scroll
Roundtable discussions: Table 2. Addressing the problem of persistent PFAS in drinking water - Who owns the responsibility?
Roundtable discussions: Table 2. Addressing the problem of persistent PFAS in drinking water - Who owns the responsibility?
Background
The RIVM (Dutch national health institute) has reported that PFAS levels in the Netherlands' drinking water are alarmingly high, raising concerns about the long-term safety of our water supply. The cost and environmental impact of removing PFAS from water are significant. Meanwhile, drinking companies argue that the first priority should lie with polluters who discharge PFAS into the environment. However, the reality is that PFAS are highly persistent, and even if contamination discharges were halted immediately, those chemicals that have been discharged in the past would continue to affect drinking water quality for decades. The challenge now is to determine whether we are willing to accept higher PFAS levels in drinking water while managing the contamination's legacy—and to address who will bear the costs and responsibilities.
Key take aways
• The panel suggested a multi-pronged approach that combines immediate remediation efforts with stricter control over PFAS emissions and usage.
• There was unanimous agreement among the panel that PFAS must be removed from drinking water immediately. PFAS contamination is a long-term issue that will persist even if all new discharges stop now. PFAS removal at drinking water facilities is therefore inevitable, and should get the highest priority, and should not wait for legislation.
• We must acknowledge the scale of the overall PFAS challenge and plan accordingly.
• Addressing prevention of PFAS contamination requires a collective effort. Industries responsible for the pollution, along with governments and society at large (e.g. through municipal waste (water) streams) , must share the responsibility for both managing and funding wastewater treatment and the cleanup
• Research and investment are needed and should be intensified in developing sustainable, safe and effective methods for disposing of or neutralizing removed and captured PFAS.
• There is not yet appropriate legislation, but also a lack of knowledge on what to do with the concentrated PFAS waste, which slows down the remediation efforts
Full story
The panel gathered around the growing concerns over PFAS contamination in drinking water and the various responsibilities involved in addressing the issue.
PFAS, often referred to as "forever chemicals," are highly persistent in the environment, raising serious health and environmental concerns. The discussion highlighted the urgent need for PFAS removal and explored the complexities surrounding the technical, financial, and regulatory aspects.
There was unanimous agreement among the panel that PFAS must be removed from drinking water immediately. The panel emphasized the importance of initiating remediation efforts without delay. However, the conversation became more nuanced when addressing the scope of PFAS removal, particularly the technical difficulties associated with completely eliminating smaller PFAS molecules. Despite technological advancements, achieving full elimination remains a challenge.
One of the most pressing concerns raised was the regulatory framework governing PFAS disposal. Regulations globally still provide insufficient guidance on how to handle PFAS residue. This is largely due to the fact that removal does not equate to complete eradication, and there remains a lack of sufficient knowledge on how to effectively eliminate PFAS. This limitation creates a significant barrier for water companies, as it complicates and slows down their ability to aggressively remove PFAS. The panel highlighted that dealing with the waste stream generated from PFAS removal is as problematic as the removal process itself, creating a bottleneck in the effort to make drinking water safe.
While new technologies for PFAS removal are emerging, most common technologies are energy-intensive and expensive. The high costs further add to the complexity, especially when coupled with the need to comply with stringent regulations. The consensus among participants was that these costs would likely be passed on to consumers, as water companies have traditionally borne the financial burden of addressing such challenges. This could lead to increased water tariffs, impacting end users. This further emphasizes the importance of not only focusing on PFAS removal but also on prevention, particularly reducing PFAS use at its source. Stopping the introduction of PFAS into the environment and reducing its use in industrial and consumer products is crucial to preventing future contamination. The panel suggested a multi-pronged approach that combines immediate remediation efforts with stricter control over PFAS emissions and usage.
To conclude, the roundtable discussion underscored the urgency of addressing PFAS contamination in drinking water. While consensus exists around the need for swift action, significant hurdles remain in terms of technology, cost, and regulation. Moving forward, the cooperation of regulatory bodies, water companies, and industries will be essential to ensuring that PFAS is effectively removed from drinking water and that its release into the environment is minimized. Innovative technologies that are cost efficient and operate with respect for the environment are greatly welcomed to tackle the challenges ahead.
The RIVM (Dutch national health institute) has reported that PFAS levels in the Netherlands' drinking water are alarmingly high, raising concerns about the long-term safety of our water supply. The cost and environmental impact of removing PFAS from water are significant. Meanwhile, drinking companies argue that the first priority should lie with polluters who discharge PFAS into the environment. However, the reality is that PFAS are highly persistent, and even if contamination discharges were halted immediately, those chemicals that have been discharged in the past would continue to affect drinking water quality for decades. The challenge now is to determine whether we are willing to accept higher PFAS levels in drinking water while managing the contamination's legacy—and to address who will bear the costs and responsibilities.
Key take aways
• The panel suggested a multi-pronged approach that combines immediate remediation efforts with stricter control over PFAS emissions and usage.
• There was unanimous agreement among the panel that PFAS must be removed from drinking water immediately. PFAS contamination is a long-term issue that will persist even if all new discharges stop now. PFAS removal at drinking water facilities is therefore inevitable, and should get the highest priority, and should not wait for legislation.
• We must acknowledge the scale of the overall PFAS challenge and plan accordingly.
• Addressing prevention of PFAS contamination requires a collective effort. Industries responsible for the pollution, along with governments and society at large (e.g. through municipal waste (water) streams) , must share the responsibility for both managing and funding wastewater treatment and the cleanup
• Research and investment are needed and should be intensified in developing sustainable, safe and effective methods for disposing of or neutralizing removed and captured PFAS.
• There is not yet appropriate legislation, but also a lack of knowledge on what to do with the concentrated PFAS waste, which slows down the remediation efforts
Full story
The panel gathered around the growing concerns over PFAS contamination in drinking water and the various responsibilities involved in addressing the issue.
PFAS, often referred to as "forever chemicals," are highly persistent in the environment, raising serious health and environmental concerns. The discussion highlighted the urgent need for PFAS removal and explored the complexities surrounding the technical, financial, and regulatory aspects.
There was unanimous agreement among the panel that PFAS must be removed from drinking water immediately. The panel emphasized the importance of initiating remediation efforts without delay. However, the conversation became more nuanced when addressing the scope of PFAS removal, particularly the technical difficulties associated with completely eliminating smaller PFAS molecules. Despite technological advancements, achieving full elimination remains a challenge.
One of the most pressing concerns raised was the regulatory framework governing PFAS disposal. Regulations globally still provide insufficient guidance on how to handle PFAS residue. This is largely due to the fact that removal does not equate to complete eradication, and there remains a lack of sufficient knowledge on how to effectively eliminate PFAS. This limitation creates a significant barrier for water companies, as it complicates and slows down their ability to aggressively remove PFAS. The panel highlighted that dealing with the waste stream generated from PFAS removal is as problematic as the removal process itself, creating a bottleneck in the effort to make drinking water safe.
While new technologies for PFAS removal are emerging, most common technologies are energy-intensive and expensive. The high costs further add to the complexity, especially when coupled with the need to comply with stringent regulations. The consensus among participants was that these costs would likely be passed on to consumers, as water companies have traditionally borne the financial burden of addressing such challenges. This could lead to increased water tariffs, impacting end users. This further emphasizes the importance of not only focusing on PFAS removal but also on prevention, particularly reducing PFAS use at its source. Stopping the introduction of PFAS into the environment and reducing its use in industrial and consumer products is crucial to preventing future contamination. The panel suggested a multi-pronged approach that combines immediate remediation efforts with stricter control over PFAS emissions and usage.
To conclude, the roundtable discussion underscored the urgency of addressing PFAS contamination in drinking water. While consensus exists around the need for swift action, significant hurdles remain in terms of technology, cost, and regulation. Moving forward, the cooperation of regulatory bodies, water companies, and industries will be essential to ensuring that PFAS is effectively removed from drinking water and that its release into the environment is minimized. Innovative technologies that are cost efficient and operate with respect for the environment are greatly welcomed to tackle the challenges ahead.
PFAS process retention rates from real world validation by KWR
KWR conducted full scale tests on Municipal Wastewater and Surface Water
A long term full scale test has been performed by Dutch independent research institute KWR to investigate the actual retention of PFAS with NX Filtration’s dNF membranes. The tests were not only performed on surface water from the Lekkanaal in The Netherlands, but also on biologically treated effluent from a municipal wastewater treatment plant.
“Especially PFAS requires a robust barrier to reject them from polluted water to obtain high quality and safe permeate or product water with lowest ecological footprint possible. Therefore, we see an increasing interest for our membrane technology” says Erik Roesink, founder and CTO of NX Filtration.
A long term full scale test has been performed by Dutch independent research institute KWR to investigate the actual retention of PFAS with NX Filtration’s dNF membranes. The tests were not only performed on surface water from the Lekkanaal in The Netherlands, but also on biologically treated effluent from a municipal wastewater treatment plant.
“Especially PFAS requires a robust barrier to reject them from polluted water to obtain high quality and safe permeate or product water with lowest ecological footprint possible. Therefore, we see an increasing interest for our membrane technology” says Erik Roesink, founder and CTO of NX Filtration.
Contact
