PFAS contamination: Of 21 Barnstable ponds tested, 21 had contaminants, town report finds

Jeannette Hinkle Cape Cod Times 

Published Oct 4, 2021 

In July 2020, Tom Cambareri dragged his kayak to the shore of Aunt Bettys Pond in Barnstable. He paddled out to the middle and dropped his sampling equipment into the water.  

Cambareri, a hydrologist and the founder of Sole Source Consulting, was on a mission for the town of Barnstable. His goal was to better map the landscape of PFAS contamination in the town’s surface water bodies as the search for new sources of drinking water to meet rising demand intensifies.

The issue:As Barnstable hunts for new sources of public drinking water, PFAS contamination rears its ugly head

Cambareri ultimately collected water samples from 21 water bodies in town, according to a report he produced in December 2020. 

The results from lab tests of those samples showed PFAS compounds were present in every water body tested, with some registering PFAS levels far above the state standard for drinking water. There is no standard for PFAS contamination insurface water bodies, such as ponds and creeks.

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of thousands of manmade chemicals linked to health problems ranging from immune system issues to cancer. The chemicals remain essentially unregulated at the federal level, but some states, including Massachusetts, have begun to put safe drinking water limits on a few of the more well-researched compounds.

State DEP:PFAS chemical contamination at Hyannis airport not investigated enough

In 2020, Massachusetts instituted a drinking water standard of 20 nanograms per liter for a group of six PFAS compounds, which are now known as the PFAS6.

Of the 21 samples Cambareri collected, seven had PFAS6 levels that exceeded the state drinking water standard. The sample taken at Aunt Bettys Pond had one of the highest readings: 141.4 nanograms per liter, roughly seven times the state drinking water standard.

Cambareri tested for 18 other PFAS compounds that haven’t yet been regulated by the state or federal government.

Keating:Air Force agrees to pay for PFAS cleanups in Mashpee and Falmouth wells

Three water bodies had total PFAS levels exceeding 200 nanograms per liter, three had levels exceeding 100 nanograms per liter, and five had levels exceeding 20 nanograms per liter.

At Aunt Bettys Pond, total PFAS levels registered at 237.9 nanograms per liter, the second-highest reading after its feeder system, Hyannis Creek, where levels topped 252 nanograms per liter

When Cambareri compared PFAS levels in the surface water bodies he sampled to PFAS levels in Hyannis’s public drinking wells before treatment, he confirmed that contamination in ponds, lakes and creeks was correlated with contamination in village wells.

“… Areas with high concentrations of PFAS contamination in surface water bodies also have similarly high concentrations of contamination in wells,” Cambareri wrote. 

“Because of this relationship we can assume that development of wells in an area with high concentrations of PFAS in surface water would result in high concentrations of PFAS in wells, thus resulting in higher treatment costs,” he added.

Laurel Schaider, a senior scientist at Silent Spring Institute, where she leads the institute’s water quality research on PFAS, reviewed Cambareri’s report at the Times’ request.

“I think this is a really important report,” Schaider said Friday. “It’s a reminder of the interconnectedness of groundwater and surface water on the Cape. Given what we know about the high levels of PFAS reaching the drinking water wells in Hyannis, it’s not surprising that the ponds in those same areas have similar levels of PFAS.”

Cambareri said in his report that, as the town considers new sources of drinking water, it should rule out places where PFAS contamination is known to be present in nearby surface water bodies.

Help needed: Cape towns look to Congress to help pay PFAS cleanup costs

“By taking account of the behavior of contamination plumes from multiple sources, several future well sites can be ruled out,” Cambareri wrote in his report. “For example, two of the most convenient potential future well sites located within Hyannis, thus requiring the shortest transmission mains, have a high degree of risk because of the presence of multiple PFAS sources.”

Where is the contamination coming from?

The Barnstable County Fire Rescue and Training Academy and the Cape Cod Gateway Airport — two locations where PFAS-laden firefighting foam was applied for decades — are two known sources of significant PFAS contamination in Hyannis. 

The levels of PFAS detected at those sites are staggering. At the fire training academy, tests done after some cleanup efforts showed total PFAS concentrations in groundwater there reached 167,510 nanograms per liter. At the airport, total PFAS concentrations in groundwater have reached 15,583 nanograms per liter, according to Cambareri’s report.

The Hyannis Water District began removing PFAS from public drinking water wells contaminated by those sites in 2015 and has since brought the level of PFAS contamination in the public drinking water supply down to non-detect levels. 

Elsewhere: 'Forever chemicals' detected in Chatham drinking water wells

But Cambareri’s report found that PFAS emanating from the fire training academy and airport was redistributed across the village through contaminated well water before that treatment began. 

PFAS, which were designed to be water, stain and fire-resistant, are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down naturally in the environment. Rather, they accumulate, in soil, in water, in animals, and in people. Beyond firefighting foam, PFAS can be found in packaging, cooking pans, cosmetics and other consumer products.

Highly persistent PFAS from the fire training academy and airport distributed through Hyannis before drinking water treatment began are combining with highly persistent PFAS from consumer products that end up in wastewater from homes and businesses, Cambareri found.

PFAS from wastewater ends up in the groundwater in two ways. 

If a property is connected to a sewer , its wastewater is sent to the Barnstable Water Pollution Control facility, where it is treated — though not for PFAS — before being discharged into local groundwater.

If a property is not connected to the town's sewage treatment plant and relies on a septic system, its wastewater is leached into the groundwater on-site without being treated for PFAS. When the septic tank is pumped, the wastewater goes to the Barnstable Water Pollution Control Facility, where it is discharged into groundwater without being treated for PFAS.

All of this PFAS, from the fire training academy, the airport, the treatment plant or individual septic tanks, ends up in Hyannis’s groundwater, where it circulates throughout the village.

“The redistribution of primary PFAS sources in Hyannis resulted in widespread secondary groundwater contamination in the Hyannis area aquifer,” Cambareri wrote.

Schaider said Cambareri’s report is a reminder that local governments need to follow through on ongoing efforts to clean up sites that are highly contaminated with PFAS, including the fire training academy and airport.

“The Hyannis water system has gone to great lengths to treat the drinking water supply for the town, but as these results show, there are still elevated levels of PFAS in the groundwater and in the surface water in this whole area,” she said. “So it's important to, as much as we can, remediate the sources so that no new PFAS are getting out into the environment and for us to continue to monitor the levels in water and in fish over time.”

'A hodepodge':'A hodgepodge': Draft PFAS assessment plan for Barnstable fire academy plume is inadequate

What is the town doing in response to the report?

Barnstable Director of Public Works Daniel Santos denied the Times’ request to speak with Cambareri, the former water resources program manager for the Cape Cod Commission, about the report’s findings. 

The Barnstable Health Department referred questions to Santos, and Town Manager Mark Ells did not return a call to his office requesting an interview about the report. 

Santos said the biggest takeaway from Cambareri’s report is “that there is PFAS in surface waters and groundwaters throughout the town of Barnstable.”

That information will guide the town’s search for new sources of drinking water, as Cambareri’s report found surface water contamination correlates with groundwater contamination.

PFAS removed from town drinking water

“There is a drinking water standard that as we search for new sources of drinking water, it makes sense to find out whether we can put wells anywhere in town that aren't going to be affected with PFAS, or if we do, we want to understand what level of treatment we're going to need to put on them,” he said.

But Santos said there isn’t much more the town can do with the knowledge that many ponds are contaminated with PFAS because there is no state or federal standard for human exposure to PFAS in surface water bodies, only for drinking water. 

With no state or federal standard for surface waters, Santos said, the town is not required to take any action in response to the report’s findings.

In a joint response from the state Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Public Health sent in response to questions from the Times, DEP spokesperson Edmund Coletta said the state is not currently working on developing a standard for PFAS in surface water bodies.

"It would take considerable work to develop such a standard or advisory," Coletta wrote on behalf of the departments.

Santos said Barnstable is ahead of other communities that haven’t yet begun testing their surface waters for PFAS. 

“This is all new,” Santos said. “We get more information every week on it and we’re trying to get a sense of what the situation is in town, in groundwater, in drinking water, in ponds. We’re collecting data so that when we do get information from regulatory agencies, at least we’re out ahead of this and we understand where it is so that if they do put standards in place we can move and deal with it if that’s required.”

Cambareri’s report recommends implementing limits on PFAS in surface water bodies.

“Because 40% of the groundwater in the aquifer passes through ponds, a more stringent PFAS cleanup standard for surface water should be applicable on Cape Cod,” he wrote.

What does this mean for people who use the ponds?

Researchers are still working to determine the implications of PFAS contamination in surface water bodies.

Around the same time that Cambareri was paddling through Barnstable’s ponds to collect water samples for his study, staff with DEP and the U.S. Geological Survey were collecting water samples for PFAS analysis from 27 rivers in Massachusetts.

PFAS were detected in all 27 rivers sampled. Total PFAS levels ranged between 0.3 and 399 parts per trillion. The highest concentrations were observed downstream of wastewater effluent discharges, but PFAS were also found in rivers upstream of those discharges, according to DEP’s website. The lowest concentrations were found in rivers located in less populated areas.

“MassDEP will continue to identify future monitoring objectives, potential studies, and other actions to better understand and address the distribution of PFAS in surface waters, relative contributions of different sources, and implications for public health and aquatic life,” the DEP website states.

A fact sheet about use of ponds contaminated by chemicals applied at Joint Base Cape Cod produced by the DPH in 2021 says that potential exposure to PFAS associated with swimming, wading, boating or catch-and-release fishing would be much less than potential exposure from drinking water containing PFAS.

“This is because the amount of water ingested during recreational activities is much less than the amount ingested as drinking water, and because very little PFAS are absorbed through the skin,” the fact sheet states.

Coletta wrote that exposure from swimming in water bodies that test above the state drinking water standard for PFAS "would not automatically be expected to result in adverse health effects."

"The risk associated with recreational activities such as swimming would be dependent on the concentrations of PFAS and relative levels of ingestion, whether over a prolonged period or during a single event," Coletta wrote.

Two of the ponds the DPH fact sheet referenced, Ashumet Pond and Johns Pond in Mashpee, had concentrations of one PFAS compound called PFOS that reached 200 nanograms per liter, according to Joint Base Cape Cod Remediation Program Manager Rose Forbes.

DPH is in the midst of testing 16 water bodies approved for swimming in Barnstable, Bourne, Sandwich, Mashpee and Falmouth for PFAS, according to information provided by Forbes. 

The agency is collecting water samples from each water body, and fish samples from selected water bodies.

Schaider, who is leading Hyannis-based human health studies about PFAS exposure through drinking water, said exposure to PFAS through swimming in PFAS-contaminated ponds is unlikely to be significant.

“It's important for people to have this knowledge for people to know it would make sense to minimize how much water people are swallowing when they're out swimming, but it's unlikely to be a major source of exposure for most people,” she said.

But she did recommend that Cambareri’s report be followed up with testing of fish in the studied ponds, as some are popular spots for fishing and ice fishing.

“It can be difficult to predict in every case how much accumulation will happen among different types of fish, so I think the next step should be to conduct testing of fish to learn more about the levels of accumulation, particularly in ponds where people are consuming fish,” Schaider said.

Coletta wrote that the risk associated with consuming fish from PFAS-tainted water depends on the level in the fish's tissue, rather than the water.

DPH has not issued any advisories warning people not to enter a surface water body because of PFAS, according to Coletta. Neither the DPH or DEP have an estimate of how many surface water bodies are contaminated with PFAS in the state.

"The commonwealth continues to monitor surface water bodies for PFAS and will continue to do so, sharing data as they become available and developing a better understanding of the scope of the issue with data collection," Coletta wrote.

 

Proposed machine-gun range gets another public airing

Asad Jung Cape Cod Times 

Published Sept 3, 2021 

The proposed multi-purpose machine-gun range at Joint Base Cape Cod continues as a contentious issue. Citing military necessity, some embrace the project, while  others call for further environmental studies or outright suspension of the project. 

The Falmouth Select Board hosted a public forum last Thursday to continue the debate, which included presentations by the Massachusetts Army National Guard, 350 Cape Cod and other environmental activists and public comments. 

In a significant development prior to the forum, the federal Environmental Protection Agency announced Aug. 14 it will review the proposed machine gun range and the potential risks it may pose to public drinking water.

Base officials say range essential for training, has won key approvals

The presentation by the Massachusetts Army National Guard  focused on the need for the gun range, the regulations the base has had to adhere to through as part of its process, as well as its commitment to environmental conservation.

The National Guard says the $11.5 million machine-gun range is needed for weapons training, regulatory requirements and habitat management. 

Major Alex McDonough said soldiers need to complete core and job-specific training events to meet training requirements and be eligible for promotions. 

Phase 1 of the proposed construction would require the clearing of 108 acres of land —30 existing acres will also be used. 

McDonough said the project received a permit from the state Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, a certificate from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs — that the project complied with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act — and had a finding of no significant impact as part of the process of meeting the National Environmental Policy Act. A review by National Guard Bureau and the Department of the Army  also led to findings of no significant impact.

Jake McCumber, manager of the natural resource and training lands program for the Massachusetts Army National Guard, spoke about the conservation requirements for the machine-gun range. 

He also spoke about the greenhouse gas analysis done as part of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act process, which found the emissions and carbon release from the clearing of trees would be mitigated by land preservation, forestry management and activities specific to the gun range. 

Col. Matthew Porter  said that small arms ranges do not contaminate groundwater, and that the range is necessary for the Army and National Guard. He said he knows there is a history of contamination on the base, but that the base has been working hard to fix that issue.  

350 Cape Cod: Worries about drinking water, pollution

Rosemary Carey of 350 Cape Cod  said her group is calling for a suspension of the project until an independent Environmental Impact Study is completed. She said the Joint Base is the largest piece of land on the Cape that is undisturbed.  

Carey said  there were things missing from the conversation about the gun range, including the fact the towns of Mashpee, Falmouth, Bourne, Barnstable and Yarmouth receive drinking water from a sole-source aquifer called the Sagamore Lens. 

She also said Joint Base Cape Cod was designated a SuperFund site in 1989, which cost taxpayers nearly $1.5 billion. 

She said Cape Cod 350’s top concerns are: water quality, air and soil contamination, climate impacts, habitat protection, noise pollution/health impacts, socio-economic and cultural impacts and lack of necessity. 

Mon Cochran, vice president of the Cape Cod Climate Change Collaborative, said the carbon emissions from the cutting of trees was understated, as were  adverse effects to habitat and noise issues. 

Activist Ella Sampou asked the Falmouth Select Board for two things: to call for an Environmental Impact Statement to be conducted and that the project be suspended, and a letter of opposition sent to Gov. Charlie Baker. 

“Hyper-ventilating" by environmental extremists

Some of the public commenters said they were concerned with the safety of the water supply and environmental impacts of the range, while others were vehemently supportive of the range. 

Adam Lange, of Brewster, said that environmental extremists were “hyper-ventilating,” and that what was being built was a gun range on a military installation and not a nuclear power plant in Cape Cod Bay.  

Another speaker said she supports the gun range so that the military can continue to protect citizens. 

Tom Weaver asked why the military couldn’t just use simulations for training. 

Another woman, who did not give her name, said she felt a range could be built elsewhere, not on top of an aquifer.  

What's next for Falmouth Select Board?

Douglas Brown, chair of the Falmouth Select Board, said that although a lot of the questions he had were adequately answered, he still has more, especially about the EPA aquifer review. 

EPA to review proposed machine-gun range at Joint Base Cape Cod

Brown said the Select Board will be taking public comment over the next couple of weeks, and at their Sept. 13 meeting will either take a vote on recommending the project or decide that they need more time to review. 

“I’m still sitting with the information from both presentations,” said Nancy Taylor, vice chair of the Falmouth Select Board. Taylor also said that she hopes that people who didn't attend the forum watch it. It can be viewed here: fctv.org/v3/vod/joint-base-cape-cod-machine-gun-range-forum-august-26-2021