So the Navy is working out ways to "protect Americans". How are they
doing this? Read on:
Carl Jarvis
Lauren Walker / Truthout
; Adapted:
US Pacific Fleet)
Washington State's Whidbey Island already has problems with inadequate
water supplies. Located in Puget Sound, the residents have to face a
long, dry summer
with no aquifer replenishment and ongoing threats of saltwater intrusion.
But now they have to deal with the US Navy introducing toxic chemicals
into Whidbey Island's public and private wells, particularly in the
area around
the small town of Coupeville, where the Navy maintains a heavily used
air strip to practice touch-and-go landings, among other exercises.
Cate Andrews is a member of
Citizens for Ebeys Reserve
(COER), a group of locals working to protect their land, homes and
health from environmental and sound pollution from the US Navy.
Andrews said some of
the wells in Coupeville contain toxic chemicals from the Navy's
firefighting foam exercises at levels 400 percent over what the
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) considers acceptable.
"Residents are being provided bottled water by the Navy, but warned
not to drink, cook or water their vegetable gardens," Andrews told
Truthout. "The Navy
says, 'Don't worry about showering,' but research has shown that these
chemicals are transmitted through dermal absorption. Homes valued at
over $1 million
are unsalable, and people are trapped."
To see more stories like this, visit "Planet or Profit?"
The chemicals, Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) and
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), are perfluoroalkyl substances
(PFASs), also called PFCs, and come
from the AFFF firefighting foam used in training exercises at the
Navy's Outlying Landing Field (OLF) in Coupeville and Ault Field in
Oak Harbor, the latter
of which is at Naval Air Station Whidbey.
"They were found in the aquifer beneath the OLF airstrip in October of
2016 and are known to have migrated off-site to contaminate public and
private drinking
water," Rick Abraham, who has worked on toxic pollution issues as a
public interest advocate for 30 years, told Truthout.
Last December, the story made
regional television coverage.
Coupeville's unprotected and contaminated well, which sits next to the
OLF, is providing PFAS-laced water to schools, businesses, Whidbey
General Hospital
and hundreds of families. Since late 2016, some families with
contaminated wells near the OLF have even had to abandon them and
drink, cook and brush their
teeth with water in plastic bottles, according to Abraham, who has
investigated PFAS contaminations in a number of states, taking
samples, interfacing
with regulatory officials and researching internal company
documentation of PFAS-related health harms.
Along with ongoing Navy obfuscation around the crisis, the Whidbey
Island Health Department -- which has described the Navy as a
"partner" -- has actively
worked with the Navy in shaping the health department's message about
the contamination to the community. The health department also kept
secret from the
public a plan to test the wells in the community -- at the Navy's
request -- and who also did not allow citizens to provide input for
what was tested and
at what levels.
And this is not a new phenomenon.
There are
numerous examples
across the country of the Navy contaminating water
around its bases
with toxic chemicals. As of last year, there are
literally hundreds of towns across the country
dealing with this or similar issues.
Meanwhile, Naval Air Station Whidbey has recently dramatically
expanded its fleet of "Growler" aircraft, the single loudest aircraft
on the planet, and
corresponding operations will increase as well.
Citizens as "Collateral Damage"
Many of the residents around NAS Whidbey, OLF Coupeville, other
islands in Puget Sound, the Olympic Peninsula and even Canadians
living in nearby Victoria
on Vancouver Island have grown accustomed to ear-piercing jet noise
from the Navy's war machines.
Naval plans to
conduct electromagnetic warfare training
on the Olympic Peninsula, as well as the fact that they had
already been doing so on state highways unbeknownst to residents,
and news of the Navy being
permitted to kill or harass nearly 12 million whales, dolphins,
porpoises, sea lions and seals
across the North Pacific Ocean over a five-year period are things
people in this region have grown accustomed to hearing about their
naval neighbors.
Pleas from residents about these issues (and
many others they are concerned about)
have for the most part been ignored, or sometimes residents have even
been chided, by the Navy.
The issue of the toxic chemicals in residential drinking water,
however, has people directly impacted very upset, and many are angered
by what they see
as a cover-up.
"All 'official' PFAS [perfluoroalkyl substances] testing done in the
community has only been for PFOA [Perfluoroheptanoic acid], PFOS and
PFBS [Perfluorobutanesulfonic
acid]," Abraham said. "The Town of Coupeville had its water
independently tested, but like testing done by the Navy, PFHxS
[Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid] and
PFHpA [Perfluoroheptanoic acid] have been ignored."
He went on to add that no references to these chemicals could be found
in the "colorful posters and materials at the Navy's 'Open House'
public meetings,"
nor are they mentioned on the Navy's informational website, or
websites for Island County and Coupeville.
"What the Navy and many public officials dismiss as acceptable amounts
of PFASs in drinking water are thought by many research scientists to
be a threat
to human health," Abraham added.
PFASs build up and stay in the body for a long time. It takes eight to
nine years to get rid of half the amount of PFHxS already in the
blood, two to four
years for PFOA, and five to six years for PFOS. By drinking
contaminated water, you can have more PFASs in your blood than is in
the water due to the bio-accumulative
effect.
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
studies indicate PFASs can, "affect the developing fetus and child,
including possible
changes in growth, learning, and behavior. In addition, they may
decrease fertility and interfere with the body's natural hormones,
increase cholesterol,
affect the immune system, and even increase cancer risk."
"The Navy has known of private contaminated wells for years, and is
only now taking action after a threat of public exposure," Andrews
said.
In January, Andrews told Truthout that the Navy was testing 100 wells
in Coupeville within a one-mile radius of the OLF, but each time
another contaminated
well was discovered, the Navy moved ground zero out another mile.
"I believe that Whidbey Island could be environmentally compromised
beyond recovery, just as it has been culturally destroyed by the
Navy's total indifference
and abuse of those living here," she said. "Who is going to pay for
all of this cleanup? The water and air are compromised, citizens'
health has been compromised,
and yet the Navy -- who could easily practice their exercises
elsewhere and begin the arduous clean up now -- has opted for willful
ignorance and arrogance."
There are numerous other health impacts from the chemicals the Navy
has added to the drinking water of Whidbey Island.
Studies, including those related to child exposures, suggest PFASs can
reduce immune response to certain vaccinations and increase risk of
infection. Additionally,
children with higher blood levels of PFHxS were found to have an
increased chance of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
and perfluorinated
compounds, such as PFHxS, affect the function of sex hormone receptors.
While the EPA's "acceptable" level for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water
is 70 parts per trillion (ppt), this level has been widely criticized
as not being
protective. As a result, several states have set far more conservative
standards.
Minnesota's Drinking Water guidance level is 35 ppt for PFOA and 27
for PFOS, while Vermont's drinking water health advisory level for
PFOA is 20 ppt.
Vermont doesn't even recommend using water with any level of PFOA for
its livestock.
Upon finally admitting to finding levels of the chemicals in several
wells, the Navy offered bottled water to people.
"Their offer of bottled water is patronizing when you consider the
numbers of organic farms located on hundreds of acres on this island
who sell their
fruits and vegetables to some of the most well-known restaurants in
Seattle," Andrews said.
"Early on, we were told by several Navy staff that 'we' were
collateral damage to the 'war on terror," Andrews said of what the
Navy told her several years
ago, when the so-called war on terror was driving US foreign policy.
"And while unbelievable at first glance, I now believe this to be
true."
Lying by Omission
Karen Sullivan is a retired endangered species biologist who worked at
the US Fish and Wildlife Service for more than 15 years and is an
expert in the
bureaucratic procedures the Navy is supposed to be following,
including Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). Sullivan cofounded
the website
West Coast Action Alliance,
which acts as a watchdog of naval activities in the Pacific.
"In still another example of the flaws in this EIS, the contamination
of drinking water in residential and commercial areas near the naval
runways due
to use of hazardous chemicals is not addressed," Sullivan told Truthout.
The Navy's EIS concludes, "No significant impacts related to hazardous
waste and materials would occur due to construction activities or from
the addition
and operation of additional Growler aircraft."
But according to Sullivan, these chemicals have never been analyzed
and have been used in conjunction with Growler training and operations
for many years;
therefore, their analysis should not be excluded.
"With flights at OLF Coupeville increasing from 3,200 in 2010 to as
many as 35,500, nobody can claim that a 1,000 percent increase in
seven years for which
no groundwater or soil contaminant analyses have been done is not
significant," she said.
The Navy's publication of the EIS she is referencing was on November
10, 2016, and she believes the Navy "was well aware of potential
problems with contamination
of residential drinking water due to what it calls 'historic' use of
fire suppressants for flight operations."
In May 2016, the EPA issued drinking water health advisories for two
PFCs, and the Navy announced in June 2016 that it was in the process
of "identifying
and for removal and destruction all legacy perfluorooctane sulfonate
(and PFOA) containing AFFF [aqueous film forming foam]."
Yet, on
page 3-62, the Navy's EIS dismisses
concerns with a statement about actions that took place nearly 20
years ago: "Remediation construction was completed in September 1997,
human exposure
and contaminated groundwater exposures are under control, and the OUs
at Ault Field and the Seaplane Base are ready for anticipated use
(USEPA, 2016e)."
"The statement is ludicrously outdated, and recent events refute it,"
Sullivan said. "Three days before the EIS was published, on November
7, 2016, the
Navy sent a letter to more than 100 private and public drinking water
well owners expressing concern that perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
found beneath
the OLF had spread beyond Navy property."
Nevertheless, the word "perfluoroalkyl" or "PFAS" is not mentioned
once in the entire 1,600-page Growler EIS, nor the 2005 or 2012
Environmental Assessments.
The Navy's Public Affairs Officer Mike Welding sought to reassure the
public in late 2016 in an
interview with a local TV station:
"The Navy is going to provide those people with safe drinking water
until we can figure out how to remove the contaminant from the water
well, filter it
out or something like that. It's something that still needs to be worked out."
Unfortunately, according to Sullivan, a statement from the Department
of Defense's own "MERIT" program contradicts the Navy's diagnosis:
"Currently, there
are no in situ technologies and very limited ex situ options to treat
soil or groundwater contaminated with PFCs."
"The EIS confines its discussion of groundwater contamination to soil
compression and compaction effects from new construction, and
concludes there will
be no impacts to groundwater," Sullivan said. "No mention of
contaminated soil is found in the EIS. Extensive evaluations for a
variety of hazardous materials,
however, were included in the Northwest Training and Testing EIS, so
why leave it out of the Growler EIS? This is the equivalent of a
doctor refusing to
look at an EKG that clearly shows a heart attack, and diagnosing the
patient with anxiety."
Typical Response
"The Navy's approach to this pollution problem is no different than
that of any big industrial polluter seeking to avoid criticism, reduce
liability and
continue business-as-usual," said Abraham. "Downplaying the
seriousness of the problem, dragging out investigations and keeping
the public in the dark
is what they too often do."
He told Truthout that the Navy has not revealed all the contaminants
found in the aquifer, and their draft EIS did not mention the
contamination issue,
even after the Navy sampled wells and discovered contamination and
notified residents living within a mile radius.
COER is suggesting that people near the OLF have their water
independently tested for the same chemicals found by the Navy, and
that the Navy be asked
to pay for the tests.
"The testing of our water should not be a one-time event, and the
analysis should identify the lowest detectable concentrations of those
chemicals," COER's
Maryon Attwood said in a press release on the issue. "We have a right
to know what's in the water we drink."
Bruce Saari, another long-time Whidbey Island resident who has lived
many years near the naval base or OLF Coupeville, is deeply disturbed
by the ordeal.
"Those early fears have been realized I think," he told Truthout,
referencing the contamination found at the air base. "And now it is
Coupeville that is
under the same cloud. I lived 20 years on Whidbey on Long Point near
the OLF and in Oak Harbor near the base. I have a lifelong interest in
the area, worked
the farms on Ebey's reserve as a student, and feel a sense of
impending doom regarding these developments."
Solutions?
What COER, Abraham and countless other Whidbey Island residents being
impacted by the crisis want is simply clean and safe drinking water,
and for the
Navy to take responsibility for the crisis it has caused.
Abraham believes the Navy must immediately install appropriate
filtration systems on private and public wells that are contaminated
or at risk, which includes
all of Coupeville's wells and water treatment plant. He also thinks it
only makes sense for the Navy to provide alternative sources of clean
water to all
entities who have seen their water contaminated.
"Too many people have been living off bottled water for far too long
with no end in sight," he said.
On March 4, the Navy tested 27 monitoring wells it had previously
installed at OLF Coupeville, where it found even higher levels of
contamination in the
aquifer in some of the wells. PFOA was found up to 1,190 ppt, PFOS up
to 54.7, and PFBS up to 473 ppt. The Navy's "plan" for testing these
monitoring wells
did not include testing for PFHxS or PFHpA, even though both were
known to be in the water as well.
Andrews, COER and Abraham are all calling for the Navy to retest and
monitor all public and private wells known to be contaminated or "at
risk."
They are also calling for PFHxS, PFHpA and PFNA [Perfluorononanoic
acid] to be added to the list of chemicals monitored at OLF's on-site
monitoring wells;
for all public and private drinking water in the area to be tested and
monitored for all six PFAS found at the OLF; for the migration of
contaminated water
to be stopped; and for the PFASs to be removed from the aquifer, as
technologies already exist for doing so.
But these are tall orders when viewed from the fact that even getting
the Navy to admit to the extent and severity of the problem still
remains the first
step.
