Is it a rule?
Action and inaction on the major problem of PFAS contamination in Wisconsin on the action part new federal maximum levels have been set at four parts per trillion much lower than Wisconsin's 70 parts per trillion on the inaction part Republican lawmakers this week rejected Governor Tony Evers call to meet and approve spending $125 million to help deal with PFAS.
Meanwhile state and national lawsuits against parties deemed responsible for PFAS contamination are in various stages of settlement or verdict one lodged by Wisconsin against Tycho fire products goes to trial later this year.
Tycho manufactured firefighting foam used at its training facility in Marinette it and surrounding communities including Pestigo are now hotspots in Wisconsin for PFAS contamination.
With health problems associated with exposure to PFAS and years of testing and fighting and looking for help our next guest is former chair of the town of Pestigo board Cindy Boyle and thanks very much for being here.
Thank you very much for having me. I'm happy to discuss this.
Just to set the stage how long have you been fighting to try to address PFAS in your hometown and your own property?
This November will be eight years.
So there there have been hundreds of millions of dollars hoping to come to the rescue of places like Pestigo from the feds state lawsuit settlements even company outlays.
Has that money yet made a difference to you?
Well I'm encouraged by the fact that there is significant funding coming to states on a what appears to be a consistent basis at this point far more than we could have hoped for even seven years ago or six years ago.
To my knowledge not in a significant meaningful way as far as a permanent water solution for our communities problem. No not yet.
So I know that the DNR does sorry the DNR does have mechanisms in which to distribute and allocate some of that funding to actually start putting it to use and putting it to to work.
We just have to now hopefully get that funding released from the trust into the DNR's.
Because as to the infighting between the governor and Republican legislators over $125 million what do residents like yourself think of that fighting in Madison when you are looking for this urgent help?
Well you know it's an it's an important question and it's complicated as are all things PFAS.
I wonder you know I understood very well the SB 312 legislation and I understood the arguments on both sides of that.
I'm concerned I'm grateful first of all that Governor Evers did veto it and the primary reason for that is because we as a state cannot afford to have in any way shape or form the spills law weekend.
The spills law is the single mechanism by which residents in the state of Wisconsin have protection with the DNR.
And if they lose that protection in any way shape or form our community for one would never have benefited from the help that they've provided us.
And so we need to keep that foremost in our in our minds as things go forward.
I am my family and I are innocent landowners.
So the supposed concerns and protections around innocent land over owners in SB 312.
You know I worry more that they were just red flags if you will things that would get people concerned and worked up and and misdirected the message.
So I'm unfortunately grateful that it was vetoed. I am very very hopeful that new legislation will make its way through or that the finance committee will at least release those funds as intended over a year ago.
It needs to start being able to be put to work.
What kind of help are private well owners like yourself getting to get clean safe water?
Well, so our community is a slight variation in particular my family.
We live in an area that our identified responsible party has acknowledged responsibility toward.
So I'll talk in a broader sense regarding other Wisconsinites who might be on private drinking water wells.
There is funding through the state that's come down through the federal government for people impacted with PFAS or I think a variety of actual potential contamination issues for their private wells to be able to have new wells dug.
That are maybe deeper better construction.
So they would go through the DNR and apply for those those programs.
I'm not exactly sure what the limits are in our communities case.
Some residents qualify for that. Some are getting some deep wells by the identified responsible party.
My concern around our community doing that is what I've always said.
Number one, the DNR has not deemed deep wells as a viable long term solution, not the best solution.
Excuse me, I should rephrase not that it isn't viable. It is not the best long term solution and that's been reaffirmed by multiple engineering companies.
It of course is the cheapest option for our responsible party, but what happens when the PFAS gets down into those wells eventually and we already know that PFAS is at the bedrock level and some wells.
And so PFAS is complicated and all of the mediations and all of the responsible parties and all of it.
Has this divided your community?
I'm very impressed with our community.
It has taken a long time. It's been a, it's been an incredible experience in learning human behavior.
The first couple of years was just a lot of education and eventually people came to realize that even if they were not immediately impacted their friends, family neighbors or potentially themselves would be in the night.
And I think it's a combination of things.
I think it's a combination of people are, it's an exhaustive, exhausting topic to me as well.
I think people get a little bit worn out.
Maybe they get a little defeated and feel like there isn't going to be a solution or maybe people thought that the partial settlement that Tycho distributed throughout our community was the best that they could hope for and are now choosing to not think about it.
I don't know.
I know the topic too well to do any of those things.
Myself and others who are in community leadership roles and advocacy roles are working very hard in our community to continue moving forward toward permanent safe water and accountability for our responsible party.
Meanwhile, you described being excited about a new announcement out of the EPA.
What was that?
And so this morning, the Biden administration finalized a rule for the first time in 40 years.
They are deeming PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, which is critical because it will qualify them under circular more commonly understood as super fund.
Now, that seems very contradictory to say that you would ever hope your community would be considered for super fun because basically it means you live in kind of a very polluted area.
But it also means that the EPA has the authority to come in and hold responsible parties accountable to make sure that they do adequate, comprehensive remediation for things like surface water soils, as well as help innocent landowners such as myself make sure that we have permanent safe water solutions.
And then it was all today.
I'm sorry.
Without today's without today's announcement.
There was uncertainty around the next steps for this with today's announcement. We are very vindicated and encouraged and optimistic that there is still a strong path forward. So we're very, very grateful that this rule has gone into place.
And then combine that with the recent EPA setting the max PFOS level at four parts per trillion.
What was that like?
Equally amazing. Right. So it doesn't impact our community directly because our community is on private drinking wells. But last, well, we could go Wednesday, the rule that you just referenced that is for water systems that are on utilities.
So all the people who are on water through a public utility now have the assurance of the protections and especially for Wisconsin we had, as you mentioned earlier, a limit of 70 parts per trillion and the EPA adjusted that now to four parts per trillion,
which is a more protective number.
And we were very grateful for that. That too has not happened in 30 years. So these are really significant steps and
I'm going to give it to you straight. That tells me two things. Industry lobbyists are very good at their job.
And number two, it tells you how bad PFOS is that those two rules still were made.
All right, Cindy Boyle, we leave it there. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
I like that.
I'm like, can I say that I tell it to everybody else? I mean, as well say it on a broader audience.
Well, I'm thrilled to know about the super fund rule.
Yeah. Yeah, it's genuinely significant. There are two communities in the state of Wisconsin. Ours is one of them because myself and another gentleman petitioned the EPA two years ago.
This was our third line of defense, our safety net, if you will.
And we knew that in order for it to ever come to fruition, which still is not a guarantee.
This today's announcement would have to take place.
Next steps would be that their, the EPA will continue their preliminary investigation, which they are actively doing.
And then if they deem that our community warrants it, we will be added to the super fund list and then set in a priority number for remediation.
What's the other community? What's the other?
I'm not 100% sure. You know, I should know that. I just read it this morning that it was, there are two, and it was actually on the DNR's email.
Okay.
In response to today's announcement. And I know we're the one because I'm one of the petitioners.
Well, good for you. Thank you.
I don't think you want to find yourself in that position, but thank you so much. I appreciate the time today.
Thank you.
All right. Take care.
Thank you.