About two-thirds of the inspection and and testing reports for Brunswick Executive Airport hangars showed deficiencies in fire suppression systems, according to records the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority submitted to the Town of Brunswick on Friday.

The trove of documents, released to the public today, included a packet of over 30 inspection reports dating back to 2016 for Hangars 4, 5 and 6 — all of which are MRRA-owned — showing deficiencies in many of the reports, including issues with the deluge valves, which release water or other chemicals in the system. Reports for Hangar 7, another MRRA hangar, were not included in the submission.

The revelation comes nearly two months after 1,450 of highly toxic aqueous film-forming foam — or AFFF — concentrate mixed with 50,000 gallons of water spilled in Hangar 4. The system was later revealed to be out of date and had multiple deficiencies in its latest inspection from 2023. The foam spill was Maine’s biggest in 30 years.

The reports are among many documents MRRA, a quasi-state agency that governs the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, submitted to Brunswick officials in response to a September PFAS resolution, which called on the authority to release more information about foam storage and to shut down the fire suppression systems and remove the AFFF.

The first item of the lengthy document breaks down the AFFF inventory for Hangars 4, 5, 6 and 7 — totaling 6,300 gallons — as of Oct. 4. Hangar 5 had the highest volume of the four, totaling 3,200 gallons, Hangars 6 and 7 held 1,500 and 1,600 gallons, respectively. All concentrates are currently stored in plastic tanks, the inventory list shows. 

No AFFF concentrate was reported in Hangar 4 — the building where the August spill occurred, releasing toxic foam into nearby waterways. The Navy, which previously owned the airport, was scheduled remove the AFFF from the system prior to Oct. 1 this year and started doing the removal and decontaminating the system starting mid-September. 

At the Monday night Brunswick Town Council meeting, MRRA Executive Director Kristine Logan said that the submitted document included a review of what work has been done to date in MRRA hangars to move away from AFFF, correspondence form the State Fire Marshal’s Office on what fire codes are at play in the hangars and an explanation of why MRRA declined to shut down fire suppression system in Hangar 6 as requested by Town Council.

An email from the Greg Day at the Fire Marshal’s Office detailed the guidelines of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code 409 that require a foaming fire suppression system in the hangars. It noted that NFPA 11 — the standard for different types of foam — allows use for several types of concentrates. Day noted, however, that AFFF and HEF (high-expansion foam) are the most common.

The email also noted that hangars like MRRA’s can defuel aircraft and use a sprinkler system instead, or that other “equivalent fire suppression systems” may be used if MRRA provides technical documentation to authorities and is approved by said authority. The email concluded by stating any changes to MRRA suppression systems would have to be run by the Fire Marshal’s Office.

MRRA has maintained in the past that it was not possible to shutdown its fire suppression system and adopt a defueling method, citing fire code requirements and financial impact to its aviation tenants. The decision to not shut down the systems was finalized at an emergency MRRA board meeting on Oct. 1.

Missing materials and other concerns

Town Councilor James Ecker said that there were still some items needed from MRRA to complete the resolution requests and claimed there were some inconsistencies in the document, which was submitted too late on Friday to include in the public record for the Monday meeting. The documents were posted to the town website Tuesday afternoon.

“There’s a lot of material there, I went through quite a bit of it,” Ecker said at the meeting. “I have a lot of questions but this isn’t the appropriate time to ask, because I think everyone should have a chance to read through this stuff and there’s still several items outstanding.”

Ecker also encouraged Logan to submit additional items that come in before the next meeting in a timely manner so that the public has a chance to review them. Logan said that additional town-requested items would be available “as soon as possible.”

Some of the missing items include copies of inspection reports for stormwater systems that serve the airport, annual budget and spending on hazardous material remediation and response, as well as the request to complete an independent investigation of Hangar 6 and concerns of on-going PFAS discharges into the Brunswick Sewer District outfall near the building. For the last item, Logan said that MRRA reached out to a company, Hampshire Fire, to schedule an inquiry.

Logan agreed to come back to the following Town Council meeting to answer questions related to the packet. Chairperson Abby King said that the packet will be added to the agenda. The next meeting takes place on Oct. 21.

Shortly after Logan reviewed the contents of the MRRA records, Dr. David Page, a member of the Brunswick Area Citizens for a Safe Environment and the Town’s representative to the Restoration Advisory Board, gave a report from last week’s RAB meeting, which had an “all-time record” virtual attendance of 71 people.

Page said the Navy provided a “thorough review” of the reuse and remediation process of the former Naval Air Station. He also said that MRRA will be seeking funding in the wake of the spill to upgrade its hangar systems to avoid using PFAS-containing film from various sources, including the Town of Brunswick. 

King said that the town has had two calls with the federal delegation, primarily asking for funding. She noted that the hope is for Brunswick to not pay for the cleanup or remediation efforts.

In Page’s report, he criticized the DEP’s reporting methods on its testing and mitigation of the Aug. 19 spill.

“I’m disappointed frankly in the reporting,” Page said, noting that items like graphics and news releases were not communicated in a “laymen-friendly” manner. “… The communication of these data just hasn’t been very good.”

He said that it has been difficult to get a ready summary of all the data to date, and also expressed concern that a graphic that showed decreasing PFAS levels in testing sites as misleading.  He said that while the numbers might be decreasing, the public should be directed to look not at the fact of the decrease itself, but how extremely high the numbers are, even with a decrease. 

The DEP responded to the concerns on Tuesday, noting that it was working on a more approachable way for the public to process the information. It said that the graphic in question was created as a visual point of reference while the Department works to create a web map.

“In order to more easily display the data, staff has been working on an online version of the map graphic, which is similar to our PFAS investigation map, however it takes time to populate and construct,” Deputy Commissioner David Madore wrote in an email to The Times Record.

Councilor Jennifer Hicks reiterated that Hangar 6, which contains AFFF foam and was revealed to have a deficient fire suppression system in late September, was still a priority and should have been dealt with on the September 30 deadline. 

“It will cost a heck of a lot more money if there is a problem,” she said. 

This story will be updated.