Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
UMass and MassDEP presenters outline PFAS treatment options, urge pilot testing for small water systems
Loading...
Summary
UMass Amherst researchers and a MassDEP technical‑assistance provider reviewed PFAS treatment options—granular activated carbon, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis/nanofiltration—stressed pilot testing required by Massachusetts, outlined residuals challenges, and summarized regulatory timelines and available grant support.
Shane Hancox, a research fellow and PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Eric Lian, a technical assistance provider with UMass Amherst and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), told a Wednesday webinar that small public water systems should rely on pilot testing to choose among PFAS treatment technologies because site water chemistry determines performance and cost.
"Pilot testing is the best way to determine the bed life and how often you'll need to replace [media]," Hancox said, adding that Massachusetts often requires pilot testing before full‑scale PFAS treatment implementation. Eric Lian summarized the ECSDC grant pathway that can fund engineering design and help systems apply for construction funds.
Why this matters: regulators and water operators face near‑term milestones under the EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Rule. Hancox noted the EPA rule (finalized 04/26/2024) established an initial monitoring window and a later compliance period, and said a proposed federal extension could shift monitoring and implementation deadlines by about two years. He also highlighted state action: the Healey‑Driscoll administration awarded $14,700,000 to address PFAS and other emerging contaminants.
The presenters reviewed three proven treatment approaches that Massachusetts has approved for public water systems: granular activated carbon (GAC), anion exchange (IX), and reverse osmosis or nanofiltration (RO/NF). Hancox described the mechanisms and trade‑offs: GAC adsorbs PFAS but can be impaired by natural organic matter (NOM) and other co‑contaminants, producing an adsorption‑saturation “breakthrough” when media reaches capacity; IX exchanges anionic PFAS onto resin but can foul or be outcompeted by common anions (nitrate, sulfate); and RO/NF membranes separate contaminants by size/charge, generally rejecting more short‑chain PFAS with RO but requiring more pretreatment and generating a concentrated brine reject.
"If you can mitigate the PFAS problem economically by connecting to another clean water source, by all means, avoid the treatment," Lian said, emphasizing that treatment is not the only option and that grant programs can support alternatives and design work.
The webinar emphasized practical design considerations operators should weigh: empty‑bed contact time (EBCT) recommendations (roughly 10–20 minutes for GAC; 3–6 minutes typical for IX), system footprint, lead–lag vessel configurations, pretreatment needs (to control fouling and scaling), and residuals handling. Hancox said GAC is often sent off‑site for regeneration and that spent media, spent resins, backwash solids and RO brines present disposal challenges; technologies for destroying PFAS (pyrolysis, supercritical water oxidation and solvent‑based approaches) are developing but disposal pathways remain an evolving issue.
Cost sensitivity was a key point: the presenters showed that operating costs scale with realized bed volumes and waste classification (hazardous vs nonhazardous). Hancox gave a budgeting example where an operator planning on 260,000 bed volumes but only achieving 60,000 would face roughly three times the expected annual O&M costs. He concluded that small systems often find GAC or IX most cost‑effective, while RO/NF is less practical at very small scale because of pretreatment and ancillary systems.
Examples and approvals: Hancox pointed to full‑scale installations in Massachusetts (the Mary Dunn well in Hyannis and a Westfield installation) and a Patton Water Treatment Plant (Devons, MA) ion‑exchange case where manganese fouling required upstream manganese removal to restore IX performance. He also noted novel sorbents—Fluorozorb and Dexorb (by Cyclopure)—have state approvals for PWS use and may perform comparably to conventional media. A PWS can apply for site‑specific approval under 310 CMR 22.04 to use other technologies not on the statewide list.
The session closed with a question period; a participant asked about the difference between EBCT and bed life, and another suggested stopping the recording before beginning Q&A.
The ECSDC technical assistance program was promoted as a resource: Hancox and Lian encouraged systems to use the program and to pursue pilot testing and engineering design assistance before committing to a full‑scale treatment system.
