.png)
Healthy Maine Talks
Stories from people across Maine working to make their communities healthier and safer. Hosted by Maine Public Health Association.
Logo design credit: Elias McEaneney
Photograph (in logo) credit: Don Donelson
Healthy Maine Talks
Special Episode on PFAS: Brunswick & Topsham Water District
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
On Monday, August 19th, more than a thousand gallons of AFFF fire fighting foam containing high concentrations of PFAS-- a class of "forever chemicals" associated with significant health concerns--was accidentally discharged at the Brunswick Executive Airport due to a malfunctioning fire suppression system.
Craig W. Douglas, PE, General Manager of the Brunswick & Topsham Water District, joins Healthy Maine Talks for this special episode to share information about why the district believes there is currently no impact to the public water supply from the spill, and what they're doing to monitor the situation.
If residents in the area with private wells are concerned and want to access water from the Brunswick & Topsham Water District while they await testing results for their own wells, they can create an account and access the bulk filling station at the district ($8.77 for roughly 750 gallons). Please contact the district for more information.
If you want to buy in-home water filter systems as a precaution, here are some resources to reference:
*This Healthy Maine Talks episode is supported by the New England Public Health Training Center*
Hey everybody, thanks for tuning in to this special episode of Healthy Maine Talks. This is Matt Wellington, your host and also Associate Director of Maine Public Health Association. Before you dive into the interview, I want to give a little bit of background. On Monday, August 19th, approximately 1,450 gallons of aqueous film forming foam, otherwise known as ACF firefighting foam, mixed with thousands of gallons of water, was accidentally discharged at the Brunswick Executive Airport. The important thing to know is that ACF contains high concentrations of PFAS, which are forever chemicals associated with increased risk of specific types of cancers, compromised immune systems, and more. We've covered PFAS on previous episodes of this podcast, and so I'd encourage folks to check out those episodes for some more background on PFAS. For this episode, I spoke with Craig Douglas, the general manager of the Brunswick and Thompson Water District. Craig and other officials have assured uh people in the town that the public water supply has not been impacted by the PFAS bill. And I am very grateful that Craig came on uh to interview with me on Healthy Maine Talks to share some more information about why they've made that determination and what they're doing to continue to monitor the situation. So please stay tuned for the interview. Thanks. Hey everybody, welcome to a special episode of Healthy Maine Talks. This is your host, Matt Wellington, an associate director of Maine Public Health Association. And as I mentioned in my introduction, I am here with Craig Douglas, the manager of the Brunswick Topsum Water District. Hey, Craig, thanks for joining us. Good morning. Thanks. So uh quick recap for folks. We are talking on Monday, August 26th. So it's been one full week since the PFAS spill at the Brunswick Executive Airport. Uh, I shared more of those details in my introduction. So we'll just, you know, dive right in about what's happening right now. And of course, Craig, I wanted to talk to you about the water supply. And I know you've done um fantastic work, you know, since you've been at the district, uh, especially related to PFAS and dealing with some of the issues that have come your way. And so I know it's not necessarily a new um thing for you, but of course, the spill last week took it to another level and gave you a lot more work than I think you probably were anticipating uh coming into work last week. So I know it's probably been a long one for you. Um, first things first, you yourself and and state officials have assured people publicly in many places that the town water supply has not been impacted by the PFESP bill. So the first thing I wanted to ask you was just how you and the the folks at the state level came to that conclusion. And and yeah, what what's your reasoning behind that to give people a sense of how you got to this point to feel confident saying the water supply has not been impacted, it is safe to drink.
SPEAKER_01Sure, Matt. Um, I mean, I you know, it starts with the response by the fire department. Uh we have done tabletop exercises with them um simulating um spills, accidents, uh, different things within the aquifer. Um so one of the first things with this incident was it wasn't in the aquifer protection zone. So both the communities of Brunswick and Topsum have ordinances in place uh that protect those zones that have been identified by hydrogeologic studies um done over the past few decades. Um so we have a good understanding of uh if there was a spill like this instance, um, what the threats might be, um, what might cause us alarm. And in this instance, um, because of Hangar 4's location, um, we knew immediately like this is not going to be an immediate issue for the public water supply.
SPEAKER_00So you said because of Hangar 4's location, can you say a little bit more about that? What why does that make such a difference?
SPEAKER_01Sure. Um, so we have maps, uh, they're available on the town's website, and it shows the different zones uh of aquifer protection. And those map are the same zones that were identified in the geologic studies. Um, since we're a groundwater source, uh the water comes out of the ground. Uh, in order for a contaminant to get into groundwater, it needs to find a path in and then it needs to move through the aquifer to wherever the person is using the water. So in our case, we're a public water utility. Uh, we have production wells that create a lot of water. Um, so we know the travel times based on pumping rates within the aquifer. And, you know, given the location of the spill and given the location of our wells and how the aquifer is laid out, um, we knew the situation for public water. You know, there wasn't a risk to the public water supply.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I mean it's good to hear, and I appreciate you giving the context there in a little more detail. So, one last follow-up question on this. You said that we've done many studies in the past about the hydrogeology of the site. You know, PFAS, I know, is a relatively new, it's not a new thing, but it the concerns around it are relatively new. So has has any of the have the studies taken that into account? Like as you've done simulations on potential spills, has that been part of it, like modeling specifically on PFAS?
SPEAKER_01Sure. So the modeling started in 1993, and that was based off of a 60,000 gallon jet fuel spill that occurred at the former naval air station. Um and petroleum is another product that moves very quickly through the aquifer. Um, and when you do these studies, that's what you do. You want to take something that doesn't um absorb and desorb. So um, you know, there there are things that are more sticky, like tars and heavy oils, and then there are things that um dissolve readily into water. And so obviously, we pick those more conservative things that can transport much more readily, like MTBE, like a PFAS. Um, so these things act similarly. So we know the category of um chemicals that this falls into.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, so from what I'm getting from that is not modeled specifically on PFAS, but similar in terms of correct.
SPEAKER_01Yes, I'm sorry. So we haven't modeled PFAS specifically, but we have an idea of how PFAS will move. So we take the conservative number saying, okay, it will move rapidly. Um, so we know, okay, you know, this is it. Again, for us, you know, the big thing was right at the start that there was no release within the aquifer boundary. So an aquifer boundary, you know, it's kind of like a drop of water that might land in the Rocky Mountains. If it lands on one side, it's gonna go to one aquifer and it's gonna head out towards the Pacific Ocean. If it lands on the other side of the Rocky Mountains, you know, it's gonna find its way to the Gulf of Mexico. Um, and so it's very similar for us. There's these natural boundaries out there. And depending on where the water infiltrates in the ground, it'll end up in different groundwater aquifers. Um, you know, there's, you know, there's certainly watersheds, right? Where drop of water depends on which river it might end up in, uh be end up in a different watershed. It's the same for groundwaters. Um, so in this case, uh, we knew that it was that. Now, with that said, you always want to be cautious, right? Sometimes there might be transport that people didn't know about. Uh, if some which some did get into a stormwater system, we've mapped that out. We know it's going in another direction, but sometimes there's connections that we don't know about. And we've been monitoring this aquifer for PFOS now for, well, since 2019. And well, actually, our first monitoring was in 2015, uh, but we couldn't find it back then uh because we can detect it so much lower in the past five years. So we're actually watching those entry points to make sure is there a change, is there something different? Did this event somehow cause something that we didn't expect? Because, you know, it's our job as you know, public water providers, vigilance. We have to be vigilant. Um, we think we understand everything, but we're still taking samples, we'll still double checking, both the finished water, but more importantly in the aquifer, because it's going to show up first in the aquifer before it gets to the wells. So we want to know that ahead of time.
SPEAKER_00I think the Rocky Mountain analogy is super helpful for you know getting folks to be able to wrap their heads around this. And so I'll ask a potentially dumb question that maybe I should already know from the water summit that we did together not very long ago. So for aquifers, is are all of our drinking wells within the same aquifer in Brunswick that you pull from? They are not.
SPEAKER_01Okay. Um we withdraw from two different aquifers in Brunswick.
SPEAKER_00And so this spill wasn't was outside of the boundary of both of those. That is correct. Okay, because the other question I had was I saw in the in the news reports, you know, you shut down the Jordan well fields, which are the closest from what I understand to the spill, just as a precautionary measure.
SPEAKER_01Um yeah, those hap those happen to be off at the time of the spill. Um great. So, you know, it it it's it's wonderful. But you know, in in this case, you know, using the Rocky Mountain example, where water either ends up um, you know, in the Pacific or in the Gulf of Mexico, you know, water near us ends up in the Androscoggin River. Water where where it landed, um where the spill was actually travels south and and travels basically, you know, towards the Atlantic, towards the ocean and the and the sounds down there. So okay.
SPEAKER_00So the what so the the discharge of the A triple F that is landing within its own aquifer zone that is separate from both of the aquifers that you pull from. Exactly. Yep. Yeah, okay. So you the sufficiently distant is the term I saw from um some of the the news reports that the wells you're currently using are sufficiently distant from the spill site. Can you say more about that consideration? Like what does sufficiently distant mean?
SPEAKER_01Um, I do not like the language sufficiently distant because distance, it depends. For example, it if we happen to live in the Midwest, that those aquifers cover the entire state or cover a multi-state region. In the case of Maine, where our geology is quite different and the hydrology is quite different, um, distance has a completely different meaning. And there may be places within the state, and I don't know this because I don't know the aquifers throughout the entire state, there may be a place where it covers an aquifer could cover multiple towns within the state of Maine. In this instance, you know, it happens to be a much smaller scale. So sufficiently distant, um I don't think describes it properly. Certainly, if a spill is far enough away, it will take a long time for it to travel to the source of supply. But in this case, it can't travel to the source of supply because it's draining in a different direction. Um, so sufficiently distant to me was um, you know, a lot of people are trying to use words and trying to help help others understand, but sufficiently distant might not be the best term to select.
SPEAKER_00Is it better to just emphasize that based on the, and again, I know you know we want to use simpler phrases here, but based on the hydrogeology, it it's outside of the aquifer zones. So that's the bigger point here is that it's not really about distance, it's about is it outside of those aquifer zones?
SPEAKER_01Exactly. It's like if you had a pool in your backyard and I have a pool in my backyard, you know, and you put a float into your pool. There is not a float in my pool, there is a float in your pool, and there's no way for those two to mix. You know, that's different aquifers. If we had the same aquifer, it would be the same pool in the backyard. And then, of course, if you put a float in your pool, then there'll be a float in my pool because we share the pool. Yeah. Um, but in the case of aquifers, they're they're distinct, unique. Um, so there's a very that's where the high level of confidence comes from.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, super helpful. And I'll I'll keep on with your pool analogy because I think it's a good one. So you shut down the Jordan Avenue well fields, even though it is a separate aquifer, because it's closer to the spill site. So that's as if you know, the Jordan Avenue pool, so to speak, is closer to the spill site pool. And so out of abundance of caution, you shut down that that site, maybe because even though the float, as you said, is not in the pool, the wind might blow it over to the pool. Maybe I'm just getting way too complicated here. So yeah, I how would you clean that up?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, they're they're completely distinct. So there's really no way, you know, the the float isn't gonna come up out of your pool and land in my pool, essentially. Um, so they're they're they're distinct. Um, a lot of people are really focused on the well shut off. I think thinking about the well shut off make people think, well, there might be a path, there could have been a danger, so the wells are shut off. They were down for maintenance reasons because we're doing a lot of other work. Even if those pumps were on, I would still have a very high level of confidence because the contaminants are draining in a different direction. They're going away from our aquifer. And if they were to somehow get there going against the flow, going up a river, um, we have monitoring wells and we've increased it because we want to be cautious and aware. Um, but they're fundamentally different.
SPEAKER_00It's helpful to hear you say it because I, you know, for me, I having worked on PFEST a little bit, nowhere near an expert, I was concerned that you know the foam was blowing around. So where is that foam going to land? I don't know how far it travels. And so I think that's just where the extra vigilance comes in, like what you just said.
SPEAKER_01Um, and so I think that's an excellent point because that is where the extra vigilance comes in. Because it is possible that maybe some foam work over to a storm drain that nobody really knows, you know, this and that. But again, we would have well over 250, 300 days in order to react to this. So that's why we're basically monitoring twice a month. Usually we monitor once a month to keep an eye on everything. Um, for the next couple of months, we're going twice a month just to make sure at those places where things that would have been very unusual but are conceivable, um, that nobody witnessed may have happened, so that we're, you know, we're covering for every contingency.
SPEAKER_00Can you share more detail on what you just said, the 250 to 300 days? So that's from what I understand, based on the modeling you've done. Can you say more about that? Uh with that, you know, giving you the degree of confidence? Sure.
SPEAKER_01So when when the when aquifer protection areas are set up, we set up the closest area, and it's called the 250-day travel zone. And that's the closest to the wells. And that's the one where if something happens in this zone, we know we have to make a very fast response because the ability to treat or do other things gets significantly complicated, you know, in that three-quarters of a year time period, right? Whereas outside of that zone, you've certainly got more than 250 days, you have a much longer period. You still need protection in that zone. You still need ordinances like this uh pesticide and herbicide ordinance and this uh housing density, these are all the things that go into aquifer protection to limit the impact to the groundwater. So we're trying to prevent nitrates, we're trying to prevent other things from getting into the groundwater. So when I talk about the 250-day travel zone, I'm saying we know that it is not within, you know, the most core area to the well field.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, and that that's you know, to you and I interacted about this via email, and the testing takes, I think you said four weeks to come back. But even with that lag time, you're still confident, given what you just shared, that you would know ahead of time before any of the contaminants reach the drinking water.
SPEAKER_01Absolutely. We are we already got our first rounds out, we'll be taking our next rounds next week. Um, so yeah, it does take a long time to get so. But these are all the things you've got to weigh and be ready for. And um, I mean, the other thing is we're in the process uh with the Navy uh of building a $18.17 million treatment plant that will actually remove PFOS because we're actually managing that well field for PFOS already to make sure it's not in the supply. So there's a lot of work going.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. Well, I was gonna say, I mean, it's a this is a horrible situation. The only silver lining is that you're already set up to deal with some of these issues, and I think that's not the case in some of the other water districts across the state. Um, so I actually did want to ask about the plant. So, what's the current filtration system like in the district? And you know, is it is it just not specified to filter out PFAS? What does that look like versus what you're gonna build with the Navy?
SPEAKER_01So um our different facilities have different treatment processes right now. So without going into a water treatment chemistry class, um what we're building with the Navy right now is another set of filters that can basically absorb the PFOS. And so uh they've done this since back in 2015 when we looked for the PFOS and didn't find it. Other places did, and they started experimenting. Uh granule activated carbon. Uh it's what you actually have powdered activated carbon in your Rita filters. Um, so it's a very similar kind of technology where it does absorption. There's also uh resins, ionic resins. Some people have this in a private home system to remove different metals or um maybe iron. Um we're basically doing that, but we're doing it on a huge scale because we're doing it enough for the entire public water supply. So these end up being very large filters where a homeowner might have, you know, some small canisters. Uh, we end up with 15-foot tall, 12 foot in diameter steel vessels that are pressure rated, uh, have boiler ratings and all kinds of things so that we can pressurize them and filter the water.
SPEAKER_00Gotcha. So um from what I understand, I I did read the PFAS report from the district. Thank you for putting all the information together. Currently, I think the district is are we under the pending federal standards right now?
SPEAKER_01Or are we we are under we are under the um pending federal level. So last year and this year, we have been below the detection limit, which is currently right there at 21.8. Um, so as we got more experience with Jordan Ave, we've been able to lower and lower, and now we can't detect it. The problem is when we run it so that it's that low, we don't get a lot of water. Um, so we'd like to return it to its full capacity, and we'd like to return it with that extra margin of safety, that those filters that will, you know, and we have it's not just a single pass, it's a dual system. So it basically, you know, in case the first one there's some breakthrough and it takes a little bit to get the sample through, there's a whole nother fresh filter that's also filtering the water so that we can get the media. One question I get a lot of is so what happens to the PFAS? What happens once you capture it? And every year we basically swap out half of the media. So the media will get taken off in these very large VAC trucks, tractor trailers, uh, and they get brought out to there's a place in New York, there's a place in Ohio. There's probably about eight places around the US uh where the stuff can be essentially destroyed. It's thermally destroyed.
SPEAKER_00Right. So when is the new plant going to be up and running? I was curious about that too.
SPEAKER_01So we just signed the contract and we hope to be going online in um March of 26.
SPEAKER_00Awesome. So one to take it back to what's happening now. So, as you're, you know, again, I I saw in some of the media reports, the Jordan Avenue well facilities, as you said, they were already shut down for other reasons. You'll keep them shut down until continued monitoring shows that they're within safe levels. And I I was I wanted to hear more detail. About what the safe levels parts means, because I did, as I understand and just confirm with you, we're under the pending federal standard. And for listeners, and please correct me, Craig, if I get this wrong, but the main standard right now is 20 parts per trillion for PFAS and drinking water as acceptable levels. The federal standard, which I think is enforced in the next five years. So it's gonna, it's not enforced for another five years, that is down to four parts per trillion for PFAS. Is that right?
SPEAKER_01That is correct. So the main limit at 20 is the sum of six different components, where the federal limit is four, four. It gets complicated really fast, but it's actually individual limits on each one. So it's four and four over here and four over there, where Maine took it and summed it, um, as did several other states. So we're looking to be well clear of all of those. And right now we are below all of those.
SPEAKER_00So yeah. So as you're monitoring the Jordan well facilities for this particular problem, the spill that just happened, when would you bring it back online if the results continue to show that they're below the pending federal standard or if they're below the main current main standard?
SPEAKER_01So the contract for the new facility actually requires us to um turn it off because one of the raw water lines will be under the new building. So the contractor is actually mobilizing to move. So this is part of the whole, like, this is why it's shut down. Um so as long if our monitoring continues to show what we've had, we know how to manage that. And basically, we've been using the source in the summers for peak demands because during the summer, obviously, that's when the most water is used. That's when the sources, you know, needed the most. And right now we're just relying very heavily on our other two sources. So we're taking the stress and we're putting it, you know, maybe more into these other two baskets. Um, so it's a juggling act, but you've got to make these evaluations and judgments and um try to use the resources as best you can.
SPEAKER_00So sorry, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. So you're saying no matter what, the Jordan Avenue well facility is not going to be open until after the new plant comes online. Is that what you're saying? Uh no, it should be online again next summer. Oh, I see. Okay. But so if it's online again next summer and you're monitoring for PFAS contamination from the spill, if there is, and as you said, it's unlikely, but if it does happen, what level would you decide is is not, you know, quote unquote safe? Are you gonna use the current main standard or the pending federal standard for that?
SPEAKER_01Uh we're gonna use the district standard, which is the water that we produce should be below detection for any PFOS. Um so that's basically we're targeting below 1.8. Um if somehow the PFOS goes up and over the mountain and into our aquifer, um it's gonna fall into another PFOS plume that we're already managing. So we already know how to manage the PFOS in the aquifer. So we feel very confident, you know, we know where it goes, we know the hydrogeology, we've been managing it for four or five years. Um, this matches, this isn't like some of the spills that have impacted us in the past. We believe these spills don't impact us because of the hydrogeology and the aquifer divide that I talked about. But if that happens not to not be the case, because we're monitoring and checking, we expect it to follow the same lines that it has in the past, and we'll be able to manage that like we have for the past two years, year and a half, which is making sure there's no PFOS detectable in the water.
SPEAKER_00Which is great. And that that's really what I wanted to hone in on is you know, if it elevates the PFAS levels to 18 parts per trillion, would you bring it back online because it's within the state standards? It sounds like no, you would not, because that's not the district standards. Right. Yeah, which is great. Exactly. Exactly. And I'm glad you brought up the previous spills too, because that was a question I got from one of my neighbors is you know, looking at the news and and the history, we know that there is that previous PFAS plume, as you said. But how so how how does that differ from it? Did that just occur within the aquifer zone there? And so that's why that's a problem, whereas this spill was outside of the aquifer zone, so it's not even the same kind of situation. Correct.
SPEAKER_01So, you know, if this if this discharge was at a different hanger, it could have impacted us significantly differently. Um so each instance is, you know, if there's another PFOS spill, we you have to tell me where it is because it could be significant for us. Um this one happens to be in an area that, you know, our studies and all the work that's been, you know, here on the shelves, you know, and updated over the years says, you know, that's going to drain in a different direction. You shouldn't be impacted.
SPEAKER_00Well, I'll tell you what, Craig, that is my one of my number one questions when I get the chance to ask the right people is how do we prevent this from happening again in a place that's maybe even worse, as as you said, for you know, threatening some of our public resources.
SPEAKER_01Um, so I think I think well, several different groups have been working on trying to get this ACF off the base. And there's still some on the base. Uh, the Navy was coming in to take some of it away. My understanding is they're still on schedule to do that next month. You know, I mean, that's the biggest thing we can do is start, you know, it's not easy though. There's a lot of hoops and things that have to get jumped through. But if if people want to get involved, it's you know, get the AFF, you know, because it's not good for the other waterways that this is going into. You know, I keep talking from the water district where it's not impacting us, but it is impacting others. So yeah. Um sorry to jump in there.
SPEAKER_00No, it's uh it's perfectly fine. And actually, you're getting to what I wanted to end on here, which is you know, the the public water supply is a different situation than potentially people who are utilizing private wells within that area. And I know this may be more main DEP's wheelhouse than yours. So if it is, tell me that you're just not you know able to answer these questions. But um for folks who do have private wells within that area, you know, what would your guidance be? I know the DEP is gonna do some sampling. What what's your take on the private wells in that area?
SPEAKER_01I I would highly recommend reaching out to the DEP, getting on their lists, and you know, staying in staying involved with them. Um because that that's gonna be the that's gonna be the number one way for a private well, a person who has a private well, um, to get involved and get information, you know, on this. There's been a lot of studies um on the former Naval Air Station about groundwater and hydrogeology. I just don't know those reports because I focus on the northern end. Um, but the number one step is reach out, make sure your name's on the list, reach out again, be persistent. Um it's your health.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. And if folks are, you know, want some peace of mind until their testing comes back and does, you know, confirm what I think the DEP has been suggesting, which is what you just shared, that it's it seems unlikely that it would impact those wells based on previous studies and history. But for peace of mind, if they did want to um access other water sources until the testing comes back, I think you had mentioned there is a it's not a public spigot, but how did you describe the bulk water uh in the district? I'm not saying this correctly. If people want to come and access town water, what should they do? That's what I'm asking you.
SPEAKER_01So we do have a bulk water fill station. Um, members of the community can open up an account. Uh, it basically works out to something along the lines of eight dollars and seventy cents for 750 gallons, which is an awful lot of water. Um, but people come with their RVs and different vehicles. Some people do fill up small tanks and things. Um, so it is another mechanism that's you know relatively affordable, you know.
SPEAKER_00I mean, eight bucks for 750 gallons. I'm pretty sure the math works out to be cheaper than buying bottled water at the store. So yeah, substantially so. And again, you know, this is a this is a precautionary measure for folks if you're listening with private wells. I think if you want that some peace of mind until you get some testing done, this is just one option for you to go to the district and get that bulk water supply um and set up an account.
SPEAKER_01And and I should probably say you don't have to buy 750 gallons at once. Uh, there is a hose uh spigot fill up that you can fill jugs and other things, and it will dispense in quantities, um, I think in increments of like five gallons. So awesome.
SPEAKER_00Well, that that's all my questions, Craig. Is there anything else you want to share with with listeners that I didn't get to ask you?
SPEAKER_01No, I think we covered a a fair amount of of material there. There's a um always it always reach out if you have questions about your public water. Uh, we're here, we're willing to answer. There's a lot more history if people want it on PFAS, when we first found it, uh, why we didn't find it for so long. Um there's a lot of moving, a lot of moving pieces, and we're doing a lot of work to stay on top of it. Because, you know, like all the work that you guys do over there, Matt, um, it's public health, it's important, and um we kind of get one chance at it. So pay attention.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. And I'll echo that too, that the the district and Craig in particular is a really great resource for folks in the Brunswick Thompson area. And thank you for your work, Craig. Um, I hope you, you know, get a little bit of time to relax at some point. Um, and I just appreciate you being on top of this. Thank you, Matt. Appreciate the chance to share this with your listeners.
SPEAKER_01All righty. Thanks.