To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

18th Strategic Aerospace Division

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

18th Strategic Aerospace Division
Shield Strategic Air Command.png
Active1929–1942; 1942–1944; 1959–1968
Country United States
Branch United States Air Force
18th Strategic Aerospace Division emblem (approved)[1]
18th Strategic Aerospace Division crest.jpg

The 18th Strategic Aerospace Division is an inactive United States Air Force unit. Its last assignment was with the Fifteenth Air Force at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, where it was inactivated on 2 July 1968.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    4 219
  • ✪ Camp Grayling public information meeting to discuss PFC detection in monitoring wells
  • ✪ 6. World War I, the 1920s, and the 1930s
  • ✪ Joseph DeSimone: Convergence Drives New Ideas [Entire Talk]


- Ready? Alright, good evening. Can everybody hear me? Can everybody hear me now? No? How about now, I'll yell. Is that good? No? Then move up here. [laughs] Alright, so we'll get started. We do have some seats up in the front, so if you want to move forward, if not we'll get some more chairs out there, but, come on up, it's not church, so you can hear everything that's goin' on. Now I'm gettin' louder. Alright, so my name is Lieutenant Colonel Brown, I'm the Deputy Commander here at Camp Grayling. I'm also one of your neighbors. I live on Evergreen, so I met a few neighbors I hadn't met before, so hi. I've been asked to moderate this public information session. Now I think you guys can hear me right? We've turned down some of the fans. What I'd like to do is welcome David Stephenson, Crawford County Board Commissioner Chair. Rick Harland, Grayling Township Commissioner. Kyle Bond, he's representing the city of Grayling, he's the DPW. So thank you for attending here. I'd also like to orientate you to the building. So we got water up here, and yes it is safe to drink. It's been tested, so go ahead and drink all the water you want. The bathrooms, if you go out the hall, it's going to be down to the right, so we have restrooms down there. And then if we have to evacuate this building we're going to go out this garage door. One of my guys is stayin' back there, he'll open it up and we'll all move out there. And then I have MP's, they'll move you to wherever you need to go. So that's the evacuation route, if somethin' happens. So we're scheduled for a little over an hour for presentation and questions. And in order to get through what we need to do with our board I want to set a few ground rules. First, if you can hold your questions until after the presentations, and then secondly, when you move forward to the two microphones here, if you could ask one question at a time. That allows everybody to get their questions. And then we'll stay and get all your questions answered. And then afterwards the subject matter experts will go back will go back to their table and answer any questions that we don't get to here at the public forum. Right now I'd like to introduce our board. So we have Major General Greg Vadnais, he's the ATAG of the Michigan National Guard. Mr. Jonathan Edgerly, Department of Military, Veteran's Affairs, Environmental. Dr. Edna Wells, Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. David Lindsay, Department of Environmental Quality. Dr. Jennifer Morse, District 10. Dr. Stephen Hussey, right, Hussey, oh there you are from the Department of Agriculture. And I see that Dave Borgeson, nope, yep, from DNR, he snuck in on me, here from DNR. So we should be able to answer all of the questions that you may have. What I'd like to do at this time is welcome the General up here for a few comments. - Thanks Theresa, and good evening everyone. And appreciate everybody taking time out of their schedules to come in this evening and have a follow on conversation from our May 18th meeting. So we have an opportunity to share with you what we have learned, information that we have gathered, and what we don't know, we're going to talk about that, and then we're going to talk about the road ahead, and follow on meetings. But let me start off this evening by first of all reemphasizing to each and every one of you, yeah, we've been here for 104 years. This is very personal for us. Many of the people affected, directly affected by the issue are our soldiers, our state employees, contractors, or just part of the Grayling family. So it is important us, and my guidance to my team, is we've just got to get to ground truth, we've got to figure out what the issues are, and how we're going to move out and mitigate where we've got issues. So that's been the standing order. And I got to tell you that it's been an education for me in working with multiple state and local agencies, everybody from the community, to the state agencies, everybody involved that have stepped up to the plate, that have come together to kind of collectively work through this issue. Now I will tell ya, Grayling Army Airfield is not unique with this problem. This is a national level issue. There are over 100, just from a National Guard perspective, over 100 Guard installations that are going through the same process that we are. There's over 75 Air Guard bases that are going through this same process. It was the A triple F, which we think is probably the source. Which is been a widely used, saved a lot of lives, fire retardant foam. So it is, when scale and scope, we've got a problem. The other dynamic is, it's an emerging science. And I have, I'm probably the least technical guy in this room is me, right. So if you go on to the EPA website and you start reading some of the information that they've put out there, it's always kind of murky. It never gives you a clean line of you know, if you've got this, do that. It's always kind of hazy. So we've spent a lot of time talking about that, so that we could at least get some consensus amongst ourselves in terms of the right guidance and the road ahead relative to our response. Somebody asked me, and I did an interview earlier, "so General are we close to the end of the investigation?" And I said no, not by any stretch, we are really at the beginning of the beginning. It is a complex problem because you've got, when you start thinking about multiple strata water flow, possibly in different directions, wells at different depths, there's just a lot of information, and data that's got to be collected, then analyzed and answer the question, what does it mean? And we are blessed in this state to have such great talent and subject matter experts in it, and I'm going to let them do what they do, and give you, you know, once again, the information. So I will just say to you that we've got a very deliberate process. We want to do step one before we jump to step four. And as we figure this out, but it is going to continue to evolve as we gather more information, as we learn more, we will react. And in my world we will adjust fire and go in the direction that the data and the information gives us. So again, I want to say thanks. I may sound the emergency evacuation if it gets much hotter in there. And we're going to do this out in the old parking lot. It is a little toasty in here. But again, great to be here with you. Looking forward to the conversation, and Theresa, I'll turn it back to you. - Thank you sir. So what we're going to do next is have Jonathan come up. He has a small presentation. Kind of talk through where we were on May 18th, and where we're headed and some of the results. So Jonathan. - Thank you. Yeah, what I'd like to do is just go ahead review what we talked about at the last public meeting, cause I realize that there's several of you that weren't at that initial meeting on the 18th. Kind of describe how we've got to this point. Identify or review what we talked about, what we were going to work on between May 18 and now, and then report back to you what we have been doing from May 18 til this date. So once again, my name is Jonathan Edgerly, I'm the Environmental Manager for the Michigan Army National Guard, and give you a quick brief here. So this all started with the US EPA coming out with their unregulated containment monitoring rule. Okay, I know that's a mouthful. I'll refer to that as UCMR3. So every few years the EPA comes out with a list of emergent contaminants under the UCMR3 rule. As part of that list of contaminants there were two PFC's identified for the country to look at the prevalence of these contaminants in the country. So UCMR3 was published in 2012. 30 contaminants were on that list as part of that. The US EPA mandated that any municipality that serves drinking water to more than 10,000 residents must sample their drinking water for these two PFC compounds, PFOS and PFOA. Next slide. National Guard bureaus response to the UCMR3 rule. They initiated a data call to every state for them to look at every single drinking water supply for every facility that the National Guard Bureau owns. Every training site, camp, armory, et cetera. They also wanted to identify the water sources that have been tested for PFC's. So once again checking back at those municipalities, are the municipalities doing what they said they were supposed to do and test for PFC's in their water source. And then also tasked to each state, to start to investigate the use of AFFF, historically in their practices, as that could be a potential source for PFC contaminations across the country. Next slide please. So I know this slide is pretty wordy and I'll tell ya I know that several of you probably can't read this. This will all be posted to our website in the very near, immediate future for you to review these slides. But the Michigan Army National Guard's response to the UCMR3 designation. We followed NGB's data call, and we took a look into every single water source for every single facility for the Michigan National Guard. We also, per NGB's guidance, started looking at historic use of AFFF at our facilities. It was at this time that we found historic records of military in conjunction with civilian entities training with AFFF at the Grayling Army Airfield. From that, it was out of our own due diligence and proactivity we went out and sampled five wells, monitor wells that we have at the Grayling Army Airfield, to run that sample for PFC's. That initial result came back with some analytical discrepancies. So we immediately resampled those five locations and added five more. Those results came back, and it was much the same result. That PFC's were identified in those monitoring wells. It was at this point we initiated the help from our team. And a big thanks to everybody up here that are part of that team, the DHHS, DEQ, DNR, DHD10, DEQ for joining us with this team. And we came to our regulators and we said, this is what we found, what's the next logical step. We want to be proactive. We want to get out in front of this. We have identified an issue. What's the next logical step? And it was all agreed upon at this point to reach to our border to the southwest, okay, and run a line of monitoring wells along that southwest border to try to understand if PFC's are at our property line. Chances are they may be off our property line. In which case our number one priority would be the location to the southwest where individuals are on private residential drinking water wells. So it was all agreed upon by all these departments that'd be the next logical step. Next slide please. So once again, I know this graphic is hard to digest from a distance. But those dots along the southwest and the south were the locations where we put, drew groundwater samples from. The green annotates non detect. The yellow is for detect PFOS, PFOA, but below the 70 parts per trillion lifetime health advisory by US EPA. And the five red dots that you see on that graphic show elevated, levels above 70 parts per trillion. Next slide please. So this is where we were at, at the last town hall. So this is almost exactly the same slide that was at the last town hall on May 18th where we came to you and said, this is what we plan on doing moving forward. So we were going to continue to work with our regulators and National Guard Bureau to understand what this analytical sample results are trying to tell us. So we've done that. We've shared all of our data with both national and state level regulators and experts in this field to help us make sure that we're makin' the next appropriate steps. National Guard Bureau has come through and they are fast tracking a site investigation for the Grayling Army Airfield that will begin this summer. This will help start trying to answer some of those questions that are out there as far as source, sources, plume delineation, what's going on with inside the fence line of the Grayling Army Airfield. And then we also said on May 18th that we would, in consultation with other agencies, begin sampling drinking water wells in that priority zone. So this is, once again, this is what we said on May 18th that we were going to do. And so this next slide speaks to what we've done from May 18th to this date. And once again, I realize it's wordy, but we'll go through this. So DHD10 in coordination with a consulting firm, Amec Foster Wheeler, collected sample requests for sampling information, and to arrange sample collections of resident's drinking water within that priority zone. As of 14 July, 293 requests for analysis have been collected, and 178 samples have been taken. Now to speak to the discrepancy between those two numbers. We received several request a sample that are at this point outside of our initial priority zone, which is southwest of the Grayling Army Airfield in between the Gaff and the river. That's our initial step out priority zone. That's where we're initial step to sample. If at what point that data comes back to us and shows that there's further sampling that's required in whatever direction, at that point that's what will be initiated and further residential well sampling will occur. And we have everyone's information that submitted a card that are outside of that priority zone. So if we get to that point, where we feel like it's necessary, that the data shows and proves to us that we need to make that appropriate step. We have your information and you will be contacted to get your well sampled. State agencies have reviewed the analytical results and validation began sending them out to the residents. So most all of the individuals who have had wells sampled, should have their sample results. I realize there are a handful of you that have submitted a sample, that have not got your results. I believe it's 15 to 20 of you. You will be contacted individually and offered up this same group of people to talk to once your results come back okay. And the District Health Department, DHHS, have all reviewed or are in the process of reviewing your sample results and will be providing you with your appropriate health information. The three residents that were identified that their residential well came back above the 70 parts per trillion lifetime health advisory by the US EPA, were notified in person by a team of individuals from the DMVA, the DEQ, and the District Health number 10. Okay so there was face to face consultation between those home owners and the team of workers there. And in an effort to continue to maintain absolute transparency, you know, we really have tried hard to reach out to the public and whichever media fashion, form, way we could imagine to keep you updated on the situation. Whether that be door to door, handing out flyers, to Colonel Brown calling individuals on the phone, mailings, websites, phone numbers, so we've really tried hard to maintain that constant communication with you to keep this transparency goin' through as we move through this process. Next slide please. So this is a map that shows to you where we've sampled and where we have not received cards. Okay so the purple are locations where a sampling form has not been received. The light blue are locations outside of the priority zone that at this time we are not actively sampling. And the dark blue are locations where we've collected samples. And we do have graphics up, posted several locations around here that you can look at a little closer to show that, but, hopefully this illustration shows you that we have a pretty good swath through that priority zone that we've been able to get in contact with the home owners and to make that sample occur. Next slide please. So this is a data table of showing you what we know at this point as far as the sample data. We've had 178 collected of which 166 have been analyzed. 161 of those have gone through the validation process. And that validation process, you know, can take a couple weeks where people a lot smarter than me look into that lab data and really go over it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that that data is correct, and there's no errors with sampling, there are no errors with the lab, that that data is true and correct. So before it's disseminated, it must go through that validation process. So we have 161 of those samples that have been validated. Once again three, three homes have been shown above the 70 parts per trillion PFOS, PFOA total health advisory and those individuals have been contacted in person. We have 20 homes where they have detected some PFOS or PFOA in their wells, but are below that 70 criteria. And we have 143 homes that were non detect for PFOS and PFOA which are the two regulated compounds that have a health advisory associated to them. So what happens next? We, Michigan Army National Guard are going to do some further investigating in the Grayling Army Airfield, and to look at further groundwater flow, and also to look on the east side and the north side of the airfield to see if we have any issues there. So that is something that will be initiated in the very near future. DEQ will be running point and running on the second round of residential well sampling. And Dave when he gets up, he can speak to that a little bit more. DEQ will also begin to do their site investigation off site, off of our property to start looking at plume delineation, plume flow, sources, where they're traveling off site. And that will occur with the DEQ on lead. District Health Department number 10, will be in charge of disseminating the filters. That I believe several of you have received tonight. NGB, their preliminary site assessment, that will start this summer. DHHS and DHD10 will still maintain availability for questions that you may have as we move through this process on health concerns. Michigan Department of Ag and Natural Resources will be there to address agricultural and pet concerns that you may have. And we understand the need, and it's very important to us to maintain the line of communication with you. So we will continue to update the website. The hotline number will continue to be available. And we will, this fall, reach back out to you with a big a blast as we can to get the information out, with another follow up public meeting this fall. So at this time I think that we're going to, yes, sir. - Why don't you tell them what we did [trails off, off microphone] - So the three homes, the question was, what was our action, our immediate action to those three homes that proved to be above that 70 parts per trillion. We immediately provided them, DHD10 and DHHS immediately provided them with alternative water. As an immediate fix, and they were also then offered the filtration system to be installed as well. Colonel Brown. - Thanks Jonathan. So up next we'll have DEQ, Dave. - Hi, I'm Dave Lindsay, I work for the Remediation and Redevelopment Division of the Department of Environmental Quality. And I'll be using the term PFOS. And I want to let you know that that includes the whole range of chemical compounds that were tested for in the residential wells of Grayling. So the DEQ right now, is in the process of developing a groundwater investigation work plan. And that will include an area from the airfield all the way to the far side of the Al Sobel River. But the first phase, what we're planning on doing is resampling all of the residential monitoring wells that have previously been sampled. In the 83 wells that had detections of PFOS we are going to treat those wells as a priority. In other words, we're going to get the funding and do that testing as soon as we possibly can. However, I'd like you to understand that there are only eight laboratories in the entire country that do testing for these kind of compounds. So that could be a bottleneck, and hold things back a little bit. Also there are 22 residential wells that are located within the service area of the Grayling Municipal Water Supply Service and we plan on sampling those. And those have not been previously sampled. As a next phase we are going to do some vertical aquifer sampling. And we're going to do that through borings at several different locations. That process involves taking groundwater samples at several depth intervals within each of those borings. We'll have those samples analyzed. And based on the results of that sampling along with the residential well sampling results, we will then select strategic locations to install monitoring wells. And at some of these locations the monitoring wells may have intakes at several different depths. Some of the main objectives of what we're going to be doing are to define the vertical and horizontal extent of the PFOS within the groundwater. And also the range of concentrations that are out there. With these results and this work we're also going to be able to determine the materials that make up the aquifer. The sands, silts, clays, and gravels. And with that information hopefully we'll be able to see what the role of those materials play in how the PFOS move through the groundwater so that we can predict where they may be going and what may be impacted next. We also hope to identify any potential sources that are down gradient of the airfield. One of the questions people may have is why does my well have detections while my neighbor 150 feet away doesn't. And some of this work we hope will answer that. At this time it could be, there could be several different reasons. Could be that, you know, your neighbor's well is at a different depth, that is within a plume. It could be cross contamination from products that are used in the plumbing. There are several different reasons but we hope we can have a better answer to all of that. And I just want to let everyone to know that we are going to continue to work with the Department of Military and Veteran's Affairs, especially regarding their source area investigation at the airfield. And I'll leave it at that. - Thanks Dave. Next we're going to have up DHHS and District 10, Dr. Morse and Dr. Wells. - Thank you very much. Thank you, and I'm Dr. Eden Wells and I'm with Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, my colleague here, Dr. Morse's been holding this great ship here, the District Health Department 10, with Kevin Hughes the Health Officer. And they've been just absolutely incredible. Can you hear me in the back? Raise your hand, can you hear me now? Oh, I really have to mote. Okay there we go, he's going to, Mr. Hughes is going to make sure I'm good. Really here, we've been representing the public health side of this for a while, since this began. And it is definitely not an easy issue. And I think the General addressed that very well. We're talking about emerging contaminants, meaning that we truly don't know what the health impacts are. There's enough concern in some of the studies that have been evolving over the last number of years, that there may be an association of this PFOS, this class of many chemicals, the PFC's, that could have health effects that we understand further studies are going to probably show us they actually have health effects, but right now, we need to be suspicious, and therefore err on the side of caution. Some of the health effects, just so you know, and this is again, associations, nothing confirmed yet, reliably in studies, would be possible and probable links to hypertension during pregnancy, meaning your blood pressure's gone up in pregnancy. There may be links with kidney, or prostate, or testicular cancer which is pretty rare, but may be associations. And some cholesterol issues, perhaps some inflammatory or infectious bowel issues. But these have not been confirmed, but again, we need in this time, and this is why the Environmental Protection Agency has begun, and has asked our military areas all around the country to start measuring these levels in the environment. We do get exposed by many many sources of these chemicals, not just in the potential water contamination, but by many of the chemicals such as non stick cookware, some other types of things that are in our homes. But the key here is that at this point there was some water detection in wells, in the area of Camp Grayling. So when we were asked to look at this, I worked with a great team of toxicologists. And we've been working in great partnership with the Department of Environmental Quality is to assess at what point is there a health issue. Now it is very, very clear. You mentioned here that in the three homes that had a level, or a life, long term health effect level of 70 parts per trillion, is we know that those people needed immediate removal from the water system. So they got an alternate source of water and then filtration put in place. That is known, we work with the EPA action level. I saw a number of people today, by the way, that also had non detects, which means, they had undetected levels of all the chemicals. Now there were more than two chemicals tested by the great laboratory that's here, and some specialists are here for questions. They tested about eight in this class of the PFOS. And in those, what the health people, and again us health people being on the extreme side of, want to be conscious, so we don't know much about these chemicals, we looked, and if there was any detect. You look on the back, on the back sheet on the first page of your test results and you'll see a box of about eight chemicals, if there's any detection at all in those, you received a letter at your home, hopefully all of you received it, not all of you did, I know, there's some missed. That talked about that we had detected it, but it was not at that level of the 70, which we knew was an action level for us to act. But here's the question, that I think is a very reasonable one that we need to make sure everybody's clear on. We want people, even at the detect levels to have filters here. Why is that? You're levels aren't over 70, so what are we figuring? Well if you had come to me in another city in Michigan that was not having a PFOS issue that we know of. Or if you came to me in an area of the Michigan where there's a known source of PFOS, and we do have those in the state, then I would say well, your level's low. You know, we'll keep monitoring you, but you know you don't need a filter at this time. Here in the area of Camp Grayling however, there's a lot of private residential wells. And it makes it very difficult for us to serially monitor those wells over time to see where the source of the water's coming from, and whether it's coming to your wells. And this is because we are so early on as the General said, we're so early on in the investigation, we don't know where the source of the water PFOS's are. So we don't know is this water coming and moving toward certain people's homes and not others. Is it not moving at all. Is there another source entirely. These are all parts of the investigation which our colleagues at Department of Environmental Quality are going to be working on. Especially with the very interesting boreholes that your doing. So given that it's very difficult to test serially, and given that we are still waiting to know about the source of this contamination. The better part of valor, Dr. Morse, Mr. Hughes, and those of us at the Department of Health and Human Services said, let's get a filter on those people who had any detects at all, okay. Because that way I think we can protect you all until we have an idea of where this contaminant is, and where it may be going. Does that help? And we'll be answering questions, you know, at the end. Some questions that we did at the end, and Dr. Morse, you know, you let me know if I've forgotten anything. One other issue here is that we're getting some questions about why can't, why is there not one more, you know, can I get more than one filter. And a lot of this had to do with brushing of teeth and such. I would say that we don't recommend ingestion of the water particularly now, the real, you know, the health advisory here, is for those people who had the three levels greater than 70. But if you're worried in your home because we don't have the, you know, and you want to, you're using filtered water cause you're not sure what's going yet about the source. If you swallow the water when you brush your teeth then I would recommend taking a glass of the water that's filtered from the kitchen and putting it in your bathroom, you know, in your master bedroom or so at night, or something like that, that was something that you know you had talked about. There may be some other things [trails off] and I think that I have one more question here. Oh, I do want to say here also is that, you know, this issue of being under 70 and yet you're the detected. It's still okay to drink the water. It's just that we have so much unknown. So that's why we want to provide the filters to you all. And so I think that's all I had, unless Dr. Morse do you have anything to add? - I think just that the [trails off] the letters from the testing company had stated not to use it to brush your teeth. And again that's an abundance of caution in case you were to swallow some, so if you brush and spit, you're okay. If you have concerns just take a filtered bucket of water in the bathroom with you, but to shower, bathe, well you know, I'd take a filtered bottle or you know, container of it. to bathe, brush and spit, you know those things are okay to do. - Okay thank you very much. - Thank you. Next up we have the Department of Agriculture, Dr. Hussey. - Good evening, my name's Dr. Steve Hussey, and I'm with the Michigan Department of Agriculture. I'm here today just to let you know that I'm here as a resource, the Department of Ag is here as a resource to answer your animal health related questions. I'm sorry, can you hear me now? Okay, sorry. So I just wanted to let you know that the Department of Ag is here to answer your animal health related questions. Questions regarding pets and livestock. Unfortunately there's virtually, there's very little data, that we have in regards to this chemical and pets and livestock, so we have to extrapolate a lot of our data from other research that's been done. So we're not entirely clear of what the clinical effects could be in pets and livestock. And it's for that reason we are recommending that if you have concerns with your pets or any livestock that you may have. The first step is really just to go to a veterinarian, have a full physical exam, and get pertinent and relevant diagnostic tests done. And then we can be available for consultation with you or your veterinarians as you have questions. Okay right now we don't really know exactly what kind of issues could be involved with pets. We know it's probably going to be liver issues, or potentially kidney issues, and maybe some hormonal or developmental issues, such as with the thyroid, or with developing fetuses and things like that. We can only extrapolate from other research animals. We don't have any answers there. So bottom line though is if the water is considered needed filter, and is considered not safe for drinking for people, it should not be given to pets. So using filtered water, bottled water for your pets would be recommended. Yes. [someone speaking off camera and mic] I'm sorry. [someone speaking off camera and mic] Well I don't have an answer to that. I think initially it would have to be, it would have to be you. Because I don't know if you can correlate. We don't know whether or not any of these issues that may or may not come up with your pets are going to be related to the water. [someone speaking off camera and mic] That is going to be a tough issue. What I can do is, if you would like to talk to me afterwords I can certainly talk to you about that. That's really all I have. - Thank you. And then we have from DNR Dave Borgeson. - I'm mostly here to listen and learn. But after the last meeting, talked with the DEQ folks. I don't know how we could help, so one of the things that some of us were interested, a lot of us were interested is the you know, what about the fish in that area. So I think the week after the meeting. By the way I'm Dave Borgeson, Fisheries Division, Unit Manager out of Gaylord. And this Ross Sybel's within my unit. So we sent a crew to the Al Sabo. We worked up a plan with the DEQ, decided to do a couple different sites. One of them below I-75, below the confluence of the East branch, we collected at least 10 brown trout and 10 suckers of varying sizes. And we did the same southwest of the airfield at Old Dam Road, so we thought we had a decent coverage there and we're going to be we have long term data sets as far as fish populations in a lot of these areas, so in our sampling's going to continue for awhile as far as the fish populations go. And if any future sampling needs arise we're here to help rather than at the DQ send a crew up from Lansing, we're right here. So thanks. - Thanks Dave. So before we get to the questions I just want to put out just a couple more things. If you've not gotten your results we do have copies here, you can see Amec representatives in the back after this and they can get them to you. The 12 people, which one of them is myself, have not gotten your test, or we haven't gotten 'em back yet, we are going to go ahead and have that small town hall meeting and I'll bring some of the subject matter experts back and answer your specific questions. And we'll open that up to anybody else who has some other questions. So that'll be comin' up. And then as Jonathan talked, September, October we'll have another town hall and just kind of talk through where we've been and what we're goin' forward on. So at this point if you guys have any questions go ahead and go to one of the two microphones so everybody can hear ya, and we'll take 'em. - This on? I had a couple of questions that popped up while you were making your presentation. It seemed to me the original slide indicated some suspicion and problems in 2012. And now we're here in 2017, so it seems like a logical person would wonder why it took five years to create this meeting. Secondarily, I know there are other parallels, meaningful parallels between the situation here, and the situation over at Oscoda, where I understand they have a do not eat fish directive over there. If there are similarities that we could address I'd be interested in hear about that. - Okay so let's take the first question from the 2012. I think either Jonathan or DEQ can you answer. - Sure I could speak to that. Can you guys, oh yeah. So while that UCMR was published in 2012. The NGB data call didn't come out until 2016 identifying that PFC's were included in this AFFF, and that we needed to then immediately look at utilization of that AFFF. So we went out preemptively, proactively and sampled before we were mandated by anyone to do any of that sampling. We, this all transpired, and this has all gone down in less than the last 12 months. [audience member speaking off microphone] That was when National Guard Bureau first notified us, [audience member speaking off microphone] I don't have an answer to that. - And then for the second, the fish. I think Dave from, - Of these, of the samples, the samples that we took, the results were similar to background levels for, throughout the state. So at this point in time, there is no reason to have a no, have an elevated consumption advisory for PFOS is that region. [audience member speaking off microphone] - Our toxicologist might have an answer regarding the Oscoda issue and why the fish advisory was there, this is Christina Bush. - Hi, I'm Christian Bush, and I've been involved at the Oscoda former Wordsmith Air Force Base. We took samples, the state took samples of fish out of Clark's Marsh which is south of the Air Force base there, it's between the base and the Al Sabo River. The concentrations of the PFC's in the fish far exceeded a screening level that we had for do not eat. It was about 30 times the screening level, that, where we would say do not eat the fish. The fish that have been sampled from the Al Sabo in town here, in Grayling, the points were, DNR did the sampling, those results are starting to come back and we're not seeing any kind of impact on that fish. Does that answer your question sir? [audience member speaking off microphone] Well we consider, at the State Health Department, when we are evaluating fish data we consider that the least amount of fish that we want of a certain species is going to be 10. And so we did have 10, and is was of the trout that were evaluated and everything was good. It's something that we are going to continue to keep track of to make sure that there is not an impact to the fish. And as we learn more through the investigation it may target certain areas of the river where we may want to get fish samples sooner rather than on a schedule that we're going to be setting up. - [speaking off microphone] this gentleman has a question so you might want to just stand here for a second. Oop, careful. This also, it's coming back to the question that this is a very early investigation where we do not know where this plume is, where it's gone, where it's going. So the very early undetection is saying okay the fish don't look like in sort of that trajectory. But further investigation has to be done as to where this plume is and where it's going. But I know this gentleman might have a question for you. - Miss Bush, did you say that you worked in the, and I'm sorry was it Dr. Bush? - No not Dr. Bush. - Okay. In Oscoda they found PFC's in the fish back in 2010, 2012, and didn't they identify this AFF as the source of the PFC's back in a district health meeting in 2013? Didn't they attribute it to this AFF substance way back when? - Right, my understanding, are you hearing me well enough in back, okay. My understanding from the way the investigation at Wordsmith went was that the DEQ Project Manager knew that, or had learned that AFFF, the Aqueous Film Forming Foam, a special fire fighting foam had been used at the base. And he learned too that it can have, it can stay in the environment an extremely long time. So he knew where the fire training area was, he sampled there, he found it there in the groundwater. From there they knew that the groundwater traveled to Clark's Marsh, so they followed it down and yes, the signature, if you were to take the proportions of each individual chemical and determine what that looks like, and then we call it a signature, or maybe a fingerprint. That matched what we were seeing in the drinking water wells at Wordsmith. Does that answer your questions sir? - Yeah, I mean basically, to follow up on what Mr. Stanza said, if back in 2013 this foam was causing these problems with the fish and the District Health Department was having meetings in Oscoda to address that. - Yes. - Thank you. - Hi I'm Steve Bend. I run the soccer for the kids out there at the county sportsplex. I realize that we're not in the critical area. But with between us, football, and baseball, we have like four or 500 kids out there. That's my major concern okay. I did send in a request on a card, okay to have our water tested. The only reply I got last week was to come to this meeting. And I had the public affairs number for the camp and nobody ever called me back. I did kind of contact the Health Department, I've talked to other people, but they don't have all the answers. My answer is, I've got four or 500 kids drinkin' that water nine months a year. What do we do? - Alright so we actually talked about this this afternoon so I think I'm going to, DEQ and DHSS can you guys kind of tag team that one? - I think that we should, sir do you have water sample results [crosstalk] - We don't at the soccer field. So what we really need to do is go out there and test the soccer field. - Right, really we do need data to make any determination. - Well that's why we sent the card in seven weeks for. And I got soccer startin' off in two weeks, and football startin' up in two weeks. What do we do to the interim until we get the water tested and the results? I don't want to feed the kids bad water. Simple. - I think we'll get you at the top of the list. I just don't know how quickly it'll happen. But we'll get it done as quickly as we can. - I do have a standard water test from the Health Department okay. But that does not include this fluorocarbon thing. - That is correct. Standard Health Department testing for new wells does not include this chemical class. - Okay thank you. - Go ahead. - Hello, I was given a water filter today. I'm just wondering when we're going to have water filters for all pf my faucets in my house so I don't have to inconvenience myself. I know it might seem like something small, like leaving a glass of water in your bathroom to brush your teeth if you're afraid of that. I'm pretty sure all of you don't have to do that on a daily basis. So when is that going to happen? When every sink in my house is made sure that it's safe even though I have a very small, minute amount in there as you say. I would feel a lot better if I had filtration on all my sinks. When is that happening? - Either DEQ, or District 10 I guess that's yours. - I'll start, and then I've talked with Dr. Morse a little bit on this. This is an early part of a response, Public Health response, and it's very early on in the investigation so right now, that's the best right now to protect, get a drinking water source that's safe. If you've not tested over the 70, okay, then at this point putting one in so that you can have a drinking water system, until we have an idea of what the source is going is an exercise out of extreme caution. But there is still a lot of information to know about the source of the water. How fast is it moving. Is it fast, is it the water? You know, all of those questions. So I think that would be probably a question that would need to evolve a lot further down the line when they've actually learned about what the source of the chemical is. Okay because most of all the people in the room who are getting filters today, other than three people are getting them out of the exercise of caution knowing that we need to find out more information about the source. So I hope that helps. - Okay thank you. - You bet. - We'll go over here. - Marty Vandevin. You talked earlier about retesting the wells. There's a lot of us folks that leave here for the winter, snowbirds, we head to Florida. And the majority of us people turn off our water systems. Okay, they're drained out. When do you plan on doing the retesting? And if you do it later in the year, and we're not here, how will you test our water? - We're going to do the testing as soon as we can. I'm pretty sure we'll be able to do it before mid to late fall. And hopefully we'll have everybody tested, retested by then. If you're gone for the winter, it'll have to, you know, it'll have to wait. - Thank you. - Hello, my house borders on the Al Saba river. It's just south of the river. So even though I've put in a request for testing it was not tested. And I'm thinking why was the river selected as a boundary particularly when we're talking about groundwater at several different levels. And is there any evidence that the river actually acts as some sort of boundary? - We don't know that yet. In fact we don't have any monitoring wells off of the airfield at this time. As a part of our work plan is to go on the other side, your side of the Al Saba River just to see if the contaminants are in existence on the other side of the river. But we won't know that until we start doing our verti-flock per sampling. And if we do find them on the other side of the river, certainly testing of your residential well will become a priority at that time. - I got to question. I live in the first subdivision between Old 27 and the airport. And I've heard rumors, I don't know what's going on. You just got done sayin', are they going to be testing any of that water in those two subdivisions? The one right there between Old 27 and the airport, the first one. And then there's another one, a second one. Yeah, down by the high school. Out by the high school but this is before the high school, it's right by the corner where you turn to go north [trails off turning away from mic] - Yeah, if you're outside that initial testing area. - Well where is the testing area? [speaking off microphone] That's outside of it? [speaking off microphone] - After we do the resampling of all the wells that have already been sampled, plus the 22, plus the wells that we haven't got to that have put in a request. If we see that we're getting hits toward that perimeter then we will expand out. - Well that's what I wondered. Cause I haven't heard anything about any of them being tested in that subdivision. - If there's a reason to extend to that area we will extend the testing to that area. - Okay thank you that's what I wanted to know. - Right, sir. - I just have a question about between all of these groups, has there been any investigation into property values. I think we've all taken a black eye here to some degree. And there is a gentleman in the crowd who has had two deals on his house go south, virtually making his house unsalable because of the water issue. Is there going to be some sort of an agency that's going to look into this and say these people have been infractured and we need to figure out how badly they've been infractured by the fact that we are now living in homes that people don't want to buy. When they know about this water problem, it's going to cause some issues for the people back in there, in that, the area that's affected. So in addition to all of this, is there any plan to get some sort of authority together to take a look and see. We're infractured at this point, but we're really kind of stuck. I'm not saying that we're all lookin' for a monetary handout, but we want to figure out where we stand. - Correct, right. So Sue, Sue was, ran out on me. Did you get the answer? Not you. Sir do you want to? - So look, and we know this is an issue. And we do have some anecdotal information, cause this is the exact same thing that's going on up in Oscoda. And Sue you want to come up and maybe talk a little bit about that, and before she speaks I would just say that you know, we're having a tendency, and I understand that, you want answers now, and everybody wants to fast forward. That is not, remember what I said we're at the beginning of the beginning and that's where we're at. And we've just got to gather more information and I absolutely understand that dynamic. But Sue, maybe you want to touch on what we found in Oscoda. - If I could say, I'm just wondering is it being addressed? That's the question is it being addressed. I don't thing anybody in here is in any hurry at this point. But we want to know that somebody's got our back. That's the whole thing. - I think I can only reiterate what the General says, and that is you know, we just don't know where we're at right now. Oh, by the way my name is Sue Leeming I work for the Remediation and Redevelopment Division in the Department of Environmental Quality. And I'm not a real estate expert or property value expert, I just want to let you know I've been working with the folks in Oscoda. To some extent it's something that the administration, and DEQ, and all of us are very concerned about. We're keeping an eye on it. I think messaging is the best we can do. And right now my message is just, we don't know. So I can't guarantee you anything up or down. All I can say is we don't know, but we're on it. We're lookin' at it, and we're very concerned about it as well. - And let me make one final comment on this end. You know once we have the data, and we've got a property, first we're going to go and determine do you have a problem or don't you. And if you do, there are mitigating steps that could be taken to deal with the problem of that specific property so that it should not impact the overall sale. - So I know that's not a direct answer to the question, but we are, I mean it's always, it's been on our top 10 questions and what we need to identify and get you guys an answer to. So ma'am. - Hi, you said that you do site investigations, so does that mean you're, you, okay. You said you were doing site investigations which would mean that you were studying the geological and hydrological and engineering properties of the underground water system and rocks and fissures? - Yes we're going to look at the lithology, what materials make up the aquifer and look into how that affects the movement of the PFOS in the groundwater. Also to determine how far these plumes extend. Whether it's one plume, or many plumes. Whether there's additional source areas down gradient of the air field. Now there's a lot of things that we hope we can determine with our investigation. And we're going to handle it in phases. So it will take a long time to accumulate the information and get answers with. Yeah, that's what we hope we'll be doing. - Have you guys, have you performed soil investigations? Soil samples - No. - Cause once it's in the soil, cause that's how it enters the soil it goes to the groundwater. So when it's in the soil it doesn't, the biodegradation is very slow. So it's going to stay in the soil around these homes and it cannot be removed. - Around the homes, source areas, soil source areas are where the chemical was applied to the ground. So in these residential areas we don't suspect that it was applied to the ground. But if someone were to step forward and say yeah we applied triple F foam to the ground at this point, that would be an area where we would look at the soil. But for right now, we're going to concentrate on the groundwater. - Okay. Now the reasons for no detect could mean hopefully no threat, but it could also mean poor sampling. - It could also mean the plume hasn't reached there yet, and part of our ground water analysis will be, we'll be able to predict where it's headed. Even though you may be just, you may have slight detections or non detect it doesn't mean that eventually your water intake may take up some of these compounds in groundwater. - Exactly so are there going to be repeat testings in case the no detect was a poor sample or just the chemical hadn't reached. - Yeah, and it's actually, and part of the retesting of the residential wells is to give us information as where to decide where we're going to start doing our boring work. - Okay. - Once we get a monitoring well network in place we'll be able to then monitor the groundwater fairly frequently and get an idea where things are going with our stabilizing and where the highest concentrations are. - Last, I guess it's just a statement, but this information paper that I got from Washington DC, it's actually a packet, and there have been studies on populations in both West Virginia and Ohio, and there are very probable links to damage to your liver, tumors, birth defects, endocrine system which disrupts your hormones, thyroid cancer, or thyroid diseases I should say, and other illnesses so that's just a statement. Because in essence, I think on page six of the information packet from Washington DC. - I'm very familiar with that thank you. Again I will show that there's not been any controlled studies or anything right now that we can say that that has become a listed carcinogen or problems. But there are associations. - Ma'am they studied the populations and they're - All of us, so I'm not disagreeing with you, populations, we all, the national surveys that have been done, every few years the national health studies show that many of us in this country, many of us in this room, if not all, have levels of PFOS in our blood right now. - Exactly I know that. - So we can't extrapolate that to where these associations are. So I'm not saying, when I said there's associations that doesn't necessarily mean a direct causation until further studies are done. But I do not deny to you, that's absolutely correct. - Thank you and then also Kingston Point, a woman in New Hampshire that lived off an airfield, military airfield, her water was tested the first time, this happened over a year, so 2014, I believe in August they said go ahead, you're okay to drink your water, it was safe. Second test came through a few months later. They said yes you have some level of PFC's but there was no safeguards in place. They said she could still drink the water. By the third test a year later in August of 2015, she was told to immediately to stop drinking her water. So these people that are getting no detects I think should be very careful. - I just wanted to add to the observational studies that are done in West Virginia and Ohio, those are around - And New Hampshire and some okay, yep, we are familiar with those, and those are around, most of those have been around factories that have produced the chemical and the exposure rate is extremely high. Much, much higher than what we're exposed to here. And again I'm not minimizing it, but that really is the best data that we have, and we do have data from animal studies, that's really hard to compare to. - These were population studies of humans. - Correct, but those are not, when you look at evidence from studies those are challenging to interpret When you look at it from a epidemiologic research standpoint, but that's why we're using a preponderance of caution here and we're giving filters to people with levels of contaminant that's below what's considered concerning. Much, much lower that what was in those studies. - Well just a concern for the people that have registered at any levels, they bioaccumulate into the body. - We are aware of that, and we can talk afterwards. I just want other people to be able to ask. - Unless they stop drinking the water your body can't rid itself of these chemicals. And only half are released from your body, it takes four to eight years. - That's why we're providing an alternate source, ie filtered water so that people. - What kind of filter's are being used? - We're using the NSF approved filters. And they're working on a definitive answer. So everything that can be done is being done, and we're happy to talk afterwards further, but I would like other people to have a chance. - Thank you. - Thank you, sir. - I guess mine's reference to gentleman in selling his house, who knows, maybe he's trying to relocate cause he's got a new job. And he can't sell his home cause the bank's won't finance it. Is there any way that somebody can subsidize this poor fella so he's got a place to live while he's waiting for his house to be approved for financing? He's stuck, we're all stuck. - You know we have gone out and talked to some of the banks and some of the financial lenders and we're not finding that that's been what they have told us, that they're not asking. That is not part of the sampling or the information that they garner when they do loans and all I know is what we were told when we asked. Now if you're experiencing something different than that, then we'd like to know what lending institution that is so we can follow up. And you know, figure out what ground truth is. - Let me ask you this. Would you go look at a home in any of these areas to buy? Personally, right now, honestly? - Sir, I live in that area, I mean I rented in that area. - I ask you that, would you go there to buy a house right now if you were lookin' to buy a new house. - If I was lookin' to buy a house? For me personally, and I'm not talkin' for anybody on the board, I mean, I'm one of your neighbors and I'm out there. And I know that there's, we are so early in this investigation, and we don't know what's going on out there. - That's not the question. - I know, I know. Would you go by a house in that subdivision? - I would because I like living. The subdivision that I'm livin' in. - If you knew there was polluted water there you'd go buy a house? - But I know that there's only three houses out there that's even above the level. - Right now. - I don't want to get into an argument with you. - Honestly I don't think anybody in this building would buy a house in that subdivision at this time. [applause] - Thanks for takin' my question. This is in regards to the filtration unit. Why can't the filtration unit be placed at the entrance to where the water comes into my home so that all my faucets and everything will be protected instead of just one place in my kitchen. And if that's not the case, will there be something down the road where a filter can be installed where the water enters my home? - That's probably DHS. - I'm not a water tester, but I'll just repeat what I said before that there is still a lot to know about where these plumes are and such. And so it may be why you're needing a filter now and we're putting one in for the abundance of caution as we told the young lady before. Because we know that there's potential health effects from these emerging contaminants. That once there's more knowledge of I would say, I think Dr. Morse said it well, of where the risk is, so we can actually quantify risk, where people are, where they live. Right now we know of three homes. I don't even know if they're close to each other or not. But this is what we need to know before we make determinations about what houses need what kinds of systems and how they're doing. And the same goes, I think one of the things to think about, and I want to thank the National Sanitation Foundation about this. That this is a filterable contaminant. There are many things out there that are not. This is filterable. So that's something also to put in mind as we think about sort of the other contaminants that are in our water systems, that are in our environments, that can be filtered, some can't. Lead, and PFOS, PFOA can do the NSF certifications. [audience member speaking off microphone] I think it's a different. I think a whole house filter could be done. I think it's reverse osmosis and such, but I don't think that that's something that we would do to every home until there's a knowledge of where the source of the water is. [audience member speaking off microphone] No, we are doing this out of the abundance of caution. You don't have to if you don't want. I mean it's safe to, it's okay to drink the water right now. If you're not over 70. [audience member speaking off microphone] And sir, you've heard me say today what I've said about it. Okay, is that it's okay to do, and we're doing it out of an abundance of caution. - Alright sir. - Yeah, I'm a little bit confused. My letter said your well test results did not detect any PFOS in your drinking water. But that's not quite right because the analysis, I have nine parts per trillion in my water. And I know that's low, it's way below the 70, I realize that, but you're saying that I'm still going to need a filtration system? - I think we may have to look at your report. - Probably will have to look at your report just to be sure of what it's saying. But for those of you who have received reports. - I mean the analysis is point 009 U. - Yep it's the U, it's the U. So what the 009 means is that is as low as the machine, the analytical machine can detect it. But the U after it says it didn't detect it at that level. So it didn't find it. - I gotcha. I used to do this type of work 30 years ago, so I understand, thank you. - And we have a form in the back that might help with an interpretation if you need. - That's okay. And we're going to be retesting all the wells which were, like me less than 70 but detectable, right? - We're going to retest all of the wells, all the residential wells that have been tested. - All of 'em, okay. - Yeah, they're all going to be retested. And then we're going to test additional wells beyond that. - Okay thank you. - Sir. - I have a question, kind of down the road. Now you do all this analysis, you collect all your data, you know where the plume is, now, can you contain it? - Yeah, all this investigation work will probably lead to a feasibility study. The feasibility study will look at all of the available technologies that may be able to remediate or clean up the groundwater. At that time we'll decide whether it's going to be a feasible thing to do or not. Then there'll be choices whether to extend the municipal supply system to everybody or take other measures. That's a decision that will have to be made after we do a lot more investigation. - Sir. - You have received I think 20 wells. Is that what you identified that have the contaminant in it that you received? - 20. - Do you have any kind of a map of where those wells are, where that contamination is, so that one might be able to see where is the problem? - Yeah, I can tell you that there's no pattern to the map, I think Jonathan if you want to talk that one. - Can we see a no pattern map? - Jonathan. - Yes, the answer to that is yes we have that on a map but to speak to being able to distribute that to the community. We understand that property values are of a concern and so we're keeping, - So it's a secret? - Well it's not a secret. We're sharing it with the regulators, we've shared it with the DEQ so they can look at, - Could you share it with me? - I can share you your test results. - I didn't get any test results, you didn't show. - Have you been sampled? - No I requested it, but I didn't receive any. - Did you request in the last two weeks or so? - I requested it at the time you had your last meeting. - Okay, so in the back, they will have your results back there. - But that's off the point. The point here is why can't we see where the problems have been identified. That's the point. - Because of privacy issues with homeowners. If the homeowner would like to divulge that information to you that's their choice. - Well can we see in general, other than this? - We looked at trying to do that. If there was a noticeable pattern. But to Colonel Brown's there was not a noticeable hot zone, if you will, - And that decision was made by you that there wasn't, not by us. - The decision was made by the team of individuals standin' up here. - By the experts here. - Thank you. Are there, go ahead. - Let me just remind everybody first of all, that that installation is a federal installation, okay. And all the agencies sitting up at this front table are from the State of Michigan. And I got to tell ya, I mean we're tryin' our damnedest to do the right thing. And I understand you're frustrated, you're not happy, trust me, I'm not very happy about all this either. It is a national level problem. We are doing our level best to try to address it. Be even handed about what we're doing. Being fair, being transparent, and you know, everybody's got their own opinion about how you define that okay. And I get that, and I respect that. But I just want to tell ya, that, you know, there's a lot of work, a lot of people workin' hard to try to solve this for you. And I just ask you to keep that in mind. - I'd just like to say thank you guys for all your transparency. And you say the source of this contaminant is in the groundwater in plumes so to speak. And if it's in the water, these plumes are moving at some rate, in some direction, whatever, and you already know you have positive hits of over 70. So in just knowing that you do anywhere over there, wouldn't it be smart to preemptively give everybody a filter in that area knowing that that plume can move to the neighbor across the street, a block over, I just feel like everyone should probably have access to a filter for that. - Doctors you want to? - So I don't, I can totally see where you're coming out on that and the question is, and this has come up before, is we're doing this right now on those people who had a detect as well as obviously the people who went over 70. So the question arises, okay, what about my neighbor who's a non detect, and where's the plume. And that is why it's so imperative that we actually get the further testing because it could well be, and I think the lady in the audience who brought this up earlier, you could be a non detect now, and two months later be a detect. And so that's why these studies need to occur. So I don't disagree with you at all on that. I think the issue is, is right now, there's such an unknown about where is a plume, is it multiple plumes, is there a plume, and how fast is it going and where's it going. I'm a resident of Ann Arbor, so I learned about plumes a few years ago, and understand that we have a nasty chemical in one of ours, our plume. And so we begin to understand that that really requires that monitoring of the wells. I think that that is going to have to guide, and I think the General said at the beginning, we have to have that data, that information, but we absolutely do understand the question. We have addressed that probably a million times, but I think that's where we need more data. And I think as we were doing with the abundance of caution, of having folks that as I said, you don't have to but I recommend, hey you know, because we don't know where the plume, you're actually a detect now, use the filter for your drinking water until we have better characterization. In the same way I would say, if somebody becomes a detect in the next serial round of testing and we're non detect before, we would do the exact same thing until we have an ultimate characterization of the water source, the plume and where it's going. Does that help? - Kind of sort of. I'm just, I think if you know a known contaminant is in an area, you know, I feel like everyone should have access to those filters. - Well and that's where I think a lot of it is, if we're so early on we're not even sure where that area is, really mostly at the point. But I do understand, and I appreciate your question, it's a good one. - Ma'am. - Hi, I just have a quick question, so are you all done using this fire retardant? Are you going to keep using it? - I can answer that one, yes, we haven't used that at the Grayling Air Force or Air Base since late 1990's. So we are done with it. - I got to tell you one other thing about AFFF with that chemical compound, it's used as a fire retardant, and it's used in clothing too. And as we're talking about this, the uniform that I have on, probably has that fire retardant in it. Now you'll see me in this uniform for the last time cause I'm not going to wear the damn thing anymore. But I mean that's how prevalent it is. When you look at the list of stuff that it has it in, you know, carpeting. I mean what's the first thing you do with a baby? You put it on a carpet. I'm going, really? No I was just talkin' about all the other products that have this chemical in it. This uniform being, say again? [audience member speaking off microphone] But you crawl around on it, and that's where you get it from. That's why 98% of the people in this room, if you were tested for PFC's, you'd have it. - But I think the other part of your question is, the military wasn't the only one that used this foam. It was used by civilian fire departments, wildfires, it was the greatest thing back then. Kind of like smoking in the '40's. Everybody was smoking, we didn't know it was bad for ya. Well we thought the foam was great cause it put out the fires quick. So I know that everybody has stopped using that. Ma'am. - Hi, my question is kind of going the opposite way. So if it's a problem, and has been detected at a low level is there any way that we can determine if it was higher 20 years ago? And how much higher? - So Jonathan, or DEQ want to grab that one? - That's a tough question. I don't know if we can. We can do the sampling and monitoring and tell you what's happening in real time and we can only make assumptions. Sometimes contaminants move in a groundwater plume in slugs. Where it was released 20 years ago at this location and now it's showing up 15 miles further down. If we see high concentrations at a location that's way far away from the source area we can probably assume that it was at a much higher concentration in the past. But that's only an assumption. - But I think part of it is, we didn't test for it in the past, and technology in the last few years has been able to let us test at the trillion level. So I don't think that, - Yeah, the ability to get down into the parts per trillions is a recent advance in the equipment. The detection equipment. - Okay. - Yeah, I guess I've just been thinking about the half life of it and things like that. And I was trying to go, I know we have a lot of discussion about where we're going to go from here. But I'm also, I have this curiosity about where we've been. - Yeah, and I don't think we know enough about these compounds to really be, to tell. We do know that they appear to be very persistent, that they don't break down easily. That concentrations maintain a certain level for quite a period of time. - If I could just add something. As it is an interesting issue as we look at, as we learn more about these chemicals. The half life as you know is somewhere eight to nine years or so, but what's interesting is that 3M made a lot of the products that had a lot of the PFC's within them. And not a lot of companies do, we were talking about the non stick pans and all of that. But when they took it out, and we start seeing manufacturers actually begin to remove PFC's from their manufacturing processes, we're beginning to see, especially with PFOS, that the blood lead levels over, we look at nutrition, I'm sorry, National Health and Nutrition surveys, which are done every few years, and they test the blood of people. And we're watching the blood levels actually decrease over the last decade or so. And we think that is in association with the fact that manufacturers are beginning to pull this stuff out. And maybe the fire retardant was pulled away. But I think that is something that we need to be aware of that this is an environmental containment in so many ways. And certainly with the potential health issues is important but we are seeing a trend that shows that public health, or primary prevention can help. And the more we're aware of what's in, you know, what we're putting in our mouths, what we're, you know, doin' with our young ones. I talked to a grandfather today, that's really key awareness is going to be a big part of the battle. - Ma'am. - You mentioned that babies crawling on the carpet can get this PFC in them. Obviously then through their skin? - I'm going to pass that off to, - Do you want to do this [trails off] - No actually, crawling, get it on their hands, put their hands in their mouth, or their toys on the carpet. It's used as a flame retardant and a stain protector on the carpet. - I'm not convinced that it's safe to bathe. The skin is a very receptive organ. When you get, I have a patch for chemo, they put it on your skin. - Sure so this is a really good question. And I actually have a form in the back, and it's in a, I'll get that for you. But some information that has to do with the clinical absorption, some of the toxicologic issues. And actually the dermatologic absorption is pretty minimal, and they've not found that the skin absorption, the dermatologic, the skin absorption of this chemical looks to be at all related to clinical outcomes. But I can give that to you, it's what the current agency for toxic substance, that one there, if you could bring that up, it's the stapled one. No there's one in a red folder back there Sue, and it's in a red folder, it's called clinical. And we can bring that up to this woman. But we always worry about the different routes of exposure too, but it turns out with the young it may well be this hand to mouth, or the ingestion of it as opposed to skin. But thank you, it's a good concern. - But if it's on like this gentleman's uniform, and he wants to get rid of it, why is that? Because do you think it's going to absorb into your skin? - Yeah, no, I was just, it had the fire retardant material in it and just some of the material I read, getting prepared for this meeting, I'm looking at this has got fire retardant chemicals in it, so it would say, and would it leech into my skin. No but I touch it, I touch my face. My hands get in my, those kinds of things. So it's just. - And it's water soluble too, so if he's out in the rain and then he's sitting' there, I'm sorry, go ahead. - It's the medications that we can absorb through our skin are like hormones and things that are fat soluble. This is a water soluble medication, medication, I'm sorry, chemical. You know if you're wearing something all day long and you're perspiring in it. I mean, again out of precaution you may not want to wear it. But different medications can be absorbed through the skin and that's a different type of thing, as a water soluble thing, those kinds of chemicals don't get absorbed through the skin well at all. Now if you were to soak in it all day, you might absorb a bit, but to shower normally it's not considered a harm. - So the main issue for the general population, drinking contaminated water could be a source. Ingesting food contaminated with PFOS, such as certain types of fish, and shellfish. And we already, that's why the testing is going on. Eating foods packaged in materials carrying PFOS, and now many of the manufacturers are pulling that away, but in the past it would have been popcorn bags, fast food containers, et cetera. A lot of food now, a lot of its been phased out of food packaging, so we shouldn't be getting a lot of exposure from that now. And then most of the rest is that hand to mouth transfer. Maybe it's even raining, and something like that, and it's wet and you, and you damp, and then you're doin' this or whatever. But those are the kinds of things, we don't anticipate a huge dermal transfer or skin transfer. - Okay so we're going to take our last question from this woman right here. And then I've got, after this I want the city to come up, they need to put out some information and talk a little bit. Go ahead. - Hi, I'm just curious, where the money for all this is coming from, the drilling, the filters, who pays for it? - The DEQ has an emergency contingency fund for situations just like this and that's where we're getting the initial amount of funding for this. - And that covers all, everything? - It'll get us started. - Okay. - And it's taxpayers money. - Yeah let me add on to that too because this is a federal issue. So we're certainly looking for the federal government to step in and we're workin' that through National Guard Bureau. I mean that's part of the issue here. The guys that really own the installation, they're not here, I mean, I know I represent the military, and I'm not tryin' to push this off, I'm just tryin' to explain to you the complexity of how this works. And at the end of the day, I mean the reality of it is, I've been just thrilled that the state of Michigan, and the county, and the community, everybody has stepped up for a problem, and you know, we've not, that research has not been done yet. But you know, it's not illogical to conclude that it was probably caused by the AFFF that we and the city, or the community training that was done, so now we got the state of Michigan that's writin' the checks right, to deal with it. But at the end of the day, you know it's about takin' care of the people. Steppin' out, dealing with the issue. Then we'll figure out, you know, who is really responsible. You know, and it's always about, look it's about the money. And this, these can get into big numbers. So I'm workin' that each and every day. But thank you for askin' that question. - Okay, just, I'd like to put in a plug, a request again to get filtration at the source of the water. Whoever's in charge of that, I don't think it's outlandish to ask. My kids drink out of the hose, they drink their bath water. I'd like to ask for that too. Put another tick in that tally. - Alright, so what I'm going to do is close down the questions and the team will stay here for the remainder. So the board as well as the team that they have will be in the back, but I want to brink up Kyle and Richard just to, for a quick minute. - Hi there, Kyle Bond, City of Grayling DPW. Right after, about a week after the May 18th meeting the city, we did test star wells. Both wells, we have two wells, one on Roberts Road, and one in between the hospital and elementary school, on that dead end area there. Those tests came back, well one, which is the one by the elementary school, had a few of the compounds in it. Incidentally, I already had that well turned off. That well was out of rotation, I only run one well at a time to supply, to supply the community. Since then I have not turned the well back on. We have retested, though, and they're also, they're compounds that are not the same as what's being found on the air field. There's three compounds, two of them were also found in the field blank, which causes me to, causes us to believe that it's atmospheric contamination. One of them, which is one part per trillion, was, or is not, is not a part of the 15 that's considered on the EPA's health advisory list. We will continue to sample. And keep an eye on that, and right now I'm not putting that well back online. - Yeah, good evening, I'm Richard Benze, I work with the Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance Division. And as Jonathan mentioned early on, a lot of this discovery of this contaminant, or this group of contaminants originated with EPA's unregulated containment monitoring regulation. And in Michigan about 100 systems over 10,000 had sampled for it. And two of them found it. And you know one of them, as Dr. Wells mentioned, is Ann Arbor, and it's in the Huron River there. And their treatment system, and Ann Arbor has what we call the water torture plant. Cause if there's a treatment method out there, they use it. And they don't remove it. It's there. They're monitoring it. They keep a good handle on it, and they notified their residents about it. Another one is a groundwater system that serves about 20,000 people north of Grand Rapids. And they like Grayling had the ability to remove the wells that were contaminated from routine use, but they're one mechanical failure away from having to put them back online. So they're out there. We're finding them in public water systems. Not everyone's been sampled. Grayling was not during the unregulated containment monitoring, but because it was being offered as an alternative, for people in this area, they decided that we should sample it. And lo and behold, as Kyle said, one of the wells initially reported that the presence of low levels of a couple of these PFC's, they weren't the ones that were commonly being found around the base, do we don't think it's related, at least not yet, that's part of what our sister agencies will find out here when our RD and DMVA does some other investigations on the nature and extent of this contamination. But we also wanted to collect repeat samples to confirm what we found, and we just got those results, today basically. Last night for me, and today for Kyle. And it did confirm the presence in well number two, well number one of that same compound again at even lower level than we saw the first time. But it also reported it at almost the same level, point nine parts per trillion in the other well. So, and again I think the more we sample community water systems, public water systems around the state, the more we're going to find these low levels, they're pervasive. There's many sources, and they've been widely used throughout the environment. So we're all facing this new paradigm together here, and trying to figure out how to deal with it. And as we've said, an abundance of caution has been used thus far. As far as the city's concerned, they will be monitoring this and keeping a handle on it, typically at least quarterly monitoring. You know every three months we'll get a sample from this and we'll look to see what the investigations do as far as finding out where's the source. How much is it? Is there a lot more coming towards the wells? And the city will have to start some long term planning about how do they want to deal with this, you know, do they want to start looking for a new well field. Do they want to look at treatment of the city water. Or are we going to decide at this level, and at a steady state it's really not a risk that's worth the investment to make that kind of treatment, or alternate source investigation. So in the interest of transparency we wanted to let people know what we found. We weren't expecting to have those confirmation results. On Monday the lab told us they wouldn't have them. On Tuesday they said, we think we can get 'em to you this afternoon. And I got 'em that evening and called Kyle at home. And so we just have the paperwork in our hands. - Thank you for sharing. Right, so thank you for everybody coming here, spending a hot evening with us here in the drill floor. Fall we'll have another town hall meeting. The 12 that haven't gotten your results, we'll get with you and we'll set up a smaller town hall. If you have not gotten results, and you haven't, and you didn't request it in the last two weeks, back in that back corner they will have your results. And then our team of experts here, and their team will be in the back, we can answer additional questions. So thank you guys.



The 18th Composite Wing served as part of the defense force for the Hawaiian Islands from 1 May 1931 – 29 January 1942. It inactivated after suffering disastrous losses in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (7 December 1941).[1]

From June 1942 until 1944, it operated as the 18th Replacement Wing, processing personnel entering Second Air Force.[1]

Redesignated as the 18th Air Division on 1 July 1959, it assured that assigned wings were organized, manned, trained, and equipped to conduct long-range bombardment operations using either nuclear or conventional weapons.[1]

The division was redesignated as 18 Strategic Aerospace Division on 15 February 1962, and also developed and maintained a strategic missile operational capability. Between 1965 and 1968, subordinate units of the 18th loaned aircraft and aircrews to SAC organizations for combat during the Vietnam War.[1]

The division was inactivated on 2 July 1968 due to budget constraints.[1]


  • Established as the 18th Composite Wing on 8 May 1929
Activated on 1 May 1931
Redesignated 18th Wing on 1 September 1937
Redesignated 18th Bombardment Wing on 19 October 1940
Inactivated on 29 January 1942
  • Redesignated 18th Replacement Wing on 17 June 1942
Activated on 23 June 1942
Disestablished on 11 April 1944
  • Reestablished and redesignated 18th Air Division on 20 May 1959
Activated on 1 July 1959
Redesignated 18th Strategic Aerospace Division on 15 February 1962
Discontinued and inactivated on 2 July 1968[1]







Campaign Streamer Campaign Dates Notes
Streamer APC.PNG
Central Pacific 7 December 1941 – 19 January 1942 18th Bombardment Wing[1]
World War II - American Campaign Streamer (Plain).png
American Theater without inscription 23 June 1942 – 11 April 1944 18th Replacement Wing[1]

See also



  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l "Factsheet 18 Strategic Aerospace Division". Air Force Historical Research Agency. 4 October 2007. Archived from the original on 30 October 2012. Retrieved 6 April 2014.


 This article incorporates public domain material from the Air Force Historical Research Agency website

This page was last edited on 26 January 2019, at 11:08
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.