Toxic Chemicals in Chesapeake Bay -Expanding the Pollution Diet

from EPA report

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program just released a report that outlines the extent and severity of toxic contamination in the Chesapeake Bay and the Watershed. This report by Scott Phillips (USGS) and Greg Allen (EPA) is based on a review and compiling of water-quality reports from the various Chesapeake Bay watershed states (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) and Washington, D.C., and scientific work performed by the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who have been doing extensive studies on contaminants in surface and groundwater and also the cause of observed impact on fish, plants and wildlife.  The authors of the EPA  report focused on summarizing studies conducted after 2000 with an emphasis on the 2010 water-quality assessment reports from the states to define the extent and severity of occurrence of: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); dioxins and furans; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); petroleum hydrocarbons; pesticides; pharmaceuticals; household and personal care products; polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs); biogenic hormones; and heavy metals in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and ultimately in the source drinking water for millions of people.

This report was issued under the “Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” released in May 2010 and is first in a series of actions to control pollution, restore habitat and wildlife, conserve land, and increase public awareness and accountability in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The federal ‘Strategy” for the Chesapeake Bay region of the 64,000-square-mile watershed includes using federal regulations to restore clean water, implement new conservation practices on four-million acres of farms, conserve an additional two-million acres of undeveloped land, and restore the habitat for key species such as oysters, black ducks, and brook trout. Under the “Strategy” the states will be held accountable to achieve specific milestones every two years to ensure measurable progress.

While there is overlap between the so called “settlement agreement” and “Strategy,” they are not the same. The settlement agreement resolved the lawsuit brought by former Maryland State Senator Bernard Fowler, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Maryland and Virginia watermen’s associations, and others filed against the EPA in January 2009 alleging the Agency failed to fulfill its duties under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. EPA settled the lawsuit with the “settlement agreement,” which required EPA to:  “Establish and implement a Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load, TMDL, for nutrients and sediments.”  The TMDL required the creation of watershed implementation plans (WIPs) approved by EPA under threat of  “back step measures” by all of the Chesapeake Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia to ensure they achieve the nutrient and sediment allocations under the TMDL.

The TMDL addresses only pollution from excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. The TMDL does not address toxic, carcinogenic or endocrine disruptors that may be present in the watershed. The excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment in the Chesapeake Bay cause algae blooms that consume oxygen and create “dead zones” where fish and shellfish cannot survive, block sunlight that is needed for underwater Bay grasses, and smother aquatic life on the bottom. The result is fish kills and murky water that threaten the aquatic industry and recreational use of the bay. 

The TMDL sets a total Chesapeake Bay watershed limit for the six states and Washington DC of 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment per year which is a 25% reduction in nitrogen, 24% reduction in phosphorus and 20 %t reduction in sediment from the current levels. The pollution limits are then partitioned to the various states, DC and river basins based on the Chesapeake Bay modeling tools and monitoring data. The estimated cost of implementing the WIPs in Virginia and Maryland were $13.6-$15.7 billion and $14.8 billion respectively. Now EPA is preparing to address the toxic pollutants.

This new report addresses toxic pollutants in the watershed and is the first step in a new round of regulations and requirements for the Chesapeake Bay watershed states and Washington DC. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, both largemouth and smallmouth bass show signs of feminization (testicular oocytes and vitellogenin in males), skin lesions and impaired immune systems. The scientists of the USGS and Fish and Wildlife discovered that the smallmouth bass have the most impacted with a higher incidence of intersex (male fish with eggs)occurrence and a high incidence of skin lesions and large fish kills in the Potomac and James Rivers. Smallmouth bass may be the most sensitive indicator of environmental health in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The smallmouth bass have been a warning, but the pollution problems they represent remain beyond our understanding at this time. The USGS and Fish and Wildlife have not succeeded in identifying the cause or causes of the feminization, skin lesions and impaired immune systems.

from EPA report

The EPA report found that PCBs, PAHs, herbicides (primarily atrazine, simazine, metolachlor, and their degradation products), and mercury were widespread throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Other contaminants like dioxins/furans, petroleum, hydrocarbons, some chlorinated insecticides (aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, DDT/DDE, heptachlor epoxide, mirex), and some metals (aluminum, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, zinc) were known in localized occurrences. Finally, for atrazine, some pharmaceuticals, some household and personal-care products, some PBDEs, and biogenic hormones, the extent and amount of contamination could not be assessed based on the information available.

The Chesapeake Bay Program intends to develop toxic contaminant reduction strategies to be added to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL by 2015, but first more data needs to be gathered to identify the extent of contamination for many of the chemicals. The impact on human life and the ecosystem of these and other emerging contaminants is not understood. As the EPA report and previous work done by the USGS point out we need to determine the impact and fate of these micro pollutants before we implement the watershed cleanup plans to make sure we are implementing the right strategies for the health of the entire ecosystem which may include eliminating the use of certain chemicals, upgrading waste water treatment systems and other actions. 

Update on Endocrine Disruption in Water Supplies

From USGS paper cited below

Earlier this month Vicki Blazer of the U.S. Geological Survey published a new paper, “Indicators of Reproductive Edocrine Distruption in Fish in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.” Dr. Vicki Blazer is a mairine biologist and researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS. Dr. Blazer received the American Fisheries Society 2010 Publications Award for her article investigating the mortality of fish in the Potomac River basin and is a fish biologist at the West Virginia Science Center studying the impact of contaminants of emerging concern in rivers and streams of the lifecycle and health of fish on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. This paper is a summary of the most recent research (previously published) by the USGS and others on endocrine disruption in fish in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the implications to our lives.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed feed the Chesapeake Bay, the largest and most productive estuary in the United States. It serves as a nursery ground for the fish and shellfish industry and protects the coast from storm surges and filters pollution. The estuary filters water that is carrying nutrients and contaminants from the surrounding watershed. The nutrients in proper balance bring fertility, but excess nutrient contamination to the Chesapeake Bay has caused degradation in the habitat and impact to fish and other animals. As a result, US EPA has taken control of the situation and has developed a new federally mandated TMDL (total maximum daily load) to try to restore the natural balance in the estuary by controlling nutrients in the local waters. The TMDL addresses pollution from phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment and allocates a pollution budget among the states which will decrease over time. However, according to Dr. Blazer, the fish (and other aquatic organisms) in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are being exposed to a complex mixture of chemicals that may have additive, synergistic or antagonistic effects.

In the Potomac River watershed, largemouth bass show signs of feminization (testicular oocytes and vitellogenin in males) but appear to be less sensitive than smallmouth bass to the effects of estrogenic compounds. The scientists discovered that the smallmouth bass have both a higher incidence of intersex (male fish with eggs) occurrence and a high incidence of skin lesions and large fish kills in the Potomac and James Rivers. Smallmouth bass may be the most sensitive indicator of environmental health in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The smallmouth bass is a warning that should not be ignored, but the pollution problem they represent are beyond our understanding at this time. More work needs to be done.

Although feminization of male fish has most commonly been associated with exposure to human wastewater-treatment-plant effluent, the prevalence of male smallmouth bass with intersex characteristics is not consistently higher downstream from these point sources than upstream in the areas of the Potomac River watershed that were studied. It is not simply the residue of birth control pills in human waste. However, some additional biomarkers, such as the ratio of gonad weight to body weight and plasma vitellogenin concentrations in female bass, do appear to be adversely affected by the presence of wastewater-treatment plants upstream from the study site, but more is going on.

The sources of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals associated with intersex smallmouth bass appears to be BOTH effluent from wastewater-treatment plants and runoff from agricultural land, animal feeding operations, and urban/suburban land. All impacts of mankind. Other factors, including wastewater-treatment-plant effluent flow, number of animal feeding operations, and number of poultry houses were also associated with an increased intersex severity. Within the Potomac River basin the data showed that the higher the human population density the higher the incidence of intersex in the smallmouth bass. Also, the higher the percentage of agricultural land use density the higher incidence of intersex in smallmouth bass. The data appears to suggest beyond a certain density of agricultural land and/ or human population, the smallmouth bass population is impacted.

The USGS plans to work with the Chesapeake Bay Program to identify the chemicals that are causing the intersex, skin lesions and fish kills. The Chesapeake Bay Program intends to develop toxic contaminant reduction strategies to be added to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL by 2015. The impact on human life and the ecosystem of these and other emerging contaminants is not known, but now is the time to find out the impact from the substance we’ve been allowing to enter the waters of the earth. We need to determine the impact and fate of these micro pollutants before we implement the watershed cleanup plans to make sure we are implementing the right strategies for the health of the entire ecosystem which may include eliminating the use of certain chemicals and other actions.

Endocrine Disruption and What’s in the Potomac River Watershed

Recently in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania, smallmouth bass have been found with benign skin tumors. Two skin samples of lesions from fish removed from the river were sent to Dr. Vicki Blazer a mairine biologistand researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS. Dr. Blazer who received the American Fisheries Society 2010 Publications Award for her article investigating the mortality of fish in the Potomac River basin and is a fish biologist at the West Virginia Science Center studying the impact of contaminants of emerging concern in rivers and streams of the lifecycle and health of fish,  found that one of the samples  tested positive for a type of benign skin tumor. These samples were sent to the USGS because an ongoing collaborative effort between the USGS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies in West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia, and the Potomac Riverkeeper has been studying the impacts of trace contaminants on fish health. Areas of study have been endocrine disruption, immune system impact, cancer/neoplasia promotion, secondary sex characteristics, oxidative damage and behavior. I follow Dr. Blazer’s talks at conferences.

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that may interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife. Research evidence suggests that these chemicals, can mimic hormones or interfere with the function of the body’s own hormones. Endocrine disruptors are found in many of the everyday products we use, including some plastic bottles and containers, food can liners, detergents, flame retardants, toys, cosmetics, and pesticides. These hormones and hormone like substances are typically highly soluble in water and are easily transported in the blood. These compounds are of particular concern because they can alter the critical hormonal balances required for proper health and development. The glands that make up the endocrine system are: pituitary gland, thyroid glands, adrenal glands pancreas, ovaries, testies, pineal gland and the thymus.

The marine life work in this area began with the studies of fish kills more than 15 years ago. Preliminary analysis at that time did not find any chemicals or pesticides in concentrations that were sufficient to stress fish and be a cause of the fish kills. Yet there were fish kills. As Dr.Blazer pointed out in a recent conference almost all of our knowledge about concentrations likely to cause a health impact are based on acute toxicity or gross impact such as size. In most cases there are no criteria for sub-lethal effects such as immune modulation or endocrine disruption. Dr. Blazer and others believe that methodology used to detect these chemicals in recent studies may not have been sensitive enough, and may indeed be above the concentration thought to impact these fish. Two examples given by Dr. Blazer at a recent conference were that based on research studies in more than 25 fish species, scientists have suggested that 1 ng/L (parts per trillion) may be the “no effects level” for natural estrogen concentrations on fish. Unfortunately, all the river studies performed in the Potomac River and Shenandoah River passive sampler studies use 1.3 ng/L as the lower detection limit. The detection limit for Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers studies for ethynylesradiol is almost twice the level recently set as the aquatic “no effects” level. Studies along the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers have only studied smallmouth bass that were found to be intersexed and have measurable amounts of vitellogenin (a protein that is a precursor to egg yoke) in their blood. Vitellogenin is normally only found in the blood of sexually matures egg-laying females, though males typically carry an inactive gene that is “turned on” by the presence of estrogen. Further research is necessary to not only determine if the problem is more widespread geographically and among species, but to identify the mode and mechanism of impact.

Fish health turns out to be a way to track ecosystem health. The smallmouth bass population has been presenting a variety of skin lesions, bacterial, viral and fungil infections, high parasite loads and intersex in normally gonochorist fish ( where embryonic gonad subsequently divides into ovaries or testes). The findings are not at all consistent, but show wide spread biological impact. Scientists like Dr. Blazer are looking to determine if these impacts to fish are being caused by something being put in or released from wastewater treatment plants, farms, or storm water runoff. Until the cause is identified, nothing can be done to stop them and prevent impact to animal and human populations.

Slide taken from Dr. Viki Blazer of USGS presentation

The Potomac fish kills studied by Dr. Blazer and others suggest that there are stressed populations of fish that at some point are overwhelmed by environmental stressors such as increased water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, excess nutrients, high pH, or chemicals that cause immuno-supression leading to a wide variety of opportunistic infections and the large fish kills. There is increasing evidence that estrogenic chemicals and other endocrine disrupting substance modulate the immune response and disease resistance. In a study of female bass from the Shenandoah River south fork scientists found the BDE (a flame retardant), triclosan (an antibacterial and antifungal agent used in a wide variety of consumer products including toothpaste, mouthwash, deodorant and cleaning supplies) and pesticides had accumulated selectively within the endocrine system with lower concentrations in the brain, skin, kidneys. In talking about the bass, it is reported by Marcia Moore of the Daily Item that Dr. Blazer said, “The good news, for people anyway, is the muscle has the lowest concentration,” indicating that the fish could be eaten. “It’s not such good news for the fish because we’re finding it in the brain, ovaries, kidneys and skin.” The location of the increased concentrations seen in Dr. Blazer’s slide and potential sources of contaminants raises questions about potential human exposure.  

All water on earth is part of the hydraulic cycle and is reused over the course of time. These traces of chemicals have managed to slip through the earth’s natural filtration and some of them through treatment systems to be released into rivers and consumed by humans. Finished and source water (as well as food and beverages) have been found to have low levels of these emerging chemicals, but whether this low level of exposure is bio-accumulating in humans and can cause any health or developments effects is yet unknown. Endocrine disruptors can sometimes affect reproduction, development, and behavior, certainly these impacts on fish is being studied. These potentially endocrine disrupting chemicals come from a variety of sources and have diverse molecular structures. If these chemicals are introduced into water systems from human waste and food, then it is possible that human tissues might also contain detectable levels of contaminants. We might be experiencing subtle population impacts from chemical exposure during fetal and newborn development. Potential human effects from chemical contaminants in tissues of the endocrine system are cancer (particularly breast cancer and testicular cancer), infertility, disorders of sex development, asthma and other immune related syndromes, autism, ADHD, learning and behavioral disorders, diabetes, thyroid disorders, and testicular dysgenesis syndrome (poor semen quality, testis cancer, undescended testis and hypospadias).

The endocrine system of fish bears some similarity to the human endocrine system, but we do not live our lives in the waters of the Potomac. Two million people rely on the Washington Aqueduct for their drinking water and millions of people in other parts of the country drink source water with similar observed occurrences of endocrine disruption. The impact on human life and the ecosystem of these emerging contaminants is not known, but now is the time to find out the impact from the substance we’ve been allowing to enter the waters of the earth. We need to determine the impact and fate of these micro pollutants before we implement the watershed cleanup plans to make sure we are implementing the right strategies for the health of the entire ecosystem which may include eliminating the use of certain chemicals.  

Is Our Drinking Water Safe?

The short answer is it depends on where your water comes from, and how it is treated. The drinking water supply can be broken down into three parts: the source water, the drinking water treatment system, and the distribution system which carries the treated water to homes and other buildings. The first steps towards a clean water supply and public health was to disinfect drinking water in the cities (and develop sewer systems). Treating drinking water with either Chloramine or chlorine lowered microbial densities of coliform bacteria, heterotrophic bacteria, Legionella bacteria preventing disease and death. However, these bacteria and the other substances on the primary drinking water list are not the whole story, nor are they the only substances in our water today. Our modern world is filled with chemicals, they exist in pharmaceuticals, household products, personal care products, plastics, pesticides, industrial chemicals, human and animal waste; they are in short, all around us. According to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory of chemicals there are more than 84,000 chemical substances, as defined in TSCA today (or the last time they updated it). These chemicals include organics, inorganic, polymers, and UVCBs (chemical substances of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products, and Biological materials).

Public drinking water supplies are still typically treated with either Chloramine or chlorine both are disinfectants. (Disinfection by products are tested for in drinking water supplies.) Chloramine is a combination of chlorine and ammonia that is currently considered best technology for controlling the formation of certain regulated organic disinfection byproducts and has come to replace the use of chlorine in many locations. Since the revisions to the clean water act in the 1990’s chloramine has returned to common use as a distribution system disinfectant after being replaced in 1940’s with chlorine when there were ammonia shortages. Chloramine lowers microbial densities of coliform bacteria, heterotrophic bacteria, Legionella bacteria in the source water and distribution system while minimizing the formation of regulated disinfection by-products.

Under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA sets standards for approximately 90 contaminants in drinking water including bacteria from human waste, industrial discharge streams (of great concern back in 1974 when the SDWA was first created) and water disinfection by-products and distribution system contaminants. For each of these contaminants, EPA sets a legal limit, called a maximum contaminant level. EPA requires that all public water supplies be tested for this list of contaminants on a regular basis (from daily, to quarterly, to every other year or longer depending on the contaminant and water system) and meet these minimum standards on average. In addition, EPA sets secondary standards for less hazardous substances based on aesthetic characteristics of taste, smell and appearance, which public water systems and states can choose to adopt or not. Though 90 contaminants is a lot, it is just a small fraction of the chemicals in large scale commercial production in the United States which EPA estimates to be over 7,000 chemicals.

Several of the substance controlled under the SDWA are natural occurring contaminants, 6 are bacteria and 8 are by-products or additives of water treatment; however, the greatest problem is pollution caused by mankind. Anthropogenic pollutants contaminate surface and groundwater as a result of manufacturing, combustion and incinerations air emissions, landfills and spills, stormwater runoff carrying agricultural and surface pollutants and waste water treatment water carrying a wide range of chemical containing substances into surface water and groundwater. The SDWA is a product of its time, in 1974 industrial waste discharge and release was far more common, and the last significant review of the SDWA was 1991. Six of the chemicals regulated under the SDWA have been banned for more than 20 years, but the US Geological Survey (USGS) found traces of at least one banned pesticide in groundwater during the recent study of the quality of the nation’s ground water supply.

The USGS ground water testing found that 10 contaminants were detected at concentrations greater than human-health recommended levels in 1% of the groundwater. Of the ten contaminants, seven were from natural sources and three were man-made. The seven contaminants from natural sources included four geological trace elements (arsenic, manganese, strontium, and boron) and three radionuclides (radon, radium, and gross alpha-particle radioactivity). The three contaminants that exceeded MCLs that were from man-made sources were nitrate (a nutrient), dieldrin (an insecticide that has been banned by the US EPA), and perchloroethene (PCE). Naturally occurring elements, radionuclides and pesticide compounds were extensively found at extremely low concentrations (about 10% of any existing health standard). Trace levels of an herbicide (atrazine or simazine) or an herbicide degradate (deethylatrazine), and the solvents perchlorethene or trichloroethene were widely found in samples from shallow unconfined aquifers without a confining geological layer, though the deeper confined groundwater aquifers remained mostly free of man-made contamination.

In their study of surface water used for drinking water supplies the USGS found a diverse group of contaminants in the source water. The concentrations were low, but the contaminants were ubiquitous. This would indicate a variety of different sources and pathways for these contaminants to reach our drinking water supplies. The concentrations were low, (about 95% of the concentrations were less than one-part per billion); nonetheless, the most commonly detected contaminants in source water were generally detected in finished water at about the same frequency and concentration. Our drinking water treatment systems do not remove these contaminants. The USGS found that as the amount of urban and agri-lands increased within the water shed, the numbers of contaminants in the rivers also increased. Rivers receiving municipal and industrial discharge, as well as discharges from other point and non-point sources from stormwater runoff are impacted by man-made organic contaminants, most of which are unregulated. Only about 40 of the 260 substances the USGS tested for are regulated the rest are unregulated.

The safety of our drinking water system is predicated on the basic assumption of toxicology that “dose makes the poison.” This relationship between exposure and risk has been challenged in the study of endocrine disruptors. Now, there is growing concern for potential endocrine disruptors at extremely low levels. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can mimic, block, or otherwise alter animal hormone responses, sometimes affecting their reproduction, development, and behavior, this is actually, how some pest control treatments are designed to work on bugs. A diverse group of chemicals called endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) come from a variety of sources. These chemical have vastly different molecular structures, and become of great concern when they are discovered to be human endocrine disruptors.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) and US Geological Survey (USGS) studied the relationship between waste water treatment plants, agricultural chemicals, and the immune-suppressed and inter-sexed fish in the Potomac River (and other locations). Hormones were not detected in the samples, but analysis using yeast screening assays found estrogenic endocrine-disrupting chemicals throughout the sections of the rivers tested, yet their specific source has not yet been identified. The extremely low concentrations of chemicals that was almost undetectable caused significant biological and health impacts among the fish and amphibian populations. Though they cannot identify a single chemical or group of chemicals responsible, the USFW and USGS have embarked on further study to gain greater understanding of the implications of their findings to the earth’s ecosystem.

The structural diversity of potential endocrine disruptors is enormous and it is not known which of these substances might adversely affect living things in subtle ways. Testing for new chemicals is for gross and acute impact, subtle impact is very difficult to identify. The growing class of known endocrine disrupting chemicals can disturb a staggering range of hormonal processes. Like natural hormones, some EDCs bind directly with hormone receptors. The impostors can mimic or block hormone messages with the same, weaker, or stronger responses. Others are more subtle, they interfere with hormone maintenance to prevent or enhance hormones from being made, broken apart, or carried in the bloodstream.

Recycled or reclaimed water is former wastewater (sewage) that has been treated to remove solids, bacteria and certain impurities, and then is used in irrigation, discharged to surface water that is a source of drinking water or injected into the ground to recharge groundwater aquifers. In order to make our river, lake, stream and ocean water safe for fishing and recreation, the Clean Water Act of 1972 mandated elimination of the discharge of untreated waste from municipal and industrial sources. This was the first great success of environmental regulations. Modern waste water treatment plants, usually using sand filtration and chlorination in addition to primary and secondary treatment, were required to meet certain standards. These standards were never designed to render the waste water potable nor to remove the vast number of chemicals and drugs that find their way down our drains today. The design of the combined sewer systems in the largest cities results in regular discharge of raw sewage during storm events. In the United States the cryptosporidium parasite has caused outbreaks of diarrheal disease in the 1990’s and boil water alerts are frequent occurrences in the in the 21st century. We are having difficulties maintaining our most basic water quality let alone protect the population from emerging contaminants. The Environmental Working Group has called for the EPA to do a national assessment of drinking water quality and establish new safety standards, set priorities for pollution prevention projects, and inform the public of the full range of pollutants in their water. In the meantime, while the EPA spends it time addressing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere you need to carefully consider source water quality, and treatment when selecting where to live.

The Second Age of Water Regulation

In the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, 14th Edition, April 2009, Stephen Hayward highlights the short falls in the way we have been monitoring water quality in the United States. The National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress (305(b) report) had been the primary vehicle for informing Congress and the public about general water quality conditions in the United States. In the past, this document characterized water quality based on differing local monitoring efforts. The Report was intended to identify widespread water quality problems of national significance, and describes various programs implemented to restore and protect our waters. This had served as a proxy for the quality of the waters of the nation. However, the methods states use to monitor and assess their waters and report their findings varied from state to state and even over time. Many states target their limited monitoring resources to waters they suspect are impaired and, therefore, assess only a small percentage of their waters. These may not reflect conditions in state waters as a whole. States often monitor a different set of waters from cycle to cycle.

Hundreds of organizations around the country conduct some type of water quality monitoring within the states. These include federal agencies such as the US EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey. They also include state, interstate, tribal and local water quality agencies; research organizations such as universities; industries and sewage and water treatment plants; and citizen volunteer programs. These diverse groups may collect water quality data for various purposes utilizing various levels of testing and targeting specific pollutants. The cost of water quality testing is determined by the number of pollutants tested for and at what level of detection. So, resources were used to target suspected contaminants. The final reports rendered to the US EPA were so inconsistent in their region by region scope as to be meaningless in their ability to measure water quality across the nation or to identify what has emerged as the newest concerns about water quality.

Large fish kills in the late 1990’s began a renewed process of discovery to identify the cause. Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey observed intersex in bass species collected from the Potomac River and its tributaries in West Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC, and also quantified endocrine disrupting chemicals, EDCs, in their blood. Though extensive water testing was done, the actual source or sources of EDC was not identified. These recent studies by the US Geological Survey and Fish and Wildlife have prompted the US EPA to change its monitoring and assessment guidance to the states in an attempt to generate a more useful report of the quality of the nation’s water.

Suspect or known endocrine disrupting chemicals are associated with industrial releases; widely used by the general public every day in homes, on farms, by businesses and industry. There are the natural occurring EDC that are part of the ecosystem. Some EDCs can be released directly to the environment after passing through wastewater treatment processes, which are typically not designed to remove low levels of these kinds of pollutants from the effluent. The problem is compounded by the fact that wastewater treatment effluent is released to rivers that are used for drinking water and in some locations like California water treatment effluent is directly mixed with drinking water supplies. In addition, sludge from secondary treatment processes are land-applied providing a route for EDCs to leach or run off into nearby bodies of water. Through either waste water treatment plant effluent or run off endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including synthetic estrogens and androgens, naturally occurring estrogens, as well as many others capable of modulating normal hormonal functions and steroidal synthesis in fish and possibly other animals find their way into rivers and streams. So far studies of septic systems have not found these substances being released to the groundwater in the areas studied. However this research has just begun and only a very limited number of groundwater studies have been performed looking for EDCs.

The occurrence of intersex fish in the Potomac River, and in other areas of the US resulted in Congressional hearings in the fall or 2006 to inquire about the “State of the Science on EDCs in the Environment,” as well as the US EPA’s activities associated with EDCs. The hearings resulted in a White Paper; “AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA FOR CONTAMINANTS OF EMERGING CONCERN” The next step of this work was the release in April of 2009 by the US EPA of the Final List of Initial Pesticide Active Ingredients and Pesticide Inert Ingredients to be screened under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as potential endocrine disruptors. The US EPA began with the Clean Water Act. This is a new era of discovery of pollutants of concern. Though the work has just begun, the second age of water regulation has arrived.

Endocrine Disruptors in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Chemicals are a fact of modern life they exist in pharmaceuticals, household products, personal care products, plastics, pesticides, industrial chemicals, human and animal waste; they are in short, all around us. There are some chemicals that can mimic, block, or otherwise alter animal hormone responses, sometimes affecting their reproduction, development, and behavior, this is actually, how some pest control treatments are designed to work. A diverse group of chemicals called endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) come from a variety of sources. These chemical have vastly different molecular structures. These chemicals become of great concern when they are discovered to be human endocrine disruptors as DDT, dioxin, the drug DES and PCBs were in the past. Traces of endocrine disrupting chemicals are seemingly found in every part of our world, including dust, soil, water, air, food, manufactured products, wildlife, and even ourselves.

There are countless natural occurring phytochemicals so far thousands have been isolated from plants in addition there are estimated to be over 80,000 artificial chemicals in the world today. The structural diversity is enormous and it is not known which of these substances might adversely affect living things in subtle ways. Testing for new chemicals is for gross and acute impact, subtle impact is very difficult to identify. One thing is certain, the growing class of known endocrine disrupting chemicals can disturb a staggering range of hormonal processes. Like natural hormones, some EDCs bind directly with hormone receptors. The impostors can mimic or block hormone messages with the same, weaker, or stronger responses. Others are more subtle, they interfere with hormone maintenance to prevent or enhance hormones from being made, broken apart, or carried in the bloodstream.

When the USGS began looking into skin lesions on bass in the southern branch of the Potomac River, they found fish suffering from a variety of lesions. Some fish had bacterial lesions, some fungal lesions, and some fish had parasite. The USGS concluded that there was no specific cause of the lesions and that the fish appeared to be immunosupressed so that any pathogen in the water could attack the fish. A series of studies were performed over a period of years. During the investigation it was discovered that male fish had immature female egg cells in their testes and the females had lowered levels of an essential protein in the formation of eggs. The bass suffering from lesions were intersexed. It had previously been demonstrated that estrogen and estrogen mimicking compounds can cause intersex. The occurrence of intersex among the lesioned fish prompted further studies. How estrogen related compounds could be impacting the immune systems in these fish was studied by one group while several groups within the Fish and Wildlife Service and US Geological Survey studied the relationship between waste water treatment plants, other chemicals, and the impacted fish.

The study found the problem of endocrine disruption in fish to be widespread in the limited study area of a portion of the Chesapeake Water Shed, but increased in proximity to and downstream of the waste water treatment plants. Chemical sampling that took place along with the fish sampling found higher concentrations of waste water chemicals near the waste water plants. Pesticides currently used in agriculture were detected at all locations. Hormones were not detected in the samples, but analysis using yeast screening assays found estrogenic endocrine-disrupting chemicals at all locations their specific source is not yet known. Though they cannot identify a single chemical or group of chemicals responsible, the US FW and US GS have embarked on further study to gain greater understanding of the implications to the earth’s ecosystem.

The implications to the fish populations are apparent, but the waters where the study took place are part of the water supply for the region. The impact on human health and the ecosystem needs to be discovered. In addition to finding intersexed fish, the researchers have found male amphibians with ovaries and female frogs with male genitalia and frogs with six legs and other mutations. The endocrine system of fish is similar to the human endocrine system. The US FW and US GS research on the Potomac River poses some troubling questions for the 2 million people who rely on the Washington Aqueduct for their drinking water as well as the millions of people in other parts of the country with similar observed occurrences of endocrine disruption. The impact on human life is not known, but according to Dr. Robert Lawrence of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health there is the potential to for humans to develop premature breast cancer, have problems with reproduction, and develop congenital anomalies of the male genitalia. These kinds of impacts are happening at a broad and low level in society so that the occurrence is not alarming to the general public or easily noted without detailed statistics.
In April of 2009 the US EPA issued the Final List of Initial Pesticide Active Ingredients and Pesticide Inert Ingredients to be Screened Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as potential endocrine disruptors. Pesticide runoff is a large contributor of known pollutants to the watershed. Water is the fluid of life. Do you know where your water’s been and what’s in it?