MassDEP labels W.T. fire station as PFAS source

The town will need to follow up on the notice.

12
MassDEP pointed to West Tisbury Fire Station One as a source of PFAS. — Eunki Seonwoo

West Tisbury has been identified by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) as a “potentially responsible party” for the release of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), according to town administrator Jennifer Rand.

At Wednesday’s West Tisbury select board meeting, Rand said the property at or near 551 Edgartown Road, where West Tisbury Fire Station One is located, was identified as the possible epicenter of PFAS proliferation into nearby private drinking water wells.

A notice dated Tuesday, Jan. 24, from John Handrahan, chief of compliance and enforcement at MassDEP’s Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, states the department’s residential well sampling program was conducted in partnership with the University of Massachusetts in April. During that testing, a private drinking well in West Tisbury was found to contain 102 nanograms per liter, or parts per trillion, of PFAS. This was well over the state’s PFAS concentration limit of 20 nanograms per liter, and above the “imminent hazard” level of 90 nanograms per liter. The high levels of PFAS led to a MassDEP investigation for the chemical’s potential source. Further discovery showed another private well above the imminent hazard level, at 125 nanograms per liter, two properties above the state limit but below the imminent hazard level, and six other properties with PFAS levels above the “method reporting limits,” according to the notice, or the lowest amount of a chemical able to be detected in a sample.

MassDEP concluded that the fire station was the source of the PFAS contaminants. “MassDEP has come to this conclusion based on MassDEP’s investigation of PFAS impacts to private water supplies in the neighborhood and the general, inferred groundwater flow in the area. Additionally, MassDEP received information provided by the fire chief and several residents that aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) was discharged to the ground surface at the fire station several times in the past,” Handrahan wrote. 

AFFF is a known PFAS source, and was a source of concern before. In 2018, PFAS contaminants found in residential wells south of Martha’s Vineyard Airport were suspected to have come from the firefighting foam used by the airport. The airport started a PFAS mitigation pilot program in December. 

Among the first deadlines the town needs to meet is engaging or employing a licensed site professional “to oversee and conduct response actions at the site,” and submitting a “release notification form” by Friday, Feb. 23. The town is being held responsible for being the owners of the fire station. 

“It’s a big deal. I’m feeling a bit overwhelmed by the whole thing right this minute, but I’m suspecting I’m gonna need a reserve fund transfer because I have to hire someone by Feb. 24, and we’re going to be committed to a fair amount of work. I’m frankly feeling a little over my head,” Rand said to the board. She will be meeting with a licensed site professional on Thursday “to get some understanding of our responsibility.”

Rand encouraged the board members to read the letter to “understand this is a really big deal, and it will cost some money.”

“The warrant closes in a week, and I told DEP I felt absolutely gobsmacked by trying to figure this out in a week, and how much money we’re going to need,” Rand said. 

This issue will be on the board’s next meeting agenda, when Rand will have more information to share. West Tisbury Fire Chief Greg Pachico said while he had a brief conversation with Rand about PFAS found in residential wells and the notice from MassDEP, the amount he knows at this time is limited. “It’s something that’s been in the works,” Pachico said about the MassDEP tests. 

Pachico told The Times that the West Tisbury Fire Department had not trained with AFFF after talk about the dangers the foam poses came up. The department switched to a “nontoxic” firefighting foam that does not contain PFAS in the early 2000s. PFAS are long-lasting chemicals and break down slowly, earning them the nickname “forever chemicals.” Additionally, extended periods of exposure to PFAS or high concentrations of the chemicals are harmful to humans. “I believe the town will absolutely follow through on any way to rectify [the situation],” Pachico said. 

Meanwhile, the board plans to pursue more answers from Chilmark and Aquinnah about sharing Howes House renovation costs. Board member Skipper Manter, who also serves on the Howes House building committee, said while communication was sent to the two towns, no definitive answer was given. The last time the three up-Island towns met to discuss potential cost-sharing options was in October, where it was revealed the renovations are expected to cost an estimated $8 million.

The board unanimously approved several warrant articles, including a $36,000 request for four electric vehicle chargers to be located at West Tisbury School and a $19,200 request to plant 16 trees in the town’s historic district. Voters will make a decision during the annual spring town meeting.

A space needs assessment review committee consisting of Rand, town treasurer Kathy Logue, zoning board of appeals administrator Kim Leaird, and select board member Jessica Miller was established to flesh out what may be a good use for the Mill Brook Pond building. Since this is an informal brainstorming session to bring ideas to the select board, no vote was taken on the committee’s formation.

12 COMMENTS

  1. PFAS is a very serious issue as the island island is just a big pile of sand. One question I have concerns the use of foam to fight a car fire this past year on Edgartown-West Tisbury Road. In an article on the use of foam at the airport, someone (a fire department employee from one of the towns? the airport?) said the foam they use does not contain PFAS, except if they were fighting a fuel fire.
    The photos in the paper of the car fire showed a thick layer of foam on the road. Assuming the fire involved the fuel from the car, did that foam contain PFAS? If it did, how was it cleaned up? By washing it off the road and into the ground, or by scooping it up with a hazardous waste vacuum truck for treatment?
    Could the MV Times look into this issue for the whole island please. As I said, we are sitting on and drawing our drinking water from basically a just a big pile of sand. If your well become contaminated with PFAS, I believe is pretty much an unsolvable disaster you, your family and the value of your house.

  2. West Tisbury could take advantage of the Airport’s considerable experience with PFAS contamination of groundwater/wells. Tetra-Tech is the Airport’s excellent consultant, and oversees all the extensive and expensive mitigation efforts undertaken over the past five years. The costs have been in the six figures each year, and are ongoing.
    Richard Knabel, Treasurer
    MV Airport

  3. PFAS are everywhere. It is important to understand how toxic a chemical is and how much a person is exposed to the chemical before health risks can be identified and steps to reduce these risks can be taken. A chemical can be very toxic but people are very rarely exposed to it, so the risk to human health may be low. If another chemical is only moderately toxic but people are routinely exposed to it in high quantities, then the risk to human health may be high. There are likely thousands of PFAS that are currently present in the United States. Each of these chemicals has different properties and may be used for different purposes or may simply be present as unintended byproducts of certain manufacturing or other processes. The toxicity of the chemicals varies, and people may be exposed to each chemical in different ways, in varying amounts, and/or with different mixtures. This is not a “big deal”” at all.

    • It is important to understand what mansplaining is. It is an overconfident, condescending, and often inaccurate explanation on any subject directed toward anyone unfortunate enough to read it or listen to it.

    • “Andy, you claim this is “not a big deal at all” So you’d be ok with these chemicals in your well water? Simple yes or no will suffice.

      • Yes. They are in there but not in enough ppm to matter. Is that answer ok? There are many contaminants in well water and most of the time its not an issue. One could research.

    • andy– the moderator deleted my comment that predicted your “no big deal” attitude. And I didn’t even mention your name.
      But then again, you thought that COVID was “no big deal” either.

  4. The manufacturer of the foam should be responsible. How were the fire departments supposed to know. I know West Tisbury used dish liquid to drill with instead of using the foam. That is a good thing because much more foam could have been used.

  5. Silly you can’t fight a gas fire with water for obvious reasons.
    But for those who do not know, in simple terms, petroleum floats and if it is on fire and water is applied, the fire spreads. A non toxic foam suffocates the flame of a petroleum fire without spreading the flammable material.

  6. No surprise to me living in Ct. Killingworth Ct has the same problem with its fire department leading to 29 wells and town hall and elderly housing also affected. Connecticut, will start sampling fire stations this year. My take and also heard from our DeeP emerging contaminates person that the new foams are NOT PFAS free.
    The old foam used the toxic PFOA and PFOS the two the EPA basically said zero is too much. It seems that we never learn as Silent Spring warned us of persistent pesticides. The old adage the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result

Comments are closed.