Perdue PFAS problems persist, Johns Hopkins analysis says

Salisbury, Md. – Last month, Perdue shared an update on its ongoing investigation into PFAS pollution out of its facility on Zion Church Road in Salisbury, stating the company they had identified the source of the contamination as a firefighting foam used in a former fire suppression system.

However, a report out of Johns Hopkins said differently. An analysis from some environmental experts alleges that Perdue is focusing on a single source “while ignoring additional contamination across its 300-acre site that continue to threaten nearby drinking water.”

“While replacing the AFFF system may stop one source, it leaves untouched the many other onsite areas scattered throughout Perdue’s 300-acre property that have potentially received PFAS contaminated materials,” said Dr. Carsten Prasse, an environmental chemist and professor at Johns Hopkins University. “Not addressing the potential contamination of these sites may leach dangerous chemicals into groundwater flowing toward residential neighborhoods.”

AFFF, or Aqueous Film Forming Foam, is a foam often used in fire suppression systems.

“We hear what they’re telling us about this fire suppression part of it, and that’s fine,” Chase Brockstedt of Brockstedt Mandalas Federico, a law firm representing about 500 Salisbury residents in a class action suit against Perdue. “And we don’t know the answer to that. But we do believe that there needs to be testing of everything on that, on that facility, not only the facility itself and all aspects of the facility and all locations on the facility, but also sort of the products that are coming onto the facility.”

This comes at a time when Perdue is seeking to expand its soybean processing facility in Salisbury.

“We don’t believe that the effort right now should be spent on trying to expand its business, increase revenue and increase profit,” Brockstedt said. “We believe that the the effort by Purdue should be related to resident safety and to be and to getting themselves into environmental compliance.”

Perdue pushed back, calling the report outdated and incomplete and said it ignores the progress Perdue says has been made with environmental officials.

“The litigation firm’s claims are patently false. We have been treating wastewater for PFAS since early this year and providing testing and treatment for community members in the MDE-designated area. While AFFF is the only source at our site, that doesn’t account for other sources in the area, which are unrelated to Perdue,” said a Perdue spokesperson in a statement to WMDT.

Officials with Perdue added they plan to continue following the remediation framework set out by state officials.

Brockstedt said that they wish to work with Perdue, not against it.

“We do not want to put Perdue out of business at all,” he said. “But just because you are a big part of the community, just because you’re a big employer in the community, just because your family’s been around the community for a long time, does not mean that you have free reign to contaminate the community.”