HOME

Removing PFAS from drinking water

CDM Smith engineers present case studies on four different approaches to treating PFAS in drinking water.
Mark White, Alan LeBlanc
Aug. 4, 2023

An anion exchange system can provide a smaller footprint and lower height, while requiring fewer lead-lag pairs of vessels for a similar lifecycle cost to
GAC.

View Image Gallery

In the United States, federal drinking water regulations are becoming increasingly concerned with per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

With new regulations for PFAS on the horizon, there are currently a handful of main treatment processes for PFAS —
but what does it look like to implement those processes? And, once PFAS has been removed from the water, what are
utilities' options to affordably destroy the compounds known as "forever chemicals?"

Regulatory overview

The U.S. federal government is focused on PFAS regulation and is taking a broad approach, under several federal
environmental laws, toward the development of national regulations. The federal government seeks a more consistent X

strategy to address PFAS than the patchwork of regulations by various state agencies that currently exists.
In June 2022, the U.S. EPA issued new Health Advisory (HA) levels for short-term exposure for various PFAS including,
0.004 parts per trillion (ppt) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 0.02 ppt for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), 10 ppt
for GenX chemicals, and 2,000 ppt for perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS). These HA levels were orders of
magnitudes below any previous HA EPA levels proposed by EPA or any other state regulatory agency.

On March 14, 2023, EPA proposed the first enforceable National Drinking Water Standards for six PFAS including
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of 4.0 ppt, each for PFOA and PFOS, and a novel Hazard Index (HI) concept for
perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), PFBS, perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), and GenX in a mixture. EPA has indicated
their intent to issue a final PFAS regulation in 2023 or 2024.

In parallel, the fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR5) requires water agencies to monitor for 29
different PFAS compounds, so it is possible that the EPA will propose the regulation of additional PFAS. It is expected
that large volumes of surface water and groundwater used to supply drinking water across the U.S. will require
treatment to comply with the current proposed and potential future PFAS regulations.

To assist water systems in achieving compliance, the bipartisan Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of
2021 includes a comprehensive package that will invest billions of dollars in drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure to address PFAS and other unregulated contaminants.

Implementing PFAS treatments

The best available technology (BAT) solutions to treat PFAS in water include granular activated carbon (GAC)
adsorption, ion exchange (IX) resins, and nanofiltration (NF) or reverse osmosis (RO) membrane treatment processes.

Many water agencies have already begun to implement these PFAS treatment technologies in their processes.
Granular activated carbon is a mature PFAS treatment technology that is able to address a wide range of conditions in raw water quality.

Westfield, Massachusetts recently installed a GAC system to address PFAS contaminants identified in groundwater
supplies. GAC was selected by Westfield due to its merits as a mature technology able to address a wide range of
conditions in raw water quality. Bench-top testing had helped Westfield establish that GAC was an effective solution for
removing the compounds of concern and a new water treatment plant was designed and constructed to provide safe and
reliable water from Westfield’s groundwater supplies that were affected by PFOS and PFOA.
LOGIN PFAS
Orange County Water District (OCWD) and their member agencies are currently installing IX systems to address JOIN

that have been found in many groundwater wells within the Orange County Basin. On behalf of its member agencies,
OCWD evaluated multiple PFAS treatment systems using bench-top and pilot studies. While IX and GAC were both
effective, IX provided a smaller footprint and lower height and required fewer lead-lag pairs of vessels. OCWD also
performed a life cycle cost analysis and concluded that IX had lower or similar life cycle cost as GAC. As such, OCWD’s
member agencies selected IX as the PFAS treatment system for groundwater from the Orange County aquifer.

As an example, Brunswick County, in North Carolina owns

and operates the Northwest WTP (NWTP), a surface water
treatment plant which obtains raw water from the Cape
Fear River. High levels of manufacturing chemicals and by-
products had been detected at numerous locations in the
river basin and, therefore, Brunswick County thoroughly
evaluated several advanced water treatment alternatives to
remove PFAS and other emerging contaminants at the
NWTP. Through the combined efforts of a desk-top analysis An anion exchange system can provide a smaller footprint and lower
height, while requiring fewer lead-lag pairs of vessels for a similar
and pilot study, Low pressure reverse osmosis (LRPO) was
lifecycle cost to GAC.
determined to be the most effective technology for removal
of PFAS and other emerging contaminants, while remaining the most cost-effective life cycle solution.

PFAS destruction technologies

While the treatment solutions are successful in removing PFAS from drinking water, they cannot break the PFAS cycle
on their own. PFAS still accumulates in the spent GAC or IX resins, and in RO concentrate which effectively leaves
residual wastes that must be handled and disposed of. To address these challenges, research and development programs
are developing ingenious solutions, where innovators are evaluating emerging technologies to concentrate and then
destroy PFAS without releasing harmful byproducts.

PFAS destruction technologies have recently been demonstrated successfully at bench-top. This includes, but is not
limited to, hydrothermal alkaline treatment, photolysis, high-energy electron beam, and radiolytic. Destruction of PFAS
has also been demonstrated successfully at the pilot-scale using electrochemical oxidation, plasma, supercritical water
oxidation, UV-hydrated electron and sonochemical. The optimal destructive solution needs to consider the specific
water quality, site constraints, disposal options and existing processes at each application.

A key component of any destructive technology is that the solution must not simply transfer the PFAS problem from one
element of the environment to another (soil to air, water to wastewater, water to landfills, etc.). Identifying, developing,
and implementing affordable destructive technologies that fully eliminate PFAS from the whole environment is
therefore key to the health of our communities.

About the Author

Mark White

Mark White, PE, BCEE, is the global drinking water practice leader for CDM Smith and is based in Chicago, Illinois.

White is a board-certified environmental engineer with close to 30 years of international experience in the planning,
design, and construction of water treatment facilities. He has evaluated and/or designed improvements to more than 40
water treatment plants totaling more than one-billion-gallons-per-day of capacity. He is well-versed in both
conventional and advanced water treatment processes, including the treatment of PFAS and other compounds of
emerging concern. He is an active contributor to various professional associations, including serving as both a trustee
and a member of the Standards Council for the American Water Works Association.

About the Author

Alan LeBlanc

Alan G. LeBlanc, PE, BCEE, is the drinking water treatment discipline leader at CDM Smith and is based in Manchester,
NH.

LeBlanc is a civil engineer with 29 years of design and construction experience, including municipal water treatment,
PFAS removal, application of sustainable design concepts, and construction cost estimating. His PFAS resume includes
leading groundwater and surface water treatment studies, bench- and pilot-scale tests, designs, construction, and/or
startup efforts for over 50 water supply facilities nationally. He served as chair of the New England Water Works
Association Filtration Committee for eight years and has led training courses on filtration and granular activated carbon
(GAC) adsorption design and operation for the past 18 years.

CONTINUE READING

How PFAS has evolved in drinking water NSF Joint Committee adds additional PFAS
compounds to NSF/ANSI 53 & NSF/ANSI 58

SPONSORED RECOMMENDATIONS

Future-proof your Water and Wastewater Unifying your water and wastewater
facility operations

Aug. 15, 2023 Aug. 15, 2023

How Digitization Contributes to Global Holistic motor management: A key for

Water Sustainability Goals driving Water & Wastewater industry
digitization benefits
Aug. 15, 2023
LATEST IN HOME Aug. 15, 2023

Drinking Water
RELATED
EPA taps new administrator for the Office of Water
Jeremy Wolfe
Feb. 28, 2024

Residential/Commercial

Researchers develop molecule that traps sulfate in water

Feb. 28, 2024

Water Utility Management

Radhika Fox appointed Senior Advisor at Xylem

Feb. 27, 2024

Treatment
MOST READ
Treatment and funding options for removing
What to know
PFAS from about
drinking waterthe Build America, Buy America Act today
April 28, 2023

Generating drinking water from air

Innovation is key to creating a fully redundant, climate-resistant

water system

SPONSORED
Sustainability business services

WIN-911 Alarming Boosts Operational Efficiency

The Tools and Know-how of Securing Critical Infrastructure in

Water Utilities

Load More Content

Subscribe
About Us
Do Not Sell or Share
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions

© 2024 Endeavor Business Media, LLC. All rights reserved.