Maryland says PFAS concentrations will not limit recreational use of the Chesapeake Bay
Decision threatens public health
By Pat Elder
June 30, 2021
View east at the intersection of Maryland State Route 260 (Chesapeake Beach Road) and Maryland State Route 261 (Bayside Road) in Chesapeake Beach, Calvert County, Maryland.
- Wikimedia Commons
The Town of Chesapeake Beach released two surface water tests it conducted that showed elevated levels of PFAS contamination in the Chesapeake Bay and in a creek leading to the Bay. The Maryland Department of the Environment, (MDE) said there is no action required and that the results are consistent with what has been found in other waters.
The PFAS levels reported by the town are alarming, despite what officialdom is claiming.
The MDE issued this statement on June 29, 2021:
"The concentrations presented in the Chesapeake Beach samples are similar to those in water bodies at other locations within the Chesapeake including locations that are not located near contaminated sites. Background samples were collected in Fishing Bay and are similar to those at Chesapeake Beach. The concentrations reported at Chesapeake Beach do not represent concentrations that would limit recreational use of these waters. PFAS and specifically PFOS and PFOA are chemicals that are very persistent in the environment and they don’t break down and can accumulate over time. Additionally, PFAS have been used and continue to be used in food packaging, household commercial items and the workplace. The source of the detected PFAS at Chesapeake Beach is not known at this time and may be attributable to background conditions. Investigations of PFAS impacts to groundwater and surface water are ongoing at the Naval Research Laboratory Chesapeake Bay and as updates and work progresses MDE will continue to keep the community appraised of the findings and any additional recommendations."
The MDE left out the part where the Navy confirms there’s 5,464 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFAS in a stream leaving the base and drizzling into the town, and that more than 8 million ppt of the substances are found in the subsurface soil on base.
The MDE says the levels reported at Chesapeake Beach do not represent concentrations that would limit recreational use of these waters. Recreational use includes fishing and consuming fish, which may be hazardous to health with these levels of chemical contamination.
The water in the creek contained a total of 19.5 ng/l (nanograms per liter, or 19.5 parts per trillion, ppt) for the six types of PFAS analyzed. The water in the Bay contained a total of 15.9 ppt.
Analyte Concentration (ppt)
Creek water
PFOA 4.8
PFOS 11
PFBS 3.9
PFHxS 4.6
Total 19.5
Bay water
PFOA 3.6
PFOS 9.6
PFHxS 2.7
Total 15.9
To put these PFAS findings into perspective, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources says that surface water levels throughout the state that exceed 2 ppt of PFAS pose a threat to human health because the tiniest amounts begin the bioaccumulative process in fish. (See slide 25) Read the entire presentation to learn what Maryland still has not learned, or likely, refuses to learn.
Wisconsin regulates PFAS in fish. Maryland does not, while the EPA is out to lunch.
Concentrations in Lake Monoma, Wisconsin are 10 ppt to 12 ppt for PFOS and near 3 ppt for PFOA, so the state issued fish advisories limiting the consumption of several species of fish to once a month. Maryland has set fish advisories for high levels of mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) but has not done so for PFAS contamination.
In Maryland it’s OK to eat a Smallmouth Bass like the one caught along the Potomac containing 574,000 ppt of the chemicals. The infamous fish was caught by the U.S. Geological Survey site near the historic Burnside Bridge in the Antietam National Battlefield, 1,000 feet from the Potomac River. The water contained 13.4 ppt of PFAS. Levels are higher in Chesapeake Beach than Antietam.
Although the U.S. EPA does not consider PFAS to be hazardous and does not regulate the compounds, the European Union considers these chemicals “high priority hazardous substances.” The European Union’s Water Framework Directive limits these chemicals and their derivatives to 0.13 part per trillion in seawater. The town’s water is more than a hundred times over the European limit. The state says “water bodies in other locations” have levels like those at Chesapeake Beach.
The time for eating unregulated, wild-caught fish across the country is waning.
The Town of Chesapeake Beach used Water Testing Labs of Maryland from Stevensville, MD, a reputable firm with a stellar track record of service dating back to 1975. The company used EPA Method 537.1, a validated method for measuring 18 PFAS in drinking water. For some reason, the town only tested 6 compounds: PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHpA, PFHxS, and PFNA. (A water test in February, 2020 performed by the University of Michigan’s Biological Laboratory using EPA Method 537.1 found 14 types of PFAS in the St. Mary’s River, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.)
The EPA has a list of approved laboratories for testing PFAS in drinking water using EPA method 537, which is capable of detecting PFAS. However, no Maryland firms appear on the list. The website of Water Testing Labs of Maryland does not mention PFAS testing as a kind of service it provides.
PFAS is also missing from the Maryland Department of the Environment’s water supply program’s list of approved tests for water quality laboratories certified in Maryland for microbiological and/or chemical examination of drinking water. The state has still not tested all public water systems for PFAS and it has failed to set maximum contaminant levels for PFAS in drinking water. The state has not acted to test private wells near military and industrial sites. Maryland has not moved to test wastewater or sludge at wastewater treatment plants across the state and it does not monitor incineration processes for PFAS releases.
Many states, like Vermont, are painstakingly developing their own ambient water quality standards for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Not Maryland.
The state is failing, although it’s not entirely Maryland’s fault. The EPA has been delinquent in establishing nationally recognized methods for testing PFAS in media other than drinking water. Here is the official EPA statement on PFAS method development last updated April 20, 2021. Moving forward, CWA 1600 will be the method for most non-drinking water matrices, after inter-laboratory validations are complete.
States and municipalities often rely on the largest and most established labs in the country to test non-drinking water matrices. For instance, the state of Massachusetts limits PFAS testing in the state to 13 labs, including many of the nation’s leading testing firms like Eurofins, Alpha Analytical, SGS, and Pace Analytical.
Many labs have developed their own methodologies. Alpha Analytical has developed an alternative method based on principles detailed in the EPA 500 series. The Navy uses the DOD QSM 5.3 method to test seawater and sediment. Eurofins uses Method PFC_IDA to test seawater.
Seawater sampling results vary widely in both space and time. Elements like tide, current, and wind may affect PFAS levels. For the record, the Chesapeake Beach samples were taken an hour after low tide at 11:45 am and 11:50 am on June 8th.
The state says PFAS levels reported at Chesapeake Beach do not represent concentrations that would limit recreational use of these waters.
A rockfish caught in the St. Mary’s River last year had 23,100 ppt of PFAS in its filet. A meal of baked rockfish may weigh 8 ounces or 227 grams. If the filet of the fish contains 23,100 ppt of PFAS chemicals, that’s 23.1 parts per billion, which is the same as 23.1 nanograms per gram. So, 23.1 ng/g x 227 g = 5,244 ng of PFAS chemicals.
A serving of rockfish has 5,244 nanograms of PFAS and the state of Maryland says you can have as much as you like. The smallmouth bass caught along the Potomac containing 574,000 ppt has 130,305 nanograms of PFAS in a serving and Maryland says, “Bon Appétit!”
This is not a matter of dying after eating a seafood platter. Rather, it’s a matter of limiting the amount of the toxins we consume, keeping in mind most of what we bring into our bodies comes from the fish.
Women who are pregnant or may become pregnant should stay away from eating unregulated wild-caught seafood. The rest of us ought to be careful as well.