TASK DEFINITION: Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
PROBLEM: A March 5 2020 r/SandersForPresident (and r/all) thread featured a title maintaining that Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden “passed the bill” making student loans “ineligible for financial relief,” and an attached ten-second clip featured fellow presidential Bernie Sanders making a similar statement:Joe Biden passed the bill that made student loans ineligible for financial relief. Joe Biden is the reason so many of us don’t have families yet. Joe Biden is why we can’t afford houses. Joe Biden is why we’re working longer hours for lower wages. from SandersForPresidentThat thread had a long title: “Joe Biden passed the bill that made student loans ineligible for financial relief. Joe Biden is the reason so many of us don’t have families yet. Joe Biden is why we can’t afford houses. Joe Biden is why we’re working longer hours for lower wages.”By contrast, in the ten-second video, Sanders said:Joe Biden voted for a bankruptcy bill, on behalf of the credit card companies, and that bill has done a lot of harm to working families all over this country … I voted against it.A difference in wording between the title and the clip was important — the original poster stated Biden “passed the bill,” while Sanders stated that Biden had “voted for a bankruptcy bill.” Here, we are examining whether Biden voted for a bankruptcy bill with the described features, as Biden himself was not empowered to “pass” a bill — presumably the submitter was echoing Sanders’ claims in the clip.The snippet originated from a longer interview with Sanders conducted by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on March 4 2020. Although MSNBC curated short clips from the interview, none was specifically labeled as having to do with Sanders’ claim about Biden and the bankruptcy bill. (We were unable to find a transcript. )In the clip we transcribed above, Sanders didn’t mention a specific bill. However, it wasn’t difficult to narrow down specific legislation due to the prominence of student debt as an issue in the 2020 primary.In December 2019, The Guardian published an article with a headline (“How Biden helped create the student debt problem he now promises to fix”) making claims similar to those made by Sanders in the brief video shared to Reddit. With a subheading claiming that the “former vice-president and 2020 presidential hopeful backed a 2005 bill that stripped students of bankruptcy protections and left millions in financial stress,” it reported in part:In [February 2020] Joe Biden will lay “Joe’s vision for America” at the feet of Iowa’s caucus-goers in the hope that the first voters in the Democratic presidential race will put him on the road to the White House.Among his promises is that he will fix the student loan crisis saddling 45 million Americans with crippling debt now totalling a staggering $1.5tn … [Biden’s] pledge is one of the most striking policies on offer from Democratic candidates in the 2020 race, given how the problem Biden now proposes to resolve came about in the first place. Private student loans were largely stripped of bankruptcy protections in 2005 in a congressional move that had the devastating impact of tripling such debt over a decade and locking in millions of Americans to years of grueling repayments.The Republican-led bill tightened the bankruptcy code, unleashing a huge giveaway to lenders at the expense of indebted student borrowers. At the time it faced vociferous opposition from 25 Democrats in the US Senate.But it passed anyway, with 18 Democratic senators breaking ranks and casting their vote in favor of the bill. Of those 18, one politician stood out as an especially enthusiastic champion of the credit companies who, as it happens, had given him hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions – Joe Biden.The Guardian quoted University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor Melissa Jacoby on Biden’s role in the bill’s passage:Biden was one of the most powerful people who could have said no, who could have changed this. Instead he used his leadership role to limit the ability of other Democrats who had concerns and who wanted the bill softened[. ]In January 2020, TheIntercept.com covered the origins and progression of student loan debt in the United States, up to and including its prevalence in Democratic primary debates and platforms.… as a senator from Delaware, Biden was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the disastrous 2005 bankruptcy bill that made it nearly impossible for borrowers to reduce their student loan debt. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act raised the bar for families to pursue Chapter 7 bankruptcy protections. It overwhelmingly passed in the Senate at the end of the Clinton administration, over the objections of [Elizabeth] Warren, then a bankruptcy expert who had tangled for years with Biden over the issue. She lobbied first lady Hillary Clinton, who herself persuaded Bill Clinton to veto it.Biden came back to the legislation under the Bush administration; it passed the Senate in 2005 on a 74-25 vote, with most Democratic lawmakers, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, voting against it. ([Hillary] Clinton, by then a senator from New York, voted for it.) George W. Bush signed it into law, and private student loan debt skyrocketed in the wake of its passage. The total amount of private student loan debt more than doubled between 2005 and 2011, growing from $55.9 billion to $140.2 billion, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.In February 2020, RealClearPolitics examined Biden’s 2020 campaign stance on student debt, and contrasted it with his support in the early 2000s for more restrictions on student borrowers:Biden’s student-loan plan represents a radical departure from positions he held during bankruptcy-law negotiations in the early 2000s. Then a senator from Delaware, he forcefully backed measures that made it much harder for private student-loan borrowers filing for bankruptcy to shed that debt. Representing many of the big financial institutions based in his home state, Biden was such a reliable advocate for the financial services industry that he was often referred to as “the senator from MBNA,” the credit-card company that regularly doled out contributions to his campaigns.In promoting a 2005 bankruptcy reform measure, Biden argued that too many people were skipping out of their debts too easily and sticking other borrowers with the bill while interest rates rose as a result… A bankruptcy court judge also testifying [the same day as Biden] took issue with Biden’s stance, arguing that government-backed student loans aren’t dischargeable – something that has remained the case since then, as well.“You would never be able to [discharge government-backed student loans like] that,” Judge Randall Newsome said.“Like heck you can’t,” Biden countered. “…You are full of malarkey, judge.”Newsome was just one of the many opponents of the bill whom Biden sparred with at the time. Elizabeth Warren, then a Harvard law professor, opposed the bankruptcy bill so aggressively that she says it inspired her to run for the Senate.“I got in that fight because [families] just didn’t have anyone, and Joe Biden was on the side of the credit card companies,” Warren said at an April rally in Iowa. “It’s all a matter of public record.”As Newsome noted, discharging government-backed student loans is, and has always been, nearly impossible. However, the 2005 bill was described as involving private student loan debt, not debt held by the federal government.In January 2020,  the American Prospect reported that Biden had voted several times against “softening” the effects of that bill (abbreviated as BAPCPA) on myriad demographics hardest hit by its provisions:Biden also consistently voted against efforts to soften BAPCPA’s blow on vulnerable populations. He voted against three amendments to ease bankruptcy requirements for consumers whose financial troubles stem from medical expenses. He voted against an amendment that would have helped seniors keep their homes. He voted against exempting servicemembers and widows of servicemembers killed in action from the law’s eligibility restrictions. He voted against an amendment to exempt women whose financial troubles stemmed from deadbeat husbands’ failure to pay child support or alimony. And Biden even voted against an amendment that would have ensured that children of debtors could still be given birthday and Christmas presents. Biden also voted against allowing debtors to pay their union dues during bankruptcy, potentially imperiling their employment and ability to achieve financial rehabilitation.In excerpts above, the bill Biden was often accused of supporting was referenced by its name — the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Text of the bill was available on Congress.gov, and Section 220 of the bill declared both private and federal student debt exempt from being discharged in bankruptcy. A summary of all of the bill’s points can be viewed here.In the clip, Sanders made two claims about voting on the bill, stating that Biden voted for it, and that he — Sanders — had voted against it. According to Senate.gov, Biden voted in favor of the bill in the Senate on March 10 2005. Per GovTrack.us, Sanders (then in the House of Representatives) did vote against the same bill on April 14 2005.On Reddit, a post to r/SandersForPresident misstated Sanders’ statement on the 2005 bankruptcy bill making it virtually impossible to discharge private student debt. Sanders said that Biden “voted for a bankruptcy bill, on behalf of the credit card companies, and that bill has done a lot of harm to working families all over this country … I voted against it.” Sanders was correct — Biden was among the few Democrats voting in favor of that 2005 bill in the Senate, and when it came around to the House the following month, Sanders voted against it.

SOLUTION: Joe Biden voted for a bill which made it difficult or impossible to discharge student loans during bankruptcy; Bernie Sanders voted against it.

PROBLEM: The “Asbestos in Talc Symposium,” sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration, was dominated by industry hands: Most of the 21 non-government participants had done work for talc companies, such as testing and serving as expert witnesses and consultants, symposium documents and other records show. Key sessions were led by witnesses for Johnson & Johnson in lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn customers that its Baby Powder was tainted with cancer-causing asbestos, the records show. Others who sought invitations were turned away, including a physician who had testified against J&J in trials that resulted in billions of dollars in damage awards against the company. History was repeating itself. Over the past 50 years, the FDA has relied upon - and often deferred to - industry even as outside experts and consumers repeatedly raised serious health concerns about talc powders and cosmetics, a Reuters investigation found. Again and again since at least the 1970s, the agency has downplayed the risk of asbestos contamination and declined to issue warnings or impose safety standards, according to documents produced in court proceedings and in response to public records requests. The agency said it lacks the authority to require manufacturers to test for asbestos in talc or report any results. And it seldom has ordered its own tests - until recently. Amid heightened scrutiny in Congress, a criminal investigation of J&J and costly jury verdicts against the company, the regulator commissioned tests that found asbestos in 11 talc-based cosmetics, including Johnson’s Baby Powder. J&J recalled 33,000 bottles. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois congressman who chairs a U.S. House subcommittee investigating talc safety, told Reuters it was time for regulators to stop relying on manufacturers’ safety assurances. “When something as serious as cancer or carcinogens are at issue,” Krishnamoorthi said, “self-regulation doesn’t make a lot of sense.”  In written responses to questions from Reuters, the FDA said its resources and authority to regulate the cosmetic industry are limited. The agency said it has no power to ensure the safety of cosmetics before they are put on store shelves, nor to force companies to pull them off when potential hazards are discovered. “We are dependent on manufacturers to take steps to ensure the safety of their products,” the FDA said after announcing a voluntary recall of tainted cosmetics in March. FDA officials declined to comment on the decisions of former employees over the years, saying only that the agency relies on the best information available and that studies “have improved our understanding of how and why asbestos fibers are hazardous.”  The agency said it now recognizes, as the World Health Organization and other public health agencies did years ago, that there is no known safe level of asbestos. FDA officials said their current policy is to act swiftly - and if necessary encourage recalls - even when small amounts are discovered. The regulator has stood by its recent tests of Johnson’s Baby Powder, despite pushback from the company. J&J, the world’s largest producer of talc powders, said in a statement that it recalled the 33,000 bottles of Baby Powder out of an “abundance of caution.” Eleven days later, the company announced that tests by labs it hired had determined that there was no asbestos - other than some contamination it said came from an air conditioner - in samples from the one bottle tested by the FDA and the batch it came from. In written responses to Reuters, J&J said it systematically tests its talc and has always found its powders to be safe and pure. “Throughout the 1970s and ‘80s, the FDA and other regulatory bodies defended talc,” J&J’s Chief Executive Alex Gorsky testified in an Oct. 3 deposition. “FDA agreed overall with the position that we had taken with the safety of our talc.”  The company told Reuters that it “has long cooperated (with) and supported the FDA in its mission to protect the public health,” and that any suggestion it has unduly influenced the agency to reduce regulation or standards is “just false.”  The FDA now is under increasing pressure to ensure talc powders and cosmetics are free from asbestos. The agency’s testing of talc-based cosmetics this year followed jury verdicts totaling more than $5 billion against J&J in cancer lawsuits, as well as a Dec. 14 Reuters report showing that J&J knew its raw talc and powders sometimes tested positive for asbestos from the 1970s into the early 2000s and did not report those findings to the agency. J&J has disputed the Reuters report as “one-sided, false and inflammatory.”  In the wake of the Reuters report, the company announced it was under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to people familiar with the matter, these include a criminal grand jury probe into how forthright J&J has been about the safety of its powders. The FDA began looking into talc safety in 1971 after researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York found what appeared to be asbestos in unnamed brands of talc powder. Two years later, FDA records show, the agency found asbestos in a sample of Shower to Shower, a J&J powder at the time that was made with the same talc as Johnson’s Baby Powder. The FDA never publicly announced the finding. J&J told Reuters the result was not final, citing findings in an FDA table issued in 1976. But that table, reviewed by Reuters, is ambiguous, listing no result for the type of asbestos found in 1973. J&J told Reuters the gap means no asbestos was found. Assured by J&J and other manufacturers that their talc was safe, the FDA eventually ended its inquiry without taking action because “the potential hazard did not warrant a recall,” Heinz J. Eiermann, a former J&J researcher who at the time ran the agency’s cosmetics division, wrote in a March 1976 memo. That same year, J&J, other talc companies and their trade group, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association, persuaded FDA officials that manufacturers could monitor the safety of their own products, according to records J&J and the group produced in litigation. The FDA dropped plans to impose testing and purity standards for talc powders and cosmetics. The trade group published its own test, which was voluntary for companies to use. The written standard for that test acknowledges that it cannot detect most types of asbestos at low levels, nor one common type - chrysotile - at all. In a statement to Reuters, the trade group said it believed that chrysotile was not commonly linked to talc used in cosmetics. Chrysotile is the type of asbestos the FDA-commissioned test found in Baby Powder this year. It also was found in several tests conducted by labs for J&J on its talc from 1972 through 2003, according to records produced in litigation. J&J has said that some of the tests were on industrial talc and that others, on Baby Powder talc, reflected background contamination. Asbestos is a loose term for a group of six minerals that readily separate into needles or fibers. Easily inhaled, they are known to cause lung, ovarian and other types of cancer. While most people exposed never get cancer, for some even small amounts are enough to trigger the disease. Just how small has not been established. Talc safety concerns resurfaced in 1983 when a graduate  student scouring geology journals for a toxicology class came across information he considered disturbing: Talc deposits are commonly laced with asbestos, a similar mineral. Philippe Douillet immediately thought of the talc powder his sister used on her baby, he recalled in an interview with Reuters. He urged her to stop using it. Then he petitioned the FDA to require an asbestos warning on talc powders. “It was really obvious to me there was a big issue there,” said Douillet, who now runs a biotechnology company in Miami. When the FDA began evaluating Douillet’s petition, it looked to J&J for key information, agency records show. The FDA’s June 1985 risk assessment relied upon a decade-old letter from the company for the agency’s estimate of the amount of dust babies were exposed to during diapering. That 1974 letter from J&J to the FDA said that, hypothetically, even if babies were exposed to talc powder with as much as 1% asbestos, it would be a far lower concentration than allowed at the time for industrial workers. J&J told Reuters in a statement that “at no point has Johnson & Johnson taken the position that it would consider talc containing 1% asbestos appropriate for sale to consumers.”   In the end, the FDA decided there was no need for an asbestos warning on talc powders. In a July 1986 letter to Douillet, acting associate FDA commissioner J.W. Swanson wrote that the quality of cosmetic talc had improved “and that even when asbestos was present, the levels were so low that no health hazard existed.”  What’s more, Swanson wrote, agency officials had come to question earlier reported findings of asbestos in talc powders. Those doubts, he wrote, were based in part on a paper published in the proceedings of a 1977 scientific conference. Both of the paper’s authors had worked for J&J, one as an asbestos testing contractor and the other as its longtime talc supply manager. The authors argued that some testing methods were apt to misidentify microscopic lookalike rock splinters as asbestos. The industry’s test, the paper said, was designed to avoid this confusion. Other U.S. and European public health authorities have come to regard such splinters as presumptive toxins because of their similarity to asbestos. The FDA defended its 1986 decision to reject Douillet’s petition. In a statement, it said the graduate student “did not provide persuasive evidence that the cosmetic talc produced at the time contained significant amounts of asbestos minerals.”  Eight years later, the regulator received a new request for a warning label on talc powders. This one came from Dr. Samuel Epstein, a University of Illinois environmental medicine professor who chaired the Cancer Prevention Coalition, an advocacy group. Epstein’s 1994 petition didn’t concern asbestos. It raised the possibility that talc, by itself, was a hazard worthy of a warning label. His petition was based on research showing that talc, when used as an antiperspirant and deodorant in underwear, was associated with ovarian cancer. In a brief July 1995 letter, FDA acting cosmetics chief John Bailey told Epstein’s coalition that the agency had taken no action because it had other priorities. Bailey told Reuters in a statement that he issued this “interim” response because the petition lacked scientific support. In 2002, having taken no action on the petition, Bailey moved to the cosmetic trade group, now known as Personal Care Products Council. The council considered him a “key employee” because of his “former employment with the FDA,” according to a tax filing by the group. Now a consultant, Bailey serves as a litigation expert witness to J&J and other talc companies. In his statement to Reuters, Bailey said he had been hired at the council “as a scientist responsible for applying sound science to decision making.” He disputed Reuters’ finding that the FDA deferred to industry, saying the agency takes potential health concerns seriously and does its own evaluations. In 2006, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified use of talc powder in the perineum area - the pelvic region between the legs - as “possibly carcinogenic.” Two years later, Illinois medical scientist Epstein filed a second petition to the FDA seeking a cancer warning label on talc products. J&J went to work to defeat it. In a May 2008 email to colleagues, J&J executive Kathleen K. Wille wrote: “Our response could be a potential source of data and information on which the FDA can base their response.”  Together, J&J, its talc supplier and the Personal Care Products Council arranged for a pair of scientists to assess the published studies that linked talc and ovarian cancer, according to emails and other records produced in litigation. The scientists concluded that the evidence was too weak to consider talc as a cause. At a May 2009 meeting, Bailey, Wille and other industry representatives briefed FDA officials on the assessment, according to a meeting memo produced in litigation by J&J’s talc supplier. Three days later, Wille told colleagues in an email, “We have every confidence that the FDA will dismiss this petition once they have reviewed our submission.”  J&J told Reuters in a statement that the company had been confident because it believed the agency would be swayed by science, which it said supported J&J’s position that talc does not cause ovarian cancer. Before the FDA ruled on the warning requests, however, concerns about asbestos contamination flared again. This time, the FDA’s South Korean counterpart reported finding asbestos in talc powders. Acting on that 2009 report, the FDA commissioned talc tests for the first time in 40 years, hiring Maryland-based AMA Analytical Services Inc, which analyzed 34 samples of talc powders and cosmetics, including Johnson’s Baby Powder. It found no asbestos in any of them. The lab had no experience testing for asbestos in talc. Its prior work focused on building materials such as vinyl flooring, according to the deposition testimony of AMA lab director Andreas Saldivar. The FDA has said Saldivar’s lab used “the most sensitive techniques available” but cautioned that the results were limited to the 34 talc powders and cosmetics tested. The testing had other limitations as well. Saldivar’s lab looked at less talc per sample than other labs that have found asbestos in talc powders. And it did its work in a fraction of the time typical for such analyses, according to a Reuters review of the lab report and interviews with experts who test talc for asbestos. Saldivar’s lab was recently rehired by the FDA. This time, it found the asbestos that led to the first recall of J&J’s iconic Baby Powder. Saldivar declined to comment. In the first verdict of its kind, a South Dakota jury found in October 2013 that J&J had a duty to warn women that research had linked its talc powder to ovarian cancer. No damages were awarded. Then the FDA weighed in on the issue. In April 2014, 20 years after Epstein first contacted the agency, the FDA rejected both of his petitions for warning labels. Its announcement said the science wasn’t strong enough to support a cancer warning, echoing the assessment J&J and its industry partners had presented to the agency in 2009. In court, such arguments have not always proved convincing. In early 2016, a Missouri jury concluded J&J’s powders caused a woman’s ovarian cancer death and awarded her survivors $72 million. An appellate court later set that verdict aside, ruling that the woman had filed her suit in the wrong state. In the aftermath, the FDA asked J&J for “safety literature and data regarding talc,” correspondence shows. The company submitted a report saying no asbestos had “ever been found during any testing” of its talc. Since then, lawsuits have compelled J&J to produce internal documents that show the company knew its talc and powders had tested positive for asbestos on occasion for decades. The company now faces more than 16,000 lawsuits alleging that its powders caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, an incurable cancer. The vast majority are awaiting trial. In court, there have been mixed verdicts, mistrials and some appellate rulings in J&J’s favor. Last year, in response to renewed asbestos concerns, FDA cosmetics chief Dr Linda Katz began organizing the November 2018 symposium and a public hearing on talc testing, now planned for next year. She reached out to J&J for help. J&J vice president Jethro Ekuta responded by sending Katz a letter in June 2018 recommending a list of three talc testing experts. All three had served as defense witnesses or consultants for J&J. Two of the experts Ekuta recommended, as well as a third J&J defense witness, led sessions at the closed-door “Asbestos in Talc Symposium” on Nov. 28, 2018. None of the sessions were led by medical experts who had questioned the safety of talc powders and cosmetics. J&J said that apart from recommending experts, it did not advise the FDA on the symposium. Ekuta, who has left J&J, declined to comment. In a statement to Reuters, the FDA downplayed its role in the symposium, saying the event was “hosted” by the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (JIFSAN), a research group co-founded by the FDA. “No formal or regulatory recommendations were expected or made,” the agency said. In fact, records show, the FDA initiated and paid for the meeting, set the agenda and chose the participants. The meeting set the stage for formal recommendations on how to test products used every day by millions of people. The FDA said a government committee tasked with proposing a standard test for asbestos in talc powders and cosmetics is “continuing to work through issues discussed at the JIFSAN symposium.”  Many FDA meetings are held in public and invite comment. Details on the talc symposium were hard to come by, however, even after it was over. The FDA declined Reuters’ requests to provide a list of participants or any information on what transpired. After Reuters filed a public records request with JIFSAN, the research group posted meeting information online and released planning emails. The guest list showed that more than half of the 54 participants were employed by or recently retired from FDA and other agencies. Of the 21 non-government participants, 17 had either worked for talc companies, done lab testing or served as expert witnesses for the industry, Reuters found. Five of the participants affiliated with talc companies also have served as expert witnesses for plaintiffs. Most of the non-government participants were experts in geology or minerals testing. In a statement, the FDA said it would ordinarily avoid having sessions led by defense or plaintiff witnesses. However, the agency said there are a “limited number of experts worldwide with scientific knowledge” on asbestos testing, standards and results analysis. Not everyone was welcome. Among those turned away was Dr. David Egilman, a clinical professor of family medicine at Brown University. He testified last year in a trial that ended in a $4.69 billion verdict for women alleging J&J’s talc powders caused their ovarian cancers. Egilman told Reuters he was concerned that if the FDA was guided by geologists and industry consultants, it might overlook fundamental questions about which mineral fibers cause cancer. He wanted to offer his expertise, as a physician and researcher, on what technicians should look for under the microscope. Testing hinges “on the determination of what particles or elements should be tested for,” he wrote in a November 2018 email to organizers asking to be included in the symposium. “This is a medical question and not a technical question.”  Katz took a different view. In an email forwarded to Egilman, she said: “This meeting is not intended to discuss health-related issues or concerns.”  She met with Egilman later. Katz also told Egilman that the symposium was not intended to reach any consensus. At its conclusion, however, session leaders, including three who have served as defense witnesses for J&J, drafted what they called “consensus” or “concurrence” reports. Two of the reports reviewed by Reuters embraced industry positions on what fibers should be counted as hazardous, an issue of fierce contention in courtrooms across the country. The reports discouraged counting fibers that may or may not be asbestos, saying that doing so might exaggerate the hazard. That view runs contrary to the positions of other U.S. and European public health officials, who presume mineral fibers that even look like asbestos are toxic. As Arnold Brody, a professor emeritus at Tulane University Medical School, told jurors in a talc powder trial last year, “The lung doesn’t care” what it’s called. These issues are likely to be aired at the public hearing the FDA said it is planning for next year. The gathering could signal how the agency intends to navigate between industry and consumer interests in coming years. Krishnamoorthi, the congressman heading the House investigation into talc safety, said the agency needs to bring consumers and their advocates into the discussion. “In light of the public interest around this particular issue,” he said, “we need to find out what’s going on.”

SOLUTION: Special Report: Powder Keg - FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc.

PROBLEM: Tyco Fire Products said this month that it discovered perfluorinated chemicals, or PFCs, in well samples at its manufacturing plant in Marinette. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had directed Tyco to test for PFCs at the wells, which are part of a separate cleanup of arsenic. Tyco produces specialized firefighting foams that can extinguish gas and oil fires. PFCs are used in products like the firefighting foam and have been linked with increasing cancer risks and development problems in fetuses, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported . Tyco, which is a unit of Johnson Controls International, said it’s investigating the source and extent of the groundwater contamination by testing soil, ditches and surface water. Elevated levels of PFCs appeared in Marinette’s wastewater treatment system during November and May testing, according to records from the city and the Department of Natural Resources. Effluent is released into the river after waste is treated. The leftover sludge has typically been spread on farm fields. The DNR has directed the city to test the sludge samples and officials are waiting for the lab results. It’s uncertain if Tyco is the source of the wastewater contamination and it’s too early to determine the impact of the sludge on soil, crops and livestock, according to DNR officials. Trace amounts of the chemicals have also been found in the city’s municipal drinking water, according to records from the city and the DNR. The levels are low and aren’t considered a danger to public health, city and DNR officials said. Johnson Controls spokesman Fraser Engerman said since PFC compounds are often used in consumer and commercial products, “it is difficult to determine all potential sources of these compounds.” ___ Information from: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, http://www.jsonline.com

SOLUTION:
Wisconsin manufacturer finds groundwater pollution at plant.