Letter: Wording could have people drinking contaminated water

Editor,

The Navy and Coupeville’s “path forward” to the solution of the town’s PFAS-contaminated water supply is a slow one that won’t get people the clean water they expect.

The promised PFAS filter system is supposed to be finished in late 2019, three years after contamination was discovered.

The Navy admits that PFASs will be reduced, but not eliminated.

How much of which PFASs people will still be drinking is the question neither party to the memorandum of understanding will answer.

State-of-the-art filtration systems can drop PFASs levels to single digit parts per trillion. However, the town and Navy’s agreement doesn’t call for one, or for removal of PFASs to the greatest extent possible. Neither does it call for post-filter monitoring and reporting that will reveal the amounts of all PFASs that will remain.

At least seven have been found in Coupeville’s water.

The agreement says nothing about the PFHXS and PFHPA in the water. It only calls for reducing PFOA/PFOS to an amount below 70 parts per trillion.

This leaves wiggle room for PFASs to remain at levels above the Agency For Toxic Substances And Disease Registry’s proposed minimum risk levels.

The filter is supposed to have “adaptive alternatives” to address “future applicable federal or state drinking water regulations.”

This wording allows PFASs to remain that are not regulated or likely to be regulated in the near future.

The Navy and Coupeville have a history of using detection limits that allowed for some PFASs to go undetected and unreported. Neither will identify the detection limits to be used in the post-filter sampling.

This benefits people most concerned about public image and tourist dollars, not those who want to know what’s in their drinking water.

For reasons yet unexplained, the decision was made against relocating the town’s main supply well to an uncontaminated area. Doing so might have cost the Navy more money, but it would have assured PFAS free drinking water.

The terms of the agreement will expire in 10 years, or “whenever the Navy determines the response action is no longer needed.” This kind of wording can leave people drinking PFAS contaminated water and sticking taxpayers with costs the Navy should pay.

The MOU can and should be altered by mutual agreement

Rick Abraham

Greenbank

More in Letters to the Editor

Letter: What’s all of this talk about global warming?

Editor, Over the last few days, Mother Nature has made me realize… Continue reading

Letter: State of New York going too far with abortion law

Editor, I have been chewing on this for a while. We must… Continue reading

Letter: Tale of two walls: ‘Sorrow, anger, fear’ and ‘power’

Editor, Following are some thoughts of sorrow, anger, fear, power to share… Continue reading

Letter: Letter writer got many of his border facts wrong

Editor, In a letter to the editor published on Wednesday, Feb. 20,… Continue reading

Letter: Alternative, safe vaccines withheld by ‘big pharma’

Editor, House Bill 1638 mandates the removal of “religious and personal exemptions… Continue reading

Letter: Security of this nation’s borders must be a priority

Editor, We have a very serious problem in our country created by… Continue reading

Letter: Former state treasurer is going against our citizens

Editor, Former State Treasurer Duane A. Davidson is opposed to the citizens… Continue reading

Letter: Wondering if the Navy has problem with credibility

Editor, The Navy Growler EIS makes dubious assertions, as well as verbal… Continue reading

Letter: Exposure to jet noise may have damaging effects

Editor, Noise exposure from military jets has long been shown to cause… Continue reading

Most Read