Pepco Pays Big for Potomac Pollution

Well, technically Anacostia River pollution, but since the Anacostia is a tributary of the Potomac, my alliterative title is technically correct. Sauron's Eye reports Pepco to pay $57 million over "toxic pollution" of Anacostia River in D.C.'s largest-ever environmental settlement

A century-old electric company that serves hundreds of thousands of customers in the Washington D.C. area spent decades allegedly releasing toxic pollutants into the Anacostia River. Now, in a historic settlement, the Potomac Electric Power Company will have to pay more than $47 million to help clean it up, and another $10 million in fines, the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia announced this week.

Attorney General Brian Schwalb announced the settlement – the largest environment settlement in the district's history – on Tuesday, saying the company was responsible for "persistent toxic pollution" in the river, which runs through D.C. and Maryland.

The Anacostia River is one of the "most heavily altered and contaminated watersheds" in the Chesapeake Bay, according to NOAA, with runoff and hazardous waste sites contributing to "decades of pollution." The agency says that the river's watershed, while home to hundreds of thousands of people, dozens of fish species and hundreds of bird species, is also home to numerous hazardous waste sites.

Those sites have resulted in heavy metals, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the waterway, the last of which are industrial products that were banned in the country in 1979. According to the EPA, they are known to cause cancer and issues involving the immune, reproductive, nervous and endocrine systems. in animals. In humans, they are considered "probable human carcinogens," according to the EPA.

It can take decades for those chemicals to break down.

Schwalb said that the Potomac Electric Power Company, known as Pepco, played a large role in this issue. Two of the company's previous facilities, Buzzard Point and Benning Road, as well as some of their transformer vaults, "resulted in spills, equipment leaks and intentional release of petroleum and hazardous substances," including PCBs, the attorney general said.

At the company's Benning Road Facility, the attorney general's office said Pepco released pollutants into groundwater and soil. That site was run from 1906 to 2012 and has been under an environmental investigation since 2011.

At Buzzard Point, Pepco is accused of spilling or releasing petroleum and other substances into the soil and groundwater across decades since it began operations in 1938.

"Until 2013, at a rate of at least twice per month, Pepco intentionally pumped the pollutants in its containment structures – intended to prevent spills and leaks – into storm sewers that emptied into the Anacostia River," the attorney general's office said. "While internal company policy recognized that discharges to storm sewers should never occur, in practice the company continued to discharge pollutants into storm sewers for years."

The final major pollution point was at the roughly 60,000 underground Pepco transformer vaults, which the attorney general said are often filled with polluted runoff. The company spent decades pumping that water, which contained PCBs and petroleum among other things, into sewers that led to rivers and streams, the attorney general says.

"For decades, Pepco routinely discharged hazardous chemicals into soil, groundwater, and storm sewers, which fouled the Anacostia River, deprived us of the river's many benefits, and endangered public health and safety," Schwalb said. "And as is too often the case, communities of color East of the River bore the brunt of the company's illegal conduct."

In 2012, a study partially funded by NOAA found that almost half of those who lived near the river – an estimated 17,000 people – were unaware of the dangers that came with eating fish from the river. The agency has recommended people not to eat eel, carp or striped bass from the river because of the high levels of contaminants, as well as recommended limiting other types of fish from its waters. The local fishermen consuming the fish were disproportionately Black, Latino or Asian, the study found.

Schwalb said that while Pepco played a large role in the river's pollution, it isn't "solely responsible" – and should receive credit for accepting formal responsibility. Along with paying $10 million in civil penalties, the utility company will have to pay $47 million to help Washington, D.C. clean up the Anacostia River. 

 Anacostia River Splash: Registration for first permitted swim in 50 years opens Sept. 7

In the last 50 years, Anacostia Riverkeeper said the sewage bacteria has decreased by 80% in key recreation sites.

While swimming is still technically illegal, a 2018 amendment to the swim ban allows water activities during special, sanctioned events, like Splash.

Does a Bear Poop in the Bay?

Sparrows Point and Bear Creek

Baltimore Fish Bowl, EPA to investigate contaminants in Bear Creek near Sparrows Point, adds site to national list of cleanup priorities

The Environmental Protection Agency last week added part of Bear Creek near Sparrows Point to a national list of sites prioritized for cleanup after the EPA found contaminants in the sediment there were at least three times greater than samples collected upriver and upstream.

The site of concern contains about 60 acres of contaminated sediments in the waters of Bear Creek, near where the creek meets the Patapsco River and along the northwestern shore of the Sparrows Point peninsula.

Sparrows Point is the former site of Bethlehem Steel, at one time the world’s largest steel producer and the Baltimore area’s largest employer.

During its operation at Sparrows Point, Bethlehem Steel also contributed to the contamination of nearby waterways, said Joe Vitello, EPA site assessment manager for the Bear Creek site.

“Bethlehem Steel discharged contaminants in stormwater, process water, and wastewater for manufacturing areas directly to the surface water, and placed slag directly into the water to create landmass, which allowed contaminants to settle into the sediment of the creek,” Vitello said in an EPA presentation in October 2021.

The EPA found hazardous substances in the sediments of Bear Creek, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a class of chemicals that are caused by burning materials such as coal, oil, and gasoline; heavy metals such as cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, mercury, selenium, silver and zinc; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chemicals often used in electrical, heat transfer and hydraulic equipment among other uses; and oil and grease.

Vitello said the current property owner of the historic steel mill site, Tradepoint Atlantic, is already conducting an ongoing cleanup of the former industrial areas on land at Sparrows Point under the regulatory oversight of the EPA.

But the EPA is also working to address contamination in the water off of the peninsula.
. . .
The EPA also assessed the toxicity of the sediment and its effect on organisms. Test results showed that all macro-invertebrate organisms, like crabs and mussels, that were exposed to the sediment died, with the exception of two sediment locations where there was 90% mortality.

I sampled in Bear Creek for heavy metals, along with a colleague who studied organic contaminants. Yes, it's horrible contaminated.  

I don't know how they'll clean it up. Dredge it? Where do they put the sediment. Maybe they could dig a big lined pit on the old Sparrows Point site, and bury it there?

Chesapeake to Get New Superfund Site?

Bear Creek MD

Fox 45, Contaminated Bear Creek in Dundalk could become Superfund site

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing making the contaminated Bear Creek in the Dundalk area a Superfund site.

High levels of benzene, chromium, lead, naphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene and zinc have been found in the area's groundwater and sediment, thanks to contamination from Bethlehem Steel Corporation's 126-year dominance of Sparrows Point, according to information from EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

The EPA wants to add at least 60 acres of Bear Creek to the Superfund National Priorities List. The public can comment on the proposal between Sept. 9 and Nov. 8 by clicking here.

The state of Maryland wrote to EPA on May 18 to encourage putting Bear Creek on the Superfund list, according to the EPA website.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation noted that area residents have traditionally used the creek for boating, crabbing and fishing. The state has issued a warning not to eat 10 species of fish, as well as blue crab, caught in the Patapsco River-Baltimore Harbor watershed due to the presence of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).

A map to show the relationship of Bear Creek to Baltimore and Baltimore Harbor.  

I spent a day sampling in Bear Creek once, many years ago. For Baltimore, it's relatively attractive. Too bad it's so  heavily contaminated from decades of metal work at Sparrows Point

Chesapeake Bay Gets Its Annual D+

 EPA Chesapeake Bay Program: Chesapeake Bay sees health score decline by one point, but retain D+ grade

Despite a one-point decline in the health of the Chesapeake Bay since 2018, Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) President Will Baker believes, “this is a historic opportunity to demonstrate to the world that by following the science, we can save a national treasure”.

In its biennial State of the Bay Report, CBF graded the overall health of the Bay a D+, or a score of 32. CBF assigns the Bay’s grade based upon the best available information in three categories: pollution, habitat and fisheries. The foundation of this information primarily comes from monitoring data, supported by in-the-field observations. The three above categories contain 13 total indicators that are individually assigned a score, which are then averaged together and compared against the gold standard of Bay health: the pristine conditions that Captain John Smith encountered in the 17th century.

Which is a convenient standard, since we don't really have good records of what the state of the Bay was at the time, although Smith reported  "oysters "lay as thick as stones," and the Bay and its rivers contained more sturgeon "than could be devoured by dog or man  ... Of fish we were best acquainted with sturgeon, grampus, porpoise, seals, stingrays ... brits, mullets, white salmon [rockfish], trouts, soles, perch of three sorts." One suspects a bit of hyperbole was involved. The same kind that led the Viking merchants to name Greenland. 

Thanks to the pollution reducing practices put into place by each of the six states in the watershed (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia, as well as upgrades to wastewater treatment plants and favorable weather, all but one indicator—toxics—improved in the Pollution category. Historical contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) may have been banned in the 1970s but are still prevalent throughout the Bay’s fisheries today. And emerging toxic contaminants, including those from microplastics, personal care products and pharmaceuticals, can now be found in every part of the ecosystem. Still, nitrogen and phosphorous pollution are down from 2018, with dissolved oxygen and water quality scores also improving.

PCBs are "prevalent" virtually everywhere on earth at this point, and only a long period of no release and continued degradation is going to fix that. 

The Habitat category told a less-promising story, with two indicators—forest buffers and underwater grasses—declining and wetlands and resource lands (conserved areas) having no change. These decreases are believed to be the result of climate change, development and the easing of federal regulations.

But most concerning is the decline of the striped bass fishery. Chris Moore, CBF’s senior regional ecosystem scientist laments that “adult female striped bass, widely used to gauge the overall health of the population, have dropped approximately 40% from 2013 to 2017.” The fishery has seen below-average spawning activity over the past two years, prompting the Atlantic Marine Fisheries Commission to take stronger management actions, such as reducing the annual catch by 18%. As for the other indicators that make up the Fisheries category, shad declined, while the progress of oysters and blue crabs increased.

I don't feel strongly about the annual grading of the Bay; I think there's a lot of self-serving going on. What would happen to CBF's donations if they were to suddenly announce one year that the Bay was just fine, thank you? On the other hand, I think the sense of this grade is about right. Any improvement in the Bay's health is incremental, and the continued decline of the Striped Bass certainly counts against it, although no obvious way to combat this is obvious. The stripers will not be recovering until we have one or more years with very good recruitment, and three years for the fish to grow. And water quality improvements, while important, are not what is causing poor recruitment. 

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Rep. Lauren Boebert up and running. 

Chesapeake Rockfish: To Eat or Not to Eat, That is the Question

A question of testing: Why Bay anglers face conflicting advice on eating rockfish they catch

What’s an angler to do? Those who eat lots of self-caught striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries get different advice from authorities about how much of the tasty finfish they should consume, depending on where they catch it.

From Maryland to Virginia, environmental agencies urge anglers to limit their consumption of the region’s most popular catch, also known as rockfish, because their flesh may contain traces of toxic substances picked up from other fish and the waters in which they swim.

But the recommendations vary from “do not eat” — for striped bass caught in the District of Columbia’s portion of the Bay’s tidal rivers — to enjoying as many as three servings a month of the same fish if caught in the Maryland portion of the Bay. Virginia, meanwhile, advises anglers to partake of no more than two servings monthly of rockfish caught in its end of the Chesapeake.

And yet, the fish that  different jurisdictions are giving different advisories for are all members of a highly mobile population of migratory fish, and probably have very similar concentrations of toxics.

For Maryland and Virginia, at least, the difference in consumption advice has less to do with the levels of contaminants in the fish than it does with the way the states test them.

In each jurisdiction, the caution stems from findings that at least some rockfish harbor low levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. Once widely used in electrical equipment, PCBs have been banned in the United States since 1977. But the chemicals linger in river sediments and can pass up the food chain. PCBs are considered a probable human carcinogen, and regular exposure has been linked to reproductive, developmental and other detrimental health effects.

The advisories don’t apply to commercially caught rockfish that are sold in markets and restaurants. Rather, the cautions are intended for anglers who fish for themselves or their family and friends, because of the possibility that the anglers fish just a few spots over many years where PCB contamination may be elevated.

As has been noted by many recreational fisherman quite ruefully, striped bass from any of these jurisdictions can be caught commercially, and shipped around the country for sale in restaurants and grocery stores without any kind of advisory being passed along. I suppose the rationale is that few people would go out to a restaurant and order Striped Bass more than about once a month.  Only recreational fisherman are likely to have enough on hand to eat on a regular basis. But PCB from many kinds of fish accumulate just the same. Tuna, salmon, you name it, they all have some level of PCB, because the contamination is truly global.

In the District’s portion of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, PCB “hotspots” are widespread, officials say, leading to high levels being detected in rockfish caught there. That’s why the District’s Department of Energy and Environment recently urged anglers not to eat locally caught rockfish when it updated its fish consumption advisory.

Other states in the region have PCB hotspots in their waters, too. But Maryland differs from its neighbors in how it tests for contamination in its rockfish.

Virginia and the District test rockfish for contaminants with the skin on. So does Delaware, which advises that solo anglers eat no more than two servings a month of any rockfish caught in Delaware Bay. Only Maryland removes the skin before testing.

PCBs concentrate in the skin and fatty tissue. The Environmental Protection Agency recommends that in testing for contaminants, states analyze the fish with its skin on. But the EPA does say it’s OK to remove the skin before testing if that fish is traditionally eaten there with the skin off.

Jay Apperson, spokesman for the Maryland Department of the Environment, defended the state’s testing protocol, saying that rockfish is typically prepared and eaten with the skin off.

I think that's generally true of us white folk, but among minority, and particularly Asian ethnic groups, a more "total" kind of preparation is common. Trevor hasn't yet shared his fish head curry, but I know he makes one.

The MDE's advice that adults can eat three 8-ounce portions of striped bass monthly was based on consuming fish caught in the Bay or its tributaries that are less than 28 inches in length. With larger fish, which tend to be older and more prone to accumulating contaminants, the recommended intake drops to one 8-ounce meal a month. The recommendations are the same for women of child-bearing age, but the state suggests that children 6 years old or younger should be fed no more than two 3-ounce portions monthly of smaller rockfish, and just one portion every other month if taken from a larger fish.

(An earlier version of this post had incorrectly advised eating fish 15 inches or less. But the minimum size for legally keeping any striped bass caught in Maryland is 20 inches under state fishing regulations. Bay Journal regrets the error.)

I saw that, and I'm glad I didn't jump on it. Journalists . . .

All three jurisdictions advise against eating the skin and fatty tissues, where the chemical concentrates. They also recommend grilling or broiling rockfish so the fat drips off. Asked about the states’ different testing methods, the executive director of the Maryland Saltwater Sportfishing Association, Dave Smith, backed Maryland’s approach.
“Nobody cooks or eats fish with the skin on,” he said.

However, on the web, it’s easy to find recipes for rockfish that call for cooking it with the skin on. And from online comments, some consumers consider the crispy skin of grilled rockfish a delicacy.

But to be on the safe side, Smith advised, “Fillet your rockfish and remove the skin, as well as the blood line within the fillet.”

That's how I prepare it. But I'd really rather just catch 'em and throw 'em back. Eating one once a month or so is just fine with me.

Maryland Defends Striped Bass Consumption After D.C. Ban

Maryland defends rockfish after D.C. warns 'Do Not Eat'

After Washington issued its "Do Not Eat" advisory in February, Maryland's Department of the Environment and Department of Natural Resources quickly responded and issued public statements saying rockfish in Maryland are safe to eat. But neither addressed the alarming levels of PCBs that Washington found, so the ABC7 On Your Side Investigative Team did some digging.
. . .
Recent testing in Washington. (2015: 1200 parts per billion) found PCB levels 10 times higher than in Maryland (2010: 125 ppb) and Virginia (2008: 130 ppb).

Why the big difference? The ABC7 Investigative Team learned the answer may not be in the fish, but in the test. A PCB is a man-made industrial compound, and known carcinogen, found in the environment. When ingested by a fish, it's stored in fat under the skin. Washington tests fish with the skin. Maryland and Virginia cut it off.

Maryland's Department of the Environment (MDE) declined an interview with ABC7 On Your Side to discuss its testing practices, but said the skin is removed since that's how rockfish are often prepared. But MDE could not provide documentation proving that. A spokesman told ABC 7 News, it's assumed.

"We're not going to make any assumptions about how people consume the fish," explained Julia Christian, a spokesperson with D.C.'s Department of Energy and Environment -which conducted the tests.

To get the most accurate PCB levels, Federal Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, which Washington follows, suggests rockfish be tested with the skin. But that's only a suggestion. States can test how they want, which may explain the very different results.

Everyone I know of, with the possible exception of Trevor, consumes rockfish filleted and skinned. Moreover, most people I know cut off the skin along with with a thin layer of fatty red meat near the skin, and remove the "blood line", the darker, fatty red meat wedge on top of the lateral line as well, because this meat is "muddy" tasting, and doesn't seem to preserve as well. Certainly some immigrant may have their own customs, and may consume more.

PCBs are lipophilic, meaning they concentrate in the fat tissue in the fish, near the skin and in the belly fat, so it is generally advised to cut off and discard the most fatty areas of the fish.



I take issue with some of his technique, but the ideas are the same. I fillet, remove the rib cage, skin (leaving the red meat on the skin), then cut out the red lateral line meat with a "V" cut.

But I find it difficult to believe that the difference between 130 ppb and 1200 ppb is due to discarding the skin. I suspect it has more to do with testing a few fish, small ones living in the highly polluted Washington DC region during most of it's life, as opposed to Maryland Stripers which may migrate throughout the Bay over the course of a year.