Updated 5 pm
Three more wells have tested positive for a contaminant found in firefighting foam, including one that’s 19 times above the state’s health guidelines of 70 parts per trillion, according to Ron Myrick, an engineering consultant with Tetra Tech.
They are the latest results in a fast-moving investigation of neighborhoods south of Martha’s Vineyard Airport. In an email Wednesday, Myrick wrote that results in testing have ranged from non-detect to 1,358 ppt. That brings the total number of samples above 70 ppt to six, according to Myrick.
Eight new samples were collected on Monday and results should be in by Monday, Myrick wrote. More sampling is being done this week and next as residents find out about the contamination and request the airport-sponsored testing. The testing has centered on the neighborhood directly south of the airport in West Tisbury off Edgartown-West Tisbury Road. More than 100 homes in the neighborhood received letters alerting them to the results and the ongoing investigation.
Eight new samples were collected on Monday and results should be in by Monday, Myrick wrote. More sampling is being done this week and next as residents find out about the contamination and request the airport-sponsored testing. The testing has centered on the neighborhood directly south of the airport in West Tisbury off Edgartown-West Tisbury Road. More than 100 homes in the neighborhood received letters alerting them to the results and the ongoing investigation.
The airport began an investigation last spring and performed its first tests in July.
Joseph Ferson, a spokesman for the MassDEP, wrote in an email to The Times that now that the testing has resulted in positive findings, the airport is responsible for reporting to the state agency. After the first well tested positive, the airport’s consultant filed an immediate report on Nov. 20, he wrote.
Several times during Monday’s briefing on the investigation, airport officials pointed out that the testing was not required by environmental regulators in trying to reassure startled residents that the airport is being proactive.
“Most of those airports aren’t doing anything yet because there’s no requirement to do anything,” Ann Richart, airport manager, said. “As a matter of fact, talking to Ron, DEP is using us kind of as an example — a test case — of recommendations that they could give to other airports of how could you do it. So, even though this is not… helpful news, we are one of the first being proactive to figure out what the issue is and how to fix it.”
The health impacts are unclear. According to MassDEP, exposure to the chemicals may cause developmental effects in fetuses during pregnancy and in breastfed infants. Effects on the thyroid, the liver, kidneys, hormone levels, and immune systems have also been reported, according to MassDEP. “It is important to note that consuming water with PFAS above the 70 ppt level does not mean that adverse effects will occur,” the MassDEP fact sheet states. “The degree of risk depends on the level of the chemicals and the duration of exposure. The 70 ppt level assumes that individuals drink only contaminated water, which typically overestimates exposure, and are also exposed to sources beyond drinking water, such as food.”
Updated to correct whether the testing was required. It was not. -Ed.
