Wednesday's postcard, and the Spokane Airport's word-bomb response to disclosure of its PFAS contamination problem

September 13, 2023

Flexing merganser, Latah Creek

Troubled water and a scorching letter

Until nine weeks ago, the unsettling story of how contaminated well water on the plains west of Spokane exposed at least thousands of people to potentially harmful levels of highly toxic, synthetic chemicals was missing a large piece of the puzzle. While Fairchild Air Force Base had stepped forward to assume responsibility for the contamination, the management of the Spokane Airport—just a few miles away and perched near a known “paleochannel” flush with potable groundwater—had not.

It was fairly common knowledge that both Fairchild Air Force Base and Spokane International Airport had procured and used something called “Aqueous Film Forming Foam” (AFFF) to douse aviation fires and to practice dousing aviation fires. AFFF is highly effective at smothering fires. It’s also loaded with PFAS—per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances—a large class of unnatural chemicals used in a variety of commercial products (i.e. Teflon) because of their water and stain resistance. In the case of AFFF, PFAS is the main ingredient for an aqueous film that spreads across the surface of burning fuel, extinguishing the blaze. The problem is that PFAS are so highly toxic they are regulated down parts per billion and even parts per quadrillionth under proposed federal rules.

PFAS was discovered in groundwater monitoring wells at FAFB in early 2017 and, shortly thereafter, elevated levels were also found in groundwater that the nearby City of Airway Heights was pumping and piping to its residents. The water was quickly shut-off and headlines appeared. The Air Force began working with Airway Heights and other water providers on the West Plains to provide alternative sources and filtration systems.

In contrast, the management of the Spokane International Airport (SIA) has chosen to keep a low profile. As I reported a month ago, internal SIA memos obtained via public records requests clearly show that top officials at SIA knew as early as June 2017 that there were significant levels of PFAS in at least three of the airports monitoring wells. The public records—requested and reviewed by a private citizen who lives on the West Plains—were shared with state health officials in early 2023 and triggered an investigation by the Washington Department of Ecology’s Toxics Cleanup branch. As a result of that investigation Ecology formally notified SIA in a July 6th letter that the state was moving toward naming SIA as a “potentially liable person” under Washington’s Model Toxics Control Act. The agency gave SIA thirty days to respond.

I apologize for the extensive background, but it’s a complex story and reiteration is necessary. Among other things, SIA could potentially face large civil penalties under state law for not disclosing the contamination it found in 2017 and corroborated with additional sampling in 2019. (I filed a public records request with SIA in July requesting, among other records, any communication from SIA to public health agencies to report the PFAS contamination. On August 22nd I was informed that no such records exist.)

At least two noteworthy things happened after Ecology sent its July 6th letter.

•SIA hired a Washington D.C.-based law firm—E&W LAW—to respond on its behalf.

•When the law firm provided its response on August 7th, I requested the E&W letter from Ecology. Over my protests, the release of the letter was delayed for a month. It was finally provided to me late last week.

Here’s the letter—under the cover line “Confidential Settlement Discussion Correspondence”—written by E&W Law attorney Jeffrey Longsworth.

To describe it as unusually defiant would be to put it mildly. Among other things the Longsworth letter:

•”disputes that (Ecology) can confirm that any release of hazardous substances…can be proved based on the information that you set forth in your correspondence.”

•”requests that you retract your July 6 correspondence and remove the March 30, 2023 ‘toxics’ listing of the Airport on the State’s website..”

•”asserts [that] the source of the information [in Ecology’s letter] is not known or its reliability cannot be proven.”

•challenges the adequacy of Ecology’s investigation in part because “(t)he ‘investigation’ merely restates that monitoring was conducted that found PFAS. Whose PFAS? Ecology jumps to the conclusion that it was the Airport’s PFAS, despite the nearby presence of Fairchild AFB, the military use of PFAS at or near the Airport, other known or suspected sources of PFAS immediately adjacent to the Airport, etc. That is not an ‘investigation’ but rather an arbitrary and capricious conclusion without appropriate foundation or evidence.”

Aside from criticizing Ecology’s investigation and process, Longsworth’s letter also appears to suggest the Airport may take legal action against Ecology for a June 23 letter it sent to the City of Spokane’s Planning & Development program. The letter reported that a parcel slated for inclusion in the SIA Business Park “is located approximately within 2,000 feet of known PFAS in groundwater.”

Wrote Longsworth: “The [June 23rd] letter contains multiple instances in which Ecology engages in pure speculation without any facts to support such actions. We believe that these reckless statements by Ecology have removed all economically beneficial use of this property and may constitute a taking of the subject property that the Airport was seeking to sell.”

Near the end of the letter, he adds:

“In closing, the Airport takes its role in providing public services and its responsibilities to the local community very seriously. Unnecessary and unfounded negative actions against it can damage its reputation and community role as well as harm the Airport economically.”

As I reported on August 23rd, Ecology’s Nicholas Acklam responded to SIA with an August 17th letter addressed to SIA CEO Larry Krauter. The letter formally notified SIA that it was being listed as a liable person under the state’s toxics law and that failure to comply with subsequent orders “may result in a fine of up to $25,000 per day and liability for up to three times the costs incurred by the state.”

Shortly after I received Longsworth’s August 7th letter from Ecology I shared it with John Hancock, a Deep Creek resident who lives in an area several miles from FAFB and SIA. Many of his neighbors have had PFAS contamination detected in their well water. Hancock is one of the principal organizers and a spokesperson for the West Plains Water Coalition, a non-profit organization that works on behalf of area residents who’ve been affected by the PFAS groundwater contamination.

“I think the airport’s behavior shows that it has been involved in a years-long coverup,” he told me. “And that’s what many of my neighbors believe as well.”

He says he took particular notice of the part of Longsworth’s letter that chastised Ecology for drawing attention to the PFAS contamination in correspondence with the City of Spokane’s planning department.

“The damage alleged to the airport’s property value is an insult given the value of the damage done to the property of those experiencing the effects of the contamination,” Hancock said. “It raises the question of what duty the airport owed its neighbors once it confirmed that groundwater at the airport was contaminated with PFAS.”

I sought comment from SIA via an email I sent Monday night to Longsworth and copied to Todd Woodard the SIA Public Affairs director. I included the following questions:

1) Is SIA still contesting its designation as a liable party for the remediation of the PFAS contamination at SIA?

2) Your letter raises questions about the “reliability” of the information Ecology relied upon for its July 6th letter. Just to be clear: does SIA dispute the existence of PFAS contamination of soils and/or groundwater at SIA?

3) Your letter references “three older (2017-2019) reports that contain some monitoring results for PFAS.” Does SIA contest the accuracy of those reports? Has SIA conducted more recent groundwater tests for PFAS at SIA and, if so, what were the results of those tests?

4) Has SIA taken steps to alert adjacent property owners and/or nearby communities of the existence of PFAS contamination in groundwater at SIA?

I’ve not heard back, but will report in this space if I do.

—tjc