Two dozen questions for the Brunswick, Maine Town Hall Meeting on PFAS
By Pat Elder
August 28, 2024
A public meeting on the PFAS contamination at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, Aug. 29, at the Brunswick Town Hall. Here is the Zoom link. You may be allowed to ask questions on Zoom.
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86741202083?pwd=dBW9cH3SB1NuvZLr3PNuwiG4cSoCME.1#success
Similar meetings like this across the country have been dominated by official presentations that take up most of the meeting time. We must demand assurances that our questions will be answered in full. Picnic Pond in Brunswick was left covered in firefighting foam containing harmful PFAS chemicals after a fire suppression system accidentally discharged at the nearby former Brunswick Naval Air Base. (Steve Walker via Maine Public)
1) PFOS was reported to have a concentration of 3.2 billion ppt while all PFAS compounds totaled 3.78 billion ppt. Can you confirm this, and is this the greatest concentration of PFAS in firefighting foam ever released into the environment?
2) The state is reporting the release of 1,450 gallons of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). How much of this was pure concentrated and how many gallons of water were used in the foam? What is the name brand of the kind of foam that spilled? We assume it was the 3% AFFF. Can you confirm this? Will we receive a listing of the PFAS compounds and concentrations from the manufacturer?
3) The Navy, the RAB, and the state knew the water bodies adjacent to the runway and running into Harpswell Cove had been severely contaminated for many years. Why did it take until now to issue fish advisories?
4) When were firefighting foams first used here? How many gallons of the concentrate have been used on base? Will I have to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to receive this information?
5) Were the legacy foams ever disposed of? If so, what were the methods of disposal and where did these take place?
6) If PFAS-containing products were incinerated, where did this take place and how hot did the incinerator burn?
7) If incinerated, what happened to the ash?
8) Please identify the landfills where PFAS-containing products have been disposed of since they have been used at the former base?
9) Please identify the specific farms where sludge containing PFAS may have been spread.
10) Please identify the leading pathways to human ingestion posed by this leak, in the order of their significance.
11) How many private wells are located within 10 miles of the base, and have they been tested for PFAS? If so, could you share the results?
12) Could you identify all of the products and applications containing PFAS that are currently being used on the facility? Where and how are these products and waste disposed of?
13) We hear that the spill is being cleaned up. Is it possible to remove all of the PFAS from the soil, subsoil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water, and air? Where will these contaminated environmental media be sent for disposal and how will they be disposed of?
14) What is the extent of the treatment of PFAS at wastewater treatment facilities that may service the airport? If there is no ongoing treatment, are there plans to institute granular activated carbon filter systems to take the PFAS out of the waste stream before it flows into the river?
15) The state says it’s OK to consume one 8-ounce fish containing 3,500 parts per trillion of PFOS weekly. Could you share the science that supports this contention?
16) Has the state tested PFAS is aerosol particles at the former base? Does it intend to do so?
17) Has the state tested for dust in any homes of offices within 10 miles of the former base? Does it intend to do so?
18) I applaud the work done by community members of the Restoration Advisory Board, but I have serious misgivings regarding the RAB report of May 22, 2024. Who exercised final editorial authority over this publication?
19) The Maine CDC has issued PFAS fish advisories on a small number of water bodies. Will the state re-evaluate its methodologies in adding new water bodies to the advisory list?
20) Will the state release specific results for all fish tested in Picnic Pond, Site 8 Stream, Merriconeag Stream, and Mere Brook?
21) Will the state be preparing a lawsuit against the Navy and the current tenants of the facility?
22) The Navy has established a “project screening level” of 203 ppt for PFOS in surface water while the EPA says this compound may bioaccumulate up to 4,000 times the levels in the water. How does the Navy defend this screening level for PFOS?
23) Similarly, the Navy has established a project screening level of 57,400 ppt of PFBA in surface water. How does the Navy defend this screening level for PFBA?
24) Why are the project screening levels more stringent for finned fish than shellfish? How is it that the Navy has developed a uniform ratio between the two types of seafood?
For background, please see this article and links to 90 pages of documentation:
Brunswick must sink the navy’s ship of deceit. - August 27, 2024
https://www.militarypoisons.org/latest-news/brunswick-must-sink-the-navys-ship-of-deceit-they-have-turned-you-into-a-ship-of-fools
Thank you,
Pat Elder
St. Mary’s City, MD
www.militarypoisons.org