Freese and Nichols shares PFAS expertise in AWWA, WEF articles
Members of Freese and Nichols’ Treatment team have shared their PFAS expertise in articles in two national water organizations’ publications.
Viraj deSilva, Senior Treatment Process Leader, and Dhruv Deshmukh, a water/wastewater project manager in our Corpus Christi office, wrote for Journal AWWA assessing methods that treatment plants around the country are using to remove PFAS contaminants from their systems.
Their article, “The Cost to Remove PFAS: A Review of US Water Treatment Plants,” appears online and in the magazine’s May print edition. Journal AWWA is published by the American Water Works Association.
Viraj teamed with Aleyda Matamoros, a member of the treatment team in Raleigh, North Carolina, to write about PFAS solutions for the May issue of Water Environment & Technology magazine, published by the Water Environment Federation. Their article, “Sourcing a Solution,” examines how water providers in four states are working to remove PFAS from their water sources or seek alternative sources.
Viraj is recognized nationally and internationally for his PFAS expertise and leadership on tackling contaminants in water, wastewater, and biosolids. He chairs WEF’s Emerging Contaminants Community, which is addressing substances including PFAS and microplastics. Prior to that he chaired WEF’s PFAS Task Force.
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are chemicals used in the production of a wide range of everyday products, but they have been identified as environmental contaminants in groundwater, surface water, drinking water and elsewhere, with increasing concern about them causing negative health effects. At the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set new maximum PFAS levels for drinking water, which utilities must comply with by 2029. Some states also have implemented regulations around PFAS.
The Journal AWWA article reviews the experiences and costs involved for programs using ion exchange and granular activated carbon removal methods at treatment plants in California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Jersey.
Some excerpts:
“Utilities must navigate significant challenges in determining the most effective and cost-efficient methods for PFAS removal, whether by upgrading existing infrastructure or constructing new facilities. As PFAS treatment systems are relatively recent developments, guidance is limited on the nuances of building and operating them.”
“The growing demand for PFAS treatment systems, coupled with potential supply constraints, is likely to push costs higher as the deadline approaches. Taking early action and proactive measures to pilot-test, design, and install PFAS treatment facilities can significantly reduce costs in the long run. … The lessons from this review underscore the importance of comprehensive planning, operational flexibility, and cross-disciplinary collaboration when designing and operating PFAS treatment plants.”
The WE&T article offers a snapshot of treatment solutions used by utilities relying on water from the Cape Fear River in North Carolina, the Conasauga River in Georgia, the Tennessee River in Alabama and the Ohio River in multiple states.
Some excerpts:
“While the PFAS problem ultimately must be solved at the source, drinking water utilities are doing their part — at great cost — to remove elevated levels of PFAS in their source waters.”
“As this review of affected drinking water utilities shows, some are pursuing treatment options to address PFAS contamination while others are searching for alternative drinking water sources. The reasons for these decisions vary, but municipalities’ specific situations, water access, and treatment costs are all significant considerations when deciding what PFAS management strategy is best for their customers.”
Read the articles:
Journal AWWA: “The Cost to Remove PFAS: A Review of US Water Treatment Plants” (subscription required)
