‘Forever chemicals’ in Potomac fish

Camille Sipple Published Dec. 17, 2024

The Potomac River’s fish supply is likely contaminated with high levels of ‘forever chemicals’. With an annual harvest of roughly 2.5 million pounds of fish, researchers and riverkeepers alike are warning local fishermen to think twice before consuming their catch.

“It’s in the wastewater. It’s in the rivers and streams. It’s in our fish,” Upper Potomac Riverkeeper Brent Walls said in an interview.

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), also known as ‘forever chemicals’, are a group of hazardous man-made chemicals that do not fully break down, lingering in the environment over time, as stated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Developed in the 1940s, the uniquely stable structure of PFAS has resulted in highly desirable qualities over the decades, such as heat and stain resistance. Consequently, some of the most common products to contain PFAS include non-stick cookware, firefighting foam and stain-resistant upholstery or carpeting.

However, human health may pay the cost of these industrial benefits.

Even at low levels, exposure to PFAS has been linked to cancer, reproductive harm, immune system damage and other adverse health effects, according to the National Institute of Health. Jordan Kuiper, an assistant professor at George Washington University’s Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, said although many types of PFAS have not yet been tested for human exposure, observations have shown “major implications for human health”.

“Several PFAS [compounds] are capable of acting as endocrine disruptors, meaning they are able to interrupt or interfere with hormonal processes in the human body,” Kuiper said.

PFAS are harmful to human health in part because of how long they remain in the environment, Kate Manz, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health said. PFAS exposure can occur long after the chemicals are released into the environment and the lifespan of certain PFAS compounds can be up to several thousand years.

“They don’t break down easily in the environment and can accumulate over time in the human body and in wildlife,” Manz said.

In April of this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set updated limits for six PFAS compounds; the federal limit now stands at four parts per trillion (ppt).

However, these limits only apply to PFAS levels in drinking water.

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated it is actively monitoring PFAS levels, there are currently no federal limits on PFAS in fish or other food products.

PFAS tend to build up or bioaccumulate in fish over time through their environment and diet since the chemical compounds are naturally drawn to proteins, according to a 2023 study. Fish in a contaminated waterway can bioaccumulate up to 4,000 times the amount of PFAS in the water, Pat Elder, the director of the environmentalist website Military Poisons, said in an interview.

“So if you only got 10 ppt in the water then you could have 40,000 ppt in the fish,” Elder said.

Consuming contaminated food is a leading cause of PFAS exposure for humans and it all starts with the environment, Kuiper said.

“For example, consuming fish that live in PFAS-contaminated water or dairy and meat from cows that consume PFAS-contaminated grasses,” Kuiper said.

Anyone fishing in the Potomac or its tributaries, especially those consuming what they catch, should keep PFAS bioaccumulation in mind, Walls and Elder cautioned.

“I’ve tested the fish, oysters and crab here and they’re all pretty profoundly poisoned,” Elder said.

Military sites, such as Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, are one of the biggest contributors to PFAS contamination due to the longtime use of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) — a firefighting foam used during military training, Walls said.

Piscataway Creek, a Maryland tributary of the Potomac, has been highly contaminated by PFAS produced by Joint Base Andrews, Walls added.

“Communities in and around Piscataway Creek and in the D.C. area as well, recreate on the creek, fish on it, eat fish out of it,” Walls said. “It’s a huge problem. We are trying to push the military at these different bases to do proper cleanup.”

The Maryland state government, in sampling the creek, found levels of PFOS — one of the most hazardous PFAS compounds — as high as 3,193 ppt in the surface water alone.

Walls said he and the Potomac Riverkeeper Network are working to push states in the Potomac watershed to test for PFAS and develop standards for allowable levels. While Maryland has begun updating standards and Virginia is considering a similar course of action, Walls said that nearby Washington D.C. is a different story.

Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment plant. | Washington D.C. | DECEMBER 2024

"Blue Plains is like Grand Central Station for PFAS." - Pat Elder

The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment plant — the world’s largest advanced wastewater treatment plant — is located on the Southeast banks of the Potomac in Washington. It is also an unregulated potential source of PFAS flowing into the river.

“We are working on D.C. in a different capacity,” Walls said. “They are a source [of PFAS] that goes into a wastewater treatment plant and then that wastewater treatment plant is a source [of PFAS] as it discharges into the Potomac and its tributaries.”

Elder said he and his colleagues are concerned about the liquid waste that empties into the Potomac from the Blue Plains facility.

“Blue Plains is like Grand Central Station for PFAS,” Elder said. “D.C. is completely asleep. You’ve got contaminated fish.”

When riverkeepers analyzed the PFAS discharge levels of several Maryland wastewater treatment plants in 2020, Walls said they alerted the Maryland Department of the Environment that harmful levels of PFAS had been detected in local rivers, streams and fish.

“There are a lot of communities out there that sustain their families on catching and eating that fish out of Maryland state waters,” Walls said.

As a result of their advocacy, Maryland began testing fish tissue samples across the state and now has one of the most comprehensive fish consumption advisories for PFAS in the country, Walls said.

Walls said he and his colleagues implore more states to follow Maryland’s lead and start assessing the potential health hazards in their local waterways. In addition, he explained the importance of clear warnings in popular fishing spots.

“We need that signage,” Walls said. “We need that public notification at the locations where people are fishing so they are aware of what these levels are and why.”

In recent months, the Potomac Riverkeeper Network has also applied for an EPA grant that would fund in-home PFAS exposure assessments, blood testing and drinking-water testing, Walls said.

“It’s really about education,” Walls said. “What kind of food sources they should be considering, like consuming fish from their local rivers or streams.”

There is a severe lack of understanding when it comes to PFAS and fishing, Walls said, and the grant would help spread awareness to countless at-risk communities in the Potomac watershed.

As round two of the Trump administration prepares to take office on January 20, 2025, changes to the EPA’s structure, funding and enforceable standards may be on the horizon.

President-elect Trump has vowed to cut spending throughout the federal government and “restructure government agencies” using the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). As a result, federal environmental regulations, including PFAS standards, are subject to change.

Mandy Gunasekara, the EPA chief of staff to Trump’s first administration, predicted in an interview that over the next four years, the agency will mirror its 2017 to 2021 structure.

“I'm pretty confident that it's going to be very similar, especially with someone like Lee Zeldin coming in at the helm,” Gunasekara said in the interview.

Shortly after the November election, Zeldin was selected by Trump to lead the EPA. During his time as a New York representative, Zeldin cast two votes for legislation aimed at reducing PFAS levels in drinking water and holding polluters accountable. However, in a November 11 interview with Fox News, Zeldin made clear that he intends to roll back EPA regulations.

Gunasekara said she is concerned with the PFAS standards that have already been implemented. Small, rural entities such as the Rural Water Association may be unable to keep up with expensive compliance standards, Gunasekara said. Such entities are often underfunded and lack the resources to comply, she added.

“Sometimes that's just a matter of life you have to deal with, but with PFAS, there's still some developing understanding with regard to its impact and how to control it,” Gunasekara said. “My criticism is that they [the EPA] went too far too fast.”

Over the past year, Gunasekara has been credited with authoring the “EPA Chapter” of Project 2025, which she described as reflective of conservatives’ positions on various issues — an outline that would be made available to the next Republican presidential administration. Project 2025 includes PFAS standards, stating the chemicals’ designation as a “hazardous substance” should be “revisited”.

The PFAS section of Project 2025’s EPA Chapter proposes slowing down the implementation of standards, as well as rethinking the chemicals’ classification, Gunasekara said.

“You still effectively control it and you remove it to the greatest extent possible from public exposure, but you do so in a way that doesn't undermine the ability of smaller regulated entities,” Gunasekara said.

Though she said she does not plan to return to Washington, Gunasekara added that she has been “informally advising” officials as they navigate the transition process for the incoming Trump administration.

With regard to PFAS levels in fish, Gunasekara said she believes more research needs to be done before any federal limits are set — a belief the Trump administration will likely share, she added.

“The likely mentality will be, ‘Well let’s better understand this. Let’s not go too far too fast,’” Gunasekara said.

Current regulations are not enough and must take into account the new industrial chemicals polluting the environment, Elder said. The health of Americans is already being observably impacted and will continue to be, Kuiper added.

“We have the Clean Water Act of 1996 which really hasn’t been modified despite an explosion of different chemicals that we should be regulating before they go into the rivers,” Elder said.

Gunasekara emphasized the importance of thorough research efforts prior to total federal regulation due to the vast industrial applications of PFAS.

“There’s all sorts of pollution,” Gunasekara said. “We want to make sure we are getting as much bang for our environmental buck by going after the pollution that is actually causing problems.”

Walls and Elder stressed, however, that this is an urgent issue that must be addressed by both the federal and state governments before health effects are exacerbated.

“PFAS doesn’t get treated, it just gets pissed into the river,” Elder said.