Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals

Source: Wikipedia

Over the last few decades, a war has been ongoing between environmental justice advocate groups and industry groups regarding chemical safety in society.  I say society for the simple reason that the implications of such work propagate through every avenue of our lives.  From the safety of the chemicals used in the products which we purchase along with the different points in the supply chain.  The obvious disregard for the environment is the cost for a profit for industry shareholders.  Less regulation is great for profit.  At least that is what the message is from the top (White House) down (to society).  A recent example of this has emerged and is in need of attention within the government.  This has caused some uneasiness from politicians in congress.

White House Obstructs Disseminating Science

Last Monday, began (for me) opening my email and finding the following excerpt from 'Politico Energy' shown below:

WHITE HOUSE INTERVENED IN CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT: The White House sought to block a draft Health and Human Services assessment related to the release of toxic chemicals, calling on political staffers at EPA to look into the issue after the administration concluded the report’s findings would cause a “public relations nightmare,” new emails obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists show. Pro’s Annie Snider reports on the internal EPA emails that show the unreleased assessment concluded that the chemicals, known as PFOA and PFOS, pose a danger to human health at far lower contamination levels than EPA previously said was safe. The study, if finalized, could increase the cost of cleanups at sites like military bases and chemical manufacturing plants, as the chemicals have long been used in products like Teflon and firefighting foam, and could force communities across the country to pour money into cleaning up their tainted water supplies.

What the emails say: On Jan. 30, James Herz, a political appointee who oversees environmental issues at the White House Office of Management and Budget, forwarded an email from another White House aide about the forthcoming HHS assessment to EPA’s top financial officer. “The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these numbers is going to be huge,” that forwarded email, whose author is not identified, reads. “The impact to EPA and DoD is going to be extremely painful. We (DoD and EPA) cannot seem to get ATSDR to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be.” EPA’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, confirmed to Annie that he spoke with his counterpart at HHS, as well as with the head of the agency producing the report, arguing it is important that the government speak with a single voice on the topic. More than three months later, the draft assessment remains unpublished. HHS' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says it has no scheduled date to release it for public comment. Read more here.

Related doc: Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters sent this letter to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis last week, raising concerns with the DoD’s response to water contaminated from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances at and around defense installations across Michigan. “Communities in Michigan are not at fault for the release of these harmful contaminants, and it is imperative that the Department do whatever is necessary to address the public health and environmental risks associated with exposure to these chemicals,” they write.

Two chemical members of the PerFluoroAlkyl class of chemicals which are discussed in the excerpt above are shown below:



1) PerFluoroOctanoic Acid (PFOA):

Source: XDD Environmental

2) PerFluoroOctaneSulfonic Acid (PFOS)

Source: Wikimedai Commons

For the purpose of the present post which is to call your attention to the intent of the Administration to bury the dangers uncovered in the report, I will be brief of the chemistry of the class of chemicals shown above.  The class of chemicals which encompasses both types of molecules are called PerFluorinated Alkyl substances.  I will write a post in the near future discussing more in depth of the danger posed by the class of chemicals.



The present take home message regarding the danger of these compounds is due to their resilient properties.  Chemicals with these properties are heavily resistant to water, oil, and grease.  For this reason alone, the chemicals are widely used in food packaging and cookware.  Also, the chemicals are widely found in clothes, furniture, and as fire retardants.  The properties of these chemicals make them very difficult to break down in biological species which cause bioaccumulation as a result.  Further progression of the accumulation can cause certain diseases.



More can be read about these chemicals on the Environmental Protection Agencies website -- located here.  The fact that the chemicals are harmful is not under debate.  Although, the exact concentration might be debatable by certain organizations.  Which makes the present report useful in adding information to the debate.  As pointed out below, the report was funded by the tax-payer (you and I), therefore, we should be able to see the contents of the report.  Congress has reacted appropriately (at least a couple of members of congress have acted) to steer the report into the public eyes as shown below.

Congressional Action Is Necessary

We would hope that our elected politicians have our best interest in mind when it comes to the discussion of chemical safety.  After all, chemical safety impacts all of us -- although, in some cases, not equally.  On a larger scale, we all are equally impacted (city, state), therefore, congress should instruct the appropriate agencies to turn over the results of the report -- regardless of the findings.



First, on Monday, the concern of the two senators from Michigan (Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters) was sent in letter form to the Department of Defense and is shown below:

The Honorable James Mattis

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, D.C. 22202

Dear Secretary Mattis:

We write to express our concerns with the Department of Defense’s response to addressing groundwater and surface water contaminated by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at and around defense installations across Michigan.  Expedited action is needed to address these contaminants that pose a threat to human health and the environment.

PFAS are chemicals used in firefighting foams at military bases around the country with impacts to human health that are not well understood. Studies have associated PFAS exposure to cancer, as well as thyroid, kidney, reproductive, and heart issues.  In the Fiscal Year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress included $310 million for environmental remediation at Base Realignment and Closure bases, $54 million above from the previous fiscal year.  The bill report specifies that this additional funding should be used to address PFAS contaminated sites.  In addition, the Army Guard base maintenance account also received $40 million more than the previous fiscal year’s level, which can be used for investigating and remediating PFAS contamination.

In 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established new lifetime health advisories for two types of PFAS – perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) – to assist federal, state, tribal and local officials with protecting public health when these chemicals are present in the drinking water.  In addition, the State of Michigan’s cleanup criteria for groundwater protective of drinking water was established on January 10, 2018.  Furthermore, the State of Michigan has Water Quality Standards that apply to both surface waters and to groundwater venting to surface waters. Michigan regulations specify that water quality standards shall be met in all waters of the state, and that these standards sufficiently protect both human and aquatic health.

PFOA and PFOS have been discovered in and around multiple active and decommissioned military installations across Michigan, including: Wurtsmith; Camp Grayling; KI Sawyer; Selfridge; Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center; Escanaba Defense Fuel Supply Point; Battle Creek; Grand Ledge; and Kincheloe.  The State of Michigan has estimated that it will cost upwards of $335 million to investigate and address initial remediation actions at sites near the bases at which the contamination originated.

It is imperative that the Department of Defense comply with Michigan’s water quality standards and cleanup criteria and stop the movement of contamination from military installations into groundwater and surface waters.  While we appreciate the challenges of addressing emerging contaminants such as PFAS, as well as the costs the military faces in addressing environmental contamination at bases throughout the United States, we are concerned about the pace at which the Department is proceeding to address contamination across Michigan.  In addition, it has come to our attention that the Department may be considering changing its policy on compliance with individual state drinking and surface water standards for some contaminants, including PFAS.  We would have great concern if in fact the Department or any of the individual branches were considering this action.  Communities in Michigan are not at fault for the release of these harmful contaminants, and it is imperative that the Department do whatever is necessary to address the public health and environmental risks associated with exposure to these chemicals.

We look forward to receiving your response on the Department’s near- and long-term plans to address these public health and environmental problems in Michigan.   In addition, we would also ask that you provide additional clarity on whether the Department is considering changing its policy on compliance with state drinking and surface water standards for PFOA and PFOS.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests.

If any improvement on chemical safety can occur on the military side the outcome to the environment overall would be enormous.  Why?  The military employs large corporations through government contracts worth billions of dollars per year.  Typically, these contracts are about technology which requires large industrial space to construct along with large amounts of chemical waste.



Although, the department of defense can only do a certain amount of regulating corporations which carry out large contracts for the military.  The largest regulatory agency in this regard is the Environmental Protection Agency which possesses the power to regulate the practices of these corporations.  Any destructive practices can be regulated by the EPA and should be.



Of course, at any given point in time, the EPA has a director which is promoting the agenda of the White House.  Even though this is not supposed to be the case.  Congress recently reminded the EPA in the form of a letter that chemical safety is paramount as shown below:

Administrator Pruitt,

I'm writing today to request that you immediately cease your efforts to suppress a report prepared by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) regarding the health effects of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).  This report should be immediately released to the taxpayers who funded the study and rely on its results to maintain their health. 

My constituents in New York's Hudson Valley are directly affected by the findings of this report, as PFOS was discovered in significant quantities in the water supply of the City of Newburgh in my district.  In 2016, it was discovered that runoff from Stewart Air National Guard Base contaminated the groundwater that eventually flowed into the municipal water supply. 

Since the contamination was detected, the State of New York offered free blood testing to affected residents.  The testing found that PFOS levels in the blood of Newburgh residents are higher than the national average.  I was successful in passing legislation into law to require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct a five-year study into the long-term health effects of PFOS exposure.  But as that study is conducted, my constituents and I have great interest in the results of the ATSDR report. 

The people I represent are understandably concerned about their health since the contamination was detected.  Given that this report can shed light on the health impacts of exposure to PFOS, it must be released immediately.  In addition to being the right thing to do, it is your legal responsibility to release this report to the American people.  I look forward to a prompt reply. 

Sincerely, 

Senator Sean Patrick Maloney 

The two letters above serve as appropriate forms of action by congressional appointees to a serious situation.  Our health is at risk.  Cover ups are not appropriate.  Just because the results are not what the public might like does not give the government the authority to keep them hidden.

Conclusion...

Chemical safety has got to be elevated in importance.   Especially, given the state of technological development and our ability to deal with chemical threats and chemical design.  Instead of covering up reports, the reports should be made public to initiate a discussion on producing a solution.   A few legislators and leaders in the chemical industry worry that the results might be distorted.  So what.  Scientific results are what they are.  Release them immediately.



With that being said, coming up with alternative chemicals or solutions should be where the conversation is headed.  Aside from stemming the current environmental and health impact of the damage currently done along with decades of use of these chemicals.  Where we go from here will define what we learned from the past.  Hopefully, the direction will be toward a more sustainable and environmentally friendlier solution.  Otherwise, the planet is in big trouble in the future.




Related blog posts:


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?


What Does America Drinking Water Look Like With Little-to-No Regulation?


Why Is The Science March Important?


Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?


Should Pollution Concern Us?


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?


Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


STEM Outreach Is Useful For All Participants!


20 Questions Politicians Answer Regarding Science Issues


How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!


A Perfect Example Of Why Science Outreach Is Critical: Science Needs Simplification!