Michigan enlists ‘Shop-Vac on steroids’ to fight toxic PFAS foam

A truck similar to this one will be used to suck up toxic PFAS foam around parts of Oscoda, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality said. (Photo courtesy of MDEQ)

July 31, 2018: Updated Michigan PFAS map

OSCODA — Initiate suction.

Folks in this Northeast Michigan town have grown increasingly alarmed by toxic foam bubbling up on their beaches.

Brilliant white and often sticky, it’s a visual reminder of water contamination from fire suppressant — laced with a hazardous group of contaminants collectively known as PFAS —  once used at the shuttered Wurtsmith Air Force base. A plume of those chemicals is spreading beneath the Au Sable River, Van Etten Lake and toward Lake Huron.

Now, state environmental regulators have hatched a novel plan to get rid of the foam, which has tested positive for astronomically high levels of PFAS, harming property values and scaring some folks from enjoying the waters.

Related: Where Michigan governor candidates stand on funding toxic cleanups
Related: Michigan to sue 3M as toxic PFAS chemicals taint waters

The method? A “giant Shop-Vac on steroids,” as one state official put it.

“We’ll be the first in the United States,” said Mike Jury, a veteran of the Department of Environmental Quality’s Bay City office, who is coordinating the state’s foam response.

The Michigan PFAS Action Response Team has budgeted up to $130,000 for the pilot  project. State health officials say the foam is not particularly dangerous to touch, but would be risky to swallow, though they add they still have plenty to learn.

Sticky foam washes up on a public beach near on Van Etten Lake across from the shuttered Wurtsmith Air Force base. State environmental officials confirmed that it resembled foam that has tested positive for high levels of toxic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. (Bridge video by Jim Malewitz)

Sucking out the foam won’t solve the larger contamination problem in waters near Wurtsmith, said Scott Dean, a DEQ spokesman.

“The project is intended to demonstrate a process for removal of foam that results from the contamination,” Dean said.

“The long-term solution will involve mitigation measures by the Department of Defense that reduce/eliminate the plume’s ability to reach the lake.”

(The state has been pushing the Air Force to help protect surface waters near Wurtsmith, but thus far the military has refused to take responsibility. The cleanup dispute could ultimately land in court.)

How will the de-foaming work? Bridge Magazine sat down with Jury, known to some of his colleagues as “Captain PFAS,” to learn more.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Mike Jury works in the Bay City office for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Bridge: Why are you spending so much energy investigating this foam?

Jury: It is troubling to the residents of the lake (because) it is daily reminder that there are issues with groundwater contamination. There’s not a lot of research for us to determine: What chemistry does this foam have? What type of contaminants are in it,  and what are the levels of contaminants? There are just so many things that are unknown. It’s hard for people to get an idea of what is safe and what is not.

Bridge: This foam has tested positive for astronomically high for PFAS?

Jury: It is high, though we’ve seen even higher levels elsewhere in the state. As we learn how to take better samples, then we’re getting higher levels. But remember, before we send a sample into a lab, we have to condense it into a liquid, which is more concentrated (That means the liquid’s PFAS content will naturally be higher than the foam particles that might end up on someone’s skin.)

Bridge: Where all has the foam been spotted?

Jury: Confirmed cases included here at Wurtsmith at Van Etten Lake and Cedar Lake, which is north of here. We’ve also found it in Grayling at Lake Margrethe. It’s also in Rockford, associated with Wolverine World Wide and the Rogue River. Those are the places were we have spotted the foam taken samples and have analyzed the results.

Bridge: This project to vacuum it up sounds fascinating. This a first?

Jury: We’ll be the first in the United States. Maybe it’s been done elsewhere in the world, I don’t know. We came up with the idea of a vacuum truck.

Bridge: I heard you call it a “giant Shop-Vac on steroids.”

Jury: I can’t take credit for that. A resident came up said that earlier, but yeah. We’ll have a suction device with a hose, so we can pull it into the vehicle, then treat that to turn it into a liquid before solidifying it, and disposing it in a landfill.

Bridge: Will this vacuuming happen both on the shore and, if necessary, in the middle of the lake?

Jury: We have one company that believes they might be able to collect it on the lake. They have proposed using something similar to a pontoon boat with a vacuum source on the boat. Will that work? I don’t know. We also have two companies that plan on doing it on land.

Bridge: How did you get to be the foam guy?

Jury: I’ve been called everything from Captain PFAS to The Foam Guy to Mr. Bubble. I've been working for the department for over 40 years. So if there's a question or an idea come to me, my background is such that I'm an idea guy.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Justin B
Fri, 07/13/2018 - 9:40am

I had relatives with a cottage on Van Etten as a kid. I remember playing in the foam... No telling what damage this has caused.

Erwin Haas
Sat, 07/14/2018 - 4:09pm

I’m running for Michigan’s 26th Senate in Kent, Allegan and Van Buren Counties. This issue concerns my district. None of my competitors has any idea of what questions to ask much has the cajones to challenge the hysteria that have been fanned by those who have become co-dependent with PFAS.
I would question the "experts" on the following and suspect that these blowhards would admit that they are merely guessing about what PFASs in our environment might mean.

1) The Australians looked at this more closely and find no evidence of toxicity for PFASs.

2) I heard a lecture on this topic at Butterworth by Dr. Bernard Eisenga, the toxicologist on staff there. He did not convince me that PFAS was unusually toxic. The data showed a possible increased incidence of kidney and bladder cancers, but did not delve into confounding issues such as poverty or smoking in the population studied. None of the physicians there could tell whether PFASs might not be healthful from what he presented.

3) The main complaint seems to be that these substances last a long time in nature and, if taken into the body, are eliminated slowly. So what?
No one addressed several ways that PFASs can be destroyed. I dealt with microorganisms for a career so easily found a now 6 year old paper that showed that fungi can break this family of compounds down to simple chemicals that are not even remotely suspected of toxicities.

BTW, Oil is also broken down and becomes food for plants and animals. You can easily find articles on "oil digesting bacteria" by Googling this title.

4) My background in biology and chemistry (MD) makes it impossible for me to believe that organic chemicals like PFAS are not degraded by other environmental factors; air and especially sunlight usually have properties of destroying complex organic compounds. Plants probably take these chemicals up and possibly store them in wood or leaves which removes them from our detection or concern. They may break them down to smaller parts.

5) “Keep the yokels scared and the money never stops.” is a quote from Mencken. Toxicologists, fanatical environmentalists, lawyers, second rate publishers and writers need the shekels! There is a loud population of perpetually and professionally sick who have had Lyme disease, the ones who are bombarded with electronic signals and who are intolerant of petroleum products who will now be able to bore their friends and neighbors with their complaint, and burden their doctors and visit far off quacks about their exposures to PFAS. It might be the Agent Orange of the millennial generation.

6) And finally, Teflon is made with PFOA, and is similar to PFASs. I make bacon and eggs daily with a Teflon pan and sprayed the chains on our bikes just two days ago, Also, I believe that the Nomax(?) uniforms that I and other flight crew wore in Vietnam is were made fire proof by a chemical related to PFAS.
And yet I survive.

7) I will support research to check and effects of PFASs on the population. I would love to have microbiologists check to find other bacteria and fungi that degrade these compounds, and others to see if they are incorporated into other biologic systems or sunlight degrades them. But I refuse to spend money on trying to "clean up" the foam on lakes (ever hear the poem on the tides being "too full for sound of foam"?) or on endlessly caving in to the political hangers on who want to make money off of chemical that is present in a few areas quietly doing nothing for over 50 years.

Stephen C Brown, PhD
Mon, 03/18/2019 - 4:25pm

Dr. Haas-please read these citations you've offered more closely. Citation #1 is a newspaper article reporting on an ad-hoc panel's advice to take no action on PFAS, but to study it more closely. Compare that to the MDEQ Scientific Advisory Panel's conclusions posted last December on the MPART website. This panel has well-trained and experienced Scientists serving on it. Your citation #2 is a UCLA undergrad thesis that reports that telomeric alcohols are metabolized by some fungi, all right, but just to other PFAS compounds that were not characterized. There was no Fluoride ion liberated, and no C-F bonds broken. This can be done in the laboratory using the TOP assay that generates hydroxyl radical to perform the same oxidations, that do not affect any C-F bonds in the complex PFAS mixtures. There are many peer-reviewed reports of PFOA and PFOS health effects-go check the ATSDR website, the EPA website, the MPART website for these citations, but look at just this one paper if you can find the time: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2018 Nov 23 doi: 10.1038/s41370-018-0094-1 . Please be more diligent-no one wants a blowhard protecting the health of their children.

Mon, 05/13/2019 - 11:13am

PFAS compounds have multiple carbon-fluorine bonds (C8 compounds have eight of these bonds), which are among the strongest chemical bonds that do not easily break down in nature. There have been no identified microorganisms that break down the compounds (it takes more energy to break down than the organism gains, so there is no reason for a microorganism to "eat" these compounds). Carbon-fluorine bonds are not common in natural compounds.

Just because you have been exposed for years from Teflon cookware, does not mean you weren't exposed from other sources or that you you should be showing the effects of exposure. Every person is different. Some smokers live long lives without developing tobacco related illnesses, while others show those effects with relatively short times of exposure. Making such statements do not support your argument.

Additionally, Nomex is in no way related to PFAS other than Nomex was also made by DuPont. Nomex does not have any C-F bonds or any fluorine at all.

DuPont studied the population around their manufacturing facility in Parkersburg West Virginia. The plant disposed of wastes from that facility on farm/grazing land near the Ohio River. 60,000 Residents (on both sides of the river) and plant workers participated in an extensive study (called the C8 Study). DuPont did not believe that any health effects would be identified, and promised to continue the study if there were any indications of health effects. That program is ongoing because health effects were identified, including thyroid disease and thyroid cancer, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, issues with pregnancy, high cholesterol, among others. A toxicologist that I know said that it was the best toxicological study since the tobacco study.

You need to do some research to better understand the issues before making uniformed statements in a public forum.

Stephen C Brown
Mon, 03/18/2019 - 3:36pm

So, PFAS will stick to pipes, hoses, and tanks. How does DEQ intend to clean up the trucks and dispose of it properly? Destruction of PFAS requires high temperature incineration and/or electrochemical oxidation: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rem.21553