Amid PFAS pollution lawsuits, Perdue wants to increase its discharges. Residents are skeptical.

When Perdue Agribusiness sought state permission to increase the amount of treated wastewater it pours into a local stream, some Salisbury-area residents were skeptical.

For the past several years, Perdue has been embroiled in a pollution scandal over allegations that it polluted local groundwater with PFAS, the cancer-causing substances known as “forever chemicals” because they do not readily break down in the environment.

The company, which runs a 294-acre campus near Salisbury with soybean processing facilities, hatcheries, grain storage areas and a truck garage, faces twin lawsuits from more than 550 area residents who rely on well water.

But it initiated legal action of its own in May, suing 3M, which produced firefighting foam containing PFAS, and Johnson Controls, which maintained a firefighting system that used the foam at Perdue’s soybean processing plant. Perdue believes the firefighting foam is the sole source of the PFAS contamination.

Now, the company is asking Maryland Department of the Environment regulators to approve its request to discharge an average of up to 1 million gallons per day into the Peggy Branch, compared to its current average flow of about 205,000 gallons per day.

“If the Perdue facility can’t discharge clean water at the levels it’s discharging now, I don’t see how MDE is going to enforce clean drinking water at a level five times what it is now,” Matt Godbey said during a Wednesday night hearing on the request at Wor-Wic Community College.

He was one of a handful of residents who took the microphone to express concerns about the new permit. A public comment period for the permit remains open until 5 p.m. on Sept. 14.

Four years after ban, fire departments stuck with hazardous PFAS foam

Perdue says it needs to increase its discharges into the stream precisely because it’s upgrading its wastewater treatment system. Perdue is planning to do away with a series of lagoons that previously stored wastewater, which have attracted concerns about the potential for pollutants to leech into groundwater.

“The project is tied to long-planned upgrades to the facility’s wastewater treatment system,” wrote a spokesperson for Perdue in a statement, “including replacing existing lagoon infrastructure with modern treatment tanks and providing capacity to support future operational needs.”

Under the proposed new five-year discharge permit under the Clean Water Act, Perdue would face new limits on PFAS discharges into the creek.

For the first two years, Perdue would simply have to notify regulators and take corrective actions if it detects two of the most common PFAS compounds during monthly testing. After that, detectable levels of the two PFAS chemicals — anything over 4 nanograms per liter — would be considered a permit violation and could bring fines or other penalties from MDE.

In 2025, Perdue voluntarily installed a PFAS treatment system at its wastewater facility, which has reduced PFAS concentrations to “trace” amounts, according to the company’s website. The company noted that it believes the last known discharge of PFAS-containing foam on its campus was in 2019.

In many other categories, Perdue’s pollutant limits are staying roughly the same — even though the permit would allow Perdue to increase the amount of water it sends into the environment, said MDE’s Jonathan Rice, chief of the Industrial and General Permits Division for the Wastewater Pollution Prevention and Reclamation Program.

“Despite the fact that the facility has asked us to increase their flow by up to five times, we are not increasing the loading limits,” Rice said during Wednesday’s meeting, “If they increase their flow, they have to offset that by decreasing the concentration of the pollutants.”

James Parrigin, who has lived with his wife and children close to Perdue’s Salisbury campus since 2014, said he chose to purchase a home water treatment system after learning about the PFAS contamination, and pays for a costly new filter each year. Parrigin said Perdue’s request makes him worry that won’t be enough.

“It will make me wonder if the filtration system I’ve installed — that is, the one I could afford — will be robust enough to continue to protect us,” Parrigin said during Wednesday’s meeting. “Will I need to change my expensive filter every six months? Will I need to purchase these expensive water tests several times a year? I’m worried to see elevated PFAS levels in my kids’ blood tests that we get. I’m worried that folks will turn a blind eye to this in the interest of profit and expansion.”

Maryland, South Carolina lose bid to try PFAS contamination cases in state courts

During his remarks, Parrigin suggested that Perdue should be required to show that its PFAS readings are “nondetect,” or not high enough to be measured by lab tests, before it can increase its discharge into Peggy Branch, which empties into Johnson Pond, a Salisbury fishing pond that later flows into the Wicomico River.

Margarita Rosado, who has lived near the Salisbury facility since 1991, said Perdue’s request has alarmed her, adding to fears for her safety that began in earnest in 2024, when testing on her well revealed levels of certain PFAS far exceeding federal drinking water guidelines.

“I had planned to live in my home until my dying days,” Rosado said. “Now, for the first time, I don’t think I want to stay, and that’s something I never thought I would ever say about my home.”

For its part, Perdue argues that it has taken a variety of steps in response to the groundwater contamination, which MDE testing first revealed in 2023. The state identified the company as a “responsible person” for the pollution, and Perdue paid to investigate it, testing 679 wells throughout the community.

The company’s website states that it has performed well testing on all the homes where it was requested, and it has installed free point-of-entry water treatment systems, or POETs, for every homeowner who has asked, covering 91% of the impacted properties.

“Perdue will continue to perform substantial additional monitoring and testing for the surrounding properties, as well as installing and maintaining additional POET systems,” read a Perdue legal filing from May.

But Perdue denies liability for the pollution, arguing that 3M and Johnson Controls should be held liable if the court deems the residents’ claims actionable.

Perdue’s recent legal filings say the Salisbury campus processes soybeans into oil using a highly flammable solvent called hexane. As a result, the plant’s fire suppression system included not just water, but Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, or AFFF, which for decades included PFAS chemicals now known as health hazards.

Perdue wrote that its fire suppression system used the firefighting foam manufactured by 3M starting in 1986. Beginning as early as 2012, Johnson Controls was maintaining Perdue’s system.

“On several occasions,” Perdue’s filing said, workers from Johnson Controls “released large volumes” of the firefighting foam into the environment, without the knowledge or consent of Perdue.

Neither 3M nor Johnson Controls responded to requests for comment.

In legal filings, Perdue has argued that it has since installed a new fire suppression system using fluorine-free foam.