Listen to the Experts...

Transcription of oral testimony

Good morning Chairs Decker and Cyr and honorable colleagues,

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and also for taking me out of turn. I will try to be as brief as possible. This is such a a large bill. It tries to do a lot create a foundation. It's called an Act to protect Massachusetts Public Health from PFAS, also known as the Mass PFAS Act.

It's what we hope to be a foundational bill that advances many recommendation from the legislature's PFAS Intergency Task Force, which I co-chaired with Senator Cyr. These recommendations were unanimously approved by the Task Force, And I would like to thank those members for their important contributions to this critical issue and in looking for solutions. (PFAS Interagency Task Force Final Report) 

The MA PFAS ACT recognizes the importance of both addressing PFAS contamination and preventing future contamination. That is truly, in essence, what the bill is about. It builds on state efforts to identify and clean up PFAS contamination in the Commonwealth. 

I'd like to thank DEP, DPH, EO EEA, MDAR and ..., and other state municipal leaders in our advocate for sounding the alarms and being there since day one. And they certainly were when you pick up a phone from one of your towns to say the water is no longer drinkable. 

The fact that DEP shows up on the second day to lay out your options and help you move forward is incredibly important. It builds and establishes a PFAS remediation trust fund to assist municipalities, public water systems, and homeowners with the high cost of cleaning up existing PFAS contamination, many of these costs that are not eligible for existing state and federal assistance because they are private wells. 

And we are Central Mass, we are the Cape, we are Western Mass. We would be eligible for grant funding through the PFAS remediation Trust Fund. Everyone should have access to drinking water that is free from PFAS, and my hope is that the trust fund will bring that closer to reality. 

One of the most important things I've learned while co-sharing the PFAS Task Force along with Julian Cyr, the senator sitting before me today, is the breath and depth of PFAS contamination in our state and in our country. The CDC estimates that over 98% of US residents have PFAS in their blood and there's no proven nothing to remove PPAS from our bodies. The shocking statistic calls for an aggressive strategy to end the cycle of PFAS contamination.

The Mass PFAS ACT creates a timeline and this is our solution moving forward. A timeline for phasing out PFAS in food packaging by 2026 and consumer products by 2030. The PFAS Act advances two important recommendations from the PFAS Task Force. The first is to use a class-based approach for the regulation of PFAS in food packaging and in consumer products. 

A key concern of regulating PFAS on a chemical by chemical basis is that 1000s of unregulated PFAS may be and have adverse health effect similar to the handful of PFAS that have been studied and are now being regulated. Industry has a practice of replacing regulated PFAS with other structurally similar PFAS. So sort of a whack a mole approach of deciding what we're, when, and how, for what PFAS chemicals are hazardous. We call this practice regrettable substitution and it essentially turns regulated PFAS into the game of whack a mole, as as I said. 

The second is the use of an essential use approach by allowing DPH to grant temporary exemptions for products containing PFAS. that are essential for health and safety and for which alternatives are not reasonably available. Mainly California is using this strategy to regulate PFAS in consumer products and countries in Europe are considering the same approaches. 

And as well, we've been trying to keep aware of all of the states, what all of the states are doing and their responses to PFAS. I'm deeply concerned about the high cancer rates among firefighters. I'm sure they have been here to testify today. They have elevated exposure to PFAS through Class B firefighting foam and their personal protection equipment. To support our firefighters, who put their lives on the line to protect us, the Mass PFAS Act establishes a timeline to phase out PFAS in personal protective equipment, limit the use of Class B firefighting foam containing PFAS and directs the Department of Public Health to collect and report data related to occupational exposure to PFAS. I have stood in meetings of the professional firefighters in Massachusetts when the names of those that have passed are read and they are very young.

I'm deeply concerned also by the fact that the health and safety of our residents depend on the commonwealth's ability to mitigate existing PFAS contamination and prevent future contamination. Passing the Mass PFAS Act would make Massachusetts a leader in protecting our residents and the environment. from these toxic chemicals. I really appreciate your time and attention and respectfully request a favorable report from the committee. Thank you all very much.

Artificial Turf

Artificial turf fields are being increasingly installed across Massachusetts -- not just at colleges and high schools, but even elementary school playgrounds. The Massachusetts Chapter opposes all plastic turf for the following reasons:

• Each full-size field removes over two acres of ecosystem that sequesters carbon, and covers it with multiple layers of plastic.

• Synthetic plastic fields are much hotter than grass (by up to 55°) regardless of the infill [Penn State], and will create a heat island for the athletes and the neighborhood. (Recorded surface temperatures in the Boston area for artificial turf with organic infill have been as high as 157°F on hot sunny summer days when nearby grass was 102°.) Blistering of athletes' feet, skin burns and heat illness are other concerns with plastic turf. [TURI 2016]

• An artificial turf field consists of a large number of undocumented mixtures of petrochemical plastics and chemicals of varying toxicity. Crumb rubber infill adds significantly to the plastic chemical mix. Underneath the plastic carpet are typically a plastic shock pad, a geotextile and drainage system. Rainwater and any irrigation will wash chemicals and microplastics into the soil, groundwater, and the storm system. But the highest chemical exposure will be the workers and residents in places where plastic and artificial turf is manufactured, which are often environmental justice communities.

• A variety of toxic PFAS chemicals have been discovered in major components of turf fields from many companies. The synthetic plastic grass blades are made in part with fluoropolymers (such as PVDF-HFP) [Gearhart 2021 & Portsmouth Herald 2021], which share the same chemistry as PFAS and are often included in that definition. Surprisingly even some organic infill has been found to contain PFAS. Turf fields release PFAS into local waters [Peaslee 2021], which adds to existing levels of PFAS there and in drinking water across the state.

• Plastic surfaces shed non-biodegradable microplastics through abrasion and ultraviolet radiation. Athletes, coaches and groundskeepers will be the most heavily exposed. The plastic blades release methane and ethylene, a potent greenhouse gas [Royer 2019].

• A full-size synthetic field will generate over 100 tons of bulky solid waste after about ten years. Plastic recycling is infeasible for artificial turf due to its size, mixtures and toxicity and does not exist in North America [Fair Warning, 2019].

• Artificial turf is unsanitary. The impermeable plastic surface can transmit pathogens (such as MRSA) from human and animal fluids to players and users through dermal contact. Abrasions from turf can increase exposure. Some fields are treated with biocides to reduce infection risk. [TURI 2016]

While there has been no legislation or regulation of plastic turf at the Federal or state level, individual local artificial turf projects have been stopped in communities such as Brookline (2019) and Nantucket (2022). Towns such as Concord (2022), Sharon (2020) and Wayland (2019) have instituted moratoria on new artificial turf fields.

The Chapter supports grass, a safe, cooling, non-toxic, zero-waste, climate-mitigating surface in order to protect children and provide equitable access to nature at our parks and playgrounds.

Resources:Toxics Use Reduction Institute - Athletic Playing Fields

I am here today representing our 100 thousand members and supporters of the Massachusetts Sierra Club.  Artificial Turf Resource

We strongly endorse (S.1356 / H.2197) An Act to protect Massachusetts public health from PFAS. Within the toxics category, it’s our number one priority bill, and here’s why…

PFAS is the most serious toxic chemical threat we are facing today. Unfortunately, the toxic chemical crisis does not command the same level of attention as the climate crisis. However, Massachusetts, led by its DEP and our Legislature, has studied and recognized the problem of PFAS. We thankfully have the ability to move faster than the Federal government to address the pressing problem. We commend the PFAS Task Force led by Rep. Hogan and Senator Cyr. We are very impressed with the Task Force report and the resulting proposed legislation before this Committee.

This law is similar to those passed in other states. This law is supported by an impressive and unanimous array of organizations and scientists as you are hearing today. This law is a plan to eliminate PFAS to the maximal extent possible.

After 80 years of unfettered production and usage, PFAS is found throughout our state and around the world, and as we know, it lasts forever. We must protect our citizens and residents as Article 97 of our Constitution mandates, which states that “The people shall have the right to clean air and water”. And like those other pervasive petrochemicals, plastics, PFAS is the ultimate environmental contaminant.

The process is working the way it is supposed to. We urge you to send this bill to Ways and Means with all due speed. We call on the leaders of the General Court to bring it to a vote as soon as possible.

Thank you.

I strongly support H318/S175, An Act Relative to Toxic Free Kids.  This legislation will reduce Massachusetts children’s exposures to toxic chemicals in consumer products.  It will reduce the prevalence of such diseases as autism, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), congenital malformations, and childhood cancer, all of which are caused in part by toxic chemicals.  It will reduce health care costs, costs of special education, and productivity losses and will thus pay for itself many times over....TESTIMONY

The Industry’s Role in the PFAS Contamination Crisis.

Thank you for sponsoring and hearing this important bill.  

Our lab works on many aspects of PFAS policy, regulation, community involvement, and medical education. Our map of known and suspected contamination sites is widely used, including by Sen. Carper in the US Senate. 

We are a lead sponsor of the three biannual National PFAS Conferences starting in 2017 which have played a major role in PFAS awareness and action, and we are the recipient of many federal grants from NSF and NIH for our work. We have provided expert knowledge to many community groups, various state agencies, EPA, and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.

Today I wish to share with you information about industry’s role in the PFAS contamination crisis. I do this because the tremendous gains in science that you are hearing today from many experts is constantly growing, demonstrating so many health effects from PFAS. Yet at the same time, industry continues to argue against this knowledge and to create false positions on this topic. Most significantly, DuPont, 3M and other PFAS-producing corporations have done so for decades, hiding from the public, scientists, and EPA the information it had on the harms caused by PFAS.  

In 1961 DuPont found evidence of liver toxicity in animals and the next year of toxicity in humans. 

In 1976 3M found PFOA in workers’ blood.

In 1981 found that it causes rare birth defects in rats. That same year DuPont noticed that some of its workers give birth to infants with similar rare birth defects and their response was to remove all women workers from the Teflon unit but didn’t say why, nor did they share this data with EPA. 

In 1984 DuPont found PFOA in community drinking water, but didn’t disclose results. 

In 1987 3M looked for uncontaminated blood samples to compare to their workers and found widespread global contamination, and this knowledge too was not shared.  

Our lab has studied this history of deception and has been part of the process of making public many industry documents.

 In 2016 we requested from EPA the docket of evidence on DuPont’s secrecy that led to its loss in the major West Virginia case that was perhaps the most significant prompt to our current awareness. We posted the tens of thousands of those documents on the Toxic Docs website at Columbia University’s School of Public Health, so that the public would have access to these documents, including internal correspondence that proved DuPont’s work at withholding scientific knowledge of health effects. Similar documents were located in the discovery process of the recent 3M litigation. The Industry Documents Library at the University of California, San Francisco has done similar work, following its 2002 establishment  to make public the tobacco industry’s misinformation and medical ghostwriting. 

An article published two weeks ago by Gaber, Bero, and Woodruff of that UCSF team has made the public even more aware of industry secrecy, misinformation, and suppression of science.

Even when industry is not lying and withholding evidence, the normal routine of federal regulation means that EPA is prevented from seeing the names and the chemical composition and action of PFAS compounds for which industry seeks permission to produce and use. This confidential business information assists companies to withhold necessary knowledge that can let scientists discover toxicological mechanisms and epidemiological connections to disease.

Please keep this in mind as you hear the wealth of scientific information on PFAS harms, and the voices of the PFAS manufacturers and their allies, including the American Chemistry Council, who try to suppress that science.

Our state is a national leader in PFAS regulation, one of the first to create MCLs and to do extensive water testing.  Please help us extend that great legacy by passing this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to share this with the Committee.

Good morning Senator Cyr, Representative Decker, and members of the Joint Committee on  Public Health. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on “An Act to Protect Massachusetts  Public Health from PFAS” (H.2197/S.1356). 

I’d like to share five key points based on my own scientific research and other published studies.  

First, PFAS are linked to many adverse health outcomes. These include multiple types of  cancer, reproductive, developmental, and immune toxicity, and impaired lactation. PFAS have  been also found to impair mammary gland development, which may lead to increased  susceptibility to breast cancer later in life. Children may be especially vulnerable to these harmful effects of PFAS.  

Second, PFAS are common in everyday products. A 2022 Silent Spring study found markers  of PFAS in more than half textile products marketed for children and adolescents, including  apparel, bedding, and furnishings. Previous Silent Spring studies found that fast food packaging often contains PFAS, and that people who ate more restaurant food and more microwave  popcorn had more PFAS in their blood. 

Third, PFAS in products pollute our bodies and environment. PFAS migrate out of products  and end up in indoor air and dust, where we can breathe them in or ingest them. Children in  particular can be exposed via hand to mouth contact. Over time, PFAS released from discarded  products can end up in landfill leachate. PFAS harm communities close to manufacturing plants  and incinerators that handle PFAS waste, exacerbating environmental injustice.  

Fourth, PFAS are often unnecessary in products. We found 35% of children’s textiles labeled  as water or stain-resistant did not have PFAS, demonstrating alternatives already exist. Following  our research, several US states and third-party certifiers are now banning PFAS in textiles. Since our 2017 study on fast food packaging, a dozen states have banned PFAS in food packaging and  major retailers and restaurants have stopped using food packaging with PFAS. This goes to  show that, given the impetus, industry can and will pursue alternatives.  

Finally, we need class-based solutions. According to EPA, there are over 14,000 PFAS, so it’s  simply not possible to evaluate their toxicity and regulate them one at a time. Fluorinated polymers raise concerns because of their extreme persistence and because some PFAS of known  concern are emitted during their production, use, and disposal. Major public health  organizations and scientific experts have called for regulating PFAS as a class. The National  Defense Authorization Act defined PFAS as ‘chemicals with at least one fully fluorinated carbon  atom,’ and legislation adopted by 5 states is consistent with this definition.  

Massachusetts has been a national leader in PFAS regulation. Please take this scientific  information into account as you consider ways to protect the public from PFAS. Thank you.