Resident warns of PFOS in Redmond wells, urges pre‑disturbance testing at Evans Creek project

David Morton, a Redmond resident, told the Planning Commission on April 8 that Redmond’s drinking water wells one and two are testing at about 5.5 parts per trillion of PFOS, above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant level of 4 ppt. “Redmond’s drinking water wells one and two are contaminated with PFOS at five and a half parts per trillion and it's slowly rising,” Morton said during the public‑comment period.

Morton said the most plausible source is firefighting foam used during a three‑day fire at the All Wood Recycling site (now DTG Recycle) in August 2013, which he said was fought with foam containing roughly 30–50% PFOS. He urged the city to require a focused PFAS site investigation and pre‑disturbance soil and groundwater testing at the DTG/All Wood site before the Evans Creek relocation project proceeds, calling the estimated testing cost of $50,000–$70,000 “trivial compared to the $25–30 million cost of well‑head treatment.”

The resident pointed to language in Redmond zoning code section 21.64.050 and the city’s groundwater protection materials that, in his view, require hydrogeologic assessment and performance standards for development activities in critical aquifer recharge areas (CARA). “Pre‑disturbance soil and groundwater testing of the DTG site is a project condition that this commission can help be required,” Morton said, and asked the commission to advise the mayor and city council to require testing and to make full findings public.

Morton also highlighted health concerns, noting that the EPA classifies PFOS as a likely human carcinogen and that documented sensitive effects include suppression of vaccine response in children. He said the city’s sentinel monitoring wells did not prevent PFAS from reaching supply wells and that, in his view, an investigation to find and eliminate the source has not occurred.

Commissioners did not take action on the comment during the meeting. Staff did not provide a technical response on the record at that time; commissioners and staff later continued the agenda with officer elections and scheduled study sessions. The comment was entered into the public record; commissioners and staff said they would carry forward the conversation through their normal project review and public‑hearing processes.

Next steps: the Planning Commission did not vote on any measure tied to Morton’s request at the April 8 meeting. If the commission or city staff choose to act, that would appear on a future agenda or as a request to the mayor and council for project conditions or further environmental review.