b'36 Santa Maria Airport Takes Common Sense SMXENVIRONMENTALApproach to PFAS TestingBY VICTORIA SOUKUPA few short years ago, Chrissite. As general manager at Santa Maria FACTS&FIGURESHastert had heard about PFAS (per-Airport (SMX), it was up to Hastert to start Project: Testing for PFAS Contamination and polyfluoroalkyl substances) butthe process at the two-runway facility on didnt know much about them. By MarchCalifornias central coast. Location: Santa Maria (CA) Airport2019, he was fully embroiled in the topic. Regulator: California Water BoardThe chemicals are an issue for airports Thats when thebecause they are key ingredients in the Strategy: Test soil in areas most likely to containCalifornia Water Boardaqueous film-forming foam that emergency PFAS, such as station where aqueous film-formingbegan sending letters tocrews use to fight aircraft fires that cannot foam is stored & areas where foam was discharged to fight aircraft fires or during routine training & testing all commercial airportsbe extinguished with waterburning fuel Costs to Date: $200,000 for 2 rounds of testingin the state as part ofand aircraft components that contain Timeline: CA Water Board issued testing order inits larger initiative abouttitanium, for instance. The problem March 2019; initial soil testing began March 2020;PFAS contaminationoccurs when the foam makes its way into report of 2nd round tests submitted Nov. 2021; workin groundwater. TheCHRIS HASTERT groundwater because PFAS are linked to plan for 3rd round of testing will be submitted byletter required Part 139serious health complications for humans mid-Oct. 2022 certificate holders to begin investigatingand animals. Consultant: SCS Engineers whether they had PFAS contaminants on October 2022AirportImprovement.com'