free alternative. And remarkably, one company had read the tea leaves the year before, and started working on a PFAS free alternative and had it, the other three companies, [chuckles] well, they didn’t have it, but within a week of that resolution all of them vowed to have it within the next six months. And so, that was done not by publicity, it was done by telling the-the firefighters look, there’syou should wear the gear to keep you safe in the fire, but it’s being treated with material- treat the gear very carefully, and keep it separate from your living space. Don’t wash with other things, all sorts of things you should wash but not with other things, things that they hadn’t thought about before, and nobody had told them that, and these guys go into burning buildings for a living- they know about risk, this is just one more risk. We’re all gonna die, but this would just, you know, enchant-en-enhance-they've enchanted the-enhance for other diseases, and firefighters are already on the frontlines for cancer. They have double the national rate of cancers; is PFAS a part of that? It could be. I can’t prove that- all I can say is that there’s an exposure risk to PFAS, and getting that article out felt one of the best things I’ve ever done. It wasn’t the best piece of science ever done. It was done without a budget, as doing it for free, and we had a little donation from a a-a-a formal firefighter association in Massachusetts, which was great. They got us some of the tests done, but we got a great discount from the test company too because they-they were being nice to service personnel. And so, I think that tells a story of- everyone wanted to get this story out there, and it 6 �changed the industry. And I don’t have anything against the clothing industry, they-they fought it for a while, but they just had no idea, they weren’t told the truth either, they were- and so, as a bunch [unclear] she’s changing, it’ll cost some money to do so, I’m sure, but firefighters will be safe, and it will take years to do, but they get it now. And, I think that’s the sort of story of where my life as a scientist changed cause I’m doing something for society that I can go home and be very proud of, you know. It was an argument, and I think I was right, and there’s a paper coming out next month that’ll show that I was right, but I missed a whole part, there’s a whole- there’s even more there than we thought, and you know, that’s the purpose of putting a scientific paper out, that other people can copy it. And they did, it got a lot of results, and then they said, by the way, we ran the qi aspect as well, and I got a different load of PFAS coming out, and I was like, oh my gosh, it’s even worse than we thought, which means it was good to get the paper out because now other people have done other studies. There will be more studies of firefighter blood, which we made to make sure that this is the type of source that’s getting into them. I’m gonna pray it might be, and you know, but my biggest fear is that I’m right, and that’s a terrible thing to have, it- I’m hoping that it’s-it’s small compared to other source contributions. It’s just one of the many that we get, but it also applies to- gee, who else wears the uniform? Well, the military does, our flight attendants do in the sky, people go to school in uniforms. Guess where these companies have actually put their chemicals? All the above. And so, this has much larger implications, and the firefighters are just a- as usual first on the scene, and they are the first ones to be exposed to this. And you know, I hope that isn’t the source of exposure that’s killing them, but it could be, and that- we’d need to report that, and people who do exposure science are now working on studies to see how much of it is through the skin. We’ve got a study going on during that too, and it looks like it goes through the skin, but how much is the question right. And so, if that’s the- if you’re wearing it and it goes through the skin, then these guys are really on the short-end of the stick; they shouldn’t be wearing it, they should be wearing something else. And I don’t think it’ll go, the skin is a pretty good protector, it shouldn’t go through skin well, but somebody’s gotta measure that, so that’s what’s going on now. How does that change my life? Well, I get invited to go to firefighter conventions now, I’ve never done that before, and they took pictures of me standing in front of shiny red trucks, but it’s really good to talk to people who don’t necessarily speak science every day, or they-they speak in at a whole different level, the complexion sciences, but they this is a a exposure risk that I want to communicate without alarming people. They got to keep wearing that gear, they can’t go in a fire without gear on, that would be unsafe, so we clearly have to change the gear, and that’s something that they can help buy-buying the gear that you have this choice of gear with the chemical and without, and both are safe. Well then they’ll buy the one without, the other one’s gotta be proven safe, and follow NFPA standards. 7 �So, that’s where my life is, I spend hours a week now talking with firefighters, talking with, everybody has something that they want to send in, will send me a product, and say, is this possibly- I've done underwear, I’ve done turf grass on natural turf grass fields, I’ve done, everything gets sent in, and we’ve had very- we’ll get upset by saying, hey, why is it in underwear? Why is it in my turf grass? And we-we go back to natural grass. And there’s an industry that says no we can’t, we got to go the [unclear] our stuff, and there’s reasons why we think there are PFAS in some of those fields, and that’s coming up. So there’sthere’s a whole bunch of issues out there, and there’s no right or wrong- it’s just what we’ve decided as a society that’s important, and measuring these things I can do. And so that’s what I stick to, the science, but I have to be able to present it to the right people, and the right people can make changes. We just fired a shot across the cosmetics industry now, we did the same thing with food packaging, but we did it with 230 cosmetics we got off the shelf, and there’s fluorine in all of them, and that was everybody’s favorite paper because everybody wears cosmetics. Well, not everybody, but half the country wears cosmetics, and the other half drink what goes into the waste. [chuckles] And that means everybody’s concerned by this. And, it went viral. A lot of people were very concerned with their cosmetics [unclear]. It wasn’t designed- I only measured 200, there’s 20,000 out there so I didn’t measure your cosmetics, I can’t- I can’t answer that, but I can-I can say that the industry didn’t label it, and they know they didn’t label it, and so, what can they do about them? Well, they can, they don’t make the chemicals, they just formulate them into-into the cosmetics. So they can put a requirement on their suppliers that they don’t use fluoric chemicals, that they don’t use PFAS. And that’s all that they need to do. They need to say, I don’t use it and here’s the label saying I don’t intentionally use any of them, and that- and then they have to spot-check. Somebody has to do a-a test, but for a 20 billion dollar industry, doing a few spot-tests, they can afford. And this won’t drive any of them out of business, it’ll just change the way that they do-do business. And the consumer will be safe. And I can go to sleep with that every night. I’m not hounding any company out of business- I’m not, that’s not my job. I work with industry more often than anything else because this paper was designed for industry to realize that, oops, we forgot to label this, and it’s getting why, and some of them didn’t know they had it in them. I’m sure some did, but some of them had no idea that that this formulation they were using that worked so well, was actually highly fluorinatedDD: Hmm. GP: -and had PFAS in it. And so that’s where, I think, education, I’m an educator as well as researcher- that’s we educate people; we don’t do it to make lawsuits. I don’t work for law firms. [chuckles] I don’t work for car- private companies that say, hey, can you measure my stuff? I’ll measure anybody’s stuff for free, but I’m not gonna be on a contract with a company to get the 8 �right answer. And that’s the independent academic model. I don’t want to test things for a living; I just want to understand where the fate and transport of these chemicals go, and if I know that we’re using them in in carpet, we’re using them in turf grass, we’re using them in clothing, we’re using them in packaging, we’re also reusing them, and it’s pretty scary how much is getting into our bodies. And I don’t wanna go as the how it’s getting into our bodies, but most of us are eating and drinking it. Maybe some of it’s going through our skin, but either way, the best way to get rid of it is get rid of making this material with PFAS. So that’s my story, it’s a-it’s a fascinating scientific story. I don’t know if it’ll be any interest to the public. What it’s done for me and- the most common question I get asked is, well, have you changed anything personally since this epiphany that it’s everywhere? And I have, I’ve changed to a fluorine-free home as best as I can. [chuckles] I discovered that my dental floss had it, oops. I discovered that my cookware, that’s all gone. I-I don’t think much comes off from cookware because it’s pretty [unclear] on there, but the process of manufacturing- it makes a lot of this stuff, and it poisoned all the people and dark waters that you saw in-in West Virginia, so why don’t we just stop buying it and having any consumer brand, and I thought my eggs would fail ever since then cause how do you get something off the stick? And it turns out, my eggs weren’t that good anyway, but theyDD: [laughs] GP: -they are just as good. They work on a ceramic pan. I-I was amazed, they cook just as well. I hadn’t been hoodwinked into thinking that teflon was the only thing that was non-stick- it’s not true, it works fine. And so, there are alternatives for most PFAS, and then there are a few cases where there aren’t alternatives like space [unclear] based used of lubricants. Well, if I’m sending a rocket 30 years out to Pluto, yeah- it’s gotta have a fluoric [unclear] it’s the only thing that’llDD: [laughs] GP: last that long and keep working, but I use a test tube of that a year, but 50 ga- you know, 50 tonka trucks a day, which is what we’re producing now, and so I think that’s the scale. And there’s an- I know of an ocular-operation procedure that doctor’s use and they-they need fluorine packets in there, sure. How many retinal detachment surgeries do you need a year? It’s not gonna be a big barrel, where as going to the mall and staying waterproof, but really the best waterproof we’ve ever made, you know, that’s not essential use, nor are cosmetics, you know. I-I’d love to keep mascara and not looking like a raccoon out of the pool, but we are getting so far as that we’re fluorinating swimsuits- that people can go from the pool to the bar without a towel because they dry naturally—they’re water resistant. I would-I would claim that that’s not essential use, and [chuckles] and that, you know, if that chemical comes off, or certainly will when you dispose of it at the end, then we’re all gonna drink that, and that chemical lasts for thousands of 9 �years. It will cycle through us and our children and there’s-there’s no purpose to doing that, and so that’s the soapbox I stand on, and I’ve been to a lot of audiences saying that now, and it-it feels right to do something that’s positive. And it feels, I connect with the community better— people like what I’m saying even if they don’t like the message sometimes in the industry. But, industries actually do like finding this out before they find out from lawsuits some other way, and this is-this is- you know, several industries are changing just because they know now there’s an alternative they can use, and instead of selling the most stain-resistant pants, they sell the most stretchy pants, turns out that was a bigger seller. DD: [laughs] GP: We’re all overweight. And I think that-that is a, you know, life lesson for companies. And companies like humans do the right thing, most of the time. There’s always a few that don’t, and I can’t help them. I can’t help most people that don’t listen, but if they are given the information they can make pretty educated decisions. And so, our job as scientists is to get information out in a form that’s understandable. And this whole issue looking at environmental containiments, got my science communication tuned up a little bit, but I think really PFAS has launched me into that whole new realm of- I have to talk to reporters now occasionally; that’s a scary concept, and whatever you say gets printed, trust me. I’ve said some silly things and that shows up for everybody to read, and so I really try to-to be correct when I speak. I try to slow down, doesn’t happen, but I-I am trying to tell people what I believe and what I think is true, and I have evidence to back up what I say, and then other people reproduce my evidence, and that’s-that’s the scientific process. The unusual part is actually communicating it the way we do. We not only put out a paper that’s peer reviewed, but we then go to a newspaper when they ask, and by studying things that people are concerned with, you get more newspaper asked, and or I-I media, let’s call it media nowadays, but it’s-it’s one of those things that you know if I can do this correctly and people learn from it, then that’s the model for all scientists to follow. Not-not everybody is gonna do this type of work, but those that do it- the 10% that do applied science, should do outreach on this and should do communication. There’s some reason why a lot of the applied research is done with companies. They don’t want to announce this to people, they- that the companies that made these fluorine chemicals have known this data for years, and they've never announced any of it, but they don’t want to. I think most of the rest of the world if you’re an independent researcher in academia, you should be able to look at things and be able to report what you see. And I can, so that I'm grateful, I hope it makes an impact in the right way. Very few people seem to be mad at me at moments, that’s good. But I,you know, don’t shoot the messenger, but here’s ways we can try to improve it, and-and never just [unclear] doom and gloom, I’m not invited to parties much anymore. DD: [laughs] 10 �GP: I’m all about fluorinated microwave popcorn. But people listen when you give them alternatives and say, “do you want to do this or do you want to do this without the chemical?” and they’re all alternatives where we could do that, and they’d cost more, sometimes they’d cost less. It’s a question of what material, what application, and-and, you know, people told us we’d never get rid of firefighting foams- they’re so essential, could never get rid of that wonderful functionality. Well guess what, the federal government has mandated we’re gonna get out of all fluorinated firefighting foams by 2023, for every military application they’ve got. And that was about 2/3rds of the market, so all of a sudden we have fluorine-free foams available that have been around for 5 years, but never used wisely in this country. And the entire country is gonna be changed that way in 5 years, and so that’s-that’s remarkable progress. And it was done through an act of regulation actually. The government put in the defense of authorization act, yeah. Congress works sometimes. And it’s really impressive to see that, so what can I do? I as a scientist- I locked into this area. I have a technique that we’re- and we can use that to inform policymakers, we can use that to inform the public, we can use that to inform the-the purchasers— these companies that purchased things that they used that they sell, that their, if the consumer facing it all, they can sell a bit of product. And so, it’s an opportunity- these paper makers saw it as an opportunity and not a threat, and that’s really an advantage. The two chemical companies in this country that make this chemical always see it as a threat. And I- they luckily make lots of other things, and are useful. So I don’t think their entire business model depends on this, but they are gonna be hurt by this as people-as people find it in their blood. So, that’s-that’s my concern. That’s a lot of talking. I hope you can edit that. [laugh] DD: Well, thank you for taking the time to share your story today Graham. GP: Yeah. Yeah, It’s very egocentric, I think-I think we’ve talked about me and my role in it, but the changes are what I see in myself, and communicating with people and the relationship I have with the community. I’ve always worked in community science at Ferris, but this is-this is hitting home, and people like the fact that I’m doing it, so we’ll try to be as impartial as possible. We’ll try to get as many things done as we can, and it’s coming, we’re getting papers, we’re getting publications, we’re getting funding, so that helps. DD: Yeah. Absolutely. 11 � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0027 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Peaslee, Graham 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 Graham Peaslee, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Dr. Graham Peaslee is a professor at the University of Notre Dame. He began his career in nuclear physics and chemistry and now studies environmental issues. In this interview, he discusses his work identifying and measuring PFAS chemicals used in the clothing industry, in firefighting equipment, and in many other industrial and consumer products. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c4f0b6906a50546cbd2e4c0ab47d6010.mp4 393c3b012831c9faf054e7c5f99a0ff8 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/456ee4d5ea78a67510f37b38df3fea51.pdf fbe60dce181af268ac53cf96079449d2 PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Grant Medich Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: December 11, 2025 Dani DeVasto (DD) (00:03): All right. I am Dani DeVasto, and today, December 11th, 2025, I have the pleasure of speaking with Grant Medich. Hi, Grant. Grand Medich (GM) (00:13): Hi, Dani. DD (00:15): Grant, can you tell me about where you're from and where you currently live? GM (00:20): Okay. Well, um, I was born in Indiana, but from a young age, uh, grew up in, uh, the locale of White Pigeon Michigan, which is in St. Joe County, uh, just north of the Indiana border. Um, and I am now living just north of Kalamazoo and, uh, Prairieville Township, which is the Southernmost, actually, I think it's the south southern southwestern-most township in Barry County, uh, just north of Kalamazoo again. DD (00:53): How long have you GM (00:54): For, I think it was 21 years. DD (00:57): Okay. So you were in Rockford 21 years. How long have you been in Prairieville Township? GM (01:02): The past four years. Yeah. DD (01:04): Okay. Um, Grant, can you tell me a story about, uh, PFAS, your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in your community? GM (01:15): Well, it's funny because we concentrate a lot on PFAS now is our, you know, with the whole, uh, issue. Well, not, not in just the Rockford associated community, but, uh, since I'm <laugh>, I'm no longer in Rockford, I'm no longer part of the community. I'm Rockford associated, I'd say. Um, but how we got, uh, concentrated on PFAS is interesting because it wasn't PFAS at the beginning. It was, it was a, uh, collo, uh, factory, which happened to be a tannery, and it was, which, which was closing down. And, uh, 1 �we knew there had been processing chemicals, and our focus was on hexavalent, well, chromium, which we were worried about the hexavalent, uh, uh, chromium. And as we got more into it and certain things are controlled or not, we found PFAS was as big, if not a bigger issue. And so, uh, I guess that's part of the story that our concerns about, um, a cleanup operation or, or a, uh, really it's a factory decommissioning operation. Uh, we wanted to see it done in a, uh, environmentally friendly way, not just for the local community, but as it's on the Rogue River, which runs through Rockford is a tributary to the Grand River. It would affect everybody downstream from that point. So, uh, again, we were focused on one issue and found, uh, PFAS was another issue. And then we found other communities were struggling with the same, same, uh, concerns. DD (03:10): So how did you come to be involved or concerned with the tannery demolition? GM (03:18): Okay. Uh, well, the tannery as is most older, um, installations are, was really a series of buildings. And, uh, the company, Wolverine Worldwide, which, uh, was the name of the company in, in charge of it at that time, they were pretty much, they weren't ever bought out by anybody, but they, that was their, um, the company name they had for quite some time. Um, they had basically, uh, continual ownership of that. And so there wasn't a case where one company bought, you know, another company's assets and liabilities. We thought, well, uh, this was founded in Rockford by people who lived in Rockford and just have a feeling that they kind of had a, an obligation besides providing jobs for so many years, uh, to decommission it you know, in a manner that didn't leave, uh, uh, leave it, um, to be a risk factor. GM (04:28): Um, but we found as they were beginning demolition, um, some of the, uh, issues involved were migratory dust. And, uh, shortly before we addressed this, uh, a couple of our streets in the downtown area started holding little meetings, um, kind of centered around the McIntosh, uh, family. Um, Mike and Lynn oftentimes hosted this, and there were a handful of other families, I think, I think, uh, my former wife and I hosted at least once. But when it became an issue that could be considered a bit more politically involved, which to us it wasn't ever a political issue, it was a, a health and safety issue. Uh, some of the families that have been involved in it all along, um, started being a little, little, uh, more, you know, circumspect and drew back from, from the continued meetings and along with the, uh, neighborhood association kind of spurned off, um, the, uh, uh, concerned citizens Association. GM (05:53): And so we would have separate meetings, basically the same, same core group for the better part. Uh, again, Lynn was instrumental in, in, uh, helping that happen, but she was always, uh, asking for help. And so, uh, we had, uh, Gail Mancewicz and I was involved in and out in various capacities, uh, selfemployed. Um, and so that gave me that freedom of interaction to where some days I was available midday and other people were not. They were at their, at their day jobs. Other times I wasn't, it was, I was in construction, so I wouldn't be available for a couple weeks because I was on a, you know, deep in a job. So that's how I became involved with that. And the more we, I don't know, I understand it. I mean, neighbors are neighbors and part of getting along with your neighborhood is, uh, being concerned for them, but not being too nosy. GM (06:52): 2 �And that is true also with corporate neighbors. So I think corporate neighbors, they like the idea of getting along with their neighbors, but they understand they are a corporation, and, uh, they can't be as chummy or, um, I mean, they, they go to their own homes and they have those neighbors, and so they, they can't really be double-dipping there. But when we get more into issues that they consider operations, um, related issues, uh, that's where it becomes none of our business, where if it's environmental, we do consider it, it is our business. Because at some point, um, Wolverine continues to be in, Wolverine Worldwide, continues to be located in Rockford. But my thought was, 'cause I had family members who worked for large corporations, and you have a change of CEO, and all of a sudden you're located in Denver or Chicago or Arizona. And, uh, even though they were a, had a long history in Rockford, I personally wasn't convinced that they just couldn't just pull up roots and get out of it. So that was kind of nature of my interest. And, and I lived right across the street from, uh, the building that remains, which is their shoe store. Yeah. But basically across the street from the, the factory complex DD (08:23): So was that a concern for you that they could leave? Or was that not a concern? GM (08:29): Uh, more concern of, well, my, you know, being in a small business that the, the, uh, scale of operations is vastly different, but I always figured there's a cost of doing business. And if they had done something that they didn't consider nefarious, but, um, over time was determined to be problematic, that cleaning up the, the residue is a deferred cost since they didn't do it, what we now consider right the first time. Or they didn't take care of, uh, spillage when it became known, but not publicized that they were dealing with hazardous chemicals that shouldn't get into groundwater. That's the time they should have dealt with it. And for it to be brought up to them at a later date, didn't negate the fact that they still had, uh, really an ethical responsibility to, um, have a clean and safe operation, not just for their workers or their consumers, but, uh, the people who worked there and lived nearby and, and their neighbors. DD (09:48): So, as someone who did live nearby, did you have any personal concerns about what was about to go down or what had gone down? GM (09:58): Well, I, I, in my, me and my family were rather blessed because we moved into our home in, uh, February of 1999. And, uh, we had city water, but that's the time when, uh, Rockford, uh, stopped drawing their city water from the river. Uh, and I believe it was downstream from the tannery. Um, and they started the deep well, um, deep well, uh, pumping system. And so my children, my family was never exposed to it, besides what it might have been residually located in the, uh, in the piping. Um, but it's, uh, been somewhat determined that ingesting PFAS is a little less issue than, um, inhaling it. And, uh, I always, I always kind of thought it odd too that, uh, the, when I was young, we always took baths. We didn't do showers, but at some point people started taking showers, and I thought, well, the aeriation of the mist in the water, maybe that became more of a health issue with issues like, or PFAS than, than just sitting in it, which is still not good for you, but seems less of an issue. But, yeah. So I had, uh, almost, oh, just kind of an ethical concern as a neighbor, um, of what, what the situation was there rather than a, a real health risk as we weren't exposed to it in that way. DD (11:46): 3 �You mentioned that, um, kind of as part of the, as someone who was able to stay and to, to be selfemployed, and you were perhaps more available at certain times than others, um, that you were asked for help. GM (12:00): Mm-hmm <affirmative>. DD (12:01): What kinds of things were you helping the, the citizens group, the concerned citizens do? Like, what, what was your role? What kinds of things were you doing? GM (12:11): Okay, well, um, early on, every now and then we would do, oh, maybe a little, a little walkabout, you know, take a look, uh, while during the, uh, demolition process, sometimes it's like, uh, Grant, what do you, you work in construction. What do you think of what's going on there? So I'd walk around and say, well, you know, they're, they're, they're spraying down the debris. This is a modern style of, uh, um, airborne dust containment. Uh, that's good. But, uh, you know, that, that, that definitely is, everything's supposed to be wet. And, and, uh, containable versus just spraying water in the area. One guy in the hose spraying in the corner of a parking lot, and they're working over there. That's not the idea, but they were pretty good about keeping the water on there. But every now and then, since these hoses were, didn't have a guy holding it, you know, it was an automated, uh, kind of a mount, and it was aerating the air while they, you know, migrate the work a little over, it's like, okay, you kind of, kind of keep that up. GM (13:22): But once the, the demolition crews knew the criteria there, and they had air monitors, they, they were able to keep on top of that. Um, other activities just was kind of us all familiarizing ourselves with things in the city that we never noticed before. Um, taking floats down the river in a boat, um, I mean, you walk down the sidewalk and you know, the same houses, but when you look at it with a different thought in your head, why is this this way? Or why is that there? Um, it gets you thinking about the potential problems and opportunities, like even the, the tannery, they, they talked about the, if there was the possibility of groundwater contamination, what were the options? And one of the more vocal, uh, I can't call him a Rockford, uh, resident or citizen because he lived in the townships, and this was a ongoing problem. GM (14:29): We had business owners that identified as being Rockford residents. I hate the term. I like citizen, not because I'm, I don't think-- it's politically charged. It means you live in a city, a citizen. I was a citizen of Rockford because I lived in the city of Rockford that didn't include the owner of the, you know, liquor store, the drug, you know, the drug store, the, the gas station. Unless they lived there, you know, I, I don't go into their townships and tell 'em how to run their, their business there. But, uh, other than weighing in on things that affect their business, I'd say, thank you, but no, thank you. We live here. You don't, we pay the taxes. You don't, so, you know, you take care of yours. We take care of ours. Um, but one of these more vocal people, he had an issue with the Brownfield in a property owned decades previously, and his thought was the only source of containment was that they were gonna pave it all over with asphalt capping it. 4 �GM (15:37): Well, when he used that term, I thought, well, capping it, it was already capped because there was a building there. It kept the rainfall from getting into the ground that was boom below with all the, the concrete pads and, you know, just flowing it into the water, um, to a, to a degree. Um, so removing the building kind of removed that cap and breaking up the found, uh, the, the, uh, paving, interior paving, uh, concrete pads did the same. So it all became an issue there. But as we looked more and more into it, and Lynn would talk, um, primarily Lynn would do a lot of interviews with other people, we found a lot of the sludge had been taken to other areas, which became almost bigger problems than the actual downtown area, which was the source of the pollution. So that was some of it, walking about, uh, taking a look at things, um, keeping an eye out, and meetings, meetings. GM (16:38): When we finally decided to write, uh, the petition to the EPA, um, I always remember the old movie, or not movie, it was a movie, actually, <laugh> after the song, Alice's Restaurant by Arlo Guthrie, where he talks about getting, um, arrested for littering. And this sheriff had a, a photograph with a paragraph with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one. And he would say this over and over again, explaining what the issue was. And this is Lynn <laugh>, she, these, all these photographs with, you know, arrows and circles and a paragraph <laugh> actually below, below each one. You know, it was so detailed. But, you know, getting it into a communicatable understandable, uh, presentation was a, a bit of, a bit of a challenge. We knew photographs are great if people know what you're photographing. You gotta explain what it is. GM (17:38): You gotta explain why it's important, and that you're not putting in additional photographs just to fill the air and make it seem like, oh, the sky is falling. These are, you know, we're, we're documenting conditions that happened. So, uh, sitting down, and usually the writing would happen by, uh, by, uh, Lynn and Gail. But, uh, I would, I would sit down, we would review what we went, what they had gone through, uh, you know, make some, some comments there. And, uh, those two kind of claim <laugh> that I would, that I'd be referee between the two, because they spent a lot of time together without me <laugh>. And then I would end up there. And so, like, almost like sisters, they would get a little, a little too personal with each other. Not, not, not in a heated way, but it's a little frustration because it was, you know, it's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. Well, you're, you being a writer. Yeah. When you collaborate, it's, it's hard enough to write alone, but collaborate. DD (18:43): It can be a challenge! GM (18:45): Yeah, does have some help. Yeah. There's some of the things I was involved with, though. DD (18:50): When did, so tell me a little bit more about the petition. I know that you, so you were, you just said you were part of helping to write it, review it. Um, tell me about, like, so the petition gets accepted, right? Like, and then tell me about like how that was, what your reaction was to that, um, like kind of the fallout from the petition getting accepted. 5 �GM (19:23): Yeah. So that was a whole, you know, a whole process of course. But as I remember, we had, um, a good number of, uh, names. I mean, there were, to my recollection dozens that, um, subscribed to it. And these are people that were familiar with the issue, uh, both people living, uh, nearby and, uh, people in the general area, um, who were, you know, wanting this to be addressed. But, uh, there were, we, we realized it would be a publicly accessible document, and that, uh, there were perhaps some parts of it that certain people supporting it would not want to, uh, have their name divulged. So we knew there'd have to be some, uh, people name who, who had names on the, on the front of it. And Lynn was fine doing that. I was okay with that because, uh, being self-employed as a, as a, basically a, a remodeling contractor, my territory was larger than Rockford. GM (20:42): And, uh, as much business, uh, work as goes downtown Rockford, I, I got project here and there, but it wasn't, was not a majority of my business. So I had no concern about losing business there. And I thought it was an important issue. And, uh, Gail, of course, was, was, uh, noted there as well. Um, yeah. So, um, had that submitted and, uh, then there's that quiet period, you know, is it still in the mail, <laugh>, what's going on? Like, you know, acknowledge receiving, it's almost like, uh, oh, like a movie with you all, you know, stamp. Okay, now it's official, but it's here, <laugh>, it's not re you know, it's, it's received, but it's, here's your receipt for it's receipt. But it's, it's not. In the process yet. So there's the discovery and, and making it known. And, uh, I can't remember at one point, but it got into the, the local newspaper. GM (21:57): And, uh, it's, I'm not a big spectator sports fan. And the tangent on that is, I remember hearing that intercollegiate sports, I guess college boys would get out and have this big brawl. It was a common thing. And so they started, you know, intramurals and they did intercollegiate. It's basically to turn people's focus towards something different, something constructive. But now it's a whole industry. But I think the side benefit is that, is that the average American thinks us versus them. And so you gotta, you gotta have a team, you gotta pick a side. And there's so few people that will look at both sides and take a, take a moment and not choose a side, but just kind of, kind of percolate. And we had a lot of people charging in, oh, Wolverine, they, you know, they've created so many new jobs. I'm like, well, what does that have to do with them dumping chemicals in the water? GM (22:59): This is what we're talking about. It's just like, and I'm not even saying they meant to do it, but it happened. It's like, you know, whether it's a child, you're in charge of, your neighbor, your neighbor has a dog that jumps the fence and bite your kid. I mean, are they gonna say, well, you should have fixed the fence? It's like, no, it's your dog. It is like, it is an issue of responsibility. So people wanted to end run because that was their team. Uh, I remember one situation where former council people would say, "oh, we never had any problem with anybody getting sick. We even, you know, we drew drinking water from the river." And I was on city council at the time thinking, oh, so you're responsible also, not that we knew that people were actually getting sick at that point, but, uh. Yeah. It just, those things that are said in the heat of the moment, and you think back and say, wow, you really said that out loud. Out loud. DD (24:07): Yeah. 6 �GM (24:08): Makes you pause. DD (24:12): How did it feel then, when the EPA turned the site back over to the DEQ? GM (24:19): Oh ho ho, yeah. I guess we didn't know what happened. Before I lived in Rockford. I lived in Ypsilanti Township down the street from a, a Superfund site. I think it was an old Ford facility or supplier. And as a local, I'm like, all of a sudden there's a chain link fence and a do not enter. And, you know, no trespassing didn't know what was going on. Uh, but that was a big concern that people would say, oh, they're gonna cordon it off and it'll look like, uh, Chernobyl, you know, a big, you know, toxic waste area. It's like, you know, 21st century, you know, I don't think all that's gonna happen. So we, we figured it'd be a guarded approach. Um, really one of the frustrating, um, parts of it being turned over to the Michigan DEQ was that, uh, previous to, uh, petitioning the EPA, uh, uh, local, um, officials in the DEQ, um, some were approached about this, and, uh, basically they had ran to Wolverine and, you know, talked all about it and just made a big, big fluster about it, and then did absolutely nothing. GM (25:53): Um, it was, to my understanding, the efforts of, uh, mostly one, one person in charge there locally, where a lot of the rank and file people did want to get involved. Uh, there were a lot of good people, some of them becoming, you know, approaching retirement age. They'd been there a good while, but they had that experience. They knew it was a bad situation, but they weren't the one politically appointed to the local office, and so they kind of had to basically follow orders. Uh, so yeah, it being turned back to the DEQ was a, was a disappointment. And, um, you know, it's, it's one of those things, sometimes you speak outta turn, but I thought, you know, at this point, point, I'll just, there's nothing I can do. But my expectation is that it would run the full course of doing nothing until, um, the EPA would have to step in again DD (26:56): Mm-hmm <affirmative>. GM (26:58): And, uh, I'm not kept up to date since I moved some four years ago. So, um, I'd still get notices about the meetings, but, uh, um, you know, things move on and my family has other, other needs. So, uh, I'm a little ignorant about what's happened more recently. But, uh, DD (27:22): After the, um, after the EPA turned the site back over to the DEQ, I know there was another kind of quiet lull for a while where a lot of things weren't hap, there was little work happening. I know that certain members in the CCRR were still trying to kind of go underground, if you will, and, um, continue to try to figure out what was going on and what was there. Um, did you remain involved after, like, were you still involved at that point? GM (27:58): 7 �Well, to answer it somewhat indirectly, what I remember of what the was happening on the site is that, um, one far end of the site got paved over into some parking spaces and they started holding farmer markets and the, like, there, um, they opened up the field for families to run across during, you know, um, movie nights. They'd, um, have some fireworks. And, um, although new fresh soil was put there, I didn't have the best, I, you know, feeling that it was necessarily safe for, uh, young people to be there. Um, there are, there are monitoring wells, but, uh, and when they talk about the fact that Rockford has a historic dam that was one point hydroelectric generation, um, and what, what, what should one do with it? Um, what's never said is that they would never wanna do anything with it, because the, the, the backwater area has so much, you know, retained sludge and who knows what, uh, presumed to be not good stuff, that it would just all get released. And again, so much of my focus has been on what was happening downtown, where the, uh, house Street site is one of the primary areas that we rolled into in playing, uh, playing field, uh, township because it's part and parcel of the same problem. Sledge was relocated and then crept into the groundwater. GM (29:54): But, uh, yeah, it just seems, uh, it just seems, uh, that there's a marked degree of irresponsibility. I mean that when we, when we were posting the petition, uh, Wolverine was, um, they were posting this, you know, um, historic gains in, in, uh, profit. Uh, there was some sort of crisis, I can't remember what it was in Texas, and they were sending down, um, you know, large contributions, you know, it was in excess of a million. I thought, well, why don't they do something local? I thought, well, because that's not glamorous, and that's not, you know, you come out and say, we, we just spent this much money cleaning up our own mess. They know that's not gonna help. But, oh, you know, children, you know, children need shoes in some foreign land. Oh, we, well, yeah, we'll cut a check for that. It's like, while that would be nice, how about taking care of what you, you created yourself? It's just, I just, just reminds me the old, the old names. The, the, the, the Rockefeller, the Carnegie, these, you know, captains of industry back in the day that, you know, they bought tooth and nail and there was a lot of blood and guts spilled, but when it comes full circle, they make donations or open libraries, which is a wonderful thing. But how they got the money, I think is sometimes more important than if, if they didn't clean up their mess on the way out. I'm just thinking, just cl if, if sooner or later somebody's gonna acquire wolverine or they're gonna shut down, or who knows what, just clean up your mess before you do. That's what I do, you know, before I go to bed, the house is still a mess, but there's certain things I make nice and tidy. I usually hand wash my dishes. That's what I like to do. I like putting 'em away so I don't come and have to put 'em away in the morning. That's what we do as responsible adults, and there's no reason why a corporate entity can't do the same. DD (32:21): Fair, very fair GM (32:24): Preaching to the choir, I suppose. <laugh>. DD (32:27): That's okay. It's good to put it down on record. GM (32:29): Yeah. Yeah. 8 �DD (32:31): Um, do you think there are any parts of the story that, as far as you're aware, that have been underreported? GM (32:42): I'm sure there are, but you know, with I am sometimes, well, I, I'm plagued with a good memory in some ways and a bad memory in others <laugh>. And one of the things I gets me through life is, uh, trying not to hold grudges. So I, I forget the bad things that happen sometimes, uh, but that, that lets people off the hook a little bit more than they should at times, I suppose. Um, and when it, when it comes to winners and losers, I mean, there were, there were relationships and friendships that were strained. Um, I had an interesting situation because my, uh, my next, so I lived right next to what had been a series of houses until at some point, uh, they were paved over for parking lot, which in Rockford that was allowed, you know, it was residentially zoned, but, uh, you couldn't build a convenience store there, but you could pave it and use it as a commercial parking lot, which seemed contradictory to me. GM (34:02): So anyway, it was nice place to have kids grow up because there wasn't much happening over there usually. Uh, so I only had a neighbor on one side, and, uh, the neighbor was a retiree from Wolverine Worldwide and his wife, and they were, uh, wonderful people. A part of the, I mean, um, the husband grew up there. I don't know if he's actually born there. I think he might've been like in the town, but he, he grew up there and he, he lived in that home after he had, um, well, they moved there in the early fifties eventually bought the home, and he died locally. So he spent his whole life there and, uh, had a lot of respect for him. Um, but, uh, his wife was on city council, and, you know, when you are in a, I always think of communities, when you're a certain community, um, your ears turned, uh, sympathetically toward those, uh, closest to you. GM (35:09): And so we were obviously on different sides of the issue, but it never really strained our relationship because we chose to be good neighbors and not, not really discuss that topic because, um, when, you know, somebody has the opposite point of view, and, uh, there is no real way of convincing them to change their opinion, um, I'm typically of the, of the opinion that, that, um, my best testimonial is just to continue. And if they ever have a question about how I feel I'll do so somebody is undecided about something, I'm more than willing to discuss it. But, uh, I'm not big into, you know, trying to change the world to agree with me. It's just, just not my way. But, uh, a lot of people that, uh, work quite differently in, in that community and other communities, but, uh, that, that strained a lot of relationships. GM (36:14): And, uh, the city manager of the time, he was a very, very energetic fellow. Um, but I think he was much on the wrong side of this issue, and I think he was used by Wolverine Worldwide. Um, which I don't know, it just, I, I, I saw the irony of it because as I said before, my opinion is that Wolverine Worldwide decided to stay in Rockford because they decided to stay in Rockford. And no matter what the city manager did or did not do, he's, he was like a gnat to them. A city of 6,300 people was not gonna do a whit of good or ill to them because they had been there since, I think the 1920s was the founding of Krause and Hurst tannery, and it's, I mean, it was a long, long time ago, and as much as he thought he was doing them favors, I think they would take any favor they gave him, but they were not gonna scratch his back in return. 9 �DD (37:30): Mm-hmm. GM (37:31): So, I, I just think he didn't, he didn't value the, the citizens of Rockford over the corporations of Rockford. DD (37:40): When did you, um, first hear about PFAS? GM (37:47): Oh, probably after we, I mean, I, I suppose I might have heard of it, you know, like in the news here and there, but is where, bang your head on, on hexavalent, chromium, hexavalent, chromium, hexavalent, chromium. All of a sudden somebody's like, well, what about PFAS? So I think, I think it might've even been after the petition was issued, I think it might've been amidst or in the formation of the, uh, community advisory group, Wolverine Community Advisory Group. I was a member, founding member for a while there. And, uh, and I think that that's where the, the focus changed over time. Uh, of course, the challenge there was that both the EPA and the DNR, they didn't have, oh, what, what do you call it? Legislative directives as to what contamination was. So, uh, after being a, uh, uh, remodeling contractor, I became a home inspector. GM (39:07): And so I got more into science, like radon and concentrations of this and that. And so, uh, oh, even some water quality analysis. So I got into a better understanding of what, what, what is, um, contamination, you know, what, what's, uh, the maximum MCL maximum contamination level, which is used with, I can't remember what is the hexavalent chromium, I think that's in, in there someplace. Uh, but, but other things, lead, arsenic, all those, and then the, the lower limits of detection, the LLD, that's where your, um, detection method can't, it might be there, but it's so small that there, it's undetectable. Um, but yeah, I find that there isn't, was no MCL and they, they knew PFAS bad, but they didn't know how much PFAS bad, which we kind of find that any amount is bad if it's, as they like to call it forever chemical. GM (40:14): And that it not only is, uh, pervasive and sticks around, but evidently is, can also accumulate as opposed to be something easily, uh, uh, removed. So, um, I'm just trying to think. The year we submitted the petition, do you recall, I thought it was 2012, DD (40:48): 2011? GM (40:48): 2011, 2012. I thought it was, yeah. 2012 came to mind, but maybe it was 2011 and I moved in 2020, so that was a long time to see not a whole lot done for that. So somewhere in the midst there, we got looking at the PFAS, and strangely enough, uh, where I live now isn't too far from Parchment, which has the, uh, paper mill PFAS issue in the Kalamazoo River. I drive by that every now and that the Kalamazoo 10 �River, I'm like, oh, there's another affected river. Unfortunately, I think it's documented to be, the documentation is more acute down here. I'm not sure that the Rogue River is better. I think it is. It's, it's, it's, it's a smaller river and it's a tributary, and it moves a little faster. So I think we have all that. But, um, yeah. Yeah. Just that an irony there. DD (41:54): So maybe that's a good segue into another question. Um, do you have any concerns about PFAS contamination moving forward? GM (42:06): Yeah. Well, largely like, if I think of, uh, people of Plainfield Township, there's a big bolus of, I can't remember the term. They would use, um, plume plume of, uh, contaminated groundwater that continues to migrate. Now they've tried to stop the wells that would draw from that, but that doesn't mean that's the only, um, vector of contamination. It comes up to the ground source. We have sludge that was there. There's a, there's a subdivision that was built over an area that anecdotally was reported to have surface, um, application over farm fields. Uh, the farmhouse is still there, the fields are gone. They put in a bunch of homes. And there was some reports of kids in the nineties having a strange form of cancer, of the sinuses and such. And it was just an uptick. And it passes and, you know, it's, it's not like a smoking gun. It happened there. How did, how did they get contaminated? Well, could have been private wells, but it was on city water, but it had developed homes with soil kids playing on the ground. GM (43:49): Who knows? Who knows? Um, in my little lake here, uh, I mean, I, I grew up downstream from, um, a paper mill. And every now and then they would have, oh, a little bit too much rain, and the holding pits would overflow, and the White Pigeon River would run a lime green. It's almost this like what they'd do in Chicago for <laugh>, or is this for St. Patrick's Day? Except for this is unintentional. This is a milky lime green. And it was disgusting. Hey, you know, it's poison. They would just go right down the river, which is tributary to the St. Joseph River, and they would get some sort of fine, but I believe it was a business decision that the fine was probably more affordable than cleaning 'em out. I don't know why otherwise they would do this. These weren't, it wasn't a, it was an old plant, but it wasn't an antiquated plant. GM (44:53): So I think that's kind of the way business used to be done quite a bit. So when we get back to the issue of the, the PFAS, um, what came to mind is, I would walk along the river as a little kid, and I'd see this foamy water, I think, oh, it just happens. It just happens. But, uh, Lynn was one who's just saying, what is this foam? I'm like, it just happens at rivers, Lynn. everybody said, it just happens. Well, it doesn't. More often than not, it's some sort of a, PFASis a what do they call it? Anti, it's a surficant. Anti. Surficant. Anyway, DD (45:33): Surfactant? GM (45:34): Surfactant, yeah. So it floats and it's a thing that keeps things from adhering to each other. So it's, it's, it's on the surface. Um, I have a neighbor at my lake here says, do you think anybody would mind if I check the water? 11 �GM (45:50): Because every now and then the wind blows and we get little foam <laugh> of water. I'm like, now don't tell me we got PFOS here. But we might, we don't know. I mean, I'm not near an airport. I understand. I think it was Grayling, the National Guard Airport, that they would use the foam that the firefighters use, and that, that there was a big contamination issue there. It just seems that, I don't know, there's, there's, there's too many things that just don't add up. I mean, we know we have, oh, for lack of a better term, plastic food. I mean, food that just isn't always food. It's just byproducts put in there, or products put in that we ingest. Um, so there's other issues. GM (46:41): But when I look at my generation and my children's generation, seems like we have a lot more problems with, uh, infertility than I remember hearing from prior generations. Um, a lot of people struggling to have children to have, uh, early, early life cancers. And, uh, it could it be the food? Could it be the water? Well, anything we can do to reduce our exposure to, um, carcinogens is, is, is not a bad way to go. And that's my biggest concern about this PFAS, that it's, it's, it's still, it's still out there. Seems like we're still adding to it. And being an old geology student, I know the earth heals itself, but I also <laugh>, like Carl Sagan would say, billions and billions of years <laugh> for the solar system. But like with, with the Earth, it can take a million years to heal something. It will heal, but it might take another species to <laugh> enjoy the benefits and we don't want that. DD (48:02): Well, you're just a jack of all trades, a geology student, construction, remodeling, and home inspection. GM (48:10): I think they, I think they now call that ADHD <laugh>. It wasn't a thing when I was a kid. I was just, I was just, well read <laugh>. DD (48:24): Is there anything before we wrap up that you'd like to add or, um, that we haven't touched on today? Or anything that you wanna go back to say more about? GM (48:38): Well, shame of it all is, uh, you know, I was a little delayed in getting back with you and, uh, by, by months, really as it's just been these weeks. But, uh, and being a little separated from the issue and distracted by other other concerns, it, it does get, it does get a little foggy over time as to And every now, and you have the, oh, yeah. That mo mo type of moment where you're like, okay, yeah, that was a, that was a, a big day or a big event. Um, but, uh, nothing really comes to mind. I, you know, as I age and mature, I, I think I oftentimes try to look at the theme, uh, versus the details. I'm very detail oriented, but I think to understand how details fit into a situation, you have to look at the overarching theme. GM (49:42): It's like, okay, what, why does the puppet move? Well, there's a puppeteer. Why does a puppeteer make that choice? Well, and it goes further and further and further back to, uh, a theme of where are we going with the whole thing. But, uh, yeah, I, I, I think we have a societal problem of not asking why we should, you know, continue to add untested, unproven products of all sorts of all sorts. That, uh, um, 12 �sometimes will have well established, um, methods of introducing, um, new products that we will just push the wayside because all of a sudden we think, oh, this is a crisis. We need to find a solution. Well, solution can be worse than the problem. GM (50:45): And, uh, I think it's important that we don't stop progress, but we start to find better methods to, uh, evaluate what things are progress. Uh, the continued proliferation of pharmaceutical drugs. We have plenty of pharmaceutical drugs that do just the same thing that the new ones will, but they're coming. The old ones are out of patents. So, you know, it's not always the case, but they try to find a, a new wheel, uh, you know, a better, you know, the wheel's been invented, get a better tire, that's fine, but gotta stop. Yeah. I don't know how we do it, but, uh, yeah. You know, fixing the past, I mean, that's an industry in itself. But, uh, trying to do, undo some of the, some of the harm we've done. I think that, you know, puts us in better stead for generations to come and say, well, they, they might have been a little warped, but they, they, they did their best to try to clean things up a bit. DD (51:59): Yeah. Well, Grant, thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. GM (52:05): Oh, gladly, gladly. 13 � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0044 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Medich, Grant Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025-12-11 Title A name given to the resource Grant Medich, 2025 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Grant Medich recounts how community concerns over a Rockford, Michigan tannery demolition evolved from chromium contamination to the discovery of widespread PFAS risks. As a nearby resident, he helped monitor the site and supported a citizen petition to the EPA, raising questions about corporate responsibility, regulatory inaction, and the long-term health impacts of “forever chemicals." 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. Lemmen Library and 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/f29a6dabf7ffab00479f5fc16c092b77.mp4 1aa6c9f4a8ebd77fda93f9d4dbb78168 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f1ae26b275d2c03816ed5cfb45994e8e.pdf 423ccd662dd077b5e5d44ffd0431d6a7 PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Jonathan Miner Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: Apr 13, 2021 DD: I’m Dani DeVasto, and today, Apr 13, 2021I have the pleasure of chatting with Jonathan Miner. Jonathan, can you tell me about where you are from and where you currently live? JM: Wow, that’s a long story, I’m old now. DD: [laughs] JM: I’m a Hoosier by birth, but I grew up on the East Coast, in Maryland. I went to the University of Maryland and got a degree in landfill engineering. But my wife is from Missouri, so back in 1991 we decided to split the difference and move to the midwest. DD: [laughs] JM: I took a job with a local company, and I moved from Baltimore, Maryland out to Rockford, Michigan - a suburb, just north of Grand Rapids in 1991. DD: Alright, so, you’ve been in Rockford for - wowJM: 30 years this year. DD: Ah, wow, must not be too bad. JM: No, it's a really great place. It’s a really great place to live. DD: So, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in your community? JM: Yeah, my family, like I said, moved here in 1991, and we’ve- my boss at the time suggested Rockford as a great place to raise your family, because it's like Mayberry, you know, the crime rate here is an overdue book at the library DD: [laughs] JM: And my kids actually walked to kindergarten. 1 �DD: Wow. JM: We had moved here from Baltimore where, you know, you don’t let your kids out of your sight. Kids used to show up on milk cartons. Here [pause] it was just like shaded trees; it was just like Mayberry. We moved here with my two young daughters and they started school here and raised our family. At the time, we lived right in downtown Rockford in an old house and all of our municipal water was drawn from the Rogue River, which runs right through town DD: Mmhmm. JM: - Rockford was founded on a - alongside the river with a sawmill that was powered by the river. And factories were powered by the river, so we’re a river city. Our water sources were pulled from the river and treated at the water treatment plant right alongside the river. And it was downstream, important word, downstream, from the tannery. So, probably more than a hundred years ago, Wolverine Worldwide shoe company was started in Rockford. They’re most famous for making hush puppy shoes. But they also own a lot of other brands: Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, some other shoe brands they make, but they are still headquartered in Rockford, Michigan. They’re our biggest employer. They’ve been really good for the community in terms of prosperity. But they ran a tannery that was right along the river, and back in those days people just [pause] amazingly dumped things in the river, and buried things. So when we moved here our city water was drawn from the river and treated at the plant. We became good friends with the guy who ran the plant. He was a good guy, and he worked diligently to make the water safe to drink. But no one knew about PFAS back then. No one had the means for testing for it, or eliminating it from the water. So he was proudly treating the water. In fact, he used to bottle it and sell it at farmer’s markets and festivals in town. “Hey, here- for a dollar buy a bottle of our great city water.” DD: [slight disagreeing noise] JM: We all drank it, and one of my daughters, my oldest daughter, was sort of a fitness or health - shes a little mature for her age - but she was very conscious of drinking water and not soft drinks or juices with a lot of sugar, so she drank water all the time. DD: Wow. JM: And we thought, wow she's being very healthy, and encouraged her to drink water. So all of us in town were drinking water that probably has, had, PFAS in it. We don’t know. No water samples survived. I’ll talk about it a little later but, our bodies probably don’t have the PFAS in it anymore. So, my personal interest in it was wondering what effect that had on my family’s 2 �health. What long term effects, if any, will PFAS have on my family? Living right downtown, we, you know, we’re near the tannery. We used to live South and a little East of the tannery. About 5 blocks. And on a summer day when the tannery was working, and our windows were open, you could smell the tannery. DD: Yeah. JM: So you kind of just always had this eerie feeling that your environment wasn’t the healthiest. The smell of the tannery and knowing where the water came from, but nevertheless, that's what we had, that’s what my family grew up with. [pause] So, then about 1999-2000, the city changed its water source from drawing from the Rogue River to wells, deep wells, drilled outside of the city limits; south east of the city. I’m not sure why they changed. I don’t know if it was a capacity issue or not but, coincidentally, and some people are suspicious of the coincidence, about that time, Wolverine Worldwide, maker of Hush Puppies, was notified by 3M that Scotchgard, one of the ingredients they used to waterproof shoes, contained PFAS. They were learning that PFAS was potentially dangerous and pervasive. They told Wolverine that they were going to change the formula and encouraged Wolverine to stop using it or whatever, butDD: Mhm. JM: To some people it's curious that that’s about the time our water source changed and some people think that the city was told to do that or suggested that Wolverine - I don’t know if it's a true story. About that time the water source was changed to deep wells instead of the city and I feel better about that. DD:[laughs] JM: [laughs] And then around 2010, the tannery was demolished. You know, they slowly stopped doing any tanning in the U.S. It’s labor intensive and environmentally not easy to do, so they shut down and demolished the tannery in about 2010. Now we have a big green field of grass along the river where the tannery used to be. So, that’s the story on the city water. I’ve never had well water, unlike many members of our CAG, Community Advisory Group, that I’ll talk about a little bit later. So all of my personal exposure would have been from the city water for a decade that my family drank. Now, a few years ago, my wife and I were out gardening in our yard and we stuck a shovel in the ground and found some shoe leatherDD: Ah. JM: - in our yard, so she was concerned that maybe some dumping had occurred in our yard. But we had some people come out and do some test digs and they didn’t find any other shoe 3 �leather. We’re pretty sure it was just stray trash. But, you know, if you find something like that in your yard, it's like, “oh no, are we going to find barrels of PFAS in our yard?” But, no, we didn’t. So, my concern for my family is the ingestion and I’ve talked to people from the Michigan Department of Health, and the Health Department is now just beginning studies of PFAS and health effects. They’re recruiting volunteers to give blood samples. They want people that have a fresh dosage of PFAS - who have currently or are recently drinking contaminated well water. Because, PFAS, apparently even though it's a forever chemical, it does leave the body after a number of years. So if you tested my blood or my daughter’s blood, you probably wouldn’t find PFAS in there. Becauses of that, the Health Department can’t really correlate the PFAS level in my blood to my health outcomes. DD: Mhm. JM: That is the plan for the health study. They’re going to test the blood PFAS levels of a lot of people and see, correlate that with cancer, or liver disease, or other kinds of health issues. That health study is just beginning now. DD: And that’s the MiPEHS study, right? JM: Yeah, there’s two studies and I’m not sure the difference between them right off hand, MiPEHS is one of them. JM: Another part of my personal story with PFAS is that I am on the Rockford Planning Commission. As a planning commissioner I am concerned about - concerned - that’s the wrong word, interested in future land use of primarily the tannery property. Wolverine has a couple other facilities in town like an old shoe sole factory that's actually right in my backyard. I can see it from here. DD: [chuckles] JM: Right, which they’ll probably be vacating eventually, so mainly, that the big tanning tannery property is a big grassy field right downtown along the river. So, I’m interested in what that’s gonna become. Is it gonna be donated to the city for an amphitheater? Will Wolverine put up an office building there? Will it become residential? All of that will affect the city. All of that requires different levels of remediation to get approval. So as a planning commissioner, I’m interested in the land planning aspects of that property, and what the best use is for the city and to make sure the planning gets done properly. So, given those concerns, when the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, formed the CAG [Community Advisory Group] back in 2019, I applied to be on it and luckily I was chosen. There’s about 20 members on the CAG. The purpose of the CAG is to communicate with the parties involved with the clean up of Wolverine 4 �waste. That includes several sites around Rockford. I don’t know how much of this you need to hear, but there’s a dumpDD: As much as you wanna tell me. JM: [laughs]There’s two big spots. There’s a dump on House Street, North West of Rockford that Wolverine, back in the sixties, used to dump sludge- industrial sludge that contained PFAS. They buried barrels, and dumped raw sludge into this dump site. Back then, it was the thing you did. It was an approved site and they were driving trucks out there and dumping it. In fact, sometimes farmers would pay them to dump this stuff on their farm fields, because it was a fertilizer. I don’t know how the crops grew. You know, that was back in the day when you didn’t have filters on cigarettes and seatbelts in cars. You were living dangerously. DD: [chuckles] JM: Uh, [chuckles] so, that’s one site, the House Street dump site, the other big site is the tannery - the other hot spot. So the purpose of the CAG is to meet with the EPA and EGLE, E-GL-E, which stands for Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, Energy, used to be the Michigan department of Environmental Quality, so we meet monthly with EPA and EGLE and stay up to date on what's going on on the clean up. What is Wolverine doing and their hired contractors and what are the requirements, what do the test results show? We get into the nitty gritty of PFAS levels in the river, in the plume, where it's tracking - all of that stuff. And then we turn around and face the community and tell them what we know. JM: So we’re the communication conduit between the community and those involved in the clean up. I think it's been great. We have about 20 members; they’re varied in experience. I’m a retired engineer. We have a professor from your college, in chemistry, who’s an expert in this area. We have a lot of people who have had some serious exposure issues. One of our members, I believe, has the highest PFAS concentration in her blood of anybody in the world that’s been tested so far. She has some tragic personal family health history that you’ll probably talk to her about. We have a young mother whose 5 or 7 year old son has been drinking contaminated well water, highly contaminated, well water since he was born, so my exposure is nothing compared to that of some of the other members. Anyway, the CAG has been very good. I'm thankful for the EPA for forming it. The EPA and EGLE, both, they’re representatives have been wonderful. They’ve been honest with us and very informative, they’ve been great. JM: Unfortunately, Wolverine has not joined the CAG. There are some lawsuits flying around and these days when a company gets accused of something, the first reaction is to lawyer up and huddle and plant down, and they’ve kind of done that, not surprisingly. They do attend the 5 �meetings. We see their little Zoom picture now that they’re there, they’re listening. It would be great if they could contribute and talk to us, but I understand why they won’t - can’t. DD: Yeah. JM: Uh, Let’s see. [pause] Alright, uh yeah that’s my story. My feelings about Wolverine are mixed. They’ve been great for Rockford. They’ve made our town prosper. We have a nice little town here in large part due to their employment of our residents and investment in our town. I don’t know what they knew, when they knew it and what they did with that knowledge. Some people think, “uh oh they’re liars and cheats. They knew about it and hid the truth.” Others think they were just doing what people did back then. You bury your waste. In their defense, they were buying this product from 3M, this Scotchgard stuff. That turns out, it had an ingredient that’s harmful and lasts forever - or a long time. I don’t blame Wolverine for what’s in Scotchgard. That’s more 3M’s problem. They should never have made a forever chemical. I don’t know what we were thinking. [chuckles ]. DD: Yeah. JM: I don’t want to get on my high horse too much, but you know. Humans are the plague of this planet. We just produce all of this stuff. We’re driven to consume. We’re consuming the planet. Make plastics and forever chemicals and just spew them around. Whoever invented landfills, you know, what were you thinking? “Let’s bury our trash,” oh, what are we going to do next week, bury more? Look at the trajectory. Where does this end? The plague of the planet. DD: Yeah, we’ve definitely done some not so great things. DD: So, you’ve kind of maybe started to touch on my second question a little bit, but what concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward? JM: Well, you know, Michigan is sort of one of the hotspots of PFAS. That's not that I don’t believe that we have more, we have just been investigating more. I think it's going to be a nationwide and worldwide big problem. We don’t yet - I don't think - know what the true health impacts are - you know, if you drink a cup of PFAS, are you going to get cancer a month later? We don’t really have it tied down that well yet, but I suspect it's not healthy. We’re going to find more and more problems with that. I think we’re going to find more and more places in our country where there’s big contamination issues and drinking water issues. We had - in southern Michigan - a city shut down its municipal water because PFAS exceeded the limits for drinking water. We're going to have more of that in the country. So one of my concerns is just widespread problems with it. 6 �JM: Another concern is, I think 3M - this might need to be verified - but I think 3M’s answer is to make a shorter chain molecule instead of an eight carbon, make it six, or instead of six, make it four. A shorter chain molecule version of Scotchgard. Who says that’s safe? Maybe it's safer. Who- how do we know? So a concern of mine is the companies who are making these chemicals that are in everything we buy and touch and sit on and drink, have made it impossible, it seems, to test the long term effects of those in a short term development cycle. I’m concerned that we just as humans continue to poison ourselves. To foul our own nest. I almost wish we could go back to you know wooden plates and [chuckles] and growing our own food and [chuckles] not driving cars. DD: Then you’d be stuck back in Baltimore. [laughs]. JM: Yeah. [both laugh] JM: I’d probably be dead. I had a hip replacement recently and some other surgery, so from that standpoint, I’m glad to be alive this time. DD: Well, I’m glad you’re here, too. Before we wrap up, is there anything else you’d like to add that we either haven’t touched on today, or anything you’d like to go back to? JM: I don’t think so. I’m glad I live in Rockford still. I feel like, overall, it was a good choice for my family. We’ve been well here. I wish we hadn’t been drinking that municipal water that probably had PFAS and other things in it. But, that’s the way it was. I’m hopeful that, you know - my personal trait is that I like things to get resolved. I don’t like conflict; I don’t like hard feelings. My downfall sometimes is I try to make everybody like everybody else. I would love for some day Wolverine and the community could heal, and Wolverine could once again be a proud employer and all that stuff, but that may never happen. DD: But wouldn’t it be beautiful if it did, some sort of reconciliation? DD: Well, thank you, Jonathan, for taking the time to share your story today. JM: You’re welcome. I enjoyed it. Thank you. 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Miner, Jon Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-04-13 Title A name given to the resource Jon Miner, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Jon Miner has lived in the Rockford, Michigan area since 1991, and is on the Rockford Planning Commission. In his interview, he discusses living near the Wolverine Worldwide factory and worrying about contamination of the local environment by tannery chemicals. In his role as a commissioner, Jon has concerns about dumping sites and interest in the future land use of the tannery property. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/91d644bf74a52844d9c16510d6a95e05.mp4 7b2b542d78ca331a97df008e0d95cb99 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/200569fc976d3b20857c55eafd28958e.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 � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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. Lemmen Library and 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/56633af223e46292a26f2b48512f45cb.mp4 43143efa6ab44119f1b0a11f64e384a7 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/1c88a5fe46be90623647803f675c3b72.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. � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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. Lemmen Library and 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/0af0527e421f10b2e7ea753910d7c8d7.mp4 0562173539c4fa0dd5b6710833511c89 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/05ede121339cff1f60241d7b11b60fc4.pdf 90de3536df8f5176615f327ba24dee6d PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewee: Lance Climie Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: May 14, 2021 DD: I’m Dani DeVasto, and today, May 14th, I have the pleasure of chatting with Lance Climie. Lance, can you tell me about where you’re from and where you currently live? LC: I currently live in Plainfield Township, in Plainfield Township water system. Northeast set of Deenly, in that area. I have lived probably within 5 miles of that location the majority of my life. My family has been in 4 Mile and Beltline area since the 1870’s. So, long time in the area. DD: And how long have you been in Plainfield Township, specific? LC: Since I was born? DD: Okay, so yeah. LC: I have lived– I have worked away from Plainfield Township, but I’ve always said you got us working– but our primary residence was here, so. DD: Okay, alright. Lance, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in your community? LC: Well, it’s kind of interesting ‘cause our family, we were fruit farmers, and I remember my grandfather talking about Wolverine’s offer to come spread “sludge,” free fertilizer, on your fields. Come to find out, this is how they are disposing a lot of the PFAS residue, was by offering to spread it free as fertilizer on farmer’s fields. They offered it in a sincere manner. A lot of people took them up on that, and my grandfather thought they were quite out of their minds, not knowing what they’re putting into the ground. So, little flashbacks like that, it’s- Or the fact that my father was- is a retired Plainfield Township employee. He was the original Parks Department person there. He’s been deceased, here, about 8 years but– being at the dinner table with him, and he starts just kinda huffing and, you know, upset with people at work because they’re going to let people build houses up on House Street dump. They were going to change the zoning, and a lot of people would go build up there on the ravines and the dump around the dump. Why would you let people do that? So, those are- I guess I got a couple of different recollections of that year. It’s been around a long time, and there’s always been whispers of it, and you’ve seen signs of it. Then you see things like a dump at the old Bell dump on the Beltline, and there were precursors of PFAS that should have been warning signs, but sometimes it costs governments and businesses too much 1 �money to really look at what’s really happening with what might happen, versus what they just got paid for. DD: And with your family’s history with being fruit farmers, were you- did you- did your family take up the offer for the sludge or anything like that? LC: No. As a matter of fact, I remember my grandfather talking to some of the other farmers, and said, “don’t you let them put that stuff on your ground.” Just not– but he did. He was against- I remember he was railing against DDT [Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane] when it first came out, think it was just [?]. He was an advocate of using very little in the way of chemicals, natural fertilizers– Organic farmer before his time, just because it was the common sense way to do it. It was a good environment. He was- So we were definitely connected to the land, andAnd again, long ago, the county tried to take some of the farm to expand the dump that existed on the East Beltline a long time, too. That was a family fight, as well, too, that went through courts before we kept them away from taking the farm. So it was a– Some different stories, I guess. I kind of come at it from a different perspective. More of a family history perspective than- you know, a lot of people moved into Plainfield township and they moved into area, and had they known, they probably would not have done that. But, like I said, something was building for a long time. You know, I want to say that it’s unfortunate, and hopefully we’re able to rectify the situation, but this is a bad deal what’s happening right now, and it’s not going to get better unfortunately. DD: Is your connection with PFAS, then, mostly kinda through your family history and just being in the area for a long time? LC: I’ve also fished the Rogue River in 6 different decades now. So I’m a very– I’m an avid trout fisher and I’ve been involved with trying to limit it for a long time. We put- We are sorta affiliated with an organization that’s put close to 3 million dollars in working the watershed, just in the Rogue River, here, in the last 7 years. So we’ve been very aggressive in working to maintain that river and to improve it, not only for the common sense environmental aspects of it. It’s an economic engine, as well. So having a clean, chemical free trout stream [mumbling] within 10 miles of the major metropolitan area is a rare jewel in itself. DD: What concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward? LC: That it’s going to continue to spread, and we have no idea where it’s going to go. We do not have detailed mapping [of] the geomorphology in layers below us. We don’t know where it’s going to end up. All we know is it’s going to keep spreading. We got plumes, now that we have an idea of where they’re coming from, but we don’t really have a specific idea- you know, a specific detail or facts to back any of that up, and the will to drill all those wells in all those locations at all those depths is– it’s an economic obstacle. So I don’t really find a way to address it. We are just trying to remediate the best we can at multiple spots. And the rest is just going 2 �to continue to evolve, and in a way, we don’t know what’s going to happen, nor do we really have the power to stop it at this point. Unfortunately. DD: (chuckles) Yeah. It doesn’t feel really good. LC: Well, but things like this have been occurring at different levels for a long time. That’s- You know, like I said, our family has been fighting ground water pollution since the early 60’s without much success. ButDD: How does that- I was going to say, how does that impact your perspective? [laughs] LC: Well, first off, I think it taught me that an individual does have some power in the world to try to effect change, and it’s our obligation to take that responsibility. I mean, it’s our world. Got generations coming after me and I don’t want it to be a worse place, I want it to be a better place. So, it’s really pretty simple. Make the place better for my kids and their kids and their kids. DD: Yeah. LC: Basic premises. DD: You make it sound simple. [laughs] LC: Well, sometimes it is. The problem is the real world is not simple. It’s not black and white. It’s all shades of gray and it’s a jumbled mess. DD: Well, seems like if you can hold on to that simple truth it might help a little bit. LC: Well, it- Yeah- When I get to hold onto my grandkids it makes it pretty clear. SoDD: Yeah, absolutely. I bet it does. Before we wrap up, is there anything else that you would want to add to that we haven’t touched on today, or anything you would want to go back to expand on. LC: Well, yeah, I’m not going to go into any hindsight at this point, but I think that it’s important for us as a community action group to try to make sure that Wolverine stays on their toes regarding their mediation that was promised at the tannery site, and to properly make sure that the House Street location is secured as best we can at this point, and that doesn’t include planting 10,000 trees on top. DD: You’re not a fan of the current proposal. [laughs] 3 �LC: No, actually. I read science. I understand science and I can read it and understand that- No, the hocus pocus doesn’t work, so– ‘Cause trees, they will actually accelerate movement of materials not slow it down. DD: And aren’t there currently quite a few trees on the site? LC: Yes, it is. Look at it right now. So, [laughter] I listen. You know, we weigh in. We want to do the right thing, so. DD: Yeah. LC: It’s best as it was recorded in the settlement. DD: Yeah. LC: So hold them to it. DD: I hope we can. LC: I do too, I do too. But like I said, it’s been– Over the decades, it’s been pretty inspiring to see the work that’s been done within the Rogue River watershed and in Plainfield Township, regarding the improvement of the river itself. I mean, it’s gone slow, but year by year it getsthe river improves and it’s getting better, and there’s more people getting involved in that work. So there’s definitely hope down the road, too. DD: What are some of the improvements that you’ve seen happening? LC: Well, I can tell you one specifically, actually- there’s two things specifically that our [?] limited chapter worked on– was first taking out the Rogue Creek dam, specifically behind the school there in the east side of town. And second where Reds on the River near used to sit, there was little Blakeslee Creek, and it used to run in when it came the river in 2011 and 2012. With all of the developments that were up above it and all the higher elevations, it would be solid mud coming down. And it took us a few years ,but there were 3 small cofferdams that we got taken out and we actually regraded it and actually reseeded it and got a lot of irrigationexcuse me, the erosion takes care of. So it’s no longer a huge mud source in the river. Again, the- what came from the tannery not going into the rivers is a blessing, and what used to come from the papermill in Childsdale not being in the rivers is a blessing as well, so it’s- those are a couple of the major things but it’s get- you know, and it’s individual property owner, you know? Somebody lives on the river and makes sure they got a setback of 20 feet from the river and not mowing all the way to the river. Simple things like that, not using the types- use a chemical that’s natural- use something that’s going to be beneficial to the river, not derogatory. Some– a lot of what people put on their lawns, it all ends up in the watershed. So it’s important for us as individuals to look at what we are doing to our lawns. I mean, you know what? And a 4 �few weeds are okay. You know, it’s not going to– and as a matter of fact a few dandelions are good for the bees really here. DD: Yeah. LC: So, there’s again, from a farming aspect, you can’t- to me, my yard is sterile. It’s a monoculture. It’s negative, it’s contrary to what nature wants to do and it’s artificially manufactured through the use of chemicals in most cases. So, I mean golf courses. Golf courses are highly manicured fields of weeds done in specific manners with specific chemicals. So. DD: Yeah. LC: But I think there’s still hope, let’s just- I would like to say the chemicals are not going to continue to spread but I think we are going to continue to discover that it continues to go wider and wider and hopefully the- we can impact the [?], at least, by knowing about it, we can hopefully prevent some people from tapping into that as they have not done, and past people weren’t so lucky to know what was there. But now at least we know it’s there and can make sure they’re not going to be pulling the drinking water from the groundwater there so that’s an improvement as well. DD: Yeah absolutely. Well, thank you so much Lance for taking the time to shareLC: Thanks. DD: your story todayLC: Good luck with the project. I think I’m- I know I’m [?] the archives in the school because I used to write for the [?] back in the day. DD: OhLC: I’m on record in there someplace. So. DD: Oh that’s great [laughs] LC: But thanks a lot. 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0005 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Climie, Lance Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-05-14 Title A name given to the resource Lance Climie, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Lance Climie has lived in Plainfield Township, near Deenly, Michigan for nearly all his life. In his interview, he discusses his family history as fruit farmers and how Wolverien offered to spread free fertilizer, or "sludge" on the fields. Only recenlty have people realized that this sludge contained PFAS residue. Climie shares other stories about his grandfather and other farmers' knowledge of other chemical contaminants in the environment, as well as his own perspective from fishing on the Rogue River. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/13ab5577309d13ad17c48111090353cd.mp4 cf1dd5d14ff9e9cd436de10dcebd6f78 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/be1b7c808428284913b9f2468cd47557.pdf 4c7a5d523389bed639f2fa506a912ef9 PDF Text Text Living with PFAS Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Interviewee: Larry Campell Date: June 18, 2021 DD: I’m Dani DeVasto and today, June 18th, 2021. I have the pleasure of chatting with Larry Campbell. Hi, Larry. LC: Hi. DD: Larry can you tell me about where you’re from and where you currently live? LC: Well I currently- I was born and raised in Belding, Michigan, and I attended Grand Valley State for a short period of time. While I was attending Grand Valley State University, I met my wife, and she is from Sparta, Michigan. We eventually married and moved to Belding, Michigan. Unfortunately, through this horrible journey that this PFAS put us through, it eventually led to our divorce and I’m currently living in the Metro Detroit area. DD: And how long have you been in the Metro Detroit area? LC: It’s been over two years now. DD: Okay. Larry, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in your community? LC: Yeah, you know. This kind of started around 1997-1998. After I met my wife, we lived in the same apartment complex that, when I was going to Grand Valley State University I was also in the Michigan National Guard at the time. I had come off active duty in 1996, off active duty in the Army, and enrolled in Grand Valley State University, where I also played baseball. After my first year at Grand Valley, I had moved to an apartment complex where I ultimately met my future wife. She had two children, and I love kids. And we kind of, you know– We grew closer, and I eventually met her family. One of the strange things about when I first met the family, especially her father, [he was] very stand-offish, not very talkative. Later on, once we had announced that we were going to have a baby together, things had begun to take a strange turn. Her father, my future father-in-law, and I could never have a conversation like you and I are doing now. He was always adversarial, always coming at me sideways, and I could never understand it. I was like, “Look, I love your daughter.” It was a very strange situation. She had two children from previous relationships and none of the fathers were in the picture. I was willing to take them on as well as I wanted to be there for my son, and so on and so forth. None of that seemed to matter to him. It was– It was a bizarre relationship in fact, at one point I became so frustrated that I said, “So, what you’re saying that you’d rather have me ride off into the sunset?” and he was like, “Yep, yep.” It was not normal. It was not normal. At first I thought that they were staunch catholic, and maybe because I wasn’t catholic that I thought that maybe there was some jealousy. I was another father-figure coming into the picture, and which he felt– I 1 �don’t know why he would’ve as he’s the patriarch of the family. There wasn’t anything I had done that would give him the idea that I wasn’t capable of raising a family and being a good protector. My son was born in 1999, and in the following year I was hired by the Michigan Department of Corrections. So, gainfully employed, it seemed barely worthy enough, it was very bizarre. They lived in Sparta, Michigan, which is in northern Kent County. Beautiful area up there, they live on Squaw Lake area, tributary, that feeds from Squaw Lake into the Rogue River. Which, people are following– We know that the river was contaminated quite a bit. You could go to Rockford, Michigan and see the PFAS foaming at the dam; it’s a water wonderland up there. They lived off the beaten path in a secluded [drive]. The father had blazed a two-trail track back into the woods and had built a house. It’s a beautiful area. We lived there for a while as they had a small cabin on the property as well. While his daughter was going to school at the time they said, “Hey stay there while she’s going to school.” I was driving from Sparta to Ionia, where I worked at the time. I just kept pluggin’ along and taking care of the family, building a relationship with their family, but it just never seemed– Something always seemed off. Right after my son was born in 1999, suddenly my wife had to have an emergency hysterectomy. DD: Hmmm. LC: It came out of the blue, we didn’t even get a second or third opinion. It was like, “Nope this needs to be done ASAP.” And it just came out of nowhere. I was kind of–I was pretty disappointed ‘cause I was like, “Well I guess I only get one child.” And you know, so– This was odd. She was probably early thirties, early to mid-thirties, and suddenly she has to have an emergency hysterectomy. If you know any women that have had hysterectomies then you know that it throws the hormones into an imbalance and that was the beginning of all, of all her medical problems. So, it-it was to a point where– Because my son was born in 1999 and we weren’t married yet, it was such an odd situation that I was questioning if I wanted to marry this woman. When you don’t really have the support of the parents, or it’s kind of an odd situation and it didn’t make sense. You could not reason with these individuals. You could not reason with– Interestingly, I started building a house around 2004, started building a house, in the Belding area where I grew up. I had purchased some property while I was in the Army and had sat on it for a while. Once I was well established at my new job, I decided to build a home. Well, 2005 we moved into the home. It seemed that when I got her away from that area, or her family–or you know looking back, it was probably that area, knowing what I know now–things started to get better. I didn’t know what it was at the time. I didn’t know if it was the influence of her parents, that was the only thing that I could come to the conclusion of. It was, you know, the influence of her parents, her dad was such an overbearing type of person. There were times that he would say “If the house isn’t clean by the time I get home, there’s gonna be hell to pay.” And different things like that. So, my wife was a very, meticulous, OCD, and kept a very clean house, and stuff. Basically, kind of had OCD from it. But she was a very good cook, and a great mom, and things like that. But when it came to her parents, there was just– there was, there was no reasoning. It was very disheartening. I always felt like an outsider any time I went over there, 2 �never really had a relationship with her father. It was more or less, you didn’t talk to him. It was– It was– It was strange to say the least. Now we are living in Belding, and we got married in May of 2005. I never even, even at the wedding–I got a hug from her mom–but didn’t even get a handshake or a welcome to the family from her dad. And just, I– You know– Another, just kinda strange, type, you know– I was just like, “Well it what it is.” And I was just accepting the fact that he was a hard worker and maybe that is just the way he is. So, I just kept pluggin’ on and did what I did, and stuff– Probably, not long after, 2006-2007, the wife started having a lot of kidney stones that were one right after another. Had no idea what was going on. I’ve still yet to look up– I haven’t looked up whether kidney stones can be any type of symptom or reaction from PFAS contamination. Now, because her health is being affected, she was losing jobs. And it was putting financial strain on us as well. And then, 2007 or actually 2008, her father comes down with colon cancer. And I guess he had known something was going on for a while and had this ‘didn't’ go to the doctor’ type thing. Unfortunately, it was pretty progressed, and they went into the chemo, and so on and so forth, to do what they could. But interestingly, the property they owned around Squaw Lake, the father’s name was Charles ‘Chuck’ Cockren, but he was drilling the wells lotting off the property. So, here he is digging the water wells, lotting off this property around Squaw Lake, and he was drinking this raw water right out of the ground, basically testing the vein. “That’s a good vein, not a good vein.” When we lived in the cabin that was between the dam and their property, right on the tributary coming right off Squaw Lake, the water tasted horrible. I mean horrible is– The only time I would drink the water is if we ran it through a Britta then would mix it with Kool-Aid or something. It was very horrible tasting, smelled. The weird thing is that their water, at their home, which came off the tributary and Squaw Lake, probably 300-400 yards, their water tastes amazing. DD: Huhh. LC: Like, like the best water I’ve ever tasted. So, we had lived there for a while, but her father was drilling all these water wells, lotting off this property. Well, he suddenly comes down with cancer and we had no clue. And we’re just like, “Oh my gosh.” And the heartbreaking thing about it was he had come down with cancer, and he passed away two days before Christmas. DD: Hmmm. LC: It was heartbreaking because we had put off Christmas shopping for the kids. Kind of, you know, making– I wasn’t able to go shopping with her, my wife, because she was visiting her father as much as possible. By this time, hospice had come in, and I finally said, “Hey is there anywhere we can meet at the Meijer in Rockford, just, you know, we can grab Christmas presents quick for the kids and you can get back?” So, I met her there and after we got done, I don’t even remember if I was home yet, but she called me, and it was like he was waiting for her 3 �to return from shopping, and then he passed away. So, two days before Christmas, that was a pretty-pretty somber Christmas. Still at this point had no clue, it wasn’t even on the radar. So– Wife’s health continued to get worse and worse. She had been diagnosed with Autoimmune disorder. She developed Fibromyalgia. Which it seems Fibromyalgia affects women more than men. It’s just this chronic pain all the time, joints; it's horrible. And so, we were living in Ionia County at the time, obviously in Belding, and the wife goes to a pain management clinic to try-to try to find something to help her manage the pain that she’s going through and dealing with. They prescribe her Opioids. And this was in, probably, oh I would say, I’m just guessing, 2012ish, 2011ish, somewhere around in there, and that just kind of allowed her to function, I guess. It just continued to get worse, the pain got worse– So long story short, it got to the point where she was running out of her medication, my mom who’s got arthritis really bad, she would ask to borrow a few just to get through until her next medication. But the Opioids were never enough. I think she was taking six a day at one point, which is unbelievable. And her pain threshold– I think she was functioning at a six on the pain level while on the Opioids. Which a pain level of 10 you’re crawled up in a ball. It just continued to progress and get worse and worse. I was working in a prison now. I was working at the Michigan Department of Corrections. I had worked third shift for 15 years. I was raising my son, he’s kind of hopefully the next major league baseball player. He’s been scouted and been playing baseball since he was 17. But me working third shift I was able to raise him and coach him. But, working at a maximize security prison, it’s not a nice environment. You know, there’s PTSD and hyper vigilance, it’s just not a good environment. Between that and working third shift where you’re kind of always in a haze you feel like a zombie because you’re always fighting to get enough sleep. I eventually thought that the cause of her health issues was that I was bringing home the environment I was working in. I started trying to find a way to get out because I knew corrections officers have a high mortality rate. Most of them pass away within five years after retiring. I was coming up on 15 years and I sure as heck didn’t want to do another 15. Especially, if I felt that me working there was causing a lot of the stress and other issues for her health. I really thought it was me. I thought I was the big [issue] with bringing my work home. Even though I wouldn’t bring it home, your still affected by it, and that’s projected onto friends and family. I’ll admit I wasn’t a nice guy. I was grumpy all the time, short fused. Unfortunately, it’s the environment you’re subjected to everyday. Being prior military, I was like, hey I’m equipped to work in law enforcement, but really no one is equipped to work in that job. Eventually I was able to get out that job, and get my real estate license, and was actually doing both at the same time. By the grace of God, I was offered a position in real estate and was able to finally able to leave the Michigan department of infractions. Still continuing to deal with the health issues and the doctors had no answers. All they did was give her more opioids and basically appeasing her. At this point this was about the time where the opioid crisis was just beginning and building. I was becoming disheartened, because I’m the hunter and gatherer, and protector, and now I can’t even, I have no answers when the doctors have no answer. This was in 2017 or 2018, and my son has gone to college now, his first year at Arizona. Went down to Arizona and played collegiate baseball for a college in Arizona. I’m very proud of him and things like this that was kind of the downfall for the family. My son is down in Arizona, and we kept a lot of her, my wife’s health issues [hidden]. My son, he needs to focus on school, focus on baseball. He’s 2,000 miles away in Arizona and we had a pact or an agreement between her and I; that we want him to focus on school and everything and that we won’t burden 4 �him with your health issues, we’ll try to figure it out. What was heartbreaking was that I had asked my son, I said look your mom needs to hear your voice and see your voice, whether it’s a text message or voicemail, video chat, every day. You need to lift your mom up every day, and I’m just trying to do anything to try and stay positive to keep her positive in hopes to turn a corner with her health, and he didn’t do that. It was kind of frustrating. In fact, when he got home from college, I’m guessing his mom had mentioned to him or he was asking me why she looked so you know, she lost weight. He’s yelling at me “Why didn’t you tell me that mom was sick?!” I said “I asked you to lift your mom up every day. Whether it’s a message, somehow, someway, some form and you never even did that.” He’s an eighteen, nineteen-year-old kid. I finally convinced her and said this is not sustainable. I went into her room, we slept in two different rooms because I was a third shifter. I had the room blacked out, and she had her little cocoon and oasis that she liked to keep, and it worked out better for us in that sleeping arrangement. I walked into her bedroom one day and she’s crying uncontrollably. She’s like “I can’t take this pain.” I was at my wits end. I was out of answers, I was out of options. She’s already taking six opioids a day. Borrowing from my mom. I knew that this was just not sustainable. Now, her mom lived up by herself in Sparta. By the way, she had, by this time, she had developed heart issues. She has what’s called A-fib, Atrial Fibrillation. She was by herself, she was retired, and basically, I said “Listen, I want you to go stay with your mom for a while. Go see her doctor, get a second opinion.” I felt that she’d love going to her mom’s. It’s an oasis up there it’s a beautiful area up there, away from everybody, where she doesn’t have to worry about two messy boys. “Look I’m mowing lawn, and fixing cars.” So, she wouldn’t have to pick up after us or anything like that. She went to her mom’s. She went to her mom’s doctor, got a second opinion, and what I was trying to do was, I was trying to get her mom to try and take some responsibility for her daughter’s health. Because I couldn’t do everything, I had everything on my shoulders, with no answers. So, she went and stayed with her mom for a week or so. Went to her doctor, got in and she says “Hey.” She didn’t want our son to know that I had drawn a line in the sand with regard to this not being sustainable. And kind of stepping back for minute to when she was crying uncontrollably, she says I can’t take this pain anymore I just want to die. DD: Mmm hmm LC: I kind of went into rescue mood, and I says now look you’re not going to die, that would devastate the kids. I knew just that this wasn’t sustainable. While we lived in Ionia County at the time north of me Montcalm County, one of my good friends was the Deputy Director of the Montcalm ambulance. And a week or two prior to her saying this to me he said, “Larry we had a husband and wife overdose from opioids a day apart in the same house.” So, this was right in the middle of the crisis, and I just finally had to draw a line in the sand and say this isn’t sustainable. I had to force the issue of having her mom come into the picture and take some responsibility for her daughter’s health. So, she stayed at her mom’s, went to her mom’s doctor and she called me and said, “Hey will you pick me up.” She didn’t want are youngest son to know we were struggling as a couple with this whole health issue. So, I go to [the] Grand Rapids area. Pick her up from her mom’s doctor. Through all of this, this PFAS really, it effects men and women differently. For women it brings their emotions down to where they’re very subdue. This chemical subdues any outward inflection. I didn’t know this at the time, but this was just how her mom was. I pulled up next to them. We parked driver to driver. It was close to easter, and she says, “I say hey how’s it going?”-and she just like says- “Hey.” Not like, hey we found some stuff out, hey we’re moving in the right direction. It was nothing, no report, just a hey. That was 5 �kind of par for the course. My wife gets out and gets in the car. I say, “Hey how are you doing?” and she just like “Not good.” I’m like “What did they do?” She says, “They pulled me off of opioids, cold turkey, and gave me pain patches.” They weren’t even touching her. I say, “What’s your pain level at?” She said “12.” So, we leave and were driving home. She did say the doctor filed a complaint with the Pain Management Clinic in Ionia County. As they were over prescribing her opioids. LC: So, we’re on the way home driving back from Grand Rapids. We come to M-44 where we head into Belding, and West River Drive area. We’re driving along and talking more, and I am just becoming more and more disheartened because there are still no answers. No clue [of] what’s going on, why this has become so bad. In hindsight, I wish I would have known how bad, how much pain she was actually in. Especially since she functioned at a six or an eight-pain level on opioids, and here she was off cold turkey. To go from six to twelve like she said, doubling her pain. I have no doubt. I wasn’t thinking. I had never dealt with any pain that severe, chronically, all the time. Because I was out of answers, I was still, I didn’t know what to do I said, “I think it would be best if you stayed with your mom.” Because once again I still thought I was a lot of the cause for pain, and the environment I was working in. She loved going to her mom’s, because like I said, it was an oasis up there. I said “Hey, I think it would be a good idea if you stayed with your mom for a while” and all hell broke loose. Like, all hell broke loose. She thought I was abandoning her. She thought I wanted a divorce, which was farthest form the truth. I was just trying to save her life. I was out of answers. Certainly, going back to the Pain Management Clinic wasn’t the answer. So, her pain and what I said. I didn’t know what to do. I shouldn’t have probably said that I should’ve at least probably waited until we got home to sit down and have a good face to face, what’s are next step type thing. While instead, she completely, I mean lucid is the only word that I can think of. She just went off. Long story short we’re driving down the road fifty-five miles per hour, and she opens the door. She says, “I just want to kill myself.” So, I hit the brakes, like oh my god what are you doing. She jumps out of the car. She’s walking down the middle of the road, so I’m like oh my gosh. So, I dial 911. I’m like, “Get out of the road please.” She’s like, “I just want to die. I hope a car hits me and kills me.” I’m freaking out, I don’t even understand what’s going on. So, I’m driving down in middle of the road to try to stop anybody coming from behind us or to alert anyone coming toward us that she’s in the road. I roll my window down, yell get off the road. So, she finally gets off the road and I’m calling 911. You guys need to send somebody right now because there’s going to be a fatality. I’m on the phone with 911 and they’re sending people this way. Now she’s off to the side of the road and I’m driving along with her so she can’t run onto the road again. I say get in the car, just please get in the car, and she comes up and she gets in the driver side passenger. She gets in and I don’t even know what I’m witnessing. Her emotions are so up, gone through the roof, and now she’s just beating on the back of the seat. I’m waiting for her to come around and hit me. I’m just like please don’t hit me type thing. So, we’re driving along, and I’ve never seen her like this. What it was, was just her pain was out of control. We get back in through Belding and were getting back home. We get to the road and slow down and she jumps out of the car again and what I was worried about was I was like when we turned down our road, I was like crap I don’t want to let her in the house ya know there’s knives and you know other things there that she can hurt herself with, so now I was like trying to go slow she jumps out of the car again, she runs into the weeds- I can’t see her cause the - the switch grass is is way above her height, so now there’s like the main road 6 �and then our road so i'm turning down our road and that’s when she jumps out, so now I’m like im worried that shes going to run back up to the highway, so I'm like staying up by the highway, you know making sure she doesn’t try running out running out up- up on the highway so I’m calling 911 again and I’m like where are you guys? You know, and I said by the way you know please send a female officer because I’m not going to have a male officer you know try to restrain her and say that she’s fighting or- or she assaulted a male officer. I said you guys do not understand what’s going on and, so I immediately requested a female officer and they said that there was a female state police officer that was- farther away then then then than I wanted to hear but, so I’m trying to figure out where she is, I don’t know where she is, so I was like maybe she went back to the house which is just like three tenths of a mile down our road off the main road we live on a dirt road. So I start going down the road toward my house and here she comes out of our driveway kinda like cuts across the yard and she’s in my son's car now. So full size chevy impala and now we're coming right at each other and I’m like oh my gosh so I'm liketrying to like get in the middle of the road but I don’t wanna cause a head on collision either and she gets by me. And now she’s you know driving down the road so I’m like you know asking for an ambulance, I’m asking for you know female trooper and and stuff. Well so I get on 911 again and and they’re you know flying down the- she’s flying down the road so we get to the corner of our Johnson road and M-44 and the ambulance passes us, I’m like hey tell the ambulance to turn around we're right here. So she’s going back into town and, I think the police are finally starting to converge and she pulls into a dollar general store and [brief pause] parks. and she’s got the windows rolled up, she won’t roll the window down the ambulance parks across the street, they can't help in any way until the scene is cleared. so they make sure they're not going to get- be put in harm's way. At some point I picked up my neighbor, I picked him up at my house, but I don’t remember how or when at some point. But anyway, he’s an attorney and I’m- he’s like what’s going on? She came back from the doctor and they taken her off opioids cold turkey and, you know I think just her pain is through the roof right now and she’s just so lucid that she is completely out of it. So the female officer shows up and I just told them I said look don’t be going hands on I said I don’t want her to get accused of you know resisting or fighting a officer or something and she had taken her wedding ring off and she threw it down and somehow it bounced right under the center of her car- of the car that she was in. At some point she had called her mom and her mom came all the way from Sparta and picked her up and they just let her go and didn’t really even question her and I was just- I just wanted to get her help, and you know I told the officers I said listen she’s- you guys are well aware of the opioid crisis right now and I said, you know she just got back and they completely have taken her off opioids cold turkey and and so on and so forth. So, that day literally was- so that was 2018 that day was pretty much the last time we were together kind of officially, and while it hurt to know that you know- and everything went sideways from there. You know I was you know I had abandoned her I- you know so on and so forth. But, I felt like I saved her life for that point. At least she had a full time caregiver there and her mom there every day. To you know, to try and get some answers. Well so now I kinda go into this, I’m still trying to figure out what’s going on and I’m praying, I'm like lord you have got to show me what is killing this family, it doesn’t make sense. Well interestingly, my neighbor who lived right behind me in Belding was a Vietnam veteran. He would come at me sideways just like my father-in-law. I had the epiphany, wait a minute [brief 7 �pause] the Vietnam veteran that lives right behind me was suffering from agent orange, that’s a neurotoxin, PFAS is also a neurotoxin that’s when I made the connection. That was the epiphany that I had, and so that’s when I really started diving into- and that’s when the wolverine worldwide started the PFAS contamination there was really starting to blow up and take off, so then I stared entrenching myself into figuring out what was going on and I knew that had to be it, I knew that had to be it. There was no other explanation. You got all this- you know her father died of cancer, her mom had heart issues, her daughter has all kinds of autoimmune issues, her brother developed lupus, and her brother acts the same way as his dad- as her dad. And so then I went out to the dam that’s right next to their house. The same PFAS foam that is occurring in downtown Rockford was occurring right here at the dam, I called Mark Worell the geologist from Eagle,got them down there, they witnessed it. I contacted Gram Peesley who is a professor from the university of Notre Dame. he used to live in Kent County and he said me these awesome little filter caps that they developed, you just screw them on the end of a the end of a 2 liter bottle and poke a hole in it and let the water drain out. He sent me these filters. I went to the dam, I took the filters he said in one of my samples the fluorine which is the indicator of PFAS was like two thousand parts per trillion, it was off the charts, so I was like finally I’m putting together. But I called- I called Varnum the law firm that is representing everybody in this PFAS lawsuit against Wolverine Worldwide and that said well that’s not a known area. So then I started diving into it more they just completely ignored me and so then the map that I sent you of Algoma township be- that the map of Algoma township Scwall lake buts up right against it and if your going to drop or, your toxic sludge you take it away from as far away from the plant as you can, but still stay in the same township. They could have literally been backing their trucks up to Scwall lake and dumping that PFAS stuff right into it. You know this has been going on 50’s 60’s 70’s and back in the day Scwall lake was such a excluded lake there was maybe a two track to it people walk down to go fishing DD: Mhm LC: So, you know I haven’t been able to prove that, but the health affects the PFAS foam at the dam that runs over from the tributary comes out of Scwall lake. They all witnessed that, I went and testified at the forum for eagle and you know I told- and by the way i've tried to tell my wife at the time were now divorced, but I tried saving our marriage I tried saving- i’m like listen you know stop drinking the water get your blood tested, and it was like it was a joke. Oh, yea that was it is, well how do you explain your dad’s cancer. Oh, just bad luck, you know you can’t reason with them. Look, you have all these health issues and by the way by the grace of God 2019, she’s living with her mom, and she messages her on her way home from work saying I’m on my way home from work do we need anything type thing and I think you know her mom responded to her. She walks in and her mom is unresponsive on the floor, she had had a stroke. And this is yet another you know but by the grace of God, they found her on time my son had come home from college and helped and the paramedics arrived and got her there in time and and she was at my son's baseball game two days later and you know by the grace of God you know her life was saved too. So I, through all this it's just I've been trying to save lives of my own family and try and figure out what’s going on and I finally started connecting the dots and putting two and two together, but I still feel like I have nowhere to go. 8 �DD: Mhm LC: People that I do reach out to they’re like well we haven’t found any proof there you know then I bring Eagle out they see the proof then COVID hits, and nobody has resources to do a further investigation. You know meanwhile I have completely lost the relationship with my son you know and i'll say in all of this. This chemical is the most evil thing that anybody could be subjected to through all of this and all of the research that I have done dealing with my family, what I have learned is to recognize those people who have been affected by PFAS. I can literally go through life and when I meet somebody the bells and whistles go off in my head as indicators of, I think that person has been affected by PFAS. I met two individuals right here in the metro Detroit area and one of them was a firefighter, this guy is probably the worst case of PFAS exposure that I have ever seen I actually had a- I actually had an encounter with him that I recorded and I’m trying to get that to Gram Peesley I’ve reached out to Gram and said, Gram this is another insistence of you know PFAS exposure you know I’ve been wanting to try and get this Infront of individuals but this person is off the charts. They have admitted to having ingested this PFAS foam during training and it’s, I can’t explain it, it’s literally like talking to the devil. I don’t know how else to explain it. This PFAS is such an evil cruel chemical and what it does to the body, what it does to the mind, I coined a phrase and have no other way to explain it but its PFAS dementia. And, my family has it, you can’t reason with them. And it breaks my heart and and ya know and through all of this my faith has grown and there was times when I just wanted to give up and I was like I can’t fight this battle anymore especially alone and so on and so forth. Yeah, know I mentioned earlier, my son has been scouted by major league baseball since he was 17. Now it's 2021 and he is going to be entering major league baseball draft next month. And so, 18+ years of all the coaching and giving him my knowledge as I have played baseball my whole life, he won’t even talk to me. And is getting one side of the story from a mother who has PFAS dementia. And it’s breaking my heart, it's ripping my heart out. I asked his mom and all i said is, please tell our son and reach out to me this fathers’ days and I am sure I won’t hear from him. And, I don’t know, to be honest I don’t know why God has put me on this journey. While he has revealed to me what has caused this, he hasn’t revealed the answer how to get the help, how toand it’s so frustrating it's heartbreaking. And you know I- don’t know. You know unfortunately the corporate lobbying for these corporations that say that this isn’t a bad chemical and it’s not as bad as it you know Rob Ballot has proven that it is and just like in my testimony you know I said look Dark Waters there’s going to be a sequel to that movie and it’s going to be called dark you know darker water right here in Kent county and so my hope is- I hope that through my story you know which is a battle will be someone else’s survival guide because I would not wish this journey upon my worst enemy DD: Can you- can you tell me about any concerns that you have in particular about PFAS contamination moving forward? LC: So one of the big problems in Michigan is, we have allowed industry to build on waterways and discharge their waste water in rivers, lakes, and streams out of sight out of mind. While there is a concerted effort- and by the way 3M who created this or sells this chemical by the way has now gone into the water filtration business. So now they're making money from filtering the very 9 �water they helped contaminate. I mean it is what it is but we’ve got to get tough on this chemical. There is no if ands or buts about it and Michigan has made that step in the right direction, but we need the blood testing we need- you know look this these are human lives these are you know these are lives that are being destroyed and that has to be the focus. How can we help these individuals. Look I would love to be, you know a part of a bigger effort to help identify you know those that have been affected by PFAS. I have been exposed to it so much that I can literally recognize those that have, and if you don’t believe me, hey go get a blood test and prove me wrong. so that’s the big thing. DD: Mhm LC: We’ve got to get the blood test and from what I’ve heard my son’s mom who I still love her dearly I love her with all my heart and I’m glad that I was able to save her life, but our marriage was laid to waste because of this horrible toxin and and her health issues, but she’s finally going to get her blood tested I guess next month and you know i'm scared to see what type of exposure you know she has- you know been affected. And but I’ve tried to contact her brother. I just recently reached out to his wife and him and they won’t even talk to me. It's like wait a minute I have information that you know could help your health and find out what maybe- likely killed you father or caused your fathers cancer. And like I said I’m dealing with this PFAS dementia and its heart breaking it absolutely breaks my heart and [clears throat] I just I can’t express how evil of a chemical this is. Just you know if you see the movie dark waters and the farmer you know that farmer acts just like my father-in-law DD: Mhm LC: Not a happy individual RA RA RA all the time you know that was literally I literally could plug my family member into that movie into different characters in that movie. But we’ve got to get the blood testing we have got to stop letting companies like downplay this chemical, this is no joke. If you watched the documentary on YouTube, the devil we knew it is, it’s the devil. It’s the most evilest toxin and now it’s in our rain water and it's not good, it’s not good. DD: Well, thank you so much Larry for taking the time to share your story today LC: I appreciate it, it feels good to finally tell my story so you know I thank you for providing a platform and you know please if there’s resources that come across that you come across, please send them my way. But I’m in metro Detroit area now and I’m kind of out of the loop with regard to you know Kent county area so please let me know what going on and and if there’s you know someone that can listen to me and listen to my story and and can potentially help, You know please send them my way because you know I’m afraid my sons affected by this too and you know I know all the family member have. Look I’ve lived there for awhile you know I’m certain that I have been affected too. I want to get my blood tested to you know see what type of exposure that I have been in to but I you know thank God. One thing I want to point out too is stress seems to be a big trigger in this PFAS exposure in men more so than women. It seems that stress is a real trigger point in men. In women it really just tends to really subdue them. It’s pretty heartbreaking so we’ve got to do the blood testing. Just like in the movie where they were literally paying individuals to get their blood tested. I would be thrilled if we could do something 10 �like that, because this has got to be taken care of. Look we are in a water wonderland and like I said in my like I said in my testimony in front of Eagle you know if these sights could be illuminated Michigan would be lit up light a christmas tree. DD: Mhm LC: That's no joke, they have confirmed well over 100 PFAS contaminations sites in Michigan so I’m certain it’s just the tip of the iceberg, but we have got to get the blood tests. Throughout the state of Michigan there needs to be a regular blood test. If you feel like you have been exposed to PFAS you should be able to come in and get your blood tested, no if ands or buts. If you know if everyone wants to say how much of a pandemic covid is, PFAS is a pandemic right in our state, and and it’s growing it’s getting worse DD: Thank you Larry. LC: Thank you, I appreciate your time and appreciated your efforts and please keep in touch with me 11 � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0016 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Campbell, Larry Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-06-18 Title A name given to the resource Larry Campbell, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Larry Campbell lived most of his life in Belding, Michigan. In this interview, Campbell discusses the impact of PFAS on the health of his wife and family. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/3778970e7b323fdddfbc7f2e7d3833bf.mp4 2c2678b17b05df2ab6ff655206cef89c https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/a053a58f4ee5da672fa92f8d82df1e90.pdf e80711672394d88ff4762f5d9a1fd89a PDF Text Text Living With PFAS Interviewee: Laura Facciolo Interviewer: Dani DeVasto Date: July 21, 2021 DD: I’m Dani DeVasto and today, July 21st, 2021 I have the pleasure of chatting with Laura Facciolo. Hi Laura. LF: Hello. Good morning. DD: Can you tell me about where you’re from and where you currently live? LF: I’m living in Italy- in the northeast of Italy, where there is a region named Veneto. So Veneto is- we have Venice that is the main city for us. DD: And how long have you lived there? LF: Since I was born, so nearly 43 years. [chuckles] DD: Thank you. Laura, can you tell me a story about your experience with PFAS or with PFAS in your community? LF: Yes, so I started having some information regarding PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] in 2017 in the early spring, because there were people saying that some teenagers near to our province- I’m living in the province of Padua- and in the province of Vicenza there were tests done on teenagers. And these tests were blood tests in order to find out some unknown compounds that were having very difficult names, and these compounds were PFAS. We were very worried because the information that we were receiving was not official information, so where- this information was not coming from official ways but was coming from other people that were knowing- I don’t know- friends or others living in that area. And they were saying that these compounds were present in the aquaduct, and the same aqueduct was also serving us. So even if we were not immediately involved in this blood test we were obviously worried because we were in the identical situation in terms of aqueduct. And what we immediately started to think was about our kids because these preliminary tests were as I said, done on the teenagers. So we were obviously worried about our kids and what was done at school, because many of us are having kids that are going to school where they also had lunch and were in the last years. It was told to us and told to the children that the best possible water we drink is the- let’s say- major water, so the water that was coming from the aqueduct and this was also advertised a lot in order not to use plastic bottles and so on. So we immediately stopped using aqueduct water. Also to cook pasta that you know, as an Italian is present a lot in- yes, in our food and our- what we are cooking. But we were worried because the kids when they were at school- they were also having lunch 1 �there and everything was cooked with aqueduct water. So again we started writing to our managers in order to have some information because no doctor was available and no information, nothing—also our physicians were not informed at all. And when we also after 1 or 2 months- when we also started receiving the invitations in order to go and get these blood tests done, our physicians were not aware of anything. And so the first- I would say that- the first 3 to 4 months were passed in order- doing a lot of meetings with each other in order to gain information between citizens living in the free provinces that are impacted by this pollution. And we finally understood that there was- there isa company that is based in the Vicenza- near Vicenza. And this company named the Miteni- in this moment now is closed- was producing these compounds since- 40 years at least and was discharging everything in a small river that is in contact with the groundwater. And unfortunately what happened is that we had a so-called free lather of contamination, because we- of water contamination- because the groundwater was contaminated- fully contaminated- and the superficial water- that is rivers and more rivers- were contaminated and the aqueduct water was contaminated also because the aqueducts are taking water from the groundwater that it’s in. And just to give you an idea, the groundwater that is contaminated is containing the same water of the Garda Lake, that is the biggest lake that we have in Italy. DD: Wow. LF: And it is the second aquifer in terms of dimensions in Europe. Unfortunately this is completely contaminated by these compounds. So what happened is that we discovered after months that we were not aware of anything as citizens, but actually information about this contamination was available in 2013, because there was a study that was done in Europe I think. And it was down after the institutions had heard about the Ohio disaster, the New Bond disasterso they decided to test all the rivers in Europe, and this study lasted 2 years. And it’s called the PERFORCE [Perfluorinated Organic Compounds in the European Environment] study. And they found out the levels of PFAS in the rivers of all Europe. What happened is that they found out that Po river- that is the biggest river in Italy and is in the north- was having a level of contaminants that was 10 times bigger than the 2nd most contaminated European river, that is the Thames. DD: Wow. LF: And so they did another study in order to find out what was the- from where these compounds were arriving. So this study was done in Italy and only in Italy, obviously, in order to try to understand what was contaminating the Po River. And they finally understood that- there was the 99% of compounds coming from this company. Unfortunately this was not shared with the citizens, with the relation that was continuing to drink the aqueduct river, to use also to growthe groundwater in order to- for example- for their, yes, for vegetables or fruits that we’re having in the gardens. And so they decided that- we discovered later that they had decided to put some filters in the aquaduct in order to- lowering down the levels of the compounds, at more or less at 500 nanograms per liter, but this was- this level of 500 nanograms per liter was not really decided on the basis of safety or-. It was more or less what they were about to do with the filters. 2 �So after more or less the end of 2013, we were able to have a lower level, but again it was too high for us. And then- we were angry when we discovered that they did not inform us at all and that they simply started to do tests on people without informing the physicians that were also enabled to rate these cleaning sites. Obviously when these things happen, luckily you are not alone, so not all people are having- I don’t know- the strength most of the time to do something, but we were lucky because we found out after months other parents that were worried. So as I said, we started to meet and to speak and to start going to managers, to the president of the region, and going to Rome and going to Brussels in order to find out solutions. So, almost at the end of 2017, we had a confirmation and then we whistled so that a second- there were other filters- so a second kind of filters was applied to the aqueducts in order to reduce the level to a so called technical zero that is more or less 5 nanograms per liter because this is the threshold under which the- yes, the company providing the aqueduct water are arriving with their detecting techniques. That is again not zero for us, so even if now they are saying that things are not solved. Actually this situation is not solved at all. First of all because Meteni is closed. Metini is a company that was obviously in contact with the group that was in contact with the scammers. And so they were perfectly aware of what they were managing, because there was a lot of correspondence between all these companies and they- were perfectly knowing what they were causing. And they had also paid a company that- in order to start- let’s say- having an idea on the cost for remediation of all the plans. And at the end they discovered that the costs in order to remediate the soiled water was bigger than the company level. So the company was sold for 1 euro to another company, the so called ICG [Intermediate Capital Group] company that is based in Luxembourg for 1 euro. And they continued to do what they were doing and in the last years, you know, I told you that the PERFORCE study was done and then the other study in order to find out all the contaminants in the Po River was done. And the results were available not to the public, but to institutions in 2013. So in 2014 the institution provided the approval to this company to work on disposal waters coming from the Netherland Chem Wash in order to- let’s say- they were working on those discharge waters that were used to produce a new PFOS compound that’s named GenX. So they were working on them, on these waters in order to concentrate GenX and be able use, again, these compounds. And this approval was given in 2014, so it’s incredible because we- they were knowing, they were applying filters at that time we were not aware of anything, but they were doing this very costly- these very expensive things done in the aqueducts and they were a few months later getting approval to work on GenX. And again we discovered this later, because we only started in 2017 and the most- you say- what happened- the majority of people were saying to us we were only generating honor with no reason because the water was not safe. And during the official meetings with institutions they were telling us that the water was safe, that the pregnant women and the children may have drunk it without problems. But we have 2 studies done in this area- so the so-called red area, in terms of this triple level of contamination, that demonstrate that a lot of women here are having a lot of troubles during pregnancies. There are a lot of babies that are lost during pregnancies and babies that- so we have both problems in terms of during the pregnancies and then we are also having problems with the newborns that are having a low birth weight. 3 �So, for example, there are a lot of small gestational age newborns having mouth formations and so on. So., two studies are confirming this. Unfortunately, these studies are not linking- were done in- were comparing the situation here with the situation in another Venetal area that is not impacted by PFAS. But they did not do the PFAS tests on moms and newborns unfortunately. Also because they- unfortunately there is no- there is still and- there was and there is still a big problem because they are not willing to show the truth as it is and show the causal relationship with this. I would simply say if PFAS were not the responsible- are not responsible for what is happening to pregnant women and newborns, what is the cause of this? And this is also only 1 of the effects because we have other studies that were done in order to find out if there is a difference in terms of mortality in our area. And a study that was conducted here shows there are more than 1000 people that were- died - and let’s say it was considered as an axis of mortality, respect to other areas of Veneto region. So why this 1 in 1000 people died? And what is the reason that caused this axis of mortality if not PFAS? So, we are now discovering that not only water unfortunately is contaminated, we found out that the most contaminated people were the ones who were growing food in their gardens- vegetables and the fruits- or were also having- yes, animals. These people are having the highest levels of contamination in their lives. So there were studies conducted on the food- we were- there were 2 different studies done in 2015 and 2017. In order to have the results of the study done in 2017 we started asking to region immediately to share with us the results. What happened is that they were not providing us the results. So we were forced to have the help of a lawyer and to ask -to have a trip law- I don’t have the English translation for this. We needed to go to a higher level, and we won this case. And they provided us this results in May this year. And these are not very good results. And so we are now studying them with experts and enrolling experts in order to find out the risk that is associated with the results that we are seeing and that we find and we have received. On the other end we are also obviously involved in the trial against the company, because in the meantime there was a trial that was initiated against the managers that were managing the company that caused this disaster. We are involved as civil parties so we are only providing our help to the institute in order to find out the truth and in order to have these people so they get people paid for what was done. And obviously the main problem is the soil and the groundwater is still fully contaminated and so everything is now, lets say, flushing and going into the adriatic sea, so, near venice because they’re either is let's say receiving the water is nowis then going into the Adriatic sea for example they found out very high levels of PFAS in the fish. So if unfortunately we still know that there are today no satisfying technologies in order to destroy these compounds because they are very strong, the bond that is within carbon and fluoride is very strong and in order to be destroyed it needs temperatures that are higher than one thousand degrees centigrade. At least the old soil should be kept somewhere and waiting to have new technologies in the future in order to destroy them it seems for example that there are some bacteria that can do this kind of or some vegetables that can destroy this bond, but these are still experimental technologies. But, again keeping all this soil there is continuing to -it means that it is continuing to since this soil is in contact with the groundwater is continuing to contaminate the water, the water is then contaminating the rivers, the water of the rivers is then used in the in order to give water to the vegetables ETC. Something needs to be done and has not been done yet on this level and moreover we found out that for example all the filters that are used in order 4 �to to lower down the levels of PFAS in the aqueducts are filters that are made by GAC so they are then reutilized, lets say, reused. So the process, the technology that is used in order to be able to use again the compounds that are in the filters is to, lets say, eat them, the direct result of these is that the compounds that are lets say, absorbed into these filters. When they are coming to higher temperatures, they are simply passing into the air they are not so the bond between carbon and fluoride is not broken, because it needs very high temperature and immediate high temperature. Because if you are heating it very slowly, these filters, what happens is that the compounds simply is detached from the filter and then it goes into the air, so,we have another level of contamination is coming from the air because they are trying to do this to the filters that are used for the aqueducts, and so, everyday we are discovering new things what we are doing now is to so- , i'm not using aqueduct water anymore unless for doing shower and, i'm not- let's say, i'm not cultivating anything in my garden i'm not even giving this kind of water to my dog. DD: Mhm LF: I had a german shepherd in the past, at the age of nine, she died full of cancers and we were not aware why she was having these very terrible cancers everywhere, because she was relatively young and when I brought her to the - Yesterday where did I oh- to the doctor we say. DD: To the Vet? LF: Yes, to the vet he told me that there were a lot of dogs in the same situation and I immediately I remember perfectly what he told me, It is the water. And I was not aware at the moment, I discovered some months later what was happening so my dog now is drinking [chuckles] bottled water and to cook also I am cooking- cooking the pasta with bottled water. We are working a lot, too much I would say and doing a lot of meetings because now we are a very big group, we have a web page, we have a facebook page, we are dividing the things between each other on the basis of what- the time one can- yes give and also the attitude and also the job that we are doing, and, so for example I am working in the field of clinical trials and so at this moment we are working a lot to have new studies done and clinical studies done in our area in order to find out for example the relationships within PFAS and Covid-19 because there are studie that were done early this year in our region that show we have a higher mortality rate and we need to discover if this higher mortality was due to the fact that have a lower way to respond to this virus or because it’s we are having more people that are sick. On the other end we need to understand if the current vaccination program is working with us because the rest are just saying that PFAS contaminated people are not having the expected vaccine response and so then to keep the level in people that are supposed to process sometimes very low and so we are working also in order to find out to do this new study in order to, yes, see what is the best for us. We are trying to work with the institutions, but it's very difficult because 5 �as said, unfortunately they are linked to the very beginning of what happened because they are having big responsibilities for the fact of not informing us in time for years. So they are civil parties also in the trial against mitini but you know, we are not having the same willingness to have the truth really discovered and it's clear from some decisions for example, there is this screening that is done on the population, it was initially only done on people born from 2002 until 1951 so all other ages were not included. We went to do a fight in order to have at least some classes of children entered but only few of them actually did it so less than I would say 130, 120 children under than 2002 were able to do it so. For example, I have three children and only my elder daughter were able to do this when she was ten, now she is nearly twelve and the other two, were not tested, yet, even if this was a program obviously because we had covid pandemic in the meantime that blocked everything and so this is what we are doing the main struggle , I don't know if you will be having some time to visit our website, it is www.MammaNOPFAS.org and you will find a lot of information there about our story and what we are doing and the main struggle is for me, in this moment, is to find the time. The time needed to do everything we have a lot of journalists which are calling us, cryptographers, researchers, people that are willing to speak with us, to discuss the kind of solution, to do new studies, to propose things, and we need to speak with them and to speak with each other to decide what to do, and to inform other people, to keep the webpage open, to also to speak with other people in the world or all the way. In Europe in order to share information, for example we are in contact with the Netherlands people and the Swedish people that are impacted by PFAS contamination, so it's very useful when we are sharing information like this. And it may be a struggle this time but I am doing this- I started to do this mainly, for my kids in order to protect them and what is happening now is that I am using a lot of time instead of being with my kids I am being with the PFAS problem and so, yes it's not easy. DD: Yeah, I imagine not. You kind of started to answer this question already but what concerns do you have about PFAS contamination moving forward from this point in time? LF: Well, I know from the studies that are published, so the scientific studies which are the main problems associated with the PFAS contamination and I also had problems during pregnancies, my first two kids were low birth weight, and no one was understanding why I was having this kind of problems during pregnancies. I was not a smoker, I was healthy, so it was strange, they were not having explanations, they were asking me why- if I- to find out this sort of familiarity for other- for this kind of situation and then the third pregnancy they suggested I take some drugs and they were helping and then I understood why, because I took aspirin, and I found out later that aspirin is able to mitigate the effects of PFAS settled in the, let's say at times at the level of the circulatory system. I have already had one of the effects and my kids also. Im not having, my son is having the problem of growth I don't know if this is still related to the fact that he was born very small so- or if there is a direct or an indirect effect of PFAS, I'm trying to involve other 6 �researchers in order to understand if other kids are having the same issue. And, obviously I am worried a lot for the future because these kinds of compounds are still there in their blood they are not having a lot of them in the blood compared to other people living in our area but it's enough to create damage. So, I'm trying to do my best in order to get them the best possible- the best possible, let’s say food, water and it's a struggle because when I go to the supermarket I always read everything [chuckles] in order to be sure that this was not cultivated here, and for example eggs, the most contaminated things and so I'm looking in order to find out eggs that are not coming from this area and vegetables and fruit and so on everything and the water as I said is bottled water, it bottles up in glasses. I hope that we will not have any issue- that it will be enough not to have other issues other than the ones that we have already in the past, but we have a lot of people here that are having problems and those are the class there near the area of the company of where there are a lot of women with breast cancer- a lot, and there is a big hospital that only treats breast cancer there and no one is having the question why. Why here so many women with this kind of cancer? Also here I have a friend, a lot of friends that are here and I am lucky because I am not from - so, I was not born here, I was born fifteen kilometers far from here but this area- that area is by another aqueduct so its safe at least, in terms of water. I was living here since 2007 and I discovered the problem ten years later, but people that were living here, and were born here and for example people that were using the groundwater also to drink it were having levels of this contamination had already had problems. So I'm worried obviously but I’m doing what I can in order to prevent anything else. DD: Which sounds like a lot, sounds like you’re doing a lot. LF: I hope. DD: Before we wrap up today, is there anything else you’d like to add that we haven’t touched on, or anything you’d like to go back to, or say more about? LF: Yes, what is strange to me is that when we started to understand the issue and I told you that I'm working on creating it, i'm used to searching for scientific documents or papers and so on I find out there were a lot of studies already done on this compound after the compound disaster in the middle aravali. What happened is that all these studies were not considered for us. So, what I mean is that it's said that we are a different kind of humans, because we have to demonstrate that this is also happening here. It's not enough to have that kind of disaster, here even if we are having higher levels in our blood of this compound we still need in order for the trial against mitini to demonstrate that this is causing something to us. Instead the problem is that having this compound in our blood after all the studies that have already been done demonstrating the risk that is associated in terms of a lot of diseases that are caused, is itself a legion. We should not demonstrate anything else we have already, a lot of studies that were already done here that were done all over the world. 7 �Why we cannot learn from past mistakes? Why we have to still demonstrate that they cause something to us, the fact itself of having them in the blood is the damage, is the big damage for us, because it is a big question mark on our future. We don't know what will happen but something will happen. This is the problem, and this something that will happen was done without anyone asking the consent so, it's like being in a big clinical trial without having signed a consent because someone decided for us that this water was safe without informing us, so they should have told us, okay, we discovered- at least when they discovered- we discovered this and that, so, the information that we have so far is coming from studies that were conducted in ohio because they were available and we are saying, we are not having a lot of information to tell you that it is safe or not but at least we are informing you then you can decide what to do. 8 � 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 Beginning in 2021, the Living with PFAS interviews were recorded to gather the personal stories of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyflourinated substances, are a large group of human-made chemicals used widely since the 1940s to make coatings and products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They can be found in countless household items, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, and water-resistant clothing. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily, can move through soils and contaminate drinking water sources, and build up in animals, plants, and people. PFAS have been linked to increased incidences of various cancers, increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, birth defects, kidney and liver disease, and immune system suppression, and thyroid dysfunction. It is estimated that PFAS are in the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans (Andrews & Naidenko, 2020). In Michigan alone, over 280 sites have PFAS contamination exceeding maximum contamination levels for groundwater (MPART, 2024). 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 PFAS0022 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Facciolo, Laura Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-07-21 Title A name given to the resource Laura Facciolo, 2021 (Interview video and transcript) Description An account of the resource Laura Facciolo has lived all her life in the Veneto region of Italy. In this interview, Laura discusses the contamination of Garda Lake, the second-largest aquifer in Europe, as well as other fresh water sources in Italy. 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) 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 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives