Accident at Pax River NAS Sends 2,500 gallons of PFAS Foam into Local Sewer System
Toxins are being temporarily held in a MetCom
holding tank; ultimate fate is unknown
By Pat Elder
May 30, 2021
Patuxent Naval NAS - An overhead suppression system like this one accidentally discharged foam containing PFAS from a hangar into the local community’s wastewater facility.
The Patuxent River Naval Air Station announced this week that toxic aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) was released on base after an accidental discharge from a hangar’s fire suppression system. 2,500 gallons were said to be sent down the drain.
AFFF contains per-and poly fluoroalkyl substances, (PFAS). The toxic foam entered a St. Mary’s County Metropolitan (MetCom) drain in the hangar and travelled to a MetCom holding tank during the May 16 incident.
The foam release was “cleaned up by environmental crews” and is held at a MetCom wastewater treatment plant, a Navy spokesman told Southern Maryland News.
People are learning, however, that these chemicals cannot simply be “cleaned up”. These are “forever chemicals”. They are a threat to human health in the smallest amounts. They don’t break down and they bioaccumulate in seafood and humans.
The Navy reported, “Naval Air Station Patuxent River, with community partner St. Mary’s County Metropolitan Commission (MetCom), mitigated the release of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) after a system reset caused a discharge within an installation aircraft hangar May 16.”
George Erichsen, METCOM’s Executive Director, said the release was estimated at 2,500 gallons. “Our staff noticed foam in the equalization basin that we have dedicated to the base (not in the treatment works). They use a defoaming agent to dissipate the foam.”
The 2,500-gallon release of the toxic foam from a military hangar is believed to be one of the largest in many years.
Few understand the potential threat to public health while the base’s public information office, keeping to a prepared national script, produced a press release that makes the Navy look like they’ve done something admirable.
There are several points that must be clarified in the Navy’s press statement regarding the release of the PFAS-laden foam. The entire release appears below in segments. The Navy’s statements are in bold and my comments follow.
“Naval Air Station Patuxent River, with community partner St. Mary’s County Metropolitan Commission (MetCom), mitigated the release of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) after a system reset caused a discharge within an installation aircraft hangar May 16.”
Mitigation may be defined as the measures required to alleviate environmental impact from something like the spill of the magnitude experienced by Pax River on May 16. How, exactly does the Naval command expect to save the environment from these 2,500 gallons of highly concentrated deadly poisonous chemicals that are now, presumably, in a MetCom holding tank? If the liquid enters MetCom’s system, as it has many times in the past, (reviewed below) it will be discharged into Big Pine Run and will flow into the Bay, a mile away. American wastewater treatment plants do not treat PFAS before it is dumped into our rivers.
What does the Navy plan to do with these materials? They can no longer be allowed to saturate the ground. They cannot be incinerated as they have been in the past. The people of St. Mary’s County must be asking the Navy, “What’s the plan for these chemicals?”
“The newly approved AFFF product does not contain detectable levels (fewer than 25 parts per billion) of the hazardous constituents, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), the two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) of greatest concern.”
This statement is contradicted by Pax River’s Public Information officer Patrick Gordon who told Southern Maryland News, “Newer forms of AFFF firefighting foam, like the one released on base last Wednesday, Ansulite 3MS, do not contain detectable levels PFOA or PFOS.”
25 parts per billion is equivalent to 25,000 parts per trillion. This is several orders of magnitude higher than detectable limits in the tenths of parts per trillion. Consuming more than 1 ppt of these chemicals in drinking water is thought to be unsafe. This is confusing to the public.
“Each AFFF discharge is treated as a hazardous material release.”
The irony here is that neither the Navy nor the EPA, nor the Maryland Departments of the Environment and Health, classify or treat PFAS as hazardous chemicals. The EPA is asleep at the switch. So, the Navy is attempting to take credit for going above regulatory requirements by treating the latest release of PFAS as a “hazardous materials release”.
“The environmental and fire departments quickly mobilized and worked to de-foam a holding tank that received the AFFF discharge. The material released on May 16 was the new AFFF (Ansulite 3MS) that does not contain detectable levels of PFOS or PFOA. The swift action by emergency personnel enabled the release of foam to be contained within the local wastewater treatment plant. The AFFF discharged after maintenance to the fire suppression system, but METCOM was quick to let us know when it hit a holding tank, and we were able to respond and de-foam it efficiently,” said Capt. John Brabazon, NAS Patuxent River commanding officer.”
The Commanding Officer is keeping with the Pentagon’s script designed to assuage public apprehension. Throughout the country the DOD is purposely attempting to fool people into thinking that the foams being used today are not that big of an environmental concern, especially compared to the legacy foams made with PFOS and PFOA.
The term “AFFF” means the materials contain PFAS.
The Ansulate AFC-3MS 3% Aqueous Film-Forming Foam concentrate contains “fluoro- and hydrocarbon-surfactant technologies to provide superior fire and vapor suppression for Class B hydrocarbon fuel fires.” Translation: The foams are made of PFAS chemicals to put out petroleum-based fires. A growing body of science suggests the replacement chemicals may actually be worse in dozens of different ways, depending on the compound. The developing fetus is particularly threatened, while the new chemicals are linked to dozens of diseases. Academics, regulators, and lawmakers across the country are increasingly calling for regulating all of these 8,000 compounds as a class of lethal chemicals. The EPA and the Biden administration are dragging their feet.
The makers of the Ansulite foam do not share the specific varieties of PFAS in its foams. It’s proprietary information, the Navy explains.
“Brabazon emphasized community cooperation as key to dealing with the issue. “Ease of communications with them and regulatory partners in the state of Maryland helped us to respond and address the issue with minimal impact,” said Brabazon.”
Its easier for the Navy to communicate its propaganda to the uninformed and misinformed. Meanwhile, the public is being conditioned to accept “minimal impact” from these chemicals. A few parts per trillion of these chemicals in soil, groundwater, and surface water may seem to be “minimal” but their impact is devastating. Finally, the military’s term “regulatory partners” has been getting too much play, lately. The Maryland Department of the Environment and the Maryland Department of Health aren’t partners in any of this, unless partnership means allowing the Navy to do whatever it wants in Maryland.
“METCOM has a responsibility to the residents of St. Mary’s County on a variety of water issues, including water and wastewater treatment,” said George Erichsen, executive director for METCOM. “As soon as we noticed an issue in our holding tank, the call went out to Pax River, whose environmental and fire departments responded quickly and continued to monitor the situation.”
MetCom and wastewater treatment operators adjacent to military installations nationwide haven’t done anything wrong regarding PFAS. MetCom receives PFAS chemicals from the Navy – and from a host of sources throughout the community. The chemicals are not treated and simply pass through the treatment plant to Big Pine Run, a mile from where it empties into the Chesapeake Bay. This is how public health is most directly affected. Many PFAS bioaccumulate in aquatic life.
“The cause of the AFFF discharge is under investigation.”
This is a classic line. The Navy always makes it seem like these releases are novel situations. They know what happened and they know it’ll likely happen again, and they don’t care so much about the environment, although they’re worried about too many people reading these lines.
“Additionally, NAS Patuxent River recently held a public Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meeting to discuss its site assessment of historic uses of legacy AFFF, which contain PFAS, including PFOS and PFOA. PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals found in many consumer products such as stain-resistant textiles, nonstick cookware, food packaging, cleaning products, cosmetics and some AFFFs.”
The RAB was a dog and pony show, an insult to the St. Mary’s County community. The Navy received dozens of questions from the public it has steadfastly refused to answer. Despite what the Navy is trying to get you to believe about their current deadly foams, all AFFF contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
“We understand the public’s concern when it comes to issues like PFAS, which is why we have transitioned to the replacement AFFF like the Ansulite,” said Brabazon. “And as we saw with this, we can further mitigate those concerns with community partnerships.”
Sorry, Captain, but you will fail in your attempt to mitigate community concerns. Many understand you’re attempting to convince the public that the new foams are relatively harmless, while the Navy is replacing toxic firefighting foam with toxic firefighting foam. Too bad the Navy doesn’t spend more time attempting to mitigate the releases over the last 50 years on the facility – and less time attempting to “mitigate” community concerns.
I sent the Pax River command the following questions soon after the press release was circulated., although I don’t expect a response. If other naval communities are any guide, getting Pax River to more fully engage will require substantial numbers of people in the community to begin pressuring them. The economic clout the Navy holds over the community allows it to act with impunity.
Here are the questions:
· Can you confirm the size of the release?
· Do you have any insight into the seemingly conflicting statement regarding PFOS/PFOA in the foam? I know Ansulite 3MS is a C6 foam that adheres to milspec MIL-F-24385F. They’ve taken all of the PFOS and PFOA out of it, although it is still toxic, in some ways, even more so.
· The press release says, “The newly approved AFFF product does not contain detectable levels (fewer than 25 parts per billion) of the hazardous constituents, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), the two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) of greatest concern.” Could you clarify this?
· What hangar was it?
· Captain Brabazon said they defoamed the substance. What type of defoamer did you use?
· Are you claiming the defoamers lessen the PFAS content of the water?
· What did you do with the volume of foamy water once you were able to recapture it?
· Do you anticipate these events occurring again?
History of AFFF releases at Pax River
Pax River released a report in 2018, “Final Preliminary Assessment Report for Potential Releases of Per and Poly Fluoroalkyl Substances” 07/01/18 CH2M HILL.
The CH2M Hill Report details 17 separate locations on base where AFFF was allowed to leach into the ground or it was sent down the sewer drain to MetCom.
Hangar 2133 Joint Strike Fighter - Multiple releases of AFFF in 2002, 2005, and 2010 have occurred from the suppression system in the hangar. In at least one incident (date unknown) the entire system inadvertently went off. Exact quantities of AFFF concentrate and foam still have not been released by the Navy, although the total is likely to be in the many thousands of gallons. These suppression sprinkler systems are capable of covering massive hangars with 10 feet of foam in a few minutes.
During the 2010 event, an unknown amount of AFFF foam entered the sanitary sewer leading to the METCOM facility.
The Marlay-Taylor Wastewater Reclamation Facility is operated by the St. Mary’s County Metropolitan Commission. The plant discharges PFAS-laden effluent to Big Pine Run shown here, about a mile from the Chesapeake Bay.
METCOM had to shut off sewage flow and “deal with” reactivated AFFF in all the aeration basins. MetCom has “dealt with” the materials by releasing them into the environment as it does routinely. After all, these are not regulated materials.The EPA doesn’t seem to think the Navy has done anything wrong, so the Navy continues to act in a reckless fashion.
AFFF has been emptied from the hangar onto the grassy area southeast of the concrete apron. On at least two occasions AFFF could be seen moving down the storm culvert leading to the drainage ditch near Hangar 115 & Site 55.
Hangar 2835: AFFF concentrate storage tanks - Hangar 2835 - is a temporary hangar with an AFFF suppression system. There have been several releases of AFFF foam from 2012 to 2015 due to spills, mechanical rupture in cold weather, and inadvertent activation of the system. We don’t know the levels of releases because the Navy is not telling us.
Hangar 110 Test Pilot School Aircraft Hangar - In April 2015, contents of a 2,200-gallon tank of AFFF concentrate for the suppression system was released due to mechanical failure. No one observed the release, and the transport pathway is unclear, but AFFF concentrate was visibly seeping through the concrete and ponding in the adjacent stairwell/walkway area in between hangar bays.
Building 103 – Air Operations Fire Station Fire Station 1 - Daily equipment checks and foam spray testing occurred here. An unknown amount of AFFF foam released.
Building 2385 - Hazardous Materials Storage Facility (HAZMART) - Multiple releases of AFFF concentrate from the suppression system in the building have resulted in up to 80 gallons of the materials released into the environment.
Building 1669 - 500 gallons emptied into METCOM sanitary sewer.
Hangar 2805 Presidential Helicopter - 400 gallons released into the ground.
Hangar 2905 Aircraft Prototype - One release in 2011 of 150 gallons went to the floor drain connected to the sanitary sewer leading to METCOM. A similar release of 150 gallons in November 2015 was confined to the system mechanical room and was stopped from going down the drain.
Buildings 215 and 217 Engine Test Area - Unknown releases dating back to 1970.
Building 102 Former Fire Station 2 - Unknown amounts of releases.
Building 840 - Skeet Range, Aircraft Crash Site - Amount of AFFF used unknown.
Site 14 – Old Fire Fighting Burn Pad
Air Show Fire- Fighting Demonstration Area
Site 41 – Fire Fighting Burn Pad
Crash Trucks Daily Equipment Functioning Inspection Area
Buildings 215 and 217 – Engine Test Area
Bronson Road - Aircraft Crash Site
Hangars 2816 (Triton) and 3254 (V22) Overhead suppression systems are installed, although no AFFF releases have been reported.
==========
A 2000 report by the Naval Research Laboratory said that all branches of the military have been “plagued with false activations involving foam-water deluge sprinkler systems over aircraft with open cockpits.” The activations were caused by a variety of incidents, including lightning strikes, accidental releases by maintenance personnel, deliberate acts of vandalism and roof water leakage into heat detection systems.
A study by researchers at the University of Maryland examined the folly of AFFF use in commercial hangers. The report ,“Foam Fire Suppression System Discharges in Aircraft Hangars” by James Milke, et.al. from the University of Maryland’s Department of Fire Protection Engineering in November, 2019 collected information on AFFF releases from 174 civilian hangars throughout the US from 2004-2019
The reports included 37 incidents where the foam system discharged in response to a fire and 137 incidents where there was an accidental foam discharge. The most frequent cause noted for the accidental discharge was a “suppression system failure.” Over the last 16 years, only one of the 174 incidents involved a pooled spill fire, and the foam suppression system did not discharge in this incident. While some fires do occur in aircraft hangars, they almost always involve ordinary combustibles or occur in spaces adjacent to the hangar bay.
Requirements for foam fire suppression systems in the National Fire Protection Association NPFA 409 have been justified by proponents who argue the foams provide protection from fires involving fuel spills. However, the occurrence of a fuel spill in a civilian hangar in the U.S. is rare and fires involving such spills even less common.
Fire sensors have been faulty, manual release switches may be vulnerable to corrosion. Sometimes human error triggers the foam releases. Sometimes frozen pipes may burst, triggering the suppression system The foams have been released because sensitive monitors have picked up the smoke from welders or barbecues. In the civilian sector systems may not be frequently maintained and may suffer from poor maintenance. The Navy does not publicize these sorts of records so we’re left in the dark. Experts say many systems are destined for failure. It's not a matter of if they will go off, but when.
We are engineering against a largely non-existent threat while public health is endangered. Perhaps most ironic is that much of the world has already switched to using environmentally friendly fluorine -free foams. People must wake up and pressure the Navy to stop using the PFAS toxins and begin the process of cleaning up this environmental catastrophe.
=========
What many of my readers are saying:
“Military Poisons is all fake - LMAO.”
“It’s amazing how much you hate the military.”
“Obviously all lies. Don’t you realize the military fought so you could have the freedom to spread your lies?”