Small water treatment plants (WTPs) across America are grappling with the growing concern of per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) contamination in drinking water supplies. While larger municipalities may have the resources to implement comprehensive treatment solutions, smaller communities often struggle with limited budgets, space constraints, and expertise. A recent industry report highlights five practical approaches that can make PFAS removal more manageable for these smaller operations.
The PFAS Challenge for Small Communities
Many small water treatment facilities have delayed implementing PFAS treatment solutions due to several factors:
- Lack of finalized federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
- Uncertainty about which technology best suits their specific needs
- Concerns about making large capital investments that may become obsolete
- Limited technical expertise and staffing resources
However, waiting for perfect regulatory clarity isn’t always in the best interest of community health. The article suggests that small WTPs can move forward by focusing on five key considerations when selecting PFAS treatment technologies.
5 Ways to Make PFAS Removal More Manageable
1. Prioritize Flexibility in Treatment Systems
One of the biggest concerns for small WTPs is investing in equipment that may not meet future Small Communities Face PFAS Challenges: 5 Practical Solutions for Water Treatment Plants
March 20, 2025
Small water treatment plants (WTPs) across America are grappling with the growing concern of per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) contamination in drinking water supplies. While larger municipalities may have the resources to implement comprehensive treatment solutions, smaller communities often struggle with limited budgets, space constraints, and expertise. A recent industry report highlights five practical approaches that can make PFAS removal more manageable for these smaller operations.
The PFAS Challenge for Small Communities
Many small water treatment facilities have delayed implementing PFAS treatment solutions due to several factors:
- Lack of finalized federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
- Uncertainty about which technology best suits their specific needs
- Concerns about making large capital investments that may become obsolete
- Limited technical expertise and staffing resources
However, waiting for perfect regulatory clarity isn’t always in the best interest of community health. The article suggests that small WTPs can move forward by focusing on five key considerations when selecting PFAS treatment technologies.
5 Ways to Make PFAS Removal More Manageable
1. Prioritize Flexibility in Treatment Systems
One of the biggest concerns for small WTPs is investing in equipment that may not meet future regulatory standards. The article recommends selecting systems with small footprints that can be easily upgraded or expanded. Carbon cartridge systems are highlighted as particularly advantageous in this regard, as they take up significantly less space than membrane or carbon bed systems and can be more easily modified as needs change.
2. Consider Total Cost of Ownership, Not Just Initial Investment
While initial system costs are important, they represent only part of the total expense. Small WTPs need to factor in:
- Training requirements
- Ongoing costs of consumables (carbon, IX media, membranes, cartridges)
- Disposal costs for spent media containing PFAS
- Potential costs for specialized wastewater treatment of backwash
These operational expenses can significantly impact the long-term viability of a PFAS solution.
3. Evaluate Training Requirements and Operator Certification
Different PFAS treatment technologies require varying levels of operator expertise and certification. The article notes that simpler systems typically require less specialized training, making them more practical for small communities with limited access to certified operators. This consideration is especially important for remote communities where the employment pool for water treatment specialists may be limited.
4. Choose Operator-Friendly Systems
The ease of day-to-day operation significantly impacts the success of any PFAS treatment approach. While traditional GAC systems require careful monitoring for contaminant breakthrough and specialized equipment for media changes, carbon cartridge systems offer a more straightforward alternative. These systems can typically be monitored remotely, with simple flow meters indicating when cartridges need replacement.
5. Factor in Installation Complexity
Installation time and complexity vary widely among PFAS treatment options. Multi-membrane reverse osmosis systems often require extensive welding, while GAC systems with lead and lag vessels consume considerable floor space and can be complicated to install. By comparison, carbon cartridge filter systems can typically be installed with common tools and minimal specialized knowledge.
Moving Forward Despite Regulatory Uncertainty
While the absence of federal PFAS regulations has contributed to hesitation among many water utilities, the article emphasizes that community health should remain the top priority. For small WTPs looking to address PFAS contamination proactively, carbon cartridge filters are highlighted as a particularly cost-effective and practical solution that can be implemented while regulatory standards continue to evolve.
“The health and well-being of the community should be the top priority,” the report states. “If the utility or municipality truly wants to reduce PFAS levels, carbon cartridge filters can be a cost-effective solution to a dynamic problem.”
As federal and state regulations continue to develop around PFAS in drinking water, small communities that implement flexible, operator-friendly solutions may find themselves better positioned to adapt to changing requirements while maintaining clean water supplies for their residents.
This article was based on information from Harmsco Filtration Products.
Categories: Water Treatment, PFAS Solutions, Small Community Resources, Regulatory Compliance
Tags: PFAS Treatment, Water Quality, Drinking Water, Filtration Systems, Small Water Systems, Emerging Contaminants, Water Treatment Technology, Operator Safety, Cost-Effective Solutions, Water Infrastructure