Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges clear answers on PFAS detections at Redmond wells 1 and 2
Summary
A neighbor pressed the commission to get formal, public answers about PFAS/PFOS/PFBS detections at Redmond supply wells 1 and 2, asking about source investigation, sentinel well testing after the 2013 Allwood Recycling fire, Evans Creek testing, coordination with Ecology and DTG Recycle, operational response to rising trends, and a timeline for wellhead treatment.
David Morton told the Redmond Planning Commission on April 22 that residents deserve clear, documented public answers about PFAS detections at the city’s supply wells.
Morton, a Redmond resident and neighborhood walker, listed six specific accountability questions for city staff: whether a formal source investigation has been conducted for PFOS and PFBS detections at wells 1 and 2; whether sentinel wells were installed and tested following the August 2013 Allwood Recycling fire and whether any were sited between the Allwood/DTG Recycle site and Redmond supply wells; whether Evans Creek predisturbance soil or groundwater testing has been performed at the relocation site that is partially within the DTG property and upgradient of the wells; whether the city has coordinated testing of the DTG site with the Washington Department of Ecology, King County, or DTG Recycle; what the city’s operational response is to a slowly rising PFOS trend and emerging detections at additional wells; and what schedule the city projects for design, permitting and construction of wellhead treatment at wells 1 and 2 and what interim measures protect public health.
Morton said, “Redmond residents are drinking this water every day, and they are entitled to clear, documented, publicly accessible answers.” He asked the commission to request that staff provide formal responses on the public record.
Staff response and next steps Senior Planner Glen Coyle acknowledged the questions and commissioners asked staff to provide formal, public responses. The commission did not adopt any new requirements at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to place answers on the public record and to follow up with the technical details requested.
Ending: The commission asked staff to return with documented responses to Morton’s questions and to make those responses available to the public.
