Climate Change -Episodic Storms and Your Septic

Virginia Tech recently did a webinar addressing thestrategies for preparing your septic system for storms and flooding. The climate is changing. We’re not going to be able to stop it, so we have to be prepared for the future that is going to arrive. There have always been great storms, but they are forecast to become more frequent and intense.

According to Phillip Brown, professor at Virginia Tech the 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature that we’ve experienced since the industrial age has produced a 7% increase in the moisture in the atmosphere. More moisture brings more intense rainstorms. In addition, the likelihood of flooding has increased. Sea level is 8-9 inches higher than it was in 1880 and rising faster than in the past. In 2022 sea level was 4 inches higher than it was in 1993. Higher sea level allows storms to push further inland. More intense storms bring more frequent flooding to inland areas.

Locally (here in Prince William County Virginia), rainfall averages approximately 44 inches per year, but varies from year to year.  Climate forecasts are for our region to get wetter with more intense rainstorms and droughts to get more severe. (ICPRB). The relationship between climate change and flooding is complex. Shoreline flooding is the result of land subsidence, sea level rise, building in the flood plain and storm surge. The most well-established connection between climate change and inland flooding is that more warming leads to more intense rainfall, which in turn increases flood severity in the inland areas. Recent data shows that inland flooding in Prince William County has increased. We can assume that the flood is coming.

According to Dr. Brown, septic failure can contaminate groundwater impacting your well and your neighbors, and bring diseases into the home. Failed septic systems can release excessive nutrients into waterway resulting in algal blooms and fish kills. Also, failed septic systems can result in sewage backing up into your house. The best way to make sure your septic system survives a flood or excessive rain event is to maintain the system. First and foremost, is to pump your septic tank every 2-3 years. I do not care what the regulations say. PUMP IT. As a tank fills with solids over the years, the retention time falls and the open space that usually exists in a tank is smaller. You need the about 100- 200 gallons of open space a regularly pumped tank has.

Make sure that the drain field has good grass and ground cover. Finally, make sure that the manhole covers are sound and secure. This is to prevent anyone from falling in and keeping some of the flood waters out.

Just before a storm, make sure any drainage ditches are clear and the water drains away from the house and the septic system. Many septic systems do not operate on gravity and need pumps to move the effluent from the septic tank to the drain field. Alternative systems may have many other components like blowers, filters that require electricity to operate. If you experience flooding cut the breakers and stop using anything but minimal water. With a low flow toilet, you have days of flushing in the available space in your septic tank. That, however, means that you cannot let any other water down the drain until the system is up and running again.

After flood waters recede septic systems should not be used immediately. Drain fields will not work until underground water has receded and the soil has dried out. Whenever the water table is high or your septic drain field has been flooded, there is a risk that sewage will back up into your home due to the water pressure from the flooded drain field. Though septic lines may have broken during the flood it is more likely that the lines were just submerged.

The only way to prevent a flooded system from backing up is to relieve pressure on the system by using it less- so do not allow your tank to pump or drain to the drain field until the soils dry out. Basically, there is nothing you can do but wait, do not use the system if the soil is saturated and flooded. The wastewater will not be treated and will become a source of pollution, if it does not back up into your house, it will bubble up into your yard. Conserve water as much as possible while the system restores itself and the water table fails.

Do not return to your home until flood waters have receded. If there was significant flooding in your yard, water will have flooded into your septic tank through the top. The tops of septic tanks are not water tight even with good manhole covers. Flood waters entering the septic tank will have lifted the floating crust of fats and grease in the septic tank. Some of this scum may have floated and/or partially plugged the outlet tee. If the septic system backs up into the house check the tank first for outlet blockage. Remember, that septic tanks can be dangerous, methane from the bacterial digestion of waste and lack of oxygen can overwhelm you. Hire someone with the right tools to clear your outlet tee.

Do not pump out the septic tank while the soil is still saturated or right before a storm hits. Pumping out a tank that is in saturated soil (or soon to be saturated soil) may cause it to “pop out” of the ground. (Likewise, recently installed systems may “pop out” of the ground more readily than older systems because the soil has not had enough time to settle and compact.) If the tank pops out, it will pull and damage all the piping and connections. The system will have to be rebuilt.

Call a septic service company (not just a tank pumping company) and schedule an appointment in a few days. Do not use the septic system for a few days (I know) have the service company clear any outlet blockage, or blockage to the drain field, check pumps and valves and partially pump down the tank if your soils are not dry enough or fully pump the tank if the soil has drained enough. The available volume in the tank will give you several days of plumbing use if you conserve water to allow your drain field to recover. Go easy the septic system operates on the principals of settling, bacterial digestion, and soil filtration all gentle and slow natural processes that have been battered by the storm.

If your yard is unlikely to flood, even with catastrophic amounts of rain. (My house and septic sit about 20 feet above the rest of the yard.) You still should conserve water until your septic system dries out.

PFAS in Biosolids

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) do not occur in nature, they are an entirely synthetic substance. Yet, most people in the United States have been exposed to PFAS, and have PFAS in their blood, especially perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). 

There are thousands of PFAS chemicals, and they are found in many different consumer, commercial, and industrial products. Various PFAS chemicals have been widely used for over 80 years mainly for their ability to repel oil, grease, water, and heat. PFOS and PFOA found in Scotch Guard and in Teflon and traditional Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) - the foam used to fight aviation and other chemical fires -were the first to become widely commercially successful.

But PFAS use has continued to grow. It is widely used in consumer products. Spray coatings to cans and food packaging, flame retardants, waterproof coatings and on and on. PFAS are resistant to degradation and because they are so soluble in water simply flow through the wastewater treatment plant or septic leach field. In this way PFAS ends up in the sewage sludge also called biosolids and effluent returned in rivers.

Though the terms “biosolids” and “sewage sludge” are often used interchangeably by the public, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) typically uses the term “biosolids” to mean sewage sludge that has been treated to meet the requirements in Part 503 and is intended to be applied to land as a soil amendment or fertilizer. Biosolids may contain PFAS (and other contaminants) that wastewater treatment plants receive from industrial facilities and homes.

Biosolids were used as a cheap fertilizer and PFAS entered the food supply picked up by crops and grazing animals. The reach and spread of PFAS was increased because effluent from wastewater treatment is released to rivers and used as source water for drinking water. Out it went to rivers and streams ultimately to the oceans. Fish and seafood were also exposed to PFAS through the wastewater effluent as were we. According to Fairfax Water diet is responsible for 66 %-72 % of exposures to PFOA and PFOS (the two chemicals that have been most widely studied) in people. 

On April 10th 2024 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the national primary drinking water standards for six types of PFAS. Also in April 2024 EPA finalized a rule to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund. 

This is a huge problem. Under Superfund all parties are jointly and severally liable for contamination. For decades, encouraged the land application of biosolids. Sludge intended for land application generated by water treatment plants is regulated under the Biosolids Rule (part of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987. That rule used a sample extraction method for chemical analysis to look for contaminants listed in the Land Disposal Restrictions of RCRA. If those contaminants were not present the biosolid was classified as non-hazardous and can be disposed at a municipal landfill or land applied, but it only looked for a limited number of potential contaminants.

U.S. EPA regulations limit metals and pathogens in biosolids intended for land applications, but no organic contaminants are currently regulated under 40 CFR Part 503 Rule created in 1989 and still in effect today. It categorizes Biosolids as Class A or B, depending on the level of fecal coliform and salmonella bacteria in the material and restricts the use based on classification. There turns out to be many more contaminants in sewage sludge. Over the years controversy associated with potential impacts of Biosolids and the land disposal or reuse of Class B and even Class A Biosolids have grown.

The presence of other emerging contaminants in the Biosolids has not been tracked, but has become an emerging area of concern. Previously, research at the University of Virginia found that organic chemicals persist in Biosolids and can be introduced into the food chain. Land application of biosolids is a widespread practice across the US and remains an approved method by the US EPA.

In Maine they had been spreading biosolids on its farms and fields since it was first allowed. Its application on farms had been seen as an inexpensive way to fertilize. Unfortunately, the biosolids became contaminated with PFAS from both residential and industrial wastewater sent to the wastewater treatment plants. Biosolids were land applied and buried in landfills. Animals grazed on the land, food grown on the land picked up some of the PFAS and passed traces into food. PFAS also leached from the land and landfills into groundwater. People passed it onto other wastewater treatment plants and the circle widened.

At last report the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had found more than 70 PFAS-contaminated farms, a handful of which have had to cease all food production. In 2022, Maine became the first state to ban land application of biosolids and the sale of compost containing biosolids, but not before the farms had to stop producing food. The EPA is currently engaged in characterizing the biosolids. (EPA does not actually do any scientific work, it funds it). PFAS do not easily degrade and can bioaccumulate – or build up – in the environment and the human body over time resulting in potential adverse health impacts. Given their persistence and potential health impacts, it is important to understand how PFAS may impact our food system and people living in agricultural areas so EPA can develop strategies to reduce and prevent these exposures

Using EPA’s funding, research teams will investigate topics including how PFAS accumulates in crops and livestock; the effects of biosolids, compost and irrigation water on PFAS plant uptake and accumulation; and strategies to reduce the risks of PFAS contamination in the food supply. The following institutions have received grant awards for research:

• Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan - Comprehensive Evaluation of Fate, Transport, Bioaccumulation and Management Solution of PFAS on a Crop and Livestock Farm that Received Biosolids.

• Passamaquoddy Tribe, Sipayik Environmental Department, Pleasant Point, Maine - PFAS Accumulation in Finfish and Shellfish Species within the Coastal and Inland Waters of the Peskotomuhkati (Passamaquoddy) Homelands.

• Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - Investigating the Effects of Irrigation Water, Compost and Biosolid Qualities on PFAS Uptake by Edible Crops in Urban Gardens and Farms.
• Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas - PFAS-MAPS: PFAS Mitigation and Monitoring in Amended Plant Systems.

• Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas - Evaluating and Mitigating Bioaccumulation of PFAS in Plant, Mammalian and Aquaculture Systems.

• University at Albany, State University of New York Albany, New York - Practical Management of PFAS Contaminated Agricultural Soil Using an Innovative Platform Integrating Experimental Research and Machine Learning Approaches.

• University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois - Plant Uptake and Mitigation of PFAS Associated with Sewage Effluent and Biosolids Application in Tile-Drained Field.

• University of Maine, Orono, Maine - Developing Integrated Mitigation Strategies to Help Farmers Reduce PFAS Risks in Forage and Livestock Systems.

• University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah - PFAS in Land-applied Biosolids in Agricultural Settings: A Mechanistic Understanding on Fate and Mitigation.

• University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia - Novel, Bio-enabled Strategies to Prevent Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Accumulation in Crops and Food Webs.

 It is estimated that the United States generates almost 6 million metric tons of biosolids each year slightly more than half is land applied for agriculture as a soil amendment and the rest is land filled. The United States has been land applying these biosolids for decades.

EPA bans TCE and Phases out PERC

On Monday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the latest risk management rules for trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) . The final EPA rules bans all uses of TCE, all consumer uses and many commercial uses of PCE, require worker protections for all remaining uses under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

TCE is an extremely toxic chemical known to cause liver cancer, kidney cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. TCE also causes damage to the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, immune system, reproductive organs, and fetal heart defects. These risks are present even at very small concentrations. Under today’s rule, all uses of TCE will be banned over time (with the vast majority of identified risks eliminated within one year), and safer alternatives are readily available for the majority of uses.

PCE is known to cause liver, kidney, brain and testicular cancer, as well as damage to the kidney, liver and immune system, neurotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity. Today’s final rule will better protect people from these risks by banning manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce of PCE for all consumer uses and many commercial uses, while allowing some workplace uses to continue only where robust workplace controls can be implemented.

PCE and TCE are both nonflammable chlorinated solvents that are volatile organic compounds. PCE can biodegrade into TCE, and PCE may contain trace amounts of TCE as an impurity or a contaminant. The chemicals can often serve as alternatives for each other. For several uses of TCE that will be totally prohibited, there is an analogous use of PCE that can continue safely in perpetuity under workplace controls. Some examples of uses that will be prohibited under the TCE rule, but will continue under the PCE rule include: industrial and commercial use as an energized electrical cleaner, in laboratory use for asphalt testing and recovery, use to make refrigerants and other chemicals, and for vapor degreasing. 

EPA had previously banned the use of TCE in dry cleaning. Though TCE was introduced as a dry cleaning solvent in the United States in 1930, it was never widely used for that purpose.  TCE was found to cause the bleeding of some acetate dyes at temperatures above 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Instead it was widely used as a dry-side pre-cleaning or spotting agent and in water repellent agents. Nothing removes lipstick from silk like a dab of TCE and it was the principle ingredient in various spot removers.

There have been several well documented cases of health impacts from TCE contamination. It is truly tragic that a cancer cluster among children in Woburn,  MA over 40 years ago became  a crusade by one of the mothers to keep any more children like her son from dying from cancer caused by toxic chemicals. Camp Lejeune lawsuit for injuries, birth defects and deaths from water contamination in the water supply at the Marine Corp base is the most famous thanks in a large part to the unrelenting advertising by personal injury lawyers. In case you don't know what that is about, the story began in 1980.

At that time when in compliance with brand new regulations from the young U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PA, the base began testing the water for trihalomehtanes. That same year, a laboratory from the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency began finding contamination from halogenated hydrocarbons in the water. In March 1981 one of the lab's reports, which was delivered to U.S. Marine officials, informed them that the drinking water was highly contaminated with other chlorinated hydrocarbons (solvents).

Possible sources of the contamination were identified as solvents from a nearby, off-base dry cleaning company, from on-base units using solvent to degrease motors and other military equipment, and leaks from underground fuel storage tanks.

In 1982 the USMC hired a private company, Grainger Laboratories, to examine the problem. They provided the base commander with a report showing that the drinking water wells supplying water for the base were contaminated with PCE and TCE, the solvents used in drycleaning and equipment maintenance. The contractor delivered repeated warnings to base officials and was fired after delivering written warnings in December 1982, March 1983, and September 1983.

In a spring 1983 report to the EPA, Lejeune officials stated that there were no environmental problems at the base- they knowingly lied. In June 1983, North Carolina's water supply agency asked Lejeune officials for the lab’s reports on the water testing. Marine officials declined to provide the reports to the state agency.

In July 1984, a different company contracted by the U.S. EPA under the Superfund review of Lejeune and other military sites found benzene in the base's water, along with PCE and TCE. Marine officials shut down one of the contaminated wells at Camp Legeune in November 1984 and the others in early 1985. The Marines notified North Carolina of the contamination in December 1984. At this time the Marines did not disclose that benzene had been discovered in the water and stated to the media that the EPA did not find unacceptable levels of PCE and TCE. Ultimately, it all came out as it always does. 

Another instance  is what happened in Sterling, Virginia. The short story is that for twenty or thirty years homeowners in that community in in Loudoun County were drinking water contaminated with TCE and its degradation products. The homes had been built on and old landfill and back in 1988 the Loudoun County Department of Health and the EPA had found traces of TCE, its degradation products and pesticides in three residential wells, but because the contamination was below the regulated maximum contaminant level (MCL) no further investigation was performed. Apparently, the oddity of finding a solvent in groundwater in a residential community did not immediately prompt further investigation. The water was within safe limits and thus was fine.

However, the water in the neighborhood was not fine. In 2005, 68 more wells (in the community) were tested by the Health Department. “Forty-five wells tested positive for TCE; 17 of these wells contained concentration of TCE above the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5 micrograms per liter (mcg/L) while 28 wells contained TCE, but below the MCL.”  The site was declared a CERCLA (Superfund) site in 2008. Between 1988 and 2005 no testing was done on the individual homeowner wells. The water was consumed by the young and old and the homes were bought and sold. If your home had been declared within a Superfund site, it is very likely that the value of the home would be impacted.

Everything that is known about the groundwater in Prince William County is because a study of the groundwater was performed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1991 to study the extent of TCE contamination from the Superfund site in Manassas. They did not test every inch of the county nor look for other contaminants, but felt that they were able to find the extent of the TCE contamination plume.

To be prudent and smart you need to test a well for likely sources of contamination. When I was working as an Environmental Engineer, the biggest challenge was to adequately research the history of a property and then test the soil and groundwater for contamination in the areas most likely to be contaminated. Testing is expensive, so it is virtually impossible to fully test soil and groundwater for everything and it is very easy to miss the contamination if the study is not planned properly and you do not understand the geology. Knowing the history of an area is the only shot you have of identifying likely contaminants.

River Flows hit all time low Around the World

In October the  World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released their report for worldwide water resources for 2023. The year 2023 marked the driest year for global rivers in over three decades, signaling critical changes in water availability in an era of growing demand.

The Key messages of the report:

• 2023 was driest year for global rivers in 33 years
• Glaciers suffer largest mass loss in 50 years
• Climate change appears to be making the hydrological cycle more erratic
• WMO highlights that only north America and Europe (and a few other places like Israel) have extensive monitoring networks that share data. WMO calls for better monitoring and data sharing.

WMP report that the last five years have had widespread below-normal conditions for river flows, and subsequently reservoir inflows have also been below normal. This reduces the amount of water available for communities, hydropower, agriculture and ecosystems, further stressing global water supplies, according to the State of Global Water Resources report.

Glaciers suffered the largest mass loss ever registered in the last five decades. 2023 is the second consecutive year in which all regions in the world with glaciers reported ice loss.

With 2023 being the hottest year on record (until 2024 data is in), elevated temperatures and widespread dry conditions contributed to prolonged droughts. But there were also a significant number of floods around the world. The extreme hydrological events were influenced by naturally occurring climate conditions – the transition from La Niña to El Niño in mid-2023 – as well as human induced climate change.

from State of Global Water Resources report.

“Water is the canary in the coalmine of climate change. We receive distress signals in the form of increasingly extreme rainfall, floods and droughts which wreak a heavy toll on lives, ecosystems and economies. Melting ice and glaciers threaten long-term water security for many millions of people. And yet we are not taking the necessary urgent action,” said WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo.

“As a result of rising temperatures, the hydrological cycle has accelerated. It has also become more erratic and unpredictable, and we are facing growing problems of either too much or too little water. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture which is conducive to heavy rainfall. More rapid evaporation and drying of soils worsen drought conditions,” she said.

“And yet, far too little is known about the true state of the world’s freshwater resources. We cannot manage what we do not measure. This report seeks to contribute to improved monitoring, data-sharing, cross-border collaboration and assessments,” said Celeste Saulo. “This is urgently needed.”

The State of Global Water Resources report series offers a comprehensive and consistent overview of what we know of water resources worldwide. It is based on input from dozens of National Meteorological and Hydrological Services and other organizations and experts. This was the third year for the State of the Global Water Resources report,  and is the most comprehensive to date, with new information on lake and reservoir volumes, soil moisture data, and more details on glaciers and snow water equivalent. So much more needs to be done. 

Because some of the most available monitoring data is from North America and Europe those areas had more detailed information and insight. North America, for instance, was affected by the 2020–2023 North American drought, but is also subject to groundwater depletion, in particular in California and in the High Plains. The average groundwater level in 2023 was below normal or much below normal in a high proportion of wells over a large part of North America, in particular in the western and midwestern United States,

High precipitation directly contributes to an increase in groundwater levels through the recharge of aquifers. High precipitation also tends to reduce groundwater abstraction, as more surface water is available, less irrigation (or lawn watering) is necessary and the soil moisture is higher, which indirectly contributes to an increase in groundwater levels.

Data were collected over the period covering the last 20 years, from 2004 to 2023.  It is not straightforward to identify the reasons behind these regional trends, because groundwater is under the influence of climatic variables and other anthropogenic variables, such as abstraction and land use/ land cover changes. Some aquifers have a rapid response time between the change in the boundary conditions (such as a groundwater recharge) and the corresponding change in groundwater level, however the response time in other aquifers can be several years or decades long. It is difficult to utilize general observations with this type of time lag to for policy and manage resources. Nonetheless, it needs to be done.

Currently, 3.6 billion people face inadequate access to water at least a month per year and this is expected to increase to more than 5 billion by 2050, according to UN Water.  We do not have enough monitoring here  in the United States to adequately understand and manage our water resources. We are merely responsive to shortages not proactive. The Prince William County Board of Supervisors recently took the first step locally.

At the request of the Sustainability Commission, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors (Board) accepted the Sustainability Commission Resolution Number (Res. No.) 24-013 to direct County staff to assess the sustainability of the County’s groundwater supply related to climate change, urbanization, and other stressors.

Public Works staff worked with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Virginia Tech’s Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory (VT/OWML) to develop the scope of the study. A joint proposal was received from the USGS and VT/OWML with a total cost of $480,000, the request for $500,000 includes any contingency costs that may arise above this cost proposal.

In November, the Prince William  Board of County Supervisors voted to transfer - $500,000 from Contingency to the Department of Public Works for a countywide Groundwater Study.  

PFAS in Wells

 Andrea K. Tokranov et al, Prediction of Groundwater PFAS Occurrence at Drinking Water Supply Depths in the United States. Science 386, 748-755 (2024). DOI:10.1126/science.ado6638

In the research study cited above published at the end of October 2024, the U.S Geological Survey estimated that approximately 71 to95 million people in the Lower 48 states – more than 20% of the country’s population – may obtain their drinking water from groundwater that contains detectable concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, for their drinking water supplies. 

PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals used in a wide variety of common applications, from the linings of fast-food boxes and non-stick cookware to fire-fighting foams and other purposes. This category of chemical has been widely used for over 80 years mainly for their ability to repel oil, grease, water, and heat. PFOS and PFOA found in Scotch Guard and an ingredient in Teflon and traditional Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) - the Class B firefighting foam used to fight aviation and other chemical fires -were the first to become widely commercially successful.

PFAS are commonly called “forever chemicals” because many of them do not easily break down and can build up over time, making them a concern for drinking water quality. Exposure to certain PFAS may lead to adverse health risks in people, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) do not occur in nature, they are an entirely synthetic substance. Yet, most people in the United States have been exposed to PFAS and have PFAS in their blood, especially perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).  Last year EPA release the final drinking water regulation for six PFAS including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, commonly known as GenX Chemicals), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).

For this study, the USGS scientists built a predictive model of PFAS occurrence in groundwater at the depths of drinking water supplies across the continental United States, before any treatment. They trained the model on groundwater samples collected by the US Geological Survey (USGS) from 2019-2022 from three types of well networks: (i) public supply networks spanning principal aquifers,  (ii) observation networks targeting urban and agricultural land uses, and (iii) domestic supply well networks in principal aquifers. 

The team then conducted extensive PFAS source mapping, and the final model included 25 potential PFAS sources such as airports, metal coating facilities, plastics and resins facilities, printing facilities, fire training areas, chemical manufacturing facilities, and national defense sites, among many others. At least one PFAS out of the 24 individual PFAS analyzed was detected in 37% (n = 1238) of the groundwater samples analyzed for the model training dataset.  Observation wells had the highest detection frequency of any PFAS at 60% (n = 257), followed by production (public supply) wells (42%, n = 539); miscellaneous, other, and irrigation wells (29%, n = 59); and domestic wells (17%, n = 383). By individual compound, the highest detection frequencies were observed for perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS; 24.6%), PFOS (24.3%), PFOA (24.1%), and perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS; 23.7%). All four compounds are included in the EPA’s PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation rulemaking (6).  

“This study’s findings indicate widespread PFAS contamination in groundwater that is used for public and private drinking water supplies in the U.S.,” said Andrea Tokranov, USGS research hydrologist and lead author of this study. “This new predictive model can help prioritize areas for future sampling to help ensure people aren’t unknowingly drinking contaminated water. This is especially important for private well users, who may not have information on water quality in their region and may not have the same access to testing and treatment that public water suppliers do.”

My corner of Prince William County

Mankind Driving Global Methane Emissions

R B Jackson and M Saunois and A Martinez and J G Canadell and X Yu and M Li and B Poulter and P A Raymond and P Regnier and P Ciais and S J Davis and P K Patra, Human activities now fuel two-thirds of global methane emissions, Environmental Research Letters, September 2024, IOP Volume 19 , 10.1088/1748-9326/ad6463, https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad6463

A recent study (cited above) found that Mankind is responsible for two-thirds of global methane emissions. The research article cited above is from Rob Jackson and the Global Carbon Project. Rob Jackson is Stanford’s Michelle and Kevin Douglas Provostial Professor. Dr. Jackson and his lab examine the many ways people affect the Earth.  They're currently examining the effects of climate change and droughts on forest and grassland ecosystems. They are also working to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Global Carbon Project (globalcarbonproject.org), which Dr. Jackson chairs. The Global Carbon Project also updates its Global Methane Budget (GMB) every few years. I have excerpted sections of the article.

Global average surface temperatures have reached another  all-time high in 2023 at 1.45 ± 0.12 °C above pre-industrial levels (WMO 2024). Worsened by climate change-induced drought, Canadian wildfires burned 18.5 million hectares, nearly three-times more land area than in any previous year on record (NRC 2023). Parts of the Amazon River reached their lowest levels in 120 years of data-keeping (Rodrigues 2023). The world has reached the threshold of a 1.5 °C increase in global average surface temperature and is only beginning to experience the full consequences.

The amount of methane (CH4) in Earth’s atmosphere continues to rise. Concentrations of methane are now about 2.5 times as much as was in the atmosphere in the 1850s. Methane is the second most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide ( CO2). Despite an increasing policy focus on methane as a potent greenhouse gas, methane emissions continue to rise (as do carbon emissions). Global anthropogenic methane emissions are now 15%–20% higher than they were 2000–2002. Global average methane concentrations reached 1.9 parts per million (ppm) in January of 2024 (Lan et al 2024). Annual increases in methane are also accelerating for reasons that are not fully understood and debated. 

Some gases are more effective than others at making the planet warmer and "thickening the Earth's atmospheric blanket." For each greenhouse gas, a Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, typically a 100-year time horizon, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). Gases with a higher GWP absorb more energy, per ton emitted, than gases with a lower GWP, and thus contribute more to warming Earth. Thus, though methane lasts much less than 100 years in the atmosphere, it is described in terms of the 100 years by it’s Global Warming Potential.

Methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 is 28 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period. Over a 20-year period, it is 80 times more potent at warming than carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are currently 490 ppm 250 times higher than methane, so even at the higher Global Warming Potential it is still smaller than the impact from CO2. Since the signing of the Paris Climate Accord, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise. We are further from net zero emissions than we were in 2015.

from EPA

Methane comes from both natural and anthropogenic sources. Total global methane sources, both natural and anthropogenic, both rose. The largest natural sources are wetlands and freshwater lakes, rivers, and ponds where methane-emitting bacteria thrive. Human activities that release methane include biofuel and fossil fuel burning, agriculture, and waste (landfills).

Dr. Jackson and his team performed both a bottom-up estimate and a top-down estimate using monitoring equipment (both satellite and ground-based) to identify the total and sources of methane. The methods proposed slightly different numbers. The absolute concentration of methane in the atmosphere was determined by the top-down method.

Dr. Jackson et al states that “Recent analyses suggest that methane mitigation may be cheaper than CO2 mitigation for a comparable climate benefit. Better quantification and attribution of methane sources are needed to support such mitigation efforts locally, regionally, and globally.” The study found that direct anthropogenic methane emissions were responsible for 65% of all methane released each year. It is even higher if land use changes are considered.

Natural sources of methane are likely to increase with increasing temperatures. Methane removal techniques is still in its infancy. So, we are left with mitigation for now. According to the last Global Methane Budget: Wetlands contributed 30% of global methane emissions, with oil, gas, and coal activities accounting for 20%. Agriculture, including enteric fermentation (cow belching), manure management, and rice cultivation, made up 24% of emissions, and landfill gas contributed 11%. Sixty-four percent of methane emissions came from the tropical regions of South America, Asia, and Africa, with temperate regions accounting for 32% and the Arctic contributing 4%.

Methane emissions rose most sharply in Africa and the Middle East; China; and South Asia and Oceania. Each of these three regions increased emissions by an estimated 10 to 15 million tons per year during the study period. The United States followed behind, increasing methane emissions by 4.5 million tons, mostly due to more natural gas drilling, distribution and consumption. Europe was the only region where methane emissions decreased over the study period, attributed to reductions chemical manufacturing and growing food more efficiently with better management of manure and landfills.

According to Dr. Jackson and his colleagues, curbing methane emissions will require reducing fossil fuel use and controlling fugitive emissions such as leaks from pipelines and wells, as well as changes to the way we feed cattle, grow rice and eat. “We’ll need to eat less meat and reduce emissions associated with cattle and rice farming,” Dr. Jackson said, “and replace oil and natural gas in our cars and homes.”

 

Virginia is Back in RGGI

Last week, Circuit Judge C. Randall Lowe ruled that governors and their agencies “may only do that which is permitted by statute. … As such, the only body with the authority to repeal the RGGI Regulation would be the General Assembly…Therefore, the court finds that the attempted repeal of the RGGI Regulation is unlawful, and thereby null and void.”

On July 10, 2020, Virginia formally adopted the CO2 Budget Trading Program (Part VII of 9VAC5-140) for the power sector to implement a carbon emissions trading and reduction program as authorized by the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act (Article 4 of Chapter 1219 of the 2020 Acts of Assembly). The rule allowed for full participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and make emissions allowances available for sale through an auction program that power producers use for compliance purposes. Proceeds from allowance sales are returned to Virginia to fund grants for climate mitigation and resilience programs in certain communities. 

RGGI is a carbon-trading/ cap program that is already in place in ten New England states. The RGGI reduces carbon emissions from fuel fired power plants by putting a price on carbon. At the time that then Governor Northam signed the bill into law his administration stated that “joining RGGI will create nearly $100 million in revenue each year.” This money does not appear out of thin air, the actual source of the RGGI revenue will be increased power rates since the cost of the carbon allowances is part of the rate base for electricity and will be passed onto consumers. 

With the growth of data center power use, the increase in fees and thus funding will probably be higher. Because of the captive nature of their ratepayers, the power-generators can and will fully pass on costs to consumers. Under the law signed by Governor Northam, RGGI proceeds go to grants programs for some communities and not to rebates to all rate payers.  RGGI fails to achieve its goal to reduce carbon emission as a carbon “cap-and-trade” system because it lacks any incentive for power-generators to actually reduce carbon emissions. Meanwhile demand for more and more electricity in Virginia is growing at an unprecedented rate due to data centers. 

Other states participating in the RGGI program designed their systems to provide rebates to their ratepayers, in Virginia the program operates as a hidden tax (and rather inefficient way to do it) on consumers and businesses in which the funds are disbursed through grant programs. Virginia consumers were originally told that the program would not increase their energy bills, but this is untrue. This is an inefficient method to tax and distribute funds for the benefit of some Virginians without achieving the intended greenhouse gas emission goal.

The compliance costs of RGGI program participation will be submitted by Dominion Energy and approved by the SCC, as they have in the past, and will impact electricity rates.  These costs will be directly related to the cost of allowances, along with other charges allowed under current law and regulations. Allowance prices have varied significantly in the past, and future prices will continue to vary.  Four other RGGI participating states provide electric bill assistance to customers using some of their auction proceeds which Virginia does not. The RGGI saves some Virginians money by ensuring  that all Virginians pay higher electric rates. 

Maybe the data centers should pay all of the RGGI fees since they are the reason Virginia cannot reduce it’s emissions. Buried in the Dominion Energy Integrated resource plan IRP is the fact that the carbon intensity of the Virginia electric grid increased 37% from 2023 to 2024. Though Dominion’s IRP attributes the increase in carbon intensity to the increase in use of natural gas, that is not completely true. The generation mix changed from 2023 to 2024 to halve the purchased power and triple the coal generation. That would do it.

This is from an appendix in Dominion 2024 IRP