Good try, but you are misquoting me. I said:

". . . below the EPA advisory level of 70 ppt or PFHxS, PFHpA, PFNA and PFBS."

That's "OR," not "FOR." Kind of childish to change what I wrote.

So, I reiterate that the Navy is releasing no results for positive presence of PFOA and PFOS, and it is apparently not testing for the presence of specific chemicals that would indicate that the source of the pollutants is the contaminated  firefighting foam. Actually, I suspect that they are testing for them and are not going to release any positive results. Just like a typical very large corporate polluter, the Navy is hardly going to provide evidence that would establish its liability for contaminating the aquifer. I suspect that the next step by the Navy will be to try reach settlements that are sealed (secret) with the affected individuals. The Navy surely knows that it faces huge liability, especially politically, but also legally from a class action.