BUSINESS LOBBY SIDES WITH POLLUTERS
New Hampshire is one of the states on the leading edge of awareness of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) contaminating drinking water at the former Pease Air Force Base and Coakley Superfund Site located in the seacoast of New Hampshire. Another PFC release by Saint Gobain Performance Plastics, the party known to be responsible for PFC contamination in Vermont, occurred in the Manchester/Litchfield area. Public awareness was also raised in 2016, the State of New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services announced that two CDC-defined pediatric cancer clusters were identified in a 5-town area of seacoast New Hampshire. The Business and Industry Association (BIA) has taken to the press leveling criticism of legislation proposed in New Hampshire aimed to protect the public from exposure to cancer causing chemicals in our drinking water. This legislation and other important pieces of legislation arose out of my work on Governor Hassan’s Task Force to investigate whether environmental triggers caused the pediatric cancers.
PFCs were called “emerging contaminants” because the science on these chemicals was emerging and typically develops at a rapid pace. While most refer to PFCs as emerging contaminants, the scientists studying these no longer consider them to be emerging since the evidence- based science on toxicity, in their opinion, is so well developed. I am part of a technical review council on PFCs and those scientists think we know enough about the toxicity of these chemicals and now need to focus our efforts on their replacement (PFBs).
The focus of the proposed legislation currently in the NH Senate is to compel the DES to “adopt MCLs that protect the public health at all life stages and that are reasonably based on peer reviewed science and/or independent or government agency studies, provided no MCL shall exceed that contained in any MCL promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.” This proposed legislation asks DES to look at studies and other information used by other states like New Jersey or Vermont for developing their PFC standards. The BIA goes on to say “unfortunately, legislation proposed this session related to the emerging group of…PFCs suggests an emotional rush to enhance regulation and oversight, rather than a measured, calculated response to the evolving understanding of the science around these chemicals. Even the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, immensely respected across the country for its environmental stewardship, takes issue with many aspects of this legislation.” and “these decisions should be based on reason and not emotion, science not politics.” The use of the word “emotional” here is intentional casting doubt on the evidence-based science and painting a picture of emotional women clutching their handbags worrying about their children and men saying, “don’t worry your pretty head, dear.” You can’t blame the public for paying attention when there are children dying of terrible cancers in your area. However, the evidence-based science on the toxicity of PFCs is very well developed.
The New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute (NJDWQI) recommended a PFOA drinking water standard of 14 parts per trillion (ppt) based on both animal and human studies. “The NJDWQI gains its strength by having a diverse group of experts working on a single compound. The evaluation is based on the science and does not become influenced by the policy issues.” NJDWQI said in a September 2016 presentation regarding the EPA’s 70 ppt advisory for PFOA, “it cannot be concluded that exposure to these drinking water concentrations is protective of the most sensitive populations with a margin of exposure.” Vermont has a drinking water quality standard of 20 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, combined. DuPont settled out of court so far for approximately $1.5B based on an epidemiological study of 69,000 people with concentrations as low as 50 part per trillion of PFOA (one PFC) that was shown to cause cancers and other health effects. The C8sciencepanel.org study found that at a minimum of 50 ppt PFOA had probable connections to kidney and testicular cancer, high cholesterol, autoimmune dysfunction and other chronic conditions. PFCs are known to bioaccumulate and persist in the environment, and lab tests show that they are toxic, affecting reproduction and development. Even EPA’s Science Advisory Panel in 2006 said that PFOA is a “likely” human carcinogen. There are up to 40 classes of PFCs in aqueous film-forming foams that require toxicology studies before we know how deleterious they are to public health.
“Between 2002 and 2015, manufacturing of PFC compounds was phased out, although they still exist in a wide range of consumer goods we all use daily. We don’t yet have a full understanding of the concentrations of PFCs in these goods or what concentrations we are exposed to through these products.” This is true they are still in many household and food products but that doesn’t mean they should be. In the US chemicals can get on the market without sufficient proof of their safety. PFCs are being phased out and EPA is taking steps to make sure they don’t come back into the US market due to safety concerns. Based on research by the NJDWQI, the average PFOA concentration in your bloodstream from day to day exposure is around 2.4 ng/ml based on the NHANES 2011–2012 study.
However, Figure 1 shows that most of the PFOA in blood comes from drinking water and shows that with increasing concentrations you magnify the concentration of PFOA in blood. Drinking water at 70 ppt leads to blood PFOA concentrations 3 to 7 times the national average from day to day exposures. Clearly 70 ppt results in elevated PFOA blood levels while the NJDWQI proposal of 14 ppt leads to only slightly higher than average PFOA concentrations in the blood.
“The Business & Industry Association, New Hampshire’s statewide chamber of commerce, has long supported environmental policies, laws, regulations and rules grounded in science.” Really? Can you say tobacco or MTBE?
BIA says that the ability to see lower levels of contaminants in the laboratory leads to detection of other things that “…includes lots of naturally-occurring minerals and elements critical for the proper function of our bodies, as well as chemicals at such infinitesimally low levels that they cause no harm to human health or the environment.” PFCs are not naturally occurring they are Teflon. They were manufactured to withstand very high heat without degrading — and they don’t degrade at all, especially in the environment. These statements also imply that the proposed legislation compels DES to come up with standards that are infinitesimally low. That is not the case. The proposed legislation merely asks the DES to look at the science of other states in making their decision.
The BIA tries to further muddy the waters but saying that “the trouble with detecting chemicals at lower and lower levels of concentration is now we’re seeing everything else within that sample.” DES is now asking labs to be capable of reporting PFCs to 2 ppt and report to a minimum of 5 ppt. When you analyze a sample, you specify the types of compounds you will see by selecting the analytical method. For example, when you want to analyze a sample for PFCs you ask the lab to analyze the sample by USEPA Method 537 and I would further specify that the lab I select use the isotope dilution method. You only receive results for the PFC compounds the lab reports on which is always a specified list that the method is capable of seeing. No extraneous compounds.
The BIA says “if, through scientific research, it’s determined acceptable standards need to be changed to more stringent levels, New Hampshire businesses will comply without hesitation. However, creating New Hampshire-specific standards that are arbitrarily lower than existing federal guidelines, with no clear and reasonable justification for doing so, would unreasonably increase regulatory burdens on business without a corresponding benefit.” It’s appropriate for any responsible party to bear the legitimate financial impacts of regulating PFC exposure proven to cause harm. The BIA is correct in this statement and likely represents DuPont, 3M or other PFC or PFB manufacturers who have been lobbying against this legislation in the State of New Hampshire. Exxon Mobil was found guilty and ordered by a court settlement to pay New Hampshire $236M on top of $88M previously paid for methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE) contamination in our state. https://www.law360.com/articles/710325/exxon-mobil-loses-236m-mtbe-cleanup-appeal-in-nh. Like the MTBE case, DuPont and 3M and others, if applicable, should be ultimately held responsible for contaminating our state’s most precious resource. New Hampshire did set a health-based drinking water standard for MTBE at 13 parts per billion ahead of the federal government which is also more stringent than the EPA secondary drinking water advisory of 20 to 40 parts per billion. EPA still has not set an MCL for MTBE. Therefore, there is a precedent in our state for being more proactive than the EPA. New Hampshire DES needs to be nimbler than EPA to protect public health from exposure to PFCs in drinking water especially considering the proposed EPA budget cuts.
“Unreasonably increasing regulation on emerging contaminants like PFCs that apply only to New Hampshire businesses will adversely affect the ability of these companies to compete with businesses outside the Granite State” and “setting unique New Hampshire standards for air, soil and groundwater could affect job retention and job growth.” This is very true. We are already hearing about reduced property values in areas of New Hampshire where there are issues with PFCs in drinking water. In addition, businesses are reporting that they are having difficulty attracting new talent in areas where drinking water is contaminated with PFCs. It is already affecting job retention and job growth. New Hampshire needs to be proactive since it typically takes EPA 5 to 7 years to develop drinking water standards. EPA cutbacks proposed by the Trump administration will likely lengthen this timeframe once these cuts are implemented.
In addition, New Hampshire spent $1.34B on direct medical cost for cancer treatment in 2018 dollars and lost productivity due to chronic illness is estimated at $4.4B in 2003. That’s “B” for billion. Clearly cancer prevention and preventing other chronic disease can result in significant reduction in economic burden and emotional toll on New Hampshire families.
Phil Brown, director of the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute at Northeastern University says, “the research on PFOA is stronger than on most chemicals and the documented connections between the chemical and cancers has grown exponentially in recent years, building a uniquely large of body of research, compared to most chemicals.” He says that state health departments are often cautious, and focus on avoiding public alarm rather than delivering the blunt truth. “From their point of view, they don’t want to worry people, the truth is people have the rights to know what’s in their bodies, in their homes, in their water, it’s their decision how to react to that data.”
Rep. Mindi Messmer was elected to the State House of Representatives in NH in 2016. She has over 28 years of experience as an environmental consultant and has owned her own business for 18 years. She received a B.S. in Geology from Syracuse University in 1985, attended University of New Hampshire M.S. program in Earth Science and is currently attending an M.S. program at Georgetown University in Clinical and Translational Research.
