City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Pease Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), 26 Jan 2023

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 1.24.2023 Pease RAB Presentation

Description

1.24.2023 Pease RAB Presentation

A

All right, hello and welcome to the peas, restoration, advisory board, technical presentation.

A

Recording for the hybrid meeting to be held on 24 january 2023. hi, I'm chris king, the air force.

A

Program manager and beck for peas, this recording will be posted and accessible to interested.

A

Parties to allow adequate time to review and digest the information prior to the meeting.

A

With me today are members of the wstp team supporting the pfas or medial investigation.

A

Additional presenters will include, grant austin, hank and dulcic maddie dinsmore and amy quinn.

A

I will start the presentation with some general air force updates before we get into the technical.

A

Update from recent ri activities next slide, please all right! This agenda is what to expect when, in.

A

Attendance at the meeting on the 24th for those of you who will be attending in person, you will.

A

Have the opportunity to view this presentation at the start of that review or those who have.

A

Viewed it prior to the meeting, may skip the video presentation and arrive at the scheduled start of.

A

The open discussions, please refer to the agenda that was distributed on 11 january for exact times.

A

All right, following the video presentation, we'll conduct normal rev business shortly.

A

And get right into the discussion and public comment all right next slide.

A

All right first, I would like to give an update on the ongoing impacts, our ongoing actions for the.

A

Impacted private drinking water wells. uh Currently we have two residents that are on bottled water.

A

uh The public comment period recently closed on the engineering assessment.

A

And cost analysis analysis otherwise known as the ego that closed on the 18th of november.

A

We are now drafting a non-time, critical removal action memo that will allow us to go ahead and.

A

Make the physical connections for those residents to the municipal water system and that connection.

A

We expect to have have done around in the spring when the asphalt plants open back up.

A

All right more recently, one resident is currently supplied with a point of entry system or a poet.

A

That was installed and operated by the des. The des just recently transferred ownership of that system.

A

To the resident on 6th january, at that point, the air force is now able to assume ownership of and.

A

Maintenance of that system, so we are currently drafting a time critical removal, action, memo.

A

And we will be assuming operations and maintenance of that poet within the next six months.

A

All right next slide, please all right.

A

um The national defense authorization act of 2023 was signed on 23 december by the president.

A

uh The new lawn does modify the section 345 of the 22 ndaa that clarifies data sharing restrictions.

A

um So going right into it, you can see some of the new text, it's shown in bold italic and.

A

What has been changed so now that now it reads: consent by private property owners. The secretary.

A

Of defense may not publicly disclose personally identifiable information in connection with the.

A

Results of testing for pfas, conducted on private property without the consent of the property owner.

A

This change in status is it aligns with recent dod interpretations of the earlier version of.

A

The statute, so it doesn't really change a whole lot. What dod will publicly disclose? Unfortunately,.

A

um The af the air force does continue to share sampling results and will continue.

A

To protect the private property ownership and well-location data, unless the property owner authorizes the air force to disclose that information.

A

Okay, so for ps, what that means. Isn't this, essentially, is that we can share sampling data.

A

With the state, but we must do so on a manner that protects the ownership, information and the well.

A

Location data, so maps that indicate well locations are still very restricted, so that doesn't.

A

Change a whole lot, but we are able to share data tabular data with the state all right next slide.

A

All right with uh with that being done I'll pass it over to mr grant austin to give the.

A

Update on the activities at site, 8. hi- this is grant austin with wsp I'll, be giving a quick.

B

Overview of the site, 8 ims effluent injection trench replacement that was recently conducted.

B

Beginning in october, site 8 effluent injection trenches to re-inject treated, groundwater were.

B

Replaced with construction completed mid-november, these trenches were placed for the five original.

B

Injection trenches that became clogged unable to maintain designed injection rates.

B

Construction of five new injection trenches allows for adequate injection rates for maintaining.

B

Design flow improves effluent infiltration capacities and provides an overall improvement.

B

To the flushing of the site, 8 contaminant source area pictures is construction of a length of.

B

Replacement trench with the lengthwise pvc pipe receiving treated groundwater.

B

Effluent leaving the plant to be dispersed up gradient of the contaminant source area.

B

Next slide, please.

B

This slide presents an overall construction drawn of the site, 8 treatment, plant and vicinity.

B

The red highlighted areas indicate locations of abandoned in place, former injection trenches and.

B

Effluent, distribution lines, green highlighted areas indicate the locations of recently.

B

Constructed injection trench gallery and new effluent distribution lines insets on the left.

B

Of the slide, so the location of trenchy remaining in use, that's on the top left and locations of.

B

Abandoned trenches, a through d, bottom left and trench e on the far left trenchy remains active.

B

A

All right back to me um so onto an overview of the ri status before we get into the individual media.

A

Presentations, as you can see in this figure, we are on track to finalize the ri documents. This fall.

A

The feasibility study or fs has anticipated to follow shortly on the heels of our ri, and it is.

A

Currently estimated to be completed towards the end of 24., a feasibility study is a mechanism for.

A

The development screening and detailed evaluation of alternative remedial actions specific to.

A

The peas program: it's important to note that these are estimations right now. It is possible.

A

um You know, field activities or problems on the ground may delay certain things.

A

um But this is our current schedule and we're doing our best to stick to it. Okay, next slide.

A

All right, um so, what's going on uh the field, work is nearly complete with the remedial investigation.

A

uh The fall mobilization included the final of the well installations and sampling of.

A

Groundwater: surface water, sediment, soil pool water, garden produce and eggs validation for a lot of.

A

This is still underway. You'll see that we do have some results that will be presented later in this.

A

In this presentation, and meanwhile, we are working diligently on getting the reports.

A

Produced so there's a lot of work still ongoing, but the field work is coming to an end. There.

A

Will be in the future, I won't get into the technical details, but there are still some.

A

Field work activities to be completed, so we're nearly done not complete. um Okay, next slide.

A

All right so in the next coming technical presentations, we're going to get a summary of the.

A

Extent of groundwater, contamination and potential impact on public supply wells by mr hank andelsik.

A

Following that, we'll get a chemistry update from ms maddie dinsmore and then wrapping it up, we'll get a backyard produce and cool.

A

Water update from ms amy quinn and with that I hand it over to hank englesick.

C

How you doing uh my name is hank and dulcik, I'm the project hydrogeologist for uh the ri.

C

Investigation- and uh this first slide um uh is, uh is an image of the peninsula and the area.

C

Investigation the contours are overburdened groundwater eco potential lines, which are.

C

Essentially, elevation contours of the groundwater surface. These have been updated using recent water.

C

Level data in combination with the numerical groundwater flow model that has been developed.

C

The purple areas are the 17 known or potential source areas that were investigated during the.

C

Ri and at this point I'd like to give a shout out to a thanks to those current and former.

C

Lab members that assisted us with scoping sessions and identifying some of these sites.

C

uh The bright purple line that separates the northern flow field flow field, one in.

C

The southern flow field flow field 2., the groundwater data- will be broken into these.

C

Two flow fields with uh within the report to facilitate review next slide. Please.

C

uh A software called earth, the volumetric studio or evs was used to develop a three-dimensional.

C

Digital model of the hydrogeology and contaminant distribution, this digital model was used as a.

C

Geologic foundation for our groundwater flow and transport model that has been developed for the ri.

C

The one of the cool things about ebs is that you can make an animation out.

C

Of the model, which is what I'll show you next, it is a data driven model.

C

And illustrates in in this model, and you can just turn it on we'll do a couple times. It illustrates.

C

The various layers of sand, clay and bedrock that have been incorporated into the model.

C

You just run it again, amy please.

C

Great next slide, please.

C

uh Eds was used to develop geologic cross-sections. These are the section.

C

Lines that will be included in the ri report. I want to point out uh section line a a prime.

C

Which goes from north to south, if you can just point to that amy and also f, f, prime, which goes.

C

From east to west, through the haven well cross sections that I'm about to show, you include the.

C

Stratigraphy and contaminant distribution along a specific line next slide. Please.

C

uh This is cross-section geological cross, section, a a prime which goes from north to south there's a.

C

Fair bit of information provided on this figure, so I'm going to take some time to explain it. It shows.

C

The stratigraphy, with a color key legend, located toward the bottom left of the cross section.

C

And a contaminant concentration color key legend located toward the upper left of the cross section.

C

The stratigraphic legend from bottom to top is bedrock in blue, fractured bedrock and light blue.

C

Lower sand in a mustard color, the marine clay silt in gray and the upper sand in brown.

C

And this represents the general stratigraphy of the peninsula, the thin blue line across the.

C

Top of the cross section is the water table. The contaminant concentration colors are shown in the.

C

Cross section within wells that are represented by vertical columns that cut through the stratigraphy.

C

If more than one color appears in a well, that is because multiple samples were.

C

Collected at various depths, I've summarized the color concentrations in the upper left.

C

The progression of colors is based on us: epa's risk screening level, the rsl for pfos, pfos, which.

C

Is four nanograms per liter? Pfos is generally the contaminant that is driving risk for groundwater.

C

The inset at the bottom left of the slide shows the relationship between the rsls and new.

C

Hampshire's agqs the ambient groundwater quality standard for the five pfas compounds that have.

C

Screening levels, as you can see, except for pfhxs, the rsl values, are more conservative than the heqs.

C

Contaminant distribution maps that will be presented in the ri will be color coded and.

C

Compared and compared detections to either the rsl or agqs values, whichever is less next slide, please.

C

This is geologic cross, section ff, which goes from west to east the dip in stratigraphy in the middle.

C

Just left the center is where the haven wall is located. The verge vertical exaggeration of this.

C

Cross section is 20 to 1. so for every 20 feet horizontally. This section goes one foot vertically.

C

The haven well sits in a depression that is filled with saturated, coarse, sediment.

C

That provides a high volume of groundwater when pumped this depression acts as a large storage.

C

Container for groundwater that can easily be accessed by the haven well, next slide. Please.

C

This slide shows the distribution of pfos in overburden groundwater key for.

C

The color concentration contours is shown in the upper left corner.

C

The outer orange line represents the limit of where pfos is detected above the us epa rsl.

C

Of four nanograms per liter, everything within the orange line exceeds the rsl.

C

The orange line generally corresponds to the the limit of rsl exceedances for pfoa, pf hxs.

C

Pfbs and pfna, in other words, the orange line on the concentration contour map of pfoa, for example,.

C

Would be very similar to that of pfos, however, the distribution of concentration contours on the.

C

Inside of the orange contour would be different for each specific pfas compound the right image.

C

Includes the overburdened groundwater surface contour map for reference next slide. Please.

C

The left image on this slide shows the distribution of pfos in bedrock groundwater.

C

The distribution of pfos in bedrock is, is generally less extensive than.

C

It is for overburdened groundwater. The contour map on the right side is uh is.

C

That of the bedrock groundwater surface for reference, these contours are very similar in.

C

Shape and position to the overburdened groundwater contours next slide. Please.

C

The next series of slides show results of groundwater transport modeling. We did as.

C

Part of the fate and transport component of the ri report, the important takeaway from.

C

These slides is the overall contaminant concentration trend that has predicted.

C

That is predicted appears promising for long-term improvement in water quality.

C

We use the groundwater flow and transport model that was developed to evaluate the.

C

Long-Term effectiveness of the aims in ims, systems on contaminant reduction.

C

With respect to the public supply wells, these modeled results reflect the aims and ims treatment.

C

Plants running and the public supply wells operating at an average flow rate, each graph.

C

Shows results for the five public supply wells, the haven, harrison smith, portsmouth and column.

C

Sorry about that, somehow I got muted uh I'll start over with this. Each graph shows results from the.

C

Five public supply wells, the harrison uh haven, smith, portsmouth and collins. The prominent curve.

C

On the left and right graph is the haven well in the predicted concentration of pfos, which is the.

C

Left graph and pfoa the right graph over the next 20 years for the haven. Well, the.

C

Model predicts a slight increase for pfos and pfoa over what is currently entering the well.

C

Followed by a sharp decline, followed by another lesser increase, followed by a gradual decline.

C

At the bottom of each graph are the results for the harrison smith, portsmouth and collins wells.

C

These wells are plotted on the same concentration scale for direct comparison.

C

What you don't see in the harrison smith, portsmouth or collins wells is a dramatic increase.

C

In predicted concentrations representative of a slug of contamination passing through the aquifer.

C

The levels of contamination predicted for the portsmouth and collins wells are generally below.

C

The us epa, rsl and or the new hampshire ambient groundwater quality standard next slide. Please.

C

For the haven well, the trend for pf hxs is similar to that of pfos and pfoa.

C

For the portsmouth and collins wells.

C

The model predicts they will not exceed the rsl or agqs water quality criteria. Next slide, please.

C

Lastly, the graph on the left is the predicted results for pfna and pfbs is the graph on the.

C

Right, in summary, the model modeling predicts a gradual improvement in water quality in the public.

C

Supply wells and it predicts that a slug of higher contamination will not enter the capture zone.

C

Of the harrison smith, portsmouth or collins wells.

C

That concludes my portion of the presentation. Thank you.

D

My name is amy clinton. I am human health risk, assessor with wsp.

D

um And I'm just going to spend the next few slides walking through some of the sampling.

D

That we've done over 2022 specifically related to human health exposure and risk, and uh we have.

D

A chemist who's going to jump in as well and give us a little more information about kind of a cool.

D

New analytical approach that we tried this this year so with that I'm going to shut up my video.

D

And get to it, um so we will be focusing on pool water and produce. You might remember, we did a.

D

2021 produce sampling round, we collected fruits and vegetables and we did not detect any pfas at.

D

All in those, so the 2022 round was very much a confirmation round. It was intended to be a.

D

Confirmation round- and we did also expand- that a little bit which we'll talk about on a few slides.

D

And in 2021 we did detect uh pfos in eggs, so we have also done an expanded egg sampling event.

D

um Pool water is new. We hadn't sampled that one previously so we'll talk a little bit.

D

About that in the next slide, um but while we're on this slide, I just wanted to remind.

D

um Remind us all of the basic conceptual model for this, so we have uh pfas at you know in.

D

Groundwater, that's potentially discharging from peas and that groundwater um potentially weeds.

D

The site- and then um you know as as hank was just explaining it does leave the site.

D

um And then in private wells that can be used to fill, pools um and private. Well, water can.

D

Also be used irrigating fruits and vegetables and gardens, so that was really the primary pathway.

D

We're looking at potentially to test so go into a little bit of um actually I'll. Do you a brief.

D

Summary first and then we'll go into pool water. So um the big picture of all of these pathways.

D

um Is that for pool water? uh We do not detect any concentrations above our swimming wrist screen.

D

Levels, um nor did we find anything that was um suggestive, that that they would accumulate to.

D

That point, um so it was a positive result for the pool water, fruit and veg. Last year we did.

D

Not detect any pfas, we in 2022 didn't still did not detect any of the pbas that we have risk.

D

Screening levels, for so as a reminder, that's the chemicals that we have us. Eba, toxicity values for.

D

um And that are accepted by dod, so pfos pipoa pf, hxs, pfna and pfbs. So none of those chemicals.

D

Were detected in 2021 or 2022. um and we did try these. um What we're calling uh large extractions.

D

That maddie is going to talk a little bit about, um and that is really just to see if we could get the.

D

Detection limits lower because the risk screening values are quite low for fruits and vegetables, so.

D

We want to be able to see concentrations as low as as we possibly can so working with the labs to try.

D

To figure out ways to do that and then for eggs um did detect fifos in 2021 and don't unfortunately,.

D

Have the data back yet for 2022? um So it's more of a discussion today on on what we have sampled.

D

So talking about pool water, specifically I'm going to start on the left top side of this.

D

Figure or of this slide, so the question that was posed um relates to pfas in groundwater, killing.

D

Pools uh most of the chemicals that we have risk screening values for are longer chain pifas. There.

D

Are pfas that are not considered volatile, so the question was: if you have uh groundwater and you're.

D

Filling a pool with it- and uh you know, cool water was evaporating. um Will that pfos stay behind.

D

And will it stay behind in concentrations that could present a risk to human health.

D

um So uh you didn't have any information about that, whether or not that was a possibility. So.

D

We decided to go out and sample it to test the theory whether or not that was possible.

D

Pools are really kind of a complicated scenario. There are other things involved in pools right.

D

There are people swimming in them and when you swim in a pool you are outside in the sun, and you.

D

Might have sunscreen and sunscreen has, you know, potentially has people, so there are hours. You know.

D

Certain consumer products in a cool scenario that could introduce pfas, which are not related to peas,.

D

um There are also chemicals added to pools when you add chemicals to a pool. You change.

D

That sort of chemical makeup of the water and that may make a difference to you, know the pfas.

D

That we're detecting in the water as well, so um so what we were looking for was to see if there.

D

Was a connection to peas um and any you know chemicals in that groundwater, specifically that.

D

Could be concentrating into higher concentrations, um and we knew about some pools from our previous.

D

Work, uh you know with questionnaires and with local residents, so we were able to go out and.

D

Sample three in-ground pools that had been filled initially several years ago, so they fit into this.

D

Scenario and the water has been evaporating and being refilled over time, and so what we.

B

Found moving on to the bottom part of this slide is that we found essentially no consistent trend.

D

So in most cases, if a pfas chemical was detected in groundwater, it was also detected in pool water.

D

um But some chemicals were detected at lower concentrations in pool water. Some were detected.

D

At slightly higher concentrations in pool water, but there was no indication that there was a.

D

Consistent concentration across the pfas um and the variation we're seeing was was generally.

D

Pretty low generally less than than 10 times uh difference in any concentrations and then we're.

D

Also indicating there were also cases in both directions where pfos was detected in one media.

D

But not the other, and so in some cases it was detected in groundwater was not detected in pool.

D

Water, in some cases it was detected. um You know in the pool water but not detected in the groundwater.

D

So it was, um it was just not very consistent, but um but no indication that concentrations.

D

Related to peas are likely to be above uh levels at which there could be a risk to human health. So.

D

um It at the end of the day it was a. It was a good result. So before I get into produce.

D

I'm gonna have maddie step in and tell us a little bit more about the just the analysis.

D

um That we use for pfas- um and you know maybe some of the difficulties involved, but certainly um why.

D

We're what these large extractions are for produce and um you know why why we decided to go there.

E

Thanks amy, um this is maddie dinsmore with wsp.

E

um So, due to the low screening levels associated with the produce, chris assessment.

E

As amy previously mentioned, we utilized an exploratory high volume extraction during.

E

The produce sampling in order to reduce the pfos detection limits to achieve this, a subset of the.

E

Produce samples sent to the laboratory were also analyzed using a larger sample weight.

E

On the top of the slide, the laboratory analysis process for pfos produce samples is shown.

E

This is the process that pfos samples undergo at a dod certified laboratory after receiving.

E

The samples from the wsp field staff for the samples that were chosen for the exploratory.

E

High volume extraction one sample was analyzed using a both a 10 gram and a 2 gram extraction.

E

For example, one tomato was analyzed twice using both methodologies.

E

On the bottom of the slide is a mathematical equation performed.

E

By the laboratory that shows why using a higher sample volume allows for lower detection limits.

E

While extracting a higher volume sample gives lower achievable reporting limits, there are.

E

Also, some increased difficulties that labs encounter at these sample extraction and also.

E

The sample analysis phases because of this, the high volume extraction can potentially produce.

E

Data that becomes unusable due to failure to meet the associated quality control criteria by also.

E

Analyzing the standard two gram extractions: we are able to ensure that the laboratory could deliver.

E

Data for all of the samples that is usable for data quality objectives, as outlined by the dod.

E

Standards for data usability, and with that I will turn it back to you amy. Thank you. Thanks maddie.

D

All right, so I'm going to go through now what we did in 2022 and we'll start on the left side of.

D

This uh with our location selection, so we have um previously talked about how we used questionnaires.

D

And discussions with residents to identify where there are gardens that are being watered with.

D

Private well, water, where there are potentially eggs where chickens are being watered with private.

D

Well, water, and then we had these discussions last year uh with the rab and with regulators.

D

About whether or not that was too restrictive, and you know whether we should consider some.

D

Other potential pathways like, for example, um if there are flood flood, plain or wetter damper soils.

D

That could be potentially creating a pathway for pfas additional to just simply irrigating, with.

D

Groundwater, so you know so you're going to see when we look at these sample locations that were.

D

Added we attempted to get a broader understanding ending of what might be out there. So, starting with.

D

Fruits and vegetables here in the middle, so we expanded it to four. We did 14 properties. This.

D

Year and eight of those were resample locations, um some locations were not sampled. This year.

D

And then there were six new locations and two of those were ones that were targeted last year.

D

But not sampled last year and four of them were previously not targeted, so these four represent.

D

um Hopes, where there's not a clear indication that there is now or has ever been irrigation.

D

With private well water, but they might be in a floodplain area, they might be in an area where.

D

They could be impacted by surface runoff or shallow groundwater, and, as far as these, the.

D

Selection, you know targeted in one year or not the other year. Protein sampling is is.

D

Highly invariable in that, if there's a bad crop we all know last year, was a terrible drought. It.

D

Was difficult to grow anything some homes we wanted to resample for confirmation. We weren't.

D

Able to because they they simply didn't, have any approves that that survived and was sample level.

D

um So I think we ended up with a pretty good representative a set of properties this year and.

D

As I said, it does represent a slightly broader understanding of targeting more than just that.

D

Groundwater to plant pathway and then when we look at eggs, we took a similar approach, so we are still.

D

Only aware of two properties that use private well, water with detected pfas um for chickens to water.

D

The chickens, so we resampled those two homes, but then, in order to develop a broader understanding.

D

Of whether there's any other source for pivas that could be related to bees that we could be.

D

Overlooking or just general background whether or not there are other you know, other sources.

D

For pfas entering chickens in in the peninsula, we added these five additional properties, so we.

D

Ended up with seven homes, seven properties for eggs and up and 14 for fruits and vegetables.

D

So this slide has a couple of uh graphs on it. um Graph a is showing us the totality of our fruit.

D

And vegetable sampling um so, as I said, there's 14 properties of those we took 27 separate samples.

D

And that's uh not including duplicates or replicates.

D

um Or anything that was just purely for qc like a lab split, but um but these are all of our our.

D

Primary samples that we collected so as you can see the vast majority of these samples on.

D

The left hand, side are what we consider exposed vegetables they're exposed vegetables. Are things.

D

Like tomatoes, peppers, eggplants, anything that is above ground and you typically would eat the.

D

Outer skin of that plant, leafy greens are a subset of exposed vegetables. They are exposed, but they.

D

um Are obviously a little bit different they're, not a you know a fruiting body they're, something.

D

Like lettuce or kale, um so largely representative of what is grown locally and also leafy greens,.

D

You know there's the possibility that there could be some preferential upticks and we.

D

Really wanted to you know sample as many leafy greens as we could as part of this process.

D

um So you know it's a pretty good representative selection of what is locally grown um as we found.

D

In 2021 uh protected vegetables, so something with a rind, that's removed like a butternut squash.

D

There uh there were fewer of those and there were fewer root vegetables, but there were still a few.

D

And so then we have a second graph over here uh which just looks at the exposed vegetables. So as.

D

I said this is the vast majority of our samples collected and, as you can see within that on this.

D

Right hand, side um these fruiting vegetables, so tomatoes peppers, it's almost half of all of.

D

The exposed vegetables and the reason for that is just because they're so commonly grown. You talk to.

D

Most people, if they have a garden or if they have just a few pots with um you know with a few plants.

D

uh Usually, the tomatoes and the peppers are the first choice, so that again is representative of.

D

What's burned in the area um and then we really made an effort to target these leafy greens and.

D

We were able to sample quite a few of those and then there's herbs, including like mint chives,.

D

And then a small section, including um other kind of others, seeds, beans, um green beans, broccoli.

D

So that that's gonna follow that um which is again, as I said, represented. So all of these.

D

As maddie said, were sampled and were analyzed using our standard analysis, so that's that two.

D

Gram extraction and then on eight samples we tried these quote unquote, large extractions, um so that.

D

We could try to to see down and see if we could get lower detection once so. What we found um 2021.

D

Again, there were no detective concentrations of naps in fruits and vegetables 2022. We did detect.

D

uh Three short chain: p fast, chemicals using the standard analysis, and so those were detected in.

D

um The the types of plants that were listed here so we have eggplant lettuce and green bean.

D

um Interesting, they were different, pfas short chain p fast detected in each of these.

D

um And only one of them was also detected in the soil and water, so in each case we collect a garden.

D

Sample and we collect water sample if the water is, you know, potentially being used to irrigate.

D

um And for the lettuce and the green bean, the short chain pea.

D

Possible detective was not detected in the um in the soil or the water.

D

And for 2022 um for the large extraction so again we ran this only on eight samples, so.

D

It was a subset, um but in three of those uh we did detect pfba. So this is another short chain uh pfas.

D

um And interestingly, it was three separate samples, so not um any of these, which may be these may not.

D

Have been the ones that we actually ran the subs up on, so they anyway, so so um I do want to mention.

D

One thing about pfba: um this is a chemical that we do not currently have risk excreting values for.

D

um We don't have them for any of these short chain pfas, but pfba um us eba did recently.

D

Release a final toxicity value for pfba, so in the future, um by the time we run the ri.

D

We may likely have a screening value for pfba, um so that will be helpful for our analysis.

D

So, moving on to poultry eggs, starting on this left side, this is really just a reminder of what the.

D

Conceptual model is for poultry eggs, so we have pfas in you know in drinking water of the chickens.

D

In two of those homes, it's we have detected in the soil as well: um you're, not sampling insects, but.

D

Chickens certainly do eat them and they also can have pifas in them. So there are some different.

D

Ways that um that pfas can end up in eggs and last year we did detect few folks specifically.

D

In eggs and specifically in egg yolks, so it's an important point uh when you're talking about eggs.

D

Is where in the egg and it's it's generally found uh that people using the yolks, not the whites, so.

D

Last year we did some whole egg sampling and we also did yolk versus white sampling.

D

And uh we decided moving forward in 2022. We were just going to do yolk versus white.

D

And have the lab split the samples in every case, just to get a little bit more detail in the data.

D

um So that is part of our sampling event for 2022, and we also sampled the co-locating video.

D

So we sampled soil, we sampled groundwater and in every case uh we also sampled chicken feed just.

D

To see if there's any potential pfas um getting into chicken diets through their commercial feed,.

D

So in summary, uh pool water, no pfos were detected above screening levels. uh There wasn't a clear.

D

Concentration trend, but really no indication that pfas was was likely to continue concentrating or.

D

Be you know, above those risk screening, levels of fruits and vegetables? As we said, there were no.

D

um Pfas that we currently have screening values for detected in either sampling event, but we did.

D

Detect those three short chain pipas in 2022. and then eggs. We did an expanded sampling event.

D

um We do have p pass detected in 2021 and uh it remains to be seen what the 2022 data looks like.

D

And that uh is the end of the update for me, and I will pass it back over to chris finish this out.

A

All right, thank you. Amy much appreciated all right, so the remaining remedial investigation.

A

Timeline um we have, we will be completing our deep bedrock investigation here fairly shortly.

A

And then for those of you in the know, the maple sap sampling is going to be conducted and expected.

A

To be february right around when the temperature starts going from freezing to fall and then the.

A

Sap starts running, so that's pretty much what we have coming up. um The final remedial investigation.

A

Report, along with the baseline human health and ecological risk assessments, are estimated.

A

For the fall 2023, those are all being vigorously drafted right now um and, of course, we're in tight.

A

Communication with your regulators throughout this entire process um next slide, please.

A

All right, and with that I just want to say thank you to all the the attendees.

A

And all of the presenters here this is a very highly technical uh discussion and I.

A

Expect a you know: a lively q, a during the meeting on the 24th again this this video.

A

Will be posted for access for any interested parties, um we're hoping to get that up very.

A

Shortly and otherwise, if you join us in person, please know that this presentation will be.

A

Put forth at 4 30 uh before the q a starts at six o'clock six to eight. So for those of you who can't.

A

Attend in person, we look forward to seeing you for those of you who choose the online hybrid option.

A

um We will be ready to go, have everything set up and debugged before you arrive, so that we have a.

A

Nice smooth meeting and um yeah, we look forward to the meeting and please bring your questions.

A

So we can so we can have a good debate and with that say, thank you and we'll see you on the 24th.