by Sydney Cromwell

After testing at two sites along the Coosa River revealed unsafe levels of “forever” chemicals known as PFAS, the staff of the Coosa Riverkeeper knew there was probably more. 

Field manager Lucas Allison said those first tests were a “peek in the door.” But they wanted to open the door all the way.

So, during summer 2023, the Coosa Riverkeeper and Coosa River Basin Initiative (CRBI) undertook a much larger water testing effort, to look for PFAS across 65 sites. They found it.

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of chemicals used to make products resistant to heat, water, oil, grease or stains. They get the nickname “forever chemicals” because they take so long to break down in the environment, or in the body — in some cases more than a thousand years.

Studies have linked different PFAS chemicals to various forms of cancer and birth defects, as well as damage to the liver, kidney, thyroid, cardiovascular system and immune system. The EPA currently recommends limiting lifetime exposure to 2,000 parts per trillion of PFBs and just 10 ppt of GenX chemicals. PFOA and PFOS are considered even more unsafe: the acceptable level of exposure is less than 1 part per trillion.

As awareness of the dangers of PFAS chemicals has grown in recent years, there have been more efforts to reduce their omnipresence in our daily lives. The EPA is considering new, stricter regulations on safe levels of PFAS in water and should take action later this year. 

Around 35 states are expected to consider increased PFAS monitoring or bans on certain PFAS uses in 2024, according to Environmental Health News, and many states have already passed such restrictions.

The nationwide Waterkeeper Alliance launched a massive water testing effort in 2022, which eight riverkeeper organizations in Alabama joined. Every testing site in the state had unsafe levels of at least one PFAS chemical. (You can read more about Alabama’s 2022 results here).

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) found 106 sites with measurable PFAS levels in its own testing in 2022.

“Our little chunk in the South had some of the highest PFAS levels,” said Abby Brown, director of community engagement for Coosa Riverkeeper. “… It’s everywhere. We’re exposed to this chemical.”

Coosa Riverkeeper chose to test upstream and downstream of a drinking water intake point on Neely Henry Lake, where they found 13 different PFAS chemicals in concentrations that were hundreds or even thousands of times higher than safe levels. Neely Henry Lake had the highest concentrations of any sampling site in the state. Another test site on the Upper Coosa, in Georgia, had 558 parts per trillion. 

Participating in that 2022 testing effort was the motivation for the two Coosa River organizations to conduct their own expanded testing, Brown said.

“After we learned that there was a lot of PFAS in our water, since then we’ve been trying to create a much more extensive testing method, so we could get a foundational baseline of what we’re dealing with,” field manager Lucas Allison said.

For the 2023 testing, Coosa Riverkeeper and CRBI chose sampling sites based on their proximity to industry, agriculture or other possible PFAS sources. Allison said they worked with land-use maps and prioritized areas that were more developed or were near drinking water intakes.

According to the ADEM website, the state does not have any regulatory authority over facilities discharging PFAS unless the EPA classifies them as hazardous substances, although ADEM does monitor PFAS levels in drinking water and fish tissue samples.

There were 33 sampling sites in Georgia and 32 in Alabama, some of which were on the main river and others on tributary streams, Allison said. It took multiple staff members from both organizations and multiple trips over the course of a month to collect all the water samples, plus more months to get the results back.

---

“After we learned that there was a lot of PFAS in our water, since then we’ve been trying to create a much more extensive testing method, so we could get a foundational baseline of what we’re dealing with.”

Lucas Allison, Coosa Riverkeeper

---

Of those testing sites, Allison said 55 of them (84.6%) had measurable contamination from one or more types of PFAS.

Some of the highest concentrations were found in smaller streams near heavy industry, such as Teloga Creek or Drowning Bear Creek in Georgia.

“We did find that a lot of creeks that had industrial [waste] discharging into them had high levels of PFAS,” Allison said.

Teloga Creek’s results of more than 2,500 parts per trillion of PFAS chemicals were unexpected, he said.

“That is just like PFAS soup. That was shocking to me,” Allison said.

But they also found forever chemicals in the main flow of the Coosa River. Their sample at a testing site near the states’ borders showed 61.6 parts per trillion, which is still too high for most types of PFAS compounds.

“We kind of assumed that it would be, based on other riverkeeper tests and other organizations’ testing, but the main channel had a lot more than I assumed it would,” Allison said. “… I think seeing it within the main channel just kind of proves that a lot of this PFAS sticks to stuff in the water column and flows downstream.”

Other Alabama sampling sites with PFAS contamination included:

• Chattooga River (165 ppt)
• Neely Henry Lake (five testing sites, ranging from 30 to 116.9 ppt)
• Lake Logan Martin (five testing sites, ranging from 83.9 to 111.7 ppt)
• Weiss Lake (110.3 ppt)
• Blue Spring Branch (101.6 ppt)
• Lay Lake (three testing sites, ranging from 84.1 to 98.2 ppt)
• Big Canoe Creek (one testing site with 74.5 ppt; another testing site didn’t have any measurable contamination)
• Buxahatchee Creek (two testing sites, ranging from 43.1 to 46.5 ppt)
• Eastaboga Creek (39 ppt)
• Waxahatchee Creek (26.9 ppt)
• Choccolocco Creek (six testing sites, ranging from 7.5 to 22.5 ppt)

The testing sites in Alabama that did not show any evidence of PFAS contamination were located on Little Wills Creek, Little Cove Creek, Little Canoe Creek and Yellow Leaf Creek.

Allison said these results are a baseline for the Coosa Riverkeeper and CRBI, a starting point to continue testing and understanding the PFAS presence in their watershed.

Once they have that understanding, Brown said, Riverkeeper staff will be more able to educate the public and advocate for PFAS protections, Brown said.

“It’s confusing. How can something so small be so dangerous? And a lot of people don’t understand how it gets into our waterways and our bodies,” Brown said.You can see a map of the 2023 Coosa River PFAS testing results at the Riverkeeper and CRBI’s PFAS Dashboard, or the nationwide 2022 testing results at the Waterkeeper Alliance website.

Main article image of PFAS testing in a Coosa River tributary courtesy of Coosa Riverkeeper.