2024 Electric Reliability Assessment

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has released its 2024 Electric Reliability Assessment. NERC is a not-for-profit international regulatory authority with the mission to assure the reliability of the bulk power system in North America. NERC develops and enforces Reliability Standards; annually assesses seasonal and long-term reliability; monitors the bulk power system through system awareness; and educates, trains, and certifies industry personnel.  I have taken a few excerpts from the just released report below.

In the 2024 report, NERC finds that most of the North American bulk power system faces mounting resource adequacy challenges over the next 10 years as surging demand growth continues and thermal power generators announce plans for retirement.

New solar PV, battery, and hybrid resources continue to flood interconnection queues, but completion rates are lagging behind the need for new generation. Furthermore, the performance of these replacement resources is more variable and weather dependent than the generators they are replacing.

As a result, less overall capacity (dispatchable capacity in particular) is being added to the system than is needed to meet future demand. The trends point to critical reliability challenges facing the power industry: satisfying escalating energy growth, managing generator retirements, and accelerating resource and transmission development.

In the figure below areas categorized as High Risk (red) do not meet electricity reserve and adequacy criteria in the next five years. High-risk areas (red) are likely to experience a shortfall in electricity supplies at the peak of an average summer or winter season. Extreme weather, producing wide-area heat waves or deep-freeze events will pose an even greater threat to reliability. Elevated-Risk areas (orange) currently meet resource adequacy criteria, but analysis indicates that extreme weather conditions are likely to cause a shortfall in area reserves. Normal-Risk areas (turquoise) are expected to have sufficient resources under a broad range of assessed conditions.

New generation/ resource additions continue at a rapid pace, but fell short of industry’s projections from the previous report. Only batteries,  added more nameplate capacity than was reported in development last year.  Natural-gas-fired generators are an essential part of the bulk power system. They can ramp up and down to balance a more variable resource mix and are a dispatchable electricity supply for winter and times when wind and solar resources are less capable of providing power. Natural gas pipeline capacity additions over the past seven years are trending downward, and some areas could experience insufficient pipeline capacity for electric generation during peak periods.

Electricity peak demand forecasts over the 10-year assessment period continue to climb; demand growth is now higher than at any point in the past two decades. Increasing amounts of large commercial and industrial loads are connecting rapidly to the bulk power system. The size and speed with which data centers (including crypto and AI) can be constructed and connect to the grid has no historic precedent. This presents unique challenges for demand forecasting and planning for system behavior. Additionally, the continued adoption of electric vehicles and heat pumps is a substantial driver for demand.

Our region is PJM and we face challenges from the explosive growth in data center demand and adoption of electric vehicles and heat pumps.  PJM’s projections for generator additions in 2025 and 2026 are scaled back dramatically from the 2023 forecasts while demand forecasts continue to rise. The upward trend in demand growth and downward trend in resource additions create resource adequacy and system planning challenges for PJM as it manages generator deactivation requests from the aging fossil and nuclear fleet.

PFAS in Small Mouth Bass

 Blazer, V.S., Walsh, H.L., Smith, C.R. et al. Tissue distribution and temporal and spatial assessment of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) in the mid-Atlantic United States. Environ Sci Pollut Res 31, 59302–59319 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-35097-6

The article below is to a large extent excerpted from the research paper cited above and the USGS press release.

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.

PFAS are called “forever chemicals” as they do not easily breakdown, and so build up in the environment and in tissues, apparently both human and animal. Human exposure to PFAS has been linked to health issues, such as kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, developmental toxicity, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, and immune dysfunction. However, much less is known about the effects of PFAS on fish health and fish populations.

Fish and other aquatic organisms can ingest PFAS from water, and diet.  In 2013, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with state natural resource agencies in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, began monitoring smallmouth bass (SMB, Micropterus dolomieu) in response to fish mortalities, numerous types of skin lesions, intersex, and other signs of endocrine disruption and population declines (Blazer et al. 2007, 2010, 2020; Smith et al. 2015; Walsh et al. 2018, 2022; Keplinger et al. 2022). A suite of biological indicators and monthly surface water samples for analyses of pesticides, hormones, phytoestrogens, and pharmaceuticals were monitored at four sites (two in the Potomac River, Maryland, and West Virginia and two in the Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania).

Smallmouth bass are an economically important sportfish that have experienced disease outbreaks and populations declines in numerous Chesapeake Bay watersheds. PFAS may have adverse health impacts on smallmouth bass. Therefore, the goal of this study was to evaluate the concentration of PFAS in smallmouth bass tissue samples.

Adult smallmouth Bass were collected at ten sites between 2014 and 2021 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR), Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PA FBC), Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) and West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WV DNR). 

PFAS were not part of the analyte list; however, the researchers stored and archived the  plasma from four long-term monitoring sites. Four PFAS (PFOS, PFDA, PFUnA, PFDoA) were detected in every smallmouth bass plasma sample, and concentrations of PFOS were considerably higher than the other three compounds.

The sampled sites represented some area of urban, agricultural, and forested lands in and around the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The highest total plasma concentrations of PFAS were found in smallmouth bass collected from two sites. These two sites had the highest percentage of developed land and the greatest number of EPA-identified sources of PFAS (including military installations and airports). Intermediate PFAS concentrations were found at sites with agricultural land. The lowest PFAS concentrations were found at sites with the highest percentage of forested land.

The with the lowest concentrations of PFOS and total PFAS had the largest drainage areas (3150.6 to 2207.7 sq km), the lowest developed land cover (3.2–4.5%), moderate to low agricultural land cover, and low number of PFAS facilities.

PFAS were detected in the plasma of smallmouth bass at all sites, including sites with a low percentage of developed land and sites with a low number of PFAS sources. This suggests that PFAS may be widespread in Chesapeake Bay waters and in smallmouth bass.

Developed and agricultural land may be associated with PFAS in surface water, land application of biosolids and/or the food chain.

PFAS concentrations were low in the muscle tissue of smallmouth bass, even in fish that had high plasma concentrations. The low concentration of PFAS in muscles suggests a minimal risk of human exposure to PFAS from eating smallmouth bass.

Concentrations measured in blood and other organs may be associated with health effects observed in smallmouth bass populations and require further study.

JLARC on Data Centers

In 2023, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission directed staff to review the impacts of the data center industry in Virginia. Below are excerpts from the Commission’s recently released draft report .

Northern Virginia is the largest data center market in the world, constituting 13 % of all reported data center operational capacity globally and 25 % of capacity in the Americas. The data center industry is growing rapidly in Virginia, both in established markets and newer ones.

Just to give you a snapshot of Prince William County data center growth, currently there are 34 data centers in operation in Prince William County with an estimated square footage of around 10,400,000 square feet of space.  Currently under construction or development is an additional 59,000,000 square feet of data centers. This excludes the digital gateway project which would add more than 22,000,000 square feet of data centers.

from W Wright, Gainesville VA

Modern data centers consume substantially more energy than other types of commercial or industrial operations. Consequently, the data center industry boom in Virginia has substantially driven up energy demand in the state, and demand is forecast to continue growing for the foreseeable future. The state’s energy demand was essentially flat from 2006 to 2020 because, even though population increased, it was offset by energy efficiency improvements. However, an independent forecast commissioned by JLARC shows that unconstrained demand for power in Virginia would double within the next 10 years, with the data center industry being the main driver.

from JLARC report

JLARC found that a substantial amount of new power generation and transmission infrastructure will be needed in Virginia to meet this energy demand or even half of this unconstrained demand. Building enough infrastructure to meet energy demand will be very difficult to achieve and cannot be accomplished while meeting the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) requirements. We either must slow or limit the construction of data centers in Virginia or repeal the VCEA. You can’t do both that is a recipe for grid failure.

Building enough infrastructure to meet half of unconstrained energy demand would also be difficult. If VCEA requirements were not considered, the biggest challenge would be building new natural gas plants. New gas would need to be added at the rate of about one large 1,500 MW plant every two years for 15 consecutive years, to meet just half of the demand. To meet the VCEA requirements would require more wind, battery storage, and natural gas peaker plants than could conceivably be built over the period.

Data centers’ projected energy demand growth has raised concerns about whether enough infrastructure can be built to keep pace. Currently, PJM attempts to protect our regional grid reliability by requiring utilities to secure sufficient generation capacity plus a reserve margin, and the state requires utilities to develop plans that describe how generation capacity needs will be met. If utilities are unable to build enough new infrastructure to keep pace with demand, one of the main ways they can protect grid reliability is by delaying the addition of new large load customers until there is adequate generation and transmission capacity. Virginia will not be permitted to increase its dependency on imported power.

According to Dominion Energy and JLARC data centers’ increased energy demand will increase system costs for all customers, including non-data center customers, for several reasons. A large amount of new generation and transmission will need to be built that would not otherwise be built, creating fixed costs that utilities will need to recover. It will be difficult to supply enough energy to keep pace with growing data center demand, so energy prices are likely to increase for all customers. Neighboring states also are seeing a data center boom and legislative and regulatory pressure to close fossil fuel generation, they might not be able to continue to sell power to Virginia-sooner or later you run out of other people’s generation. Virginia currently gets more than 20% of its power from outside the state. Finally, if utilities remain reliant on importing power, they may not always be able to secure lower-cost power and will be more susceptible to spikes in energy market prices.

To protect the grid in times of high demand, due to weather or disruptions Data centers have not been willing to voluntarily reduce their power draw. No data centers in Virginia participates in Dominion Energy’s demand response program, in which organizations agree to reduce their power load if there is a shortage. Data center operators said that’s because they have no control over their customers’ power demands.

Public health impacts from data centers primarily comes from the emission of operating on-site backup generators. Data centers are mission-critical facilities as a result, to maintain operation during emergencies such as grid outages, Data centers require highly reliable backup power sources and use almost entirely diesel generators.  There is limited experience with cleaner backup alternatives that can provide comparable reliability in real-world settings, as highlighted by the U.S. Department of Energy in its recent recommendations regarding AI data center infrastructures. Consequently, data centers, including those newly built by major technology companies, primarily depend on on-site diesel generators for backup power. In northern Virginia (mostly in Loudoun, Prince William, and Fairfax), the number of permits for data center diesel generators has increased by about 70% since 2023 compared to the total number of permits issued between 2000 and 2022. Diesel generators are known to emit significant amounts of air pollutants and even hazardous emissions during operation. For example, they emit 200-600 times more NOx than new or controlled existing natural gas-fired power plants for each unit of electricity produced. The recommendations from JLARC are actually to increase operation of diesel generators.

from JLARC

However, data centers bring economic activity. Capital investment in Virginia data centers is substantial, exceeding $24 billion in FY23, and primarily consists of equipment purchases from Virginia-based and out-of-state companies. Data center investment represented 84 percent of the total capital investment across all economic development projects announced by the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) between FY22 and FY24. However, like capital investments made by other industries, only a portion of data center capital investment benefits the Virginia economy. The primary benefit to Virginia’s economy is related to data center construction, which comprises about 20 % of total data center capital investment. Virginia primarily benefits from data centers when we keep building. Virginia-based businesses performing key construction services such as clearing and grading sites, erecting steel frames, installing high voltage electrical equipment, installing industrial-scale cooling systems, and running miles of cable, conduit, and piping. Materials used in data center construction are often also sourced from Virginia businesses throughout the state. So, there is an incentive to build beyond any reasonable level.

Virginia’s data center tax incentives totaled about $928.6 million in savings in 2023. These tax incentives  went primarily to  Amazon Web Services, Google, Meta and Microsoft, according to JLARC. Local governments with data centers in their jurisdictions can collect substantial tax revenues from data centers who pay several types of local taxes, primarily business personal property and real property (real estate) taxes. The business property tax, in particular, can generate substantial revenue. A single data center typically has business personal property valued in the millions, a large portion of which is computer equipment that is typically replaced every five years.

from JLARC

JLARC Recommendations:

 RECOMMENDATION 1 The Virginia Economic Development Partnership should clarify in site characterization and development guidelines that potential data center sites are eligible for grants under the Virginia Business Ready Sites Program.

RECOMMENDATION 2 The General Assembly may wish to amend the Code of Virginia to clarify that electric utilities have the authority to delay, but not deny, service to customers when the addition of customer load cannot be supported by the transmission system or available generation capacity

RECOMMENDATION 3 The General Assembly may wish to amend the Code of Virginia to expand the Accelerated Renewable Buyers program, which allows large customers of energy utilities to claim credit for purchases of solar and wind energy to offset certain utility charges, to also allow customers to claim partial credit for purchases of capacity from battery energy storage systems based on the current PJM electric load carrying capacity rating.

RECOMMENDATION 4 The General Assembly may wish to amend the Code of Virginia to require that utilities establish a demand response program for large data center customers and to require that these customers participate in the program. (This unfortunately will have the potential to increase backup generator usage and significantly impact northern Virginia air quality during periods of use.) Diesel generators are known to emit significant amounts of air pollutants and even hazardous emissions during operation. This could effect public health in Northern VA.

RECOMMENDATION 5 The General Assembly may wish to amend the Code of Virginia to direct Dominion Energy to develop a plan for addressing the risk of generation and transmission infrastructure costs being stranded with existing customers and file that plan with the State Corporation Commission as part of its biennial rate review filing or as a separate filing. Dominion has already filed with the State Corporation Commission to recover exploratory and development cost for a modular nuclear project with Amazon ahead of a possibility of generating power.

RECOMMENDATION 6 The General Assembly may wish to amend the Code of Virginia to expressly authorize local governments to (i) require proposed data center developments to submit water use estimates and (ii) consider water use when making rezoning and special use permit decisions related to data center development.

RECOMMENDATION 7 The General Assembly may wish to amend the Code of Virginia to expressly authorize local governments to require sound modeling studies for data center development projects prior to project approval.

RECOMMENDATION 8 The General Assembly may wish to amend the Code of Virginia to expressly authorize local governments to establish and enforce maximum allowable sound levels for data center facilities, including (i) using alternative low frequency noise metrics and (ii) setting noise rules and enforcement mechanisms in their zoning ordinances, separate from existing noise ordinances.

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.”