Is removal and destruction of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances from wastewater effluent affordable?

Several jurisdictions are currently evaluating regulatory standards for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in municipal water resource recovery facility (WRRF) effluent. Effective and responsible implementation of PFAS effluent limits should consider the costs and capabilities of currently available technologies, because the costs of meeting WRRF PFAS limits could disproportionally fall to ratepayers. Cost curves were developed for currently available PFAS separation and destruction options, assuming effluent treatment targets near current analytical detection limits. Removing and destroying PFAS from municipal WRRF effluent is estimated to increase costs per household by a factor of between 2 and 210, using Minnesota-specific data as an example. Estimated costs per household would increase more for residents of smaller communities, averaging 33% of median household income (MHHI) in communities smaller than 1000 people. This exceeds the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-developed affordability index of 2% of MHHI by a factor of 16. Estimated costs per household to remove and destroy PFAS varied among locations, primarily based on WRRF and community size, median income, rural versus urban, and type of wastewater treatment processes currently used. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Required tertiary treatment before WRRF effluent PFAS separation, using currently available technologies, is a significant portion (~40-80%) of estimated costs. Adding PFAS separation, destruction, and pre-treatment would make Minnesota wastewater rates unaffordable (defined by EPA affordability guidance) without external funding. The estimated cost per household is higher for smaller communities and would require substantial external funding to maintain rate affordability. Design and operating uncertainties remain for full-scale WRRF retrofits to consistently remove and destroy effluent PFAS with limited full-scale applications.

Centralized softening as a solution to chloride pollution: An empirical analysis based on Minnesota cities.

Chloride is a key component of salt, used in many activities such as alkali production, water treatment, and de-icing. Chloride entering surface and groundwater is a concern due to its toxicity to aquatic life and potential to degrade drinking water sources. Minnesota being a hard-water state, has a high demand for water softening. Recent research has found that home-based water softeners contribute significantly to chloride loading at municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Because of this, many WWTPs would now require water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) to comply with the state's chloride water quality standards (WQS), unless they install chloride treatment technologies, which are limited and cost-prohibitive to most communities. A potential solution to this problem, is shifting from home-based water softening to a system where water is softened at drinking water plants, before reaching homes, i.e. centralized softening, analyzed in this paper based on its ability to address both chloride pollution and water softening needs, at reasonable cost. We estimate lifetime costs of three alternative solutions: centralized softening, home-based softening, and a Business as Usual (BAU) or baseline alternative, using annualized 20-year loan payments and Net Present Value (NPV), applied to 84 Minnesota cities with matching data on drinking water plants and WWTPs. We find that centralized softening using either Reverse Osmosis (RO) or lime-softening technologies is the more cost-effective solution, compared to the alternative of home-based softening with end-of-pipe chloride treatment, with a cost ratio in the range 1:3-1:4. Between the two centralized softening options, we find RO-softening to be the lower cost option, only slightly more costly (1.1 cost ratio) than the BAU option. Considering additional environmental and public health benefits, and cost savings associated with removal of home-based softeners, our results provide helpful information to multiple stakeholders interested in an effective solution to chloride pollution.