Workers clean up a chemical spill at Brunswick Executive Airport on August 19. Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Portland Press Herald

“The federal government left us with that stuff, and the federal government has a moral obligation to get rid of it,” said Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority Interim Executive Director Steve Levesque.

Levesque’s statements echoed a September letter from Maine federal lawmakers and an October letter from the Environmental Protection Agency calling on the US Navy to help in the wake of Brunswick’s disastrous Aug. 19 toxic foam spill that spewed 1,450 gallons of PFAS-laden aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) into Brunswick airport’s Hangar 4 and surrounding waterways. Levesque reiterated MRRA’s assertion that when it comes to the foam, there has not been sufficient help in getting rid of it.

MRRA, a quasi-state authority established through Maine statute, is tasked “to facilitate the rapid development” of property from the former Naval Air Station in Brunswick after it closed in 2011 under the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC). Since the spill in August, it has amassed $774,000 in cleanup costs and faced heavy scrutiny from residents and local officials.

Levesque said that despite the fact that the Navy put the fire contaminant systems in hangars in the first place, the Navy is putting the responsibility to get rid of the foam on MRRA.

“These base properties [were] transferred in ‘as is’ condition, most with significant infrastructure and building deficiencies, and all with various levels of environmental contamination from their long-term military use,” Levesque said. “Under the BRAC laws, while the Navy is responsible for remediating and managing any environmental issues they created during their use in perpetuity … addressing infrastructure improvements and building upgrades are left to the receiving entities, like MRRA.”

When MRRA secured the lease in 2013, contaminants like PFAS were not included as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The Navy only has responsibility with CERCLA contaminants, Levesque said, and the foam was (and still is) compliant with state fire codes.

Navy officials did not respond to messages requesting comment.

Building costs

MRRA has long argued that it has asked for help dealing with the foam from the EPA, Department of Environmental Protection, Federal Aviation Administration and Navy. In a hefty submission of information to the EPA about the spill, the Authority states that it did not receive any guidance.

In a narrative letter from the submission, the Authority stated that the Navy BRAC office pointed to lease language to absolve the itself of any responsibility with the foam. Per MRRA’s 20-year lease with the Navy, MRRA must provide “reasonable and necessary” fire protection, including maintaining the sprinkler systems. Maintenance on the premises is done at MRRA’s expense, and the “government shall have no responsibility” in protecting or maintaining the property.

The Navy did ultimately complete a foam take-back program in Hangar 4 by early November. According to a November Navy letter, the process involved removing, draining and rinsing the sprinkler system in Hangar 4. However, MRRA told the EPA that it “is not aware of any Navy testing of the water used to rinse the Hangar 4 AFFF system to confirm removal of PFAS.”

MRRA’s letter also noted that other factors were leaving it in the lurch. The Authority stated that it requested to defer a payment for base property totaling $140,819.70 — called the MRRA Economic Development Conveyance Covenant Payment — citing financial assistance as the reason. MRRA made the request in early November ahead of the December due date, but did not receive a response by the time it submitted information to the EPA mid-December.

Outside of the spill, Levesque said that MRRA has had to deal with environmental issues for which the Navy should be responsible.

Levesque, who was MRRA’s executive director before his predecessor, Kristine Logan, recalled an incident back in early years of leasing Hangar 4, where MRRA had to spend $200,000 to address cracks causing contamination in sewer system. The Navy would not pay for it, he said, so the Authority withheld the funding from its annual payment for the leased property.

“That’s another example of how were trying to hold the federal government accountable,” he said. He also reiterated MRRA’s long assertion that it has been working to get rid of the AFFF before the spill even occurred. He noted, however, that he also has not been present the last couple of years, which was when Logan was in charge.

MRRA also inherited aging infrastructure, and has had to find ways to pay for upgrades and maintenance as the lease stipulates. Hangar 4 underwent renovations in 2019 to bring it back up to fire code, for instance. Levesque said that to date, MRRA funded over $70 million in building and infrastructure upgrades on Brunswick Landing using sources like grants, property sales and more.

However, the cost of the spill continues to build. Two of the Authority’s insurance claims it filed in the wake of the spill — one of which is a commercial policy required by the Navy — was outright denied due to a PFAS exception in the policy. Its budget request to Gov. Janet Mills’ office for $21.9 million to rid its properties of the foam has not yet been answered.

EPA spokesman, Vikram Lakshmanan, told the Portland Press Herald in October that it’s not the EPA’s role to arbitrate who should have to pay for costs associated with the spill. However, it told The Times Record on Dec. 20 that it received a response from the Navy to a separate site cleanup inquiry, and will ensure that all PFAS releases are included in the existing investigation and cleanup process at the former base.