Utilities face a race against the clock

Katie Walker, global principal for PFAS at Jacobs, said utilities are balancing technical uncertainty, regulatory requirements and affordability while selecting treatment approaches. Although technologies such as granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange and reverse osmosis are familiar to many utilities, implementing them specifically for PFAS removal introduces new operational and maintenance considerations.

Walker noted that utilities must evaluate treatment effectiveness, regulatory monitoring requirements and long-term operating costs while maintaining flexibility for future regulatory changes. She emphasized the importance of robust source water characterization and pilot testing before making major capital investments.

Supply chains and treatment media remain critical concerns

From the supplier perspective, Amber Simonic of Calgon Carbon said utilities need confidence that treatment technologies and media will remain available for decades.

She highlighted GAC, ion exchange resin and reverse osmosis as the primary EPA-recognized PFAS treatment technologies and stressed the need for reliable long-term supply chains. Utilities are increasingly asking suppliers about domestic manufacturing capacity, redundancy in production facilities and future availability of products as demand grows.

Simonic also pointed to residual management as a growing consideration, noting that utilities must plan not only for treatment installation but also for handling spent media and PFAS-containing waste streams. She encouraged utilities to validate treatment options through pilot testing, engage suppliers early and avoid waiting until the final years before compliance deadlines to begin planning.

Construction capacity and project delivery could become bottlenecks

Matt Bracewell of PC Construction said workforce shortages, permitting requirements and equipment lead times are creating significant challenges for PFAS project delivery.

He argued that collaborative delivery approaches such as progressive design-build and construction manager-at-risk models can help utilities meet aggressive schedules by bringing contractors into projects earlier. Early contractor involvement allows teams to address constructability issues, evaluate costs and begin procurement of long-lead equipment before final design is complete.

Bracewell noted that pilot testing alone can become a substantial undertaking. On one PFAS project, teams operated multiple membrane, GAC and ion exchange pilot systems simultaneously to evaluate treatment performance and lifecycle costs. He said pilot testing remains essential for regulatory approval, equipment sizing and treatment selection despite the compressed timelines facing utilities.

Some suppliers are reporting lead times of two years or more for major electrical and process equipment, making early procurement a key project management strategy.

Fairfax Water offers utility perspective

Chris Moody of Fairfax Water described the utility’s effort to navigate rapidly evolving PFAS regulations while maintaining affordability for customers.

Moody noted that Fairfax Water initially detected little concern under earlier monitoring programs, but changing health advisories and subsequent federal regulations quickly altered the utility’s planning requirements. He emphasized that utilities effectively have less time than the formal compliance timeline suggests because treatment facilities must be operational before compliance monitoring begins.

Fairfax Water is using a phased compliance strategy that includes accelerated upgrades to existing treatment infrastructure while evaluating longer-term PFAS treatment options. The utility is also studying issues related to residuals management, permitting, legal liability and the potential impacts of PFAS-containing waste streams.

Moody said one lesson from the PFAS challenge is that utilities need to think differently about future regulations, including earlier procurement of pilot equipment and greater emphasis on long-term planning.