Virginia water regulators begin process of identifying PFAS sources

PFAS, often used in water-resistant gear, also find their way into drinking water and human bodies. (Photo by CasarsaGuru via Getty Images)

Following a law the legislature passed this year, Virginia’s water regulators are beginning a process to identify sources of chemicals known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” which were found above regulatory limits in drinking water in 28 water systems across the state.

The systems include eight from Fauquier and Loudoun Counties, with a smattering of results from the rest of the state, including Fairfax County, the Hampton Roads region and Roanoke County in Southwest Virginia.

Combined, the systems serve about 2.29 million people, with the Loudoun and Faquier counties systems serving about 360,000. Six systems, consisting of the Loudoun Water Central System, and one in Newport News, Norfolk, Stafford County and Fairfax County, serve about 2.2 million people.

“A lot of this data has been publicly available for some time so there weren’t any big surprises,” said Carroll Courtenay, a staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “I’m glad to see that some water systems took advantage of self-reporting data to DEQ to make sure the PFAS assessment process is as comprehensive as possible.”

PFAS chemicals are found in several household items, including clothing and cookware. They’re used in  firefighting foam because of their tight chemical bond that repels liquid and quells heat. That bond also makes them incredibly difficult to break down once they’re in the environment.

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality became aware of the drinking water results following a transfer of reporting data from the Virginia Department of Health, as required by legislation from Sen. Jeremy McPike, D-Prince William, and Sen. Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke.

The transfer included results from past testing by VDH and results from a test called the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, or UCMR 5, and self reporting from Loudoun and Fauquier counties. 

Those results found the level of PFAS to be above the maximum contaminant levels to prevent death and reduce exposure for certain types of PFAS, which is 4 or 10 parts per trillion. One part per trillion is the equivalent of 1 drop of water in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

The findings from Fauquier County and Loudun were self-reported, which DEQ spokesperson Irina Calos said, “is the result of their proactive approach to sampling and voluntarily sharing the data.”

Ben Shoemaker, executive Director at Fauquier County Water and Sanitation Authority, said they conducted sampling at their 48 groundwater wells supplying their system to correct a lab issue with contamination. 

The testing method for PFAS is similar to other water sampling methods, but since the chemicals are pervasive, it’s easy for them to transfer from clothing and infiltrate samples, creating false positives.

“You always have to be careful sampling drinking water, for PFAS you have to be even more careful,” said Shoemaker. “There’s a whole set of guidelines out there.”

The sampling was also done to meet requirements for funding from class action lawsuits to deal with PFAS, Shoemaker said.  It cost about $500 per test, meaning it cost about $25,000 to test all their wells.

“Let’s just go sample everything we have,” Shoemaker said of his agency’s reasoning. “That way we’re not guessing, there’s no questions. We can find out what we got and we can deal with it.” 

In a similar sense, Loudoun Water, the provider for the Loudoun Water Central System, Beacon Hill-LCSA and Creighton Farms systems, has worked to understand their situation and provide information on their website for customers.

“We value coordination with our regional water community to improve our collective understanding of PFAS occurrence, identify sources and how to mitigate it,” said Sue Crosby, executive director of communications for Loudoun Water.

Now that the results have been revealed, the law from McPike and Rasoul now requires DEQ to evaluate “potential sources” and notify them to either self-report, self-report and monitor, or just monitor, Calos said, which could be done by relying on past information.

Sources of PFAS are typically thought to be manufacturing facilities that discharge them in their wastewater and landfills, from which the chemicals can leak without protections like liners.

DEQ could use a past voluntary survey they sent out in 2022 to identify PFAS sources, Calos acknowledged, but the 10% response rate, “was low, and the information…is dated.” Another potential source is the Danville Northside Wastewater Treatment plant, which the SELC and environmental advisory group Wild Virginia said is known to discharge PFAS.

“If in surface water, the sources could be anywhere upstream in the watershed, including discharges permitted by DEQ under the VPDES program and/or places where DEQ allows land application for sludge,” said David Sligh, conservation director of Wild Virginia. “If in groundwater, as is the case for the majority in this list, the source could be anything that happens on the land.” 

The difficulty for groundwater wells, Shoemaker said, is that the source could be biosolids spread on agricultural land as fertilizers or other activity. 

For example, an explosive car crash could have occurred on a property a decade ago and firefighting foam could’ve been used to squelch the fire. PFAS could leak  into one well but not another on the same property.

“The short answer (is) we don’t know,”  Shoemaker said about where the PFAS came from in Fauquier County water. He was surprised the initial results showed exceedances of the chemicals, since the area doesn’t have much industrial activity and is pretty rural.

The ubiquitous nature of PFAS chemicals is one reason lawmakers crafted the law to require DEQ to identify potential sources, and then prioritize requirements for reporting and monitoring. 

The PFAS Advisory Committee, created by the law and seen as a way to provide oversight of DEQ’s actions to address PFAS, is now determining the prioritization process for identifying sources. But environmental groups are concerned about their lack of participation so far in that process.

The committee is evaluating how other states like Arizona, North Carolina and Maryland have made assessments, and the “public health impacts, drinking water system characteristics, and environmental considerations,” for potential sources, Calos said.

“Surface waters are looking at the entire watershed upstream of the water treatment plant,” Calos said. “For groundwater (GW) sources we are looking at a three (mile) radius from the well.”

The prioritization process is expected to be put into a draft plan and shared with the Committee at a Dec. 16 meeting and finalized in January. 

But absent from the committee is an environmental group, as required by law. DEQ Director Mike Rolband is in charge of making appointments, according to the measure.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that DEQ has failed to include conservation group representatives on the committee well before the first meeting was held on November 8th,” said Sligh, who added that he notified DEQ of his qualifications, which include being a former employee for the State Water Control Board and DEQ who oversaw pollution permits. 

“By that failure, Director Rolband is violating the express command of the statute and I hope legislators will insist that he correct it immediately,” Sligh said.

In response to the claim, Calos said DEQ consulted with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, James River Association and SELC, which led them to offer the position to a Duke University professor whom the groups recommended, but she declined the invitation.

“DEQ has reached back out to these environmental groups to obtain additional recommendations that will be considered,” Calos said. “DEQ will evaluate the credentials of those individuals recommended and appoint additional members to the committee as needed.”

The agency has hired two of three additional staff to carry out the legislation’s goals, and will continue its rotating fish tissue sampling to support the identification process, which has already happened in the basins of Tennessee/Big Sandy, Chowan, James, Potomac/Shenandoah, Rappahannock, and Roanoke Rivers. The New River basin, the York River basin, and the small coastal basin remain to be sampled.