Cyclopure Partners with Shaw Institute on Community-Led PFAS Point Source Investigation in Surry, ME 

In 2021, Maine enacted a mandate requiring PFAS testing across all public water supplies, including schools, childcare centers, and group-living communities.

At Surry Elementary School, this testing revealed alarmingly high levels of PFAS in the drinking water, sparking concern and a collaborative effort with the Shaw Institute to uncover the source of contamination. Investigations extended to water samples from the surrounding areas, including nearby streams and private wells, which showed only minimal traces of PFAS. This pointed to a source of contamination likely situated near the school itself. Historical accounts from community members hinted at the possibility of sludge or fill being used during the school’s construction, leading to soil testing. Ultimately, the evidence suggested that undocumented biosolid spreading on the soccer field and the original school leach field might be significant contributors, with additional sources potentially originating within the school. This case highlights the critical role of community engagement and the importance of local knowledge, particularly from long-time residents, in solving environmental contamination mysteries.

The ongoing efforts by the Shaw Institute to combat PFAS contamination continue to gain momentum, thanks to the latest testing cycle initiated in June 2024. Supported by a grant from the Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund, the Institute has purchased 120 of Cyclopure’s water test kits for PFAS, with the study running through September 2024 or until the available funds are exhausted. The majority of these kits are dedicated to testing drinking water, while 20 have been reserved for surface water sampling, ensuring a comprehensive examination of the community’s water sources. The Shaw Institute is distributing these test kits for free, encouraging residents to participate by signing up on their website. By the end of 2024, the findings from this study will be analyzed, with a final report made publicly available. The Shaw Institute’s proactive approach serves as a model for other communities, demonstrating how local initiatives, supported by accessible testing resources, can effectively address environmental health concerns. As Michelle Berger, Associate Scientist from the Institute notes, “if you have a success in one place, that can spur interest in others.” This sentiment can serve to inspire other communities to take action, leveraging the Shaw Institute’s testing strategy as a blueprint for uncovering and addressing PFAS contamination.

I asked Michelle a few questions about her experience spearheading these projects:

A transcription of the video is available below.

About the Shaw Institute

The Shaw Institute is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3), scientific research organization based in Blue Hill, Maine. Founded in 1990 by ecotoxicologist Dr. Susan Shaw, for more than three decades, the Institute’s research on plastics, ocean pollution, marine mammal health, toxic chemicals, and climate change has informed public opinion and fueled policy, impacting millions of people in the U.S. and worldwide.

For more information, visit https://shawinstitute.org/

Video transcript

SAYURI: Thank you so much for meeting with me, Michelle. I just wanted to ask you a few questions regarding the testing that you and the Shaw Institute are doing in the communities in Maine. I was wondering whether you would mind introducing yourself a little bit and discussing your work within the project and at the Shaw Institute.

MICHELLE: Sure, no problem. It’s nice to meet you, Sayuri. I’m the associate scientist at Shaw Institute. We’re a nonprofit environmental research organization. We’re based in Blue Hill, Maine. I oversee many of our local environmental water quality projects. In particular, we’re doing a fairly large survey of PFAS contamination in surface water and well water in the town of Blue Hill this summer. It’s in partnership with the town itself and we received funding from a grant to support this project and so it’s been a really exciting, local community engagement project.

SAYURI: Amazing. What were the benefits of using Cyclopure’s Water Test Kit specifically for the sampling?

MICHELLE: We’ve had a lot of success using [the Water Test Kit] in some of our past work as well, and we’ve found that one of the best benefits is the cost. The price point is much more affordable for nonprofit organizations on a limited budget, as well as local residents. The $80 price point is so much lower than the $250-400 that many other labs charge, so that’s a big benefit. They’re also very convenient and easy to use; it’s easy to explain to someone how to appropriately collect their sample. In our experience, the turnaround time has been very quick. Usually we get the data back in 2-3 weeks after sending the kit to you, and so nobody’s waiting long and it keeps the projects moving along.

SAYURI: Awesome. We love to hear that. I was also wondering what advice you would give to other communities that are interested in starting a project like yours, especially because you had so many other community members engaged, and how you were able to facilitate all of that.

MICHELLE: One of the key things is having community members and community leaders on board. We’re a private organization based in Blue Hill, but from the very beginning we engaged the local leaders and the Blue Hill selectboard. We also communicated with members of the town’s climate resilience committee, so local leaders helped us plan the study, and helped us figure out where and how the best ways to communicate with people who live here are so that they’re willing to participate, so I think that’s an important thing.

Also, I think before you start, have your messaging clear so you can explain to people: What are PFAS? Why are they a concern? Why should they test and what should they do about it? You need to have those answers readily available. Then also, have an idea of what solutions are. If people test and they find high levels, what are you going to suggest they can do about it? You don’t have to do it for them, but just have resources prepared so people can take the next step.

SAYURI: That makes sense. We run into that a lot too; as we’re doing reporting, people are very quick to ask: I see I have PFAS, what can I do? So having those answers ready before you start could definitely be helpful. I can see that. Speaking of other volunteers that conducting testing, how did you prepare them for the testing?

MICHELLE: In our project, we have people signing up saying “yes, I want to have my water tested”. Then they come into the office. I actually got an extra Cyclopure kit that we’re not planning on analyzing so that I have a demo model. So I show them “here’s your kit, let me open this one, this is what it looks like inside, wear your gloves”. I also found that I needed to emphasize that once they fill up the cup, the water is going to drip back out the bottom and that’s normal. I know it says that in the information packet, but we’ve had a couple of people in the early days say “mine’s broken, the water leaked out”, so I make sure I emphasize that fact: “yes, that’s normal, once it’s empty, return it to us here”. We’ve been dealing with all of the shipping and the data handling from our end. You really just walk them through the process, show them what to do, and then they just know that when they get their results it’ll have some explanation with it and then, if necessary, links for next steps to do.

SAYURI: Awesome, yeah that makes sense; I feel like people aren’t used to not having to actually ship water back to our lab. The last question I have is, as your project is coming to an end in September of this year, I was wondering what the next steps are? I know you’re going to publish a final report that’s going to be available to the public by the end of the year.

MICHELLE: We still have a lot of data analysis to do. We’re getting results coming in, so in the short-term, compiling all the data. Then we’ll be mapping it, so people can see where all the areas of concern are. We’re being very careful to not put dots on people’s houses and say, “you have PFAS” and make that public, because we feel like that’s private information, but we’re grouping areas of the town and we’ll give summary information. So once that’s all done and we have a final report for the town, I think we really want to engage the town to maybe get them involved in figuring out where the PFAS are coming from. I mean, we don’t know necessarily. We have ideas but there are none of those classic, obvious sources like right next to the landfill, or a fire station, or a known sludge-spreading site. It’s kind of turning up in unexpected areas, so that’s when the town will really need to step up and help act on it, we hope. We also will do presentations of this study at professional and scientific meetings to spread the word and how we did it, because Blue Hill is not unique in having this kind of problem, so as you said. Other communities might be interested in pursuing a similar kind of project.

SAYURI: Yes, definitely. That’s what I’m really hoping with this whole post in general, that we can really utilize the amazing work that you guys have done to show other communities that it’s possible to do these kinds of investigations. I think it’s an amazing model for that, so thank you so much. I’m very excited to see the results of the study by the end of the year. Hopefully it’ll help making decisions moving forward, too.

MICHELLE: Yes, definitely. It’s been interesting so far with the preliminary data, so we’re excited to see the big picture.

SAYURI: Well, thank you so much for taking the time to answer these questions for me.

MICHELLE: Sure, it’s been my pleasure.