Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises PFAS contamination concerns at Livermore airport; council hears request to agendize report
Summary
A public speaker said a consultant found elevated PFAS at Livermore airport and urged the council to agendize the Geosyntec report and water‑board correspondence; the mayor said no Livermore drinking water wells have been impacted and the city must submit an additional investigative work plan by Feb. 2.
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Livermore — During open forum on Nov. 24, a city resident urged the City Council to bring detailed consultant findings about PFAS contamination at the Livermore airport to a future meeting and to share correspondence with the water board.
The speaker, identified on the meeting roster as Donna Cabane, said the city’s consultant had detected elevated concentrations of per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in soil and groundwater at the airport, reporting polyfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) at an estimated concentration of about 3,000 nanograms per liter. The speaker contrasted that figure with what she described as the EPA maximum contaminant level of 4 nanograms per liter and asked whether the city would agendize the Geosyntec report and water‑board correspondence and whether airport development decisions — specifically hangar S‑1 — should be postponed pending further investigation. She also urged the airport’s fixed‑base operator to provide GAMI 100UL fuel for piston‑engine aircraft.
Mayor Marchand responded in the meeting record that no drinking‑water wells in Livermore have been impacted and that some reported impacts were in Pleasanton at lower levels. The mayor emphasized the distinction between a groundwater detection and a demonstrated impact to municipal drinking‑water supplies. The speaker had also noted that the city must submit an additional investigative work plan to the water board by Feb. 2; that deadline was included in the public comment.
No council action was taken on the item at the meeting. Councilmembers and staff did not dispute that further investigation is required; staff acknowledged the water‑board process and the need to publish or present findings so residents can track the work.

