New Report from the Navy says drinking water in Chesapeake Beach, MD is OK; Previous reports document PFOA levels 9,200 times over EPA advisory
Navy also says groundwater shows no contamination over the advisory while one well on base had PFOA at 6,800 ppt. - 1.7 million times over the EPA’s health advisory.
By Pat Elder
June 28, 2022
A Navy technician extinguishes a fire during a test at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory near Chesapeake Beach, MD. (U.S. Navy/Jonathan Sunderman)
Source: NAVFAC
The Navy says it tested 42 drinking water wells off base in Chesapeake Beach and none of the wells had final results for PFOA and PFOS above the lifetime health advisory, (LHA). On 06/15/2022, the date these results were published, the EPA lowered its lifetime health advisory (LHA), to .02 ppt for PFOS and .004 ppt for PFOA.
According to the Final Results of the Investigation of Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Off Base Drinking Water, CBD-NRL, dated July 1, 2020, PFOA was found in drinking water at 36.8 ppt. We don’t know where this sample was taken. This level is 9,200 times over the Lifetime Health Advisory.
Source: NAVFAC
The Navy hasn’t tested wells at homes close to the burn pit they’ve used since 1968. The intersection of Karen Drive and Dalrymple Rd is 1,000 feet away.
Drinking water off base
Homeowners on Karen Drive, a little more than 1,000 feet from the burn pit the Navy has used since 1968, drink from wells and say they’ve never had their water tested by the Navy.
Below, see a segment from NRL-CBD “Drinking Water Investigation - Initial Results and Path Forward - October 2018”
The Navy says they detected the chemicals in three samples but they immediately claim, “The results indicate that exposure to PFOS and PFOA is not occurring at the private drinking water wells that have been sampled to date.”
How does this work, exactly?
There’s a surficial aquifer of running waters just under the ground and it is lethal in Chesapeake Beach. There’s also a deeper aquifer that most, although not all, wells draw from. Sometimes the contaminated top aquifer can drizzle down to the one we drink from. Sometimes there’s rock and thick clay that may preclude the water from making it down a couple hundred feet. If three wells in Chesapeake Beach showed the contamination, we’re in trouble.
Read the brief dialogue between Peggy Williams of the Maryland Department of the Environment and Ryan Mayer of NAVFAC in the “Responses to Comments Regarding Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan Site Inspection for Perfluorinated Compounds in Groundwater – NRL-CBD, 1/18/17.”
Aquifer Discussion, Source - NAVFAC
Williams/MDE - “The Navy states that the domestic wells north of the NRL‐CBD are "believed to be screened in the Piney Point Aquifer," and that this is below a confining unit, "believed to be laterally continuous and fully confining." Furthermore, the Piney Point aquifer is generally known as a "naturally protected confined aquifer," according to Source Water Assessment Reports of the area.
After reviewing this literature, the Department agrees that these domestic wells are likely drawing water from the Piney Point/Nanjemoy system, but that it cannot be definitively stated that this zone is under a fully confining and laterally continuous unit.
The only way to make that determination would be to conduct pumping tests to check for interconnectivity between shallower wells screened in the unconfined zone and deeper wells under the unit believed to be confining and laterally continuous. Pumping tests for this purpose do not appear to be included in the scope of work in this Sampling and Analysis Plan.
If the Navy conducted these tests to show quantitatively that no communication exists between the two zones, then it could be confidently stated that no migration of potential PFCs is possible between the shallow water bearing units and the Piney Point/Nanjemoy system. This would be an added conservative measure, in addition to samples showing non‐detect PFC results in off‐site private wells.”
Ryan/NAVFAC - “Not sure I would support pump tests should this increase risk of potential contamination from one aquifer to another.”
Groundwater on base
Let’s shift our focus from drinking water to groundwater. The Navy says in its new PFAS Sampling Results Summary it didn’t find any PFAS in the groundwater on base at levels over the EPA’s advisory.
Source: NAVFAC
_________________________________________________________________
Really? 0 for 2, huh?
In 2018, the Department of the Navy’s summary of DoD testing of groundwater Monitoring Wells on base showed 241,000 ppt of PFOS/PFOA.
Additionally, see the slide, “Shallow Monitoring Well Locations - Site 10 PFAS SI.” The Navy tested water at 22 sites on base. One well had PFOS at concentration of 171,000 ppt and another had PFOA at 6,800 ppt. That’s 1.7 million times over the EPA’s health advisory. The information is buried on the NAVFAC site. See if you can find it
Tip of the carcinogenic iceberg?
The Navy has reported over 8 million parts per trillion of mostly PFOS in subsurface soil, 241,000 ppt of PFOS/PFOA in groundwater, and 1,376 ppt of three compounds: PFOS, PFOA and PFBS in a stream draining into the Chesapeake Bay. That stream travelled from an area very close to the burn pit.
The red X shows the location of the wastewater treatment plant on base.
The Navy reported 137 ppt of PFOS and 80.4 ppt of PFOA before the stream passed by the outfall of the treatment plant. The Navy also reported concentrations of PFAS in the stream increased to 1,230 ppt for PFOS and 127 ppt for PFOA as it passed by the wastewater treatment plant on base. That’s a 9-fold increase for PFOS. They’re flushing the carcinogens down the drain.
During a series of public meetings held last year, the Navy continuously reassured the community that no PFAS chemicals were leaving the installation.
Working with a neighbor who lives close to the base, we found a total of 6,058 ppt of PFAS. 23 compounds of the 55 we tested showed results where the same stream drains into the bay, about 1,000 feet further downstream from the Navy’s sampling.
Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) has been used here in fire-fighting training and experimentation since 1968, longer than anywhere on earth. It is evident from the graphic provided by the Navy above that PFAS is also draining into the sanitary sewer from undisclosed locations. Surface water drains into the Chesapeake Bay where the town of Chesapeake Beach has reported fish containing almost 10,000 ppt of the carcinogens.
I’ve been in touch with Rep. Steny Hoyer’s office (D-MD-5) and they have relayed a series of questions to the Navy I have about the new NAVFAC website that went online on June 3, 2022. The Navy will not answer my questions directly. Rep. Hoyer has been helpful bridging the severed lines of communication in the past. Here are the questions I have (in bold).
The Navy has switched servers for their Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC) website. Are there holes as a result of the transfer?
On June 3, 2022 the Navy pulled the plug on its old NAVFAC site, rendering thousands of URL’s - inoperable “404’s”. When they came back online many of the recent Administrative Record files fell off. For instance, there are no records on the Patuxent River NAS NAVFAC site after 12/16/21. I remember reading several records after that date. During the second half of 2021 there were 24 records for Pax River. Likewise, Naval Support Activity Annapolis has no records after 4/11/21. There were 23 in 2020. I remember reading through fairly recent radiological assessment reports on the Naval Academy’s page. That data has dropped off since the end of 2019. This disappearance is not confined to Maryland. There are no no records for Cherry Point, NC in the last year.
Is the Navy facing data restrictions in terms of size and storage that may have caused some things to be removed?
Can the Navy use the old URL’s for the new site or do I have to go back and repair a hundred broken links on the Military Poisons site?
Is the Navy prepared to make a second revision to the PFAS Sampling Summary sheets circulating across the country? The new information is misleading because of the date and because it neglects to report information the Navy has previously disclosed.
They’re poisoning us and the planet - and they’re lying about it.