There’s not only something in our water — but it’s in our fish, too, according to recent data reported by the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC).
The state agency from July 2022 to June 2023 collected tissue samples from blue crabs, oysters and freshwater fish in water bodies across South Carolina to test for PFAS, an acronym for “per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substance.” As reported by the Charleston City Paper in September, these chemicals are made to resist “grease, oil, water and heat.” And these properties also render PFAS nearly indestructible, hence their colloquial name, “forever chemicals.”
The danger
In the Ashley River and Goose Creek Reservoir — the two sites where DHEC tested freshwater fish in the tri-county area — PFOS, one of the most harmful types of PFAS, averaged approximately 14,910 parts per trillion (ppt) in tissue samples of fish fillets. Eating one eight-ounce serving of fish at this level is the same as drinking 40 liters of water per month with a level of about 85 PFOS ppt, according to a 2023 National Library of Medicine paper. That’s more than 22 times the greatest amount that should be ingested per month, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water proposed PFOS maximum contaminant level.
The DHEC numbers, however, don’t mean all fish tissue has hazardous concentrations of these chemicals: The 2023 paper also said “international sampling of fish has reported significantly lower levels of PFAS in farmed fish,” or what is generally sold at the grocery store. Rather, the data speak to the magnitude of PFAS contamination in Lowcountry fish and how they might affect people who rely on sustenance fishing from local waterways.
Lack of regulation, data, enforcement
DHEC tissue state data from each of the three species varied widely based on waterbody and time of collection, sometimes without any correlation to distance from potential PFAS point sources. But according to Charleston Waterkeeper Andrew Wunderley, “it shows these chemicals are incredibly persistent” in Charleston’s “very dynamic estuary environment.” In other words, they’re not easy to get rid of, and they’re contaminating the entire ecosystem persistently.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Patricia Fair and her research team in 2012 conducted a study of PFAS in Charleston-area sediment which did identify several PFAS-heavy hotspots. Because these chemicals were unregulated, Fair told the City Paper, it was hard to pinpoint where the contamination might have been coming from.
That was over 10 years ago, but Fair said current information surrounding forever chemicals is still “lacking specifics” and taking a slow-moving path towards more regulation.
Noted DHEC spokesperson Laura Renwick: “There are currently no standards for PFAS that can be enforced; there are no national standards for these chemicals.”
But according to Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) senior associate attorney Carl Brzorad, the problem isn’t with government standards or regulation.
“The Clean Water Act sets forth a very strong regulatory framework that applies to PFAS, just like it applies to any other toxic chemical,” he said. The issue, Brzorad added, is that government agencies like DHEC just aren’t enforcing it.
“DHEC continues to encourage all regulated entities to proactively monitor for PFAS but can’t require monitoring except through a permit,” Renwick said. “On a case-by-case basis, DHEC may require monitoring for a specific activity or site in a permit if identified as necessary based on data.”
Brzorad broke this concept down even further: For industries to discharge these contaminants into local waterways, such as land application sludge users and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holders, “there’s got to be disclosure” and “treatment using existing technology” to remove them from the wastewater. But these facilities, Brzorad said, often are currently discharging PFAS directly into rivers without consequence, testing or regulation.
Additionally, U.S. Department of Defense sites, which tend also to be PFAS hotspots, have conducted groundwater testing, but the process of remediation is ongoing and for many, hasn’t even started, reported the Environmental Working Group this year.
Health impacts concerning, still unknown
“The adverse health effects from PFAS are non-specific,” said South Carolina Environmental Law Project attorney Ben Cunningham. They can include certain cancers, unhealthy birth weight and high cholesterol. And because these are often symptoms of other problems, PFAS contamination isn’t the first thing doctors are looking for, Cunningham added. What’s more, he said, no one is testing the concentration of PFAS in the bloodstream.
The absence of information about the detrimental effects of PFAS on human health is a part of what Wunderley called the United States’ “innocent until proven guilty” principle in which chemicals “can be developed and brought to market without any research about their health” or environmental impact. Fair added this approach created a widespread contamination crisis that was entirely preventable.
And unfortunately, the crisis, Cunningham said, “is going to be an issue for a while.”
Companies like 3M and Dupont, which have reached $11 billion in court settlements over forever chemicals, have developed newer PFAS that they claim are safer to replace more harmful PFAS, but Wunderley said these chemicals are merely an attempt to tweak the chemistry while keeping the product. An Auburn University study found that the new, short-chain chemicals “may pose more risks” than known contaminants like PFOS. “It’s lucrative chemistry, and [these companies] fight hard to protect that,” Wunderley added.
Sitting on hands
“Once EPA establishes an MCL (maximum contaminant level) or other final criteria, DHEC will begin its process of incorporation of the MCL and/or final criteria into permits,” DHEC said in a statement. But the wait is crushing for many frustrated that the agency has been waiting for the EPA to set the stage on PFAS enforcement when a contamination problem is obvious.
Wunderley said DHEC has justified stalling because it doesn’t have the information to continue, but “there’s never a perfect dataset. … It’s just long beyond time to act.”
Accountability, Wunderley added, could include forcing “the cost of the contamination and pollution back upon the people that profited from it … supported by a strong regulatory program that protects against the contamination from happening in the first place.”
How to stay safe
In the meantime, Cunningham advised Charlestonians to take precautionary measures to protect themselves and their families. For example, they could reduce sustenance fishing and follow the DHEC fish consumption advisory guidelines for mercury — DHEC does not have advisories yet for PFAS, only recommendations.
But Wunderly noted curbing fishing might not be feasible. He said it becomes an environmental justice issue when people need to fish to survive. He added that in the Lowcountry, some of the heaviest PFAS contamination is in water bodies in low-income areas. Wunderley also cautioned against asking what levels of PFAS humans can safely tolerate — this contamination, he said, should never have existed at all.
“There’s a chemical that 3M and DuPont manufactured and put into the consumer stream and is now in every single one of our bodies. I didn’t give Dupont or 3M permission to contaminate my body or the fish in my harbor or anything else. And so that’s where I think the analysis ought to start.”
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No newspaper subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations from downtown to North Charleston to Johns Island to Summerville to Mount Pleasant.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.