WorldWide Drilling Resource

When Groundwater Scientists Take the Stand on PFAS, Who Will Be Believed? by Gary L. Hix, R.G., CWD/PI In2Wells, LLC The latest contaminant related to groundwater in the headlines is the one referred to as PFAS. These letters stand for a series of chemically complex compounds most people had never heard of a few years ago. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, also known as PFOS and PFOAs, jumped into the headlines when they were found to be present in our drinking water. There are multiple potential sources of these compounds. It is being detected in both surface water and groundwater and has been found in plants, animals, air, and soil. It has even been detected in trace amounts in the blood and tissues of humans. PFAS are being detected and measured in water as low as parts per trillion. As of this writing, none of the chemical compounds classified as PFAS have an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) threshold of acceptable limits (called maximum contaminant level or MCL) for drinking water. The research has yet to be con- ducted and proven, to set EPA standards for public drinking water. This particular compound is typically found at such low detectable levels, the sampling procedures and approved analytical testing methods have not been written. Plus, at present, there is no clear evidence of the direct impact of consumption of trace amounts of these chemicals on human health. The day will come when groundwater science experts will be called upon to explain in court how PFAS got into our groundwater, soil, and into our bodies. They will be asked to testify as to how much PFAS are in the groundwater, and if certain individuals might have consumed it. They will be asked to describe how they sampled and tested for these chemicals. The occurrence, move- ment, and detection of groundwater is not clearly understood by many people, including jurors, lawyers, and some judges. For years, courts have grappled with the issues of just what scientific data can be seen or heard by a jury. It’s almost as if the courts are treating groundwater science as a scripted TV “reality” show. Scientific facts, when reported by experts, should not have an interpretative conclusion. The conclusion of the facts is too often the one people choose to believe. True science is not open to further interpretation or different conclusions. Scientific facts are as undeniable as the answer to a mathematical calculation such as two plus two is, and always has been, four. Lawyers, politicians, and a few others may try to say two plus two can sometimes be three. A February 2019 article in The Wall Street Journal brought out several disturbing thoughts about the future of the presentation of scientific data in courts. It was reported that the latest trial regarding the herbicide “Roundup” was going to focus solely on the science of the product being a carcinogen which caused a specific form of cancer, and not the question of any negligence on the part of the manufacturer of the product. The judge ruled that the issue of occurrence and movement in groundwater in the same argument as product liability was too complex for most people to understand and render a true judgement. The first groundwater scientists to testify the PFAS compound has been detected in someone’s drinking water could face a significant challenge to explain their findings, just as experts in DNA testing and analysis were questioned early on. Today, the public and the courts are still questioning which experts are correct regarding man-caused climate changes. What defense strategies will be used to challenge the groundwater scientist’s conclusion to protect the manufacturers and suppliers of the products which contributed to this widespread contaminant? What past statement, group membership, or earlier writings might the opposition’s lawyers use to discredit the qualifications of a groundwater scientist as an expert pre- senting an unbiased opinion? Would the jury believe his or her testimony in a trial involving a particular corporation’s chemical disposal practices if they learned the groundwater scientist was either a liberal or conservative? Let’s not kid ourselves. This is how science is being looked at in the public eyes, and it is often the way it is being decided in court. When the time comes for groundwater scientists to tes- tify in court about PFAS, who will be believed? The statements and comments in this article are based on information and references believed to be true and factual. If you have any questions or comments, please forward them to me in care of WWDR . Gary Gary Hix may be contacted via e-mail to michele@ worldwidedrillingresource.com 27 WorldWide Drilling Resource ® MAY 2019 Solar Power & Pump Co. offers the highly reliable SunRotor SR-12 submersible pump and controller combo. It has a nominal 110-volt operation with a usable voltage range of 72-110 volts, and a power range of 570-1740 watts. All electronics are mounted above- ground for longer life and easy access, plus the single moving part progressive cavity technology makes it readily repairable in the field. The entire pump body is constructed of stainless steel to comply with regulations and pump installation requirements. It can be powered by solar, battery, or a combination of both. Solar Power & Pump Co. is a Valued WWDR Advertiser. WWDR photo of Gary and his wife Marilyn at the recent Michigan Ground Water Assn event. ENV