Unsafe levels of forever chemicals found at Brunswick golf course

Mar. 17—Unsafe levels of forever chemicals have been found in the well water of a golf course about a mile and a half southwest of the Brunswick Executive Airport, the location of Maine’s largest documented spill of firefighting foam laced with toxic forever chemicals.

The results of a Jan. 23 test at Mere Creek Golf Course — 33.1 parts per trillion of the six forever chemicals that Maine limits in drinking water — has Brunswick and Maine officials calling on the Navy, which operated a naval air base there until 2011, to run more tests.

The state thinks this contamination may be a result of the Navy’s past activities at the base, not the spill.

The 33.1 parts per trillion, or ppt, is 65% higher than the 20 ppt limit allowed by Maine’s drinking water standards. New federal drinking water limits cap perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, at no more than 4 ppt. The golf course’s PFOS level is 19.9 ppt.

Officials previously have told the public that this area was safe in the wake of the August 2024 spill that sent 1,450 gallons of concentrated aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, and 50,000 gallons of water into a parking lot, down sewer and stormwater drains, and into nearby retaining ponds.

There are two homes located on Harpswell Road within 1,000 feet of the golf course well, and three more just beyond 1,000 feet. To date, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection has concentrated its residential well testing on homes east of the Brunswick Executive Airport.

Brunswick Town Manager Julia Henze met this week with the two homeowners closest to the golf course to inform them of the results, which were conducted in January and sent to a lab for analysis. The Maine DEP just released the results to the town this week.

The department doesn’t believe the golf course well is related to the August 2024 spill because hydrological maps suggest the chemicals spilled at Brunswick Executive Airport’s Hangar 4 would flow south and east. It wants the Navy to test to determine if past operations at the base led to the golf course contamination.

“Given its proximity to the former NAS Brunswick, the Navy should investigate this area more thoroughly than in the past to evaluate the potential that PFAS from past Navy activities has impacted this well,” Iver McLeod, DEP’s project manager, said in a Feb. 27 letter to the Navy.

The Navy’s cursory investigation of this general area of the former base is not enough, McLeod wrote.

Despite the state’s belief that the August spill didn’t cause the contamination, the well is testing much higher now than it was before. In 2015, the well tested at 20.85 ppt for the six forever chemicals Maine limits for safe drinking water. In 2021, the well tested at 19.21 ppt.

Built in 1958, the nine holes at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station began as a facility for military personnel, veterans and their guests. When the base closed, the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority was created to redevelop the land. It owns the course and leases it to Harris Golf Company.

The well servicing the Mere Creek Golf Course was previously regulated as a public water supply, but it became a private well when the Navy transferred ownership because the facility did not use the water for consumption or food preparation, the Maine DEP said.

The MRRA plans to install a water filtration system at the golf course clubhouse before it opens for the season, said Daniel Stevenson, the agency’s new director. He said the Navy planned to resample the golf course well and then review its maps and records to determine the source of the contamination and what to do next.

“It is critical that we prioritize the health and safety,” Stevenson wrote in a March 12 statement.

ASKING NAVY TO GO FURTHER

Brunswick wants the Navy to go even further and sample the monitoring well at the former Harpswell Road quarry and any other monitoring wells on the western border of the former naval air station. The quarry well hasn’t been tested since 2014, and sampling methods have improved significantly since then.

“Sampling at this location, and others along the western boundary, would provide us with some indication to assess if any other private residential wells may be impacted south of where the Brunswick Topsham Water District public water line ends,” Henze, the town manager, wrote in a March 11 letter to the Navy.

According to the federal data, 1,200 spills of firefighting foam containing toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or forever chemicals, have occurred across the country since 1990. The 2024 Brunswick spill was Maine’s biggest and the sixth largest in the country.

The foam is used by firefighters to fight high-intensity fuel fires at military bases, civilian airports, fuel terminals and industrial plants that use a lot of chemicals, such as paper mills. The foam forms a film that acts like a blanket over the fire, depriving it of the oxygen it needs to burn.

Firefighting foam is the most common source of forever chemical contamination in the U.S., according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but PFAS has shown up in trace amounts almost everywhere, from Arctic polar bears to Maine dairy farmers.

Even trace amounts of some PFAS are considered a public health risk, according to federal regulators. High exposure over a long time can cause cancer. Exposure during critical life stages, such as in early childhood, can also cause life-changing harm.

While manufacturers can no longer use two variants of the chemicals, large amounts of “legacy” PFAS-containing foam are still out there. Maine doesn’t know how much it has — it estimates about 50,000 gallons — and lawmakers are considering a bill this session to conduct a statewide survey to find out.

The Brunswick spill has also prompted lawmakers — led by Rep. Dan Ankeles, D-Brunswick — to introduce a bill to launch a state-funded AFFF take-back program to collect unwanted foam and store it safely until an acceptable disposal method is found. The program has a $5 million estimated price tag.

A legislative committee has backed both bills, but neither has reached the House or Senate for a vote.

Copy the Story Link