Fire, Foam, U.S. Military, Water contamination

Military to check whether firefighting foam contaminated wells

Repost from Associated Press – The Big Story
[Editor: More information: A list of the fire and crash training sites where the military is assessing the risk of groundwater contamination from firefighting foam: http://bit.ly/1LUHt32.  – RS]

Military to check for water contamination at 664 sites

By Jennifer McDermott, Mar. 10, 2016 5:12 PM EST
In this Feb. 2, 2016 photo, area residents gather around an aerial photograph of Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field during a meeting at a school, in Chesapeake, Va. The military is beginning to check whether chemicals from its firefighting foam may have contaminated groundwater at hundreds of sites nationwide, according to the Defense Department. The Navy started handing out bottled water in January to people who work at Fentress. (Steve Earley/The Virginian-Pilot via AP) MAGS OUT; MANDATORY CREDIT

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — The military plans to examine hundreds of sites nationwide to determine whether chemicals from foam used to fight fires have contaminated groundwater and spread to drinking water, the Defense Department said.

The checks are planned for 664 sites where the military has conducted fire or crash training, military officials told The Associated Press this week.

Since December, tests have been carried out at 28 naval sites in mostly coastal areas. Drinking water at a landing field in Virginia and the groundwater at another site in New Jersey have been found to contain levels above the guidance given by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the Navy said. Results of the other tests have either come up under federally acceptable levels or are pending.

The Navy is giving bottled water to its personnel at the Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress in Chesapeake, Virginia, and is testing wells in a nearby rural area after the discovery of perfluorinated chemicals in drinking water, which the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says may be associated with prostate, kidney and testicular cancer, along with other health issues.

The Navy found perfluorinated chemicals in the groundwater monitoring wells at Naval Weapons Station Earle in Colts Neck, New Jersey, but not in the drinking water supply. Test results from off-base drinking water wells are expected this month.

And several congressmen are raising concerns about the safety of drinking water near two former Navy bases in suburban Philadelphia. The lawmakers say firefighting foams might be the source of chemicals found in nearly 100 public and private wells near the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove and the Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster.

The foam is used where potentially catastrophic fuel fires can occur, such as in a plane crash, because it can rapidly extinguish them. It contains perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOS and PFOA, both considered emerging contaminants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Defense Department said that until foam without perfluorinated chemicals can be certified for military use, it is removing stocks of it in some places and also trying to prevent any uncontrolled releases during training exercises.

The military is beginning to assess the risk to groundwater at the training sites not only to determine the extent of contamination, but also to identify any action the Defense Department needs to take, said Lt. Col. Eric D. Badger, a department spokesman.

California has the most sites, with 85, followed by Texas, with 57, Florida, with 38, and Alaska and South Carolina, each with 26, according to a list provided to the AP. Each state has at least one site.

Knowledge about the chemicals’ effects has been evolving, and the EPA does not regulate them. The agency in 2009 issued guidance on the level at which they are considered harmful to health, but it was only an advisory — not a standard that could be legally enforced.

The EPA said then that it was assessing the potential risk from short-term exposure through drinking water. It later began studying the health effects from a lifetime of exposure. Those studies remain in progress.

The Navy started handing out bottled water in January to about 50 people at the contaminated Virginia site, and it worked with the city to set up a water station for concerned property owners after it found perfluorinated chemicals in on-base drinking water wells above the concentrations in the EPA advisory.

The Navy is testing private wells of nearby property owners; those results are due next week.

Chris Evans, of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, credited the Navy with being proactive but said he’s concerned anytime there’s a potential threat to human health and the environment.

Some states have established their own drinking water and groundwater guidelines for the maximum allowable concentrations of the chemicals; Virginia uses the EPA’s.

“We’ll follow EPA’s lead as this develops,” Evans said.

There’s a lot of evolving science around perfluorinated chemicals, said Lawrence Hajna, a spokesman for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

“The more that we hear, the more that we realize that this is a very important health concern,” he said.

___

Online: A list of the fire and crash training sites where the military is assessing the risk of groundwater contamination from firefighting foam: http://bit.ly/1LUHt32
Bakken Crude, California Public Utilities Commission, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Emergency Readiness & Response, Explosion, Feather River Canyon, Fish and wildlife, Lac-Mégantic, Lake Oroville, Oil spill, Rail Safety, Water contamination

A looming disaster – Crude oil running on Butte County’s railways poses a threat to local, state watersheds

Repost from the Chico News & Review

A looming disaster – Crude oil running on Butte County’s railways poses a threat to local, state watersheds

By Dave Garcia, 03.10.16
DAVE GARCIA. The author, a longtime Oroville resident, is the spokesman for Frack-Free Butte County.

Scientists have found unprecedented levels of fish deformities in Canada’s Chaudière River following the Lac-Mégantic Bakken crude oil spill in 2013. This catastrophic train derailment, which killed 47 people and ravaged parts of the small town in Quebec, underscores the danger of spilled toxic crude oil getting into our waterways and affecting living organisms.

I find the Canadian government’s report very distressing—even for Butte County. That’s because, just last week, I observed a train of 97 railcars loaded with crude oil traveling through the Feather River Canyon and downtown Oroville.

The California Public Utilities Commission has designated this rail route as high risk because of its sharp curves and steep grade; it travels next to the Feather River, which feeds into Lake Oroville, an integral part of California’s domestic water supply.

If you think that railway shipping is safe, think back to 2014. That’s the year 14 railcars derailed, falling down into the canyon and spilling their loads of grain into the Feather River. The last thing we need, especially in a time of drought, is crude oil poisoning the water of our second-largest reservoir.

In 2010, it took over $1 billion to clean up the Kalamazoo River crude oil spill. But you can never really clean up a crude oil spill in pristine freshwater, as the deformed fish from the Chaudière River reveal.

Keeping crude-oil-carrying railcars on the state’s tracks is simply not worth it. Less than 1 percent of California’s imported oil is transported by railway. Californians receive little benefit, but bear the risks to their communities and watersheds from this practice.

Since Lac-Mégantic, there have been nine more crude oil derailments, explosions and spills into waterways. We need to learn a lesson from those catastrophes. We must convey to our politicians—local, state and federal—our priority of protecting our communities, fisheries and waterways. Let’s not let what happened in Quebec happen in Butte County.

Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

2014-2016 Comments on Valero Crude by Rail by Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

By Roger Straw, March 10, 2016

Formal comments on Valero Crude by Rail by Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

I have been asked to make it easier for people to access the several important contributions made by Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC).

BSHC is an informal group of Benicia residents who first gathered in January of 2014 to oppose Valero’s dirty and dangerous Crude By Rail proposal.  At each step along the way, BSHC has contributed significant public comments on the City of Benicia’s environmental review. See below:

 

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia City Council to begin hearings on March 15; Public comment scheduled for April 4

By Roger Straw, March 9, 2016

Benicia City Council to begin hearings on March 15; Public comment scheduled for April 4

public notice_Page_1An alert resident here in Benicia sent me a City mailer yesterday announcing plans for the City Council’s consideration of Valero’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial of Valero Crude by Rail.

The mailer gives a Hearing date of March 15, 2016, and states, “Staff presentations and Valero presentations will take place on March 15, 2015. Public comment time will not happen until April 4, 2016.” Responding to my inquiry this morning, the City confirmed these dates and procedures.

As of this writing, the general public has not yet been notified.  The mailer was sent to residents within 500 feet of the proposed crude by rail project, and arrived in the mail on Monday, March 7.  (The resident who sent me the mailer lives farther than 500 feet, so the City may have distributed the mailer to a larger “blast zone” radius.)

The City is required by statute to consider an appeal at the first regularly scheduled meeting following receipt of the appeal by 14 or more days, therefore at the March 15 Council meeting.  (See Benicia Municipal Code 1.44.40.B and 1.44.90.)  This would explain why staff is going ahead with presentations on March 15.

Even so, it will be difficult on this schedule for Council members to familiarize themselves with the huge number of reports and analyses in order to make an informed decision.  It seems likely that someone will ask the City for more time.

Here is a scanned copy of the City’s mailer.

Written public comments are encouraged now!  Send your thoughts to the City Council by email directed to Amy Million, Principal Planner, Benicia Community Development Department: amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us. You may also send your letter Amy Million by mail to 250 East L Street, Benicia, CA 94510, or by Fax: (707) 747-1637.

And mark your calendar now, so you don’t forget.  Please plan to attend on Tuesday, March 15 for the presentations, and again on Monday, April 4.  All meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chamber, 250 East, L Street, Benicia.