The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and state regulators say the trout coming from Benner Spring State Fish Hatchery remain within advisory limits and “are safe to consume” even as a multi-year PFAS investigation centered near State College continues to unfold — but the case exposes gaps in testing, a slow-moving remediation timeline, and persistent questions about long-term risk to water, fish and communities downstream. (pa.gov)
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — PFAS, the so-called forever chemicals — are a broad family of synthetic compounds used for decades in firefighting foams, stain- and water-resistant coatings, food packaging and numerous industrial processes. Their defining trait — strong carbon–fluorine bonds — makes many PFAS extremely persistent in the environment and prone to bioaccumulation in fish and humans. Federal and state agencies link PFAS exposure to a range of health concerns including certain cancers, immune-system impacts, developmental delays and reproductive effects, though research is ongoing to refine dose–response relationships and which PFAS exactly drive which harms.
In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Benner Township Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) investigation covers a groundwater plume near the State College Regional Airport and adjacent industrial/commercial properties along High Tech Road. DEP’s publicly posted project record traces sampling and response activities beginning in late 2019 and formalized in 2020 — including private well sampling, bottled-water deliveries, and installation of whole-house treatment systems (POETs) where wells exceeded Act 2 cleanup standards. The DEP administrative record and updates document multiple rounds of well testing, surface- and soil-sampling, POET performance checks and outreach to affected homeowners. (pa.gov)
At the center of the recent public attention: Benner Spring State Fish Hatchery, which draws on local spring water and supplies trout statewide. Hatchery staff and Commission leadership have been asked to explain how PFAS findings in nearby groundwater might affect fish reared for stocking, the safety of anglers who eat stocked fish, and what mitigation the Commission is using to prevent contaminant transfer downstream.
This article compiles the regulatory record and public statements, places them in the context of federal and state PFAS guidance, assesses the robustness of current testing and containment measures, and identifies technical and policy risks that will determine whether the Commission’s assurance — that hatchery fish meet advisory levels — will hold up over time.
(A note about earlier coverage: some news reports — including a local article that circulated widely — misstated the investigation start date. DEP’s own timeline makes clear the current HSCA investigation was triggered by 2019 sampling and initiated in 2020; earlier references to the year 2000 in secondary reporting appear to be incorrect or typographical.) (pa.gov)
The Benner Spring hatchery is also operationally important: it supplies trout for counties beyond Centre County, and the Fish and Boat Commission’s stocking logistics, once disrupted, ripple into recreational opportunities and local economies tied to angling. That reality increases pressure to find technically sound but timely remediation measures that protect public health without unnecessarily curtailing angling resources.
Yet the technical record still contains critical gaps that require rapid closure: public, method-specific fish-tissue data for Benner Spring trout; a hatchery-scale treatment plan if needed; and a clear, enforceable long-term funding and liability arrangement so residents and the public are not left bearing maintenance costs or deferred cleanup obligations. Given PFAS’ persistence and potential for bioaccumulation, the prudent path is a conservative, transparent program of tissue monitoring, rigorous engineering assessment and accountable remediation — not a one-time assurance. The Commission’s current statement that fish are safe to consume reflects present testing, but it should be viewed as an interim finding that must be backed by regular data release and independent verification over time. (pa.gov)
Pennsylvania’s Benner Township response can become a model for other jurisdictions or an example of procedural shortfalls. The difference will come down to data transparency, engineering rigor, funding durability and community engagement. Anglers, homeowners, and institutional stakeholders all deserve a clear timetable and accessible evidence showing that fish, water and public health are protected not just today but decades from now.
Source: lehighvalleylive ‘They’re safe to consume’: PFAS contamination near Pennsylvania fish hatchery addressed
Background and overview
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — PFAS, the so-called forever chemicals — are a broad family of synthetic compounds used for decades in firefighting foams, stain- and water-resistant coatings, food packaging and numerous industrial processes. Their defining trait — strong carbon–fluorine bonds — makes many PFAS extremely persistent in the environment and prone to bioaccumulation in fish and humans. Federal and state agencies link PFAS exposure to a range of health concerns including certain cancers, immune-system impacts, developmental delays and reproductive effects, though research is ongoing to refine dose–response relationships and which PFAS exactly drive which harms. In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Benner Township Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) investigation covers a groundwater plume near the State College Regional Airport and adjacent industrial/commercial properties along High Tech Road. DEP’s publicly posted project record traces sampling and response activities beginning in late 2019 and formalized in 2020 — including private well sampling, bottled-water deliveries, and installation of whole-house treatment systems (POETs) where wells exceeded Act 2 cleanup standards. The DEP administrative record and updates document multiple rounds of well testing, surface- and soil-sampling, POET performance checks and outreach to affected homeowners. (pa.gov)
At the center of the recent public attention: Benner Spring State Fish Hatchery, which draws on local spring water and supplies trout statewide. Hatchery staff and Commission leadership have been asked to explain how PFAS findings in nearby groundwater might affect fish reared for stocking, the safety of anglers who eat stocked fish, and what mitigation the Commission is using to prevent contaminant transfer downstream.
This article compiles the regulatory record and public statements, places them in the context of federal and state PFAS guidance, assesses the robustness of current testing and containment measures, and identifies technical and policy risks that will determine whether the Commission’s assurance — that hatchery fish meet advisory levels — will hold up over time.
What happened in Benner Township — timeline and immediate actions
2019–2024: Discovery, sampling, interim responses
DEP’s Benner Township page states the present HSCA investigation began in response to sampling initiated in 2019 and formally rolled into DEP’s HSCA program in 2020. Following those early detections, DEP conducted broad private well sampling in 2021–2023 and found multiple homes with combined PFOA/PFOS concentrations above Pennsylvania’s Act 2 “Maximum Specific Concentration” used for initial cleanup thresholds (the state had been implementing a 70 parts-per-trillion threshold during the early rounds of the investigation). DEP supplied bottled water and installed Point-of-Entry Treatment (POET) systems in affected homes; post-installation sampling generally confirmed POET effectiveness in removing targeted PFAS from finished household water. (pa.gov)Penn State consent order and remediation planning
In November 2024 Penn State entered a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) with DEP and agreed to pay a negotiated portion of DEP’s response costs — reported publicly at about $564,000 — and to undertake a remedial investigation and response under DEP oversight. Under the agreement Penn State will sample and maintain POET systems, supply bottled water where necessary and develop remedial-investigation documents; at the same time Penn State has not admitted liability for the observed contamination. The university cites historic use of FAA-mandated aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) at the State College Regional Airport as a plausible source and notes the airport purchased PFAS-free firefighting foam once such products became available.DEP administrative record and hatchery-specific findings
DEP’s administrative record for the Benner Township HSCA project contains technical reports, sampling maps and decision documents used in DEP’s response. The project record notes that the Benner Spring Outfall and Hatchery Well No. 2 have shown groundwater concentrations exceeding DEP’s cleanup criteria at certain sampling points, and the administrative record includes plans and reports intended to support remediation design and evaluation. DEP’s work to delineate the plume and identify exposure pathways has included soil borings on airport and nearby properties, surface-water sampling near spring outfalls and repeated private-well rounds. (pa.gov)(A note about earlier coverage: some news reports — including a local article that circulated widely — misstated the investigation start date. DEP’s own timeline makes clear the current HSCA investigation was triggered by 2019 sampling and initiated in 2020; earlier references to the year 2000 in secondary reporting appear to be incorrect or typographical.) (pa.gov)
The hatchery and the fish: operations, testing, and current assurances
How Benner Spring hatchery operates and why it matters
Benner Spring is one of Pennsylvania’s state fish hatcheries that produces trout for stocking across the Commonwealth. Its proximity to the State College Regional Airport — and hydrological connections between spring flow, shallow groundwater and downstream Spring Creek — create plausible pathways for PFAS to move from contaminated soils or groundwater into hatchery supply points or receiving waters. Hatcheries also concentrate organic material (fish food, excrement), which means any contaminant in intake water could be incorporated into fish tissue and then into anglers’ meals. The Commission’s state-hatchery directory confirms Benner Spring’s role in the statewide rearing program.What the Fish and Boat Commission says
Commission leadership has publicly stated that hatchery fish are being tested and that the results to date meet advisory thresholds; officials have described ongoing monitoring at both hatchery source points and discharge points leaving hatchery property. The Commission also operates effluent treatment and uses treatment plant processes designed to limit downstream impacts from hatchery effluent and fish waste. PFBC materials and meeting summaries note the agency’s stocking plans, its detailed hatchery roster and its routine testing framework, though they do not publish exhaustive, real-time tissue-level results at every stocking origin.Consumption advisories that apply to stocked fish
Two relevant advisory regimes overlap in Pennsylvania:- A blanket advisory applied to fish stocked from state hatcheries: the Commission’s regulations and public guidance note the general one-meal-per-week consumption advice that applies to recreationally caught sport fish in Pennsylvania. This blanket is a baseline public-health precaution, not a PFAS-specific rule.
- PFAS-specific guidance: because there is no single federal fish-consumption advisory for PFAS across all states, Pennsylvania has adopted a tiered approach comparable to the Great Lakes Consortium for Fish Consumption Advisories. That framework suggests more restrictive consumption guidance where PFAS fish-tissue concentrations fall into certain bands — for example, one meal per month for tissue concentrations in the approximate range of 0.05–0.2 parts per million (ppm) and a do-not-eat designation for higher concentrations. Pennsylvania has one current PFAS-driven do-not-eat advisory covering the entire Neshaminy Creek basin due to PFOS levels exceeding 0.2 ppm.
Interpreting the technical evidence: what the data say — and don’t say
Testing points and what’s been measured
The DEP administrative record and project updates show multiple sample types:- Private drinking-water wells and pre-/post-POET samples to verify treatment effectiveness.
- Soil and shallow groundwater borings at strategic locations around the airport and High Tech Road.
- Surface water and spring outfall sampling near Benner Spring.
- Fish tissue sampling at selected locations statewide (PA’s program expanded PFAS tissue monitoring after 2019).
What it means for hatchery fish and anglers
Key technical points to weigh:- Source vs. exposure pathway: Demonstrating PFAS at or near a hatchery intake does not automatically mean the fish will have unsafe tissue concentrations; uptake depends on exposure concentration, exposure duration, bioaccumulation characteristics of specific PFAS congeners and the life history of the fish (diet, growth rates, residence time). However, the presence of PFAS in intake water is a signal to test tissue directly. DEP’s administrative record flags exceedances at the Benner Spring outfall and Hatchery Well No. 2, which warrants sustained fish tissue monitoring. (pa.gov)
- Treatment efficacy: POETs and other conventional technologies (granulated activated carbon, ion-exchange resins) are effective for removing certain PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS from drinking water when designed and maintained properly. But those systems are point solutions for household water and are not the same as treating spring-source water for hatchery operations; treating large volumes used by hatcheries is a different engineering problem. DEP and Penn State documents note POET efficacy at household scale, but the approach for hatchery influent/effluent needs a robust, site-specific plan. (pa.gov)
- Tissue monitoring is decisive: The only way to confirm whether hatchery trout pose a PFAS ingestion risk is direct, statistically valid fish-tissue sampling and analysis using methods that target the PFAS congeners of concern. The Commission reports testing at source and discharge points, but public records do not currently publish a comprehensive, long-term tissue dataset for Benner Spring trout that would reassure anglers beyond the Commission’s statement that current advisory-level thresholds are being met. Independent or third-party verification increases public confidence.
Strengths of the current response
- Active regulatory oversight and public record: DEP has an explicit HSCA administrative record for Benner Township with routine updates, sampling logs and public comment mechanisms. That level of documentation is a good foundation for public accountability. (pa.gov)
- Interim protections for residents: DEP’s deployment of bottled water and installation of POETs where wells exceeded thresholds reduced immediate potable-water exposure for affected households. Post-installation confirmation sampling showing non-detect or reduced PFAS in post-treatment samples is an important operational success. (pa.gov)
- Institutional participation: Penn State’s COA and payment toward response costs (the $564k figure) is a pragmatic step that places an institution with resources into a remediation role under DEP oversight; the university has also transitioned the airport to PFAS-free foam and reaffirmed commitments to remediation planning.
- Practical agency advice for anglers: The Commission and DEP accept a conservative approach by aligning with established fish-consumption frameworks and pausing stocking where do-not-eat advisories are in place (the Neshaminy Creek example shows that the state will remove stocking when tissue data justify a do-not-eat advisory).
Risks, gaps and unanswered questions
Despite these strengths, the record shows several vulnerabilities that merit attention.- Limited, non-public tissue data for hatchery stocks: Public confidence depends on transparent release of analytical results from fish-tissue testing tied to the Benner Spring hatchery. The Commission’s statement that fish “meet advisory levels” is necessary but not sufficient without published, method-specific tissue numbers and QA/QC documentation (detection limits, targeted congeners, sample sizes, dates). Independent or academic corroboration would be ideal.
- Potential for downstream accumulation and temporal lag: PFAS bioaccumulate. Even if current hatchery fish test below advisory thresholds, continuing low-level exposure can result in tissue accumulation over time — particularly for certain long-chain PFAS. Ongoing monitoring, with clear thresholds for management actions and public alerts, is essential. Federal and state science emphasizes the uncertainty of long-term low-dose effects, especially in children and for sensitive endpoints.
- Hydrogeologic complexity and source identification: DEP indicates a multi-source investigation area, including airport-related AFFF usage and industrial locations north of High Tech Road. Fully delineating the plume and differentiating among potential contributors is technically challenging and time-consuming; any remediation plan must be designed with that uncertainty in mind. A remediation plan that only addresses one apparent source risks leaving residual flux from other contributors. (pa.gov)
- Scale mismatch between household and hatchery treatment: POETs work for homes; hatcheries draw and discharge larger volumes, and the engineering, cost and operational demands to treat hatchery influent or effluent at scale are materially different. Until a capital and operational plan for hatchery-scale treatment is fully designed and funded, the risk of intermittent or chronic exposure to fish remains. (pa.gov)
- Communications and trust: Local residents near the airport have reported detecting PFAS in their blood and express concern about long-term health monitoring and liability for maintenance costs should responsibility shift. Public confidence depends on transparent data release, an enforceable long-term funding and maintenance plan for treatment systems, and clarity on liability and legal recourse. Penn State’s COA stops short of admission of responsibility and reserves the right to discontinue maintenance obligations under some circumstances, a feature that worries homeowners.
What should happen next — technical and policy recommendations
- Immediate public release of the most recent, method-level fish tissue results for Benner Spring trout (including limits of detection, target congeners, sample dates and statistical summaries). Independent confirmation (third-party laboratory or university partner) would strengthen public confidence.
- Institute a long-term fish-tissue monitoring plan with clear action triggers tied to the Great Lakes Consortium or comparable health-protective thresholds. Make sampling and analysis schedule public and consistent (seasonal and multi-year cadence).
- Commission and DEP should publish a hatchery-scale engineering assessment that evaluates treatment options (e.g., full-scale granular activated carbon, ion-exchange systems, membrane filtration or staged treatment trains) for Benner Spring influent and effluent, with cost estimates, funding sources and timelines.
- Accelerate source characterization around the airport and High Tech Road using targeted tracer studies, deeper monitoring wells and compound-specific forensic approaches to apportion contributions among potential sources.
- Commit to a public health plan for affected residents that includes long-term monitoring, transparent reporting of PFAS blood-serum results (with appropriate medical counseling), and clarity on who pays for maintenance, replacement and replacement of POETs and eventual connection to public water if feasible.
- Create an independent community advisory panel that includes technical experts, local residents and agency representatives to review data, vet remediation alternatives and advise on risk communication.
Broader context: why Benner Spring matters beyond Centre County
The Benner Township case is a local example of a national pattern: airports, military facilities and industrial sites that historically used AFFF are recurring PFAS hotspots. Across the U.S. states and tribes are wrestling with how to set fish-tissue advisory values, how to treat contaminated water at different scales, and how to hold manufacturers and other responsible parties to account. Pennsylvania’s adoption of more protective drinking-water limits for some PFAS and its use of the Great Lakes Consortium framework for fish tissue show the state is moving toward more conservative public-health protection — but the patchwork of advisories and the variety of PFAS chemistries complicate straightforward answers.The Benner Spring hatchery is also operationally important: it supplies trout for counties beyond Centre County, and the Fish and Boat Commission’s stocking logistics, once disrupted, ripple into recreational opportunities and local economies tied to angling. That reality increases pressure to find technically sound but timely remediation measures that protect public health without unnecessarily curtailing angling resources.
Conclusion — measured reassurance, not a final verdict
State agencies and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission have taken immediate, defensible steps: DEP’s POET installations and ongoing monitoring reduced direct potable-water exposure; Penn State’s consent order commits institutional resources to investigation and remediation; the Commission says fish testing meets advisory levels and continues to monitor source and discharge points. Those are important and necessary actions that reduce acute exposure risk and create a framework for remediation. (pa.gov)Yet the technical record still contains critical gaps that require rapid closure: public, method-specific fish-tissue data for Benner Spring trout; a hatchery-scale treatment plan if needed; and a clear, enforceable long-term funding and liability arrangement so residents and the public are not left bearing maintenance costs or deferred cleanup obligations. Given PFAS’ persistence and potential for bioaccumulation, the prudent path is a conservative, transparent program of tissue monitoring, rigorous engineering assessment and accountable remediation — not a one-time assurance. The Commission’s current statement that fish are safe to consume reflects present testing, but it should be viewed as an interim finding that must be backed by regular data release and independent verification over time. (pa.gov)
Pennsylvania’s Benner Township response can become a model for other jurisdictions or an example of procedural shortfalls. The difference will come down to data transparency, engineering rigor, funding durability and community engagement. Anglers, homeowners, and institutional stakeholders all deserve a clear timetable and accessible evidence showing that fish, water and public health are protected not just today but decades from now.
Source: lehighvalleylive ‘They’re safe to consume’: PFAS contamination near Pennsylvania fish hatchery addressed
