FOCUS REPORT...Addressable Market • PFAS Timeline: Potential Regulatory Trajectories • The 2030...

ADVANCING WATER STRATEGIES U.S. & CANADA MUNICIPAL WATER INSIGHT SERVICE

FOCUS REPORT

PFAS, The Next Challenge for Water Utilities: Emerging Regulations, Technologies, and Forecasts 2020-2030

June 2020

https://www.bluefieldresearch.com/

PFAS, The Next Challenge for Water Utilities: Emerging Regulations, Technologies, and Forecasts, 2020-2030

U.S. & CANADA MUNICIPAL WATER INSIGHT SERVICE

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary

• How PFAS Makes Its Way across the Water Utility Lifecycle

• Section 1: U.S. Drinking Water PFAS Policy and Legal

Actions

• Policy Summary

• PFAS Drinking Water Policy Landscape Overview

• PFAS Sites Identified Proliferate across the Country

• Current Number of Impacted Systems by System Size, Top 12 States

• Select States Propose and Adopt Drinking Water Limits

• PFAS Sparks Legal Action against Suppliers

• Section 2: U.S. Drinking Water PFAS Remediation Forecasts 2020-2030

• Forecast Summary

• Key Market Assumptions: Treatment System Addressable Market

• PFAS Timeline: Potential Regulatory Trajectories

• The 2030 Outlook by the Numbers

• Three Forecast Scenarios, 2020-2030

• Base Case Forecasts by State, 2020-2030

• Base Case Drinking Water Market Forecasts by Technology 2020-2030

• Section 3: U.S. Biosolids Market and Business Models

• Wastewater Treatment Stream Produces Saleable Byproducts

• Sewage Sludge Production across the US

• Biosolids Market Opportunity Dependent on Beneficial Use across the U.S.

• Studies and Risks on PFAS in Biosolids

• Rising Landfill Tipping Fees Drive Biosolids Market across the U.S.

• Biosolid Incineration Facilities and Equipment on the Decline

• Biosolid Commercial Costs and Value Comparison

• Outsourced vs. In-House Biosolids Management Strategies

• Sludge Production and Disposal Use and Costs: PFAS Risks

1



Table of Contents (Continued)

• Section 4: PFAS Treatment Technologies and Case Studies

• Technology Summary

• PFAS Treatment: Established and Emerging Technologies

• Waste Handling and OPEX

• PFAS Concentration, Chain Length, and Removal Capabilities

• Technology Case Study: Ann Arbor, Michigan (GAC)

• Technology Case Study: Stratmoor Hills, Colorado (IX Resin)

• Technology Case Study: Brunswick, North Carolina (RO)

• Section 5: Company Profiles

• Drinking Water Technology Providers: Portfolio Comparison

• Cabot Carbon

• Calgon Carbon

• CycloPure

• ECT2

• Evoqua Water Technologies

• Purolite

• Regenesis

• Biosolids Maintenance and Service Providers: Portfolio Comparison

• BCR Environmental

• Burch Hydro, Inc.

• Casella Waste Systems

• Lystek

• Mannco Wastewater & Soil Solutions

• McGill Environmental Systems

• Synagro

• Veolia

• Waste Management

2

• Glossary of Acronyms



List of Exhibits

• Exhibit 1: The Utility Water Cycle and PFAS Impacts

• Exhibit 2: PFAS Sites Nationwide by Type

• Exhibit 3: Estimated Current Breakdown of Community Water Systems Requiring Treatment, by Size (population served)

• Exhibit 4: State Water Infrastructure, Estimated PFAS Contamination, and Targeted MCLs for PFAS Compounds

• Exhibit 5: Recent PFAS Litigation

• Exhibit 6: Top-Down View of Addressable Market

• Exhibit 7: Estimated Number of Systems and Deployed Solutions by 2030

• Exhibit 8: Market Spend CAPEX + OPEX, 2020-2030

• Exhibit 9: Base Case CAPEX + OPEX by Key State, 2020-2030

• Exhibit 10: Base Case CAPEX + OPEX by Technology, 2020-2030

• Exhibit 11: Wastewater Treatment Processes and Potential By-products

• Exhibit 12: Sewage Sludge Production by State

• Exhibit 13: Biosolids Use & Disposal Mechanisms

• Exhibit 14: Year-Over-Year Tipping Fees by Region

• Exhibit 15: Number of Incineration Facilities by State

• Exhibit 16: Economics of Biosolids Applications

• Exhibit 17: Sludge Production and Disposal Costs

• Exhibit 18: PFAS Treatment Technology Landscape

• Exhibit 19: PFAS Treatment Technology Waste Stream Comparison

• Exhibit 20: PFAS Treatment Technology Comparison

• Exhibit 21: PFAS Technology Portfolios of Representative Companies

• Exhibit 22: Service Offerings of Biosolid Providers

3


U.S. & CANADA MUNICIPAL WATER INSIGHT SERVICE 4

• As of Q1 2020, approximately 1,400 sites have been identified in 49 states with varying amount of PFAS. The sites include military facilities, industrial sites, airports, and drinking water facilities.

• On the state policy front, 29 states have so far made some policy movements on PFAS, primarily around establishing testing capabilities and requirements and eliminating types of packaging known to contain PFAS compounds.

• To date, 12 states have put forth numerical limits for PFAS levels, with three additional states currently in the process of promulgating maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). In a business as Usual scenario, a 19.17% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is anticipated through 2030.

• Bluefield forecasts US$498 million and US$3.15 billion for PFAS remediation technology by 2030. The wide range is shaped largely by the speed of policy developments, including federal guidance, that enforce remediation. The former scenario represents a bloc of 12 active states with no federal action, and the latter a federal regulatory standard in 2022.

• For drinking water, the lion’s share of technology deployment will include granular activated carbon in the near-term. It is widely used by utilities already, more cost effective, and easy to install. Looking forward, ion exchange resins and reverse osmosis are expected to gain traction post 2025.

• The wastewater segment and a path to address concerns is more unclear. Although, identified PFAS contamination in Maine and Vermont dairy milk supplies are potential harbingers for change. In March 2019, Maine issued a temporary moratorium on biosolids land application.

• However, it is likely that any significant PFAS biosolid regulation will be many years away, as it has been 11 years since the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) initial drinking water advisory in 2009 and four years since its revision in 2016, and enforceable limits exist in only a few states.

T A K E A W A Y S

The health dangers from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—a class of several thousand chemicals with a seven-decade legacy of military, industrial, and commercial use nationwide—have risen dramatically in public consciousness over the past few years. Current understanding of both the extent of PFAS contamination nationwide in drinking water supplies and the concentrations that produce adverse health effects in the human body are in their early stages. What is certain is that PFAS will become an issue of growing concern over the next several years, if not decades, with the advancement of contamination site and health testing.

The burgeoning crisis has led several highly affected U.S. states, such as Michigan and New Jersey, to pursue regulatory limits on PFAS concentrations ahead of a slower moving federal government to remediate PFAS-contaminated sites. At the same time, concern over how PFAS makes its way back into groundwater or into plant and animal uptake through biosolid land applications is threatening to disrupt the biosolids market.

This Focus Report supports water and wastewater utilities as well as PFAS technology providers with detailed data, market and policy trend analysis, and growth forecasts in U.S. PFAS remediation projects and biosolid market adjustments. Bluefield’s analysis of the market includes examination of policy shifts, technology trends, and strategies influencing the deployment of their innovative solutions.

Built on years of data and analysis, Bluefield Research’s Municipal Water Insight Service has become a key resource for companies across the value chain to identify the key states, systems, and opportunities that stand out in an already crowded field with increasing competition.

B A C K G R O U N D

Executive Summary



PFAS compounds leach into groundwater or surface water from aqueous film forming foams and industrial sources. They also make their way into the water cycle through evaporation and rainfall

PFAS sources include aqueous film forming foam (firefighting), metal plating, leather and fabric waterproofing production, etc.

GAC, Ion Exchange Resin, and Reverse Osmosis shown to be effective in removing PFAS

PFAS compounds not removed by conventional wastewater treatment methods passed through utility biproducts (e.g. biosolids)

Land applications leaching into groundwater sources over time, restarting the PFAS cycle.

How PFAS Makes Its Way across the Water Utility Lifecycle

5

Ground & Surface Water

Supply Water

Treatment

Distribution Network

Residential

Industry

Commercial

Biosolids / Disposal

Distribution Network

Drinking water ingestion constitutes PFAS’ path into the human body

Points of Use

Collection Network

Collection Network Wastewater

Treatment

PFAS compounds flow through the water cycle in perpetuity if not addressed by technologies designed to remove them through filtration or destroy them with high temperature incineration.

1

2

3 4

6

5

E x h i b i t 1 : T h e U t i l i t y W a t e r C y c l e a n d P F A S I m p a c t s

Source: Bluefield Research



Section 1: U.S. Drinking Water PFAS Policy and Legal Actions

6

In this section:

• Policy Summary

• PFAS Drinking Water Policy Landscape Overview

• PFAS Sites Identified Proliferate across the Country

• Current Number of Impacted Systems by System Size, Top 12 States

• Select States Propose and Adopt Drinking Water Limits

• PFAS Sparks Legal Action against Suppliers

Back to TOC



• To date, there is no enforceable federal limit on PFAS in drinking water, although states are moving forward with varying approaches to identification, monitoring and control measures.

• Several states have initiated lawsuits against polluters for damages and clean-up liabilities, leading to a few early nine-figure settlements.

• Given the EPA’s diminished role of influence within the current administration and recent economic fallout, companies’ new measures beyond those already in process will likely be pushed back.

• A current health advisory of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) was handed down in 2016 by the U.S. EPA. This represents a 88% reduction from the previous health advisory levels of 600 ppt communicated in 2009.

• States that have been highly affected due to industry and military installation legacies have taken the lead on establishing testing and regulatory regimes at lower concentrations than the EPA health advisory. Michigan and New Jersey, both of which have a high identified number of PFAS sites, are the most prominent to date.

Policy Summary

7



PFAS Drinking Water Policy Landscape Overview

8

States with proposed or adopted policies around PFAS testing, regulations, funding, or numerical limits

To date, 29 states have implemented policy efforts to address PFAS, including testing requirements and prohibitions on specific materials for packaging, manufacturing, and firefighting foam.




PFAS Sites Identified Proliferate across the Country

9

Source: Environmental Working Group, Bluefield Research

Identifiable PFAS impacted sites are proliferating at drinking water facilities, military bases, or other sites surrounding population centers and industrial hubs.

E x h i b i t 2 : P F A S S i t e s N a t i o n w i d e b y T y p e

GG to provide exhibit

Drinking Water Sites

Military Sites

Other Sites



Current Number of Impacted Systems by System Size, Top 12 States

10

Approximately 223 community water systems, serving populations of +3,000 people in 12 key states, have been impacted by PFAS.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Num

ber o

f Sys

tem

s Im

pact

ed b

y PF

AS Large (>100k) Medium (10k-100k) Small (3k-10k)

E x h i b i t 3 : E s t i m a t e d C u r r e n t 2 0 2 0 B r e a k d o w n o f C o m m u n i t y W a t e r S y s t e m s R e q u i r i n g T r e a t m e n t , b y S i z e ( p o p u l a t i o n s e r v e d )

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, State Departments of Environmental Quality, Bluefield Research



Select States Propose and Adopt Drinking Water Limits

11 Source: ITRC, Bluefield Research

State Estimated PFAS Sites

Total Community Water Systems in State

PFOS (in ppt)

PFOA (in ppt) Other Targeted PFAS (in ppt)

Michigan* 150+ 1,406 16 8 PFNA: 6, PFHxS: 51, PFBS: 420, PFHxA: 400, GenX: 370

California 150+ 3,026 40 10 N/A

New Jersey 150+ 585 13 14 PFNA: 13

New Hampshire 21 708 15 12 PFHxS: 18, PFNA: 11

Massachusetts* 21 529 6 PFAS combined: 20 (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA, PFDA)

Alaska** 18 441 70 combined N/A

New York* 17 2,299 10 10 N/A

North Carolina 11 2,006 GenX: 140

Vermont 10 418 5 PFAS combined: 20 (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA)

Minnesota** 8 999 15 35 PFHxS: 47

Maine** 8 379 70 combined N/A

Colorado** 6 902 70 combined N/A

Connecticut** 5 502 5 PFAS combined: 70 (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA)

Delaware** 4 209 70 combined N/A

Rhode Island* 2 91 5 PFAS combined: 20 (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA)

New Mexico** 2 676 70 combined N/A

E x h i b i t 4 : S t a t e W a t e r I n f r a s t r u c t u r e , E s t i m a t e d P F A S C o n t a m i n a t i o n , a n d T a r g e t e d M C L s f o r P F A S C o m p o u n d s ( i n p p t )

Note: *Limits proposed; **Non-binding legally Source: Bluefield Research



PFAS Sparks Legal Action against Suppliers

12

As litigation spreads, issues of water system ownership and liability for contamination are expected to be contentious due to the long-term legacy of PFAS use.

State Lawsuit Status

Minnesota The state of Minnesota sued 3M in 2010, alleging damages of drinking water and natural resources in the Twin Cities area

Settled in February 2018 for US$850 million

West Virginia 3,550 plaintiffs in mid-Ohio Valley sued DuPont and Chemours over occurrences of cancer and thyroid disease Settled for US$921 million

Alabama West Morgan-East Lawrence Water Authority sues 3M and Daikin America, Inc. for chemicals used in production processes in Decatur facilities Settled for US$4 million

North Carolina In 2018, NC Department of Justice, Department of Environmental Quality, Brunswick County, and Cape Fear Public Utility Authority have filed lawsuits against Chemours for GenX contamination

Chemours was required to construct a US$100 million thermal oxidizer for GenX destruction by end of 2019 through consent order and also fined US$13 million

New Jersey In 2019, the state of New Jersey sues 3M, DuPont, Tyco Fire Products, Buckeye Fire Equipment, Chemours, National Foam, Kidde-Fenwal, and Buckeye Fire Equipment for consumer and environmental fraud

Ongoing

Michigan In 2019 Michigan sued 3M, DuPont, and 15 other chemical manufacturers alleging concealed dangers of PFAS, withholding evidence, and environmental contamination

Ongoing

New Hampshire The state of New Hampshire sues eight manufacturers of PFAS for statewide contamination in mid-2019, alleging negligence and malice Ongoing

Vermont The state of Vermont sues eight manufacturers of PFAS for statewide contamination in mid-2019, alleging negligence and malice Ongoing

E x h i b i t 5 : R e c e n t P F A S L i t i g a t i o n




Section 2: U.S. Drinking Water PFAS Remediation Forecasts 2020-2030

13

In this section:

• Forecast Summary

• Key Market Assumptions: Treatment System Addressable Market

• PFAS Timeline: Potential Regulatory Trajectories

• The 2030 Outlook by the Numbers

• Three Forecast Scenarios, 2020-2030

• Base Case Forecasts by State, 2020-2030

• Base Case Drinking Water Market Forecasts by Technology, 2020-2030

Back to TOC



Forecast Summary

14

• A dataset of approximately 50,000 water systems and over 1,500 sites were evaluated to develop a baseline foundation from which the 10-year forecast outlook is built.

• The number of states and systems addressing PFAS is still limited. For an acceleration of spend to occur, more states will need to adopt measures, thereby enforcing the deployment of treatment technologies.

• Bluefield has developed three scenarios based on potential EPA and state-related actions to address PFAS.

• State-by-state forecasts show treatment systems and operating expenditures scaling from US$86 million in 2020 to US$498 million in 2030.

• In the near term, granular activated carbon (GAC) is likely to dominate the market for PFAS treatment systems based on current procurement trends, while stronger regulations will drive take up of reverse osmosis (RO) longer-term (31% CAGR).



Key Market Assumptions: Treatment System Addressable Market

15

Bluefield translated sampling sites under the current state-specific monitoring programs into potential demand for treatment systems based on community water systems impacted, procurement trend, and likely expansion of site identification.

Total Sites Under Sampling Programs

Identified Sites Requiring Remediation

Estimated Community Water Systems (CWS) Impacted by

Sites

% of Impacted CWS Deploying Treatment

Systems

Total Treatment System market US$498 million US$2020-2030

(12-state base case)

% GAC, IX, RO deployment

• A dataset of approximately 50,000 water systems

and over 1,500 sites were evaluated.

• The number of PFAS-impacted community water systems (CWS) deploying treatment systems is used as the benchmark for total addressable market.

• The data was filtered by

- Number of PFAS sites identified and projected.

- Neighboring CWS to sites segmented by size.

• The results were then filtered by

- % of sites likely to require treatment systems.

- % of adoption of each treatment technology.

- Current costs per technology.

A n a l y s i s E x h i b i t 6 : T o p - D o w n V i e w o f

A d d r e s s a b l e M a r k e t




PFAS Timeline: Potential Regulatory Trajectories

16

Stat

e R

ulem

akin

g Fe

dera

l Reg

ulat

ions

Based on the uncertainty of federal regulatory trajectory, Bluefield has developed multiple scenarios based on theoretical EPA actions of high and low action in discovering and remediating PFAS.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, National Conference of State Legislatures, Bluefield Research

• Toxicity assessments for additional PFAS for PFBA, PFHxA, PFNA, PFDA

• Toxicity assessment for GenX and updated for PFBS

• Interim recommendations for addressing groundwater groundwater with PFOA/PFOS

• Improve upon UCMR 3’s testing Method 537 to include GenX and new PFAS

• Research into performance and costs of different technologies for PFAS removal

• Establish national drinking wáter regulatory determination for PFOA and PFOS

• EPA establishes Method 533, which improves short-chain testing capabilities

• Designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA

• NDAA requires 172 PFAS compounds added to TRI

• New tests for PFAS provide additional methods to identify PFAS presence

High: Federal government identification rate rises, identifies 15% of systems as affected by 2030, up from current 1.3%

Low: Federal government identification rate rises, identifies 10% of systems as affected by 2030, up from current 1.3%

• MI: Creation of permanent inter-agency taskforce and funding for PFAS removal

• NC: Fines Chemours for US$13MM in Nov. 2018—requires company to test and report GenX

• NJ: Sets MCLs of 13 ppt for PFNA and 10 ppt for PFOA/PFOS. Orders five major industrial producers to provide DEP of PFAS use and notifies they will be charged for cleanup

• CO: Designates PFOA/PFOS as hazardous substances and requires facility monitoring, advances regulatory oversight.

• MN: PFAS packaging prohibited, state task force established, numerical limits adopted for PFOS and PFOA

• CA: Prohibits the sale and manufacture of PFAS firefighting foam, requires state-certified methodologies for drinking water testing.

• NY: Prohibits sale and manufacture of PFAS firefighting foam, PFAS food packaging

2018

• CA: Requires CWS and non-transient noncommunity wáter systems to report PFAS detections

• GA: Prohibits certain types of fire fighting foam manufacturing using PFAS

• ME: Prohibits sale of PFAS chemicals in food packaging

• MN: Prohibits use of some PFAS chemicals in certain products

• NH: Prohibits the use of fire fighting foam containing PFAS compounds

• PA: Revises guidelines for PFAS Substances Remediation Program for military installations

• WI: Allows for regulation of fire fighting foam with containing PFAS compounds

2019

2020 2022-2026 2026-2030 2019 2021



The 2030 Outlook by the Numbers

17

The number of states and systems addressing PFAS is still limited. For an acceleration of spend to occur, more states will need to adopt measures, thereby enforcing the deployment of treatment technologies.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Low Case, 50 states High Case, 50 states Base Case, 12 States

Num

ber o

f Com

mun

ity W

ater

Sys

tem

s Im

pact

ed

Water System Identified Treatment Systems Deployed

E x h i b i t 7 : E s t i m a t e d N u m b e r o f S y s t e m s a n d D e p l o y e d S o l u t i o n s b y 2 0 3 0




Three Forecast Scenarios, 2020-2030

18

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

US$

Mill

ions

Base Low High

Base Case – 12 Most Active States Only

• The Base Cases assume regulatory activity is limited to the 12 states currently moving forward with regulations and no federal action

• Through 2030, the base-case scenario totals a combined US$2.7 billion. Further the Base Case assumes no new policy developments or implementations in the period analyzed.

• In contrast, the Low and High scenarios, which assume federal action and activity across all 50 states beginning in 2022 and 2025, respectively, forecast from US$5.7 billion and to US$12.1 billion during the same period.

• The Low and High scenarios include all 50 states assuming the first 12 states are followed by EPA regulations rolled out in 38 remaining states. Although the takeoff occurs in different years—2022 and 2025.

• Total PFAS technology spend in the High scenario tops US$3.1 billion, annually, in 2030, or nearly double the Low scenario and 6.25x the Base Case.

E x h i b i t 8 : M a r k e t S p e n d C A P E X + O P E X , 2 0 2 0 - 2 0 3 0

The trendlines represent the total PFAS technology spend over the next decade with both a low and high federal scenario as compared to a base scenario that represents no policy changes at the federal level. Each trendline incorporates the same 12 individual state values previously depicted.

Low - 50 States, EPA regulations enacted in 2025

High - 50 States, EPA regulations enacted in 2022

A n a l y s i s




• Overall, CAGR of 19.17% is anticipated through 2030 as state markets scale up from zero with new regulation.

• The number of sites in Michigan put it at the leading edge of technology deployment. Through 2030, 24%, or US$637 million, are forecasted.

• New Jersey is positioned as second largest market at a combined US$403 million because of more aggressive legislation and large number of systems impacted by industrial sites requiring treatment for remediation.

• Massachusetts is the largest New England market, where regulation is picking up momentum. It is forecasted to reach US$323 million.

• California leads Western markets due to total number of systems, multiple industrial sites (US$273 million).

Base Case Forecasts by State, 2020-2030

19

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

US$

Mill

ions

Michigan California New Jersey VermontMassachusetts Colorado Washington MinnesotaNew Hampshire Ohio Pennsylvania New York

State-by-state forecasts show treatment systems and operating expenditures scaling from US$86 million in 2020 to US$498 million in 2030.

A n a l y s i s


E x h i b i t 9 : B a s e C a s e C A P E X + O P E X b y K e y S t a t e , 2 0 2 0 - 2 0 3 0



• GAC solutions to represent bulk of market spend. Through 2030, GAC will make up 70%, or US$1.89 billion. Its deployment stems largely from cost effectiveness, ease of integration into existing systems, and design capabilities.

• RO currently has been cited as the most expensive option and least competitive versus GAC. As state MCLs grow more stringent, larger towns deploy treatment systems (17%, US$463 million).

• Ion Exchange Resin is a viable option for higher removal rate requirements. Although, supply chain bottlenecks and upfront costs slow deployment to 13% of total. The forecasted total through 2030 is US$347 million.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

US$

Mill

ions

GAC Ion Exchange Resin Reverse Osmosis

Base Case Drinking Water Market Forecasts by Technology, 2020-2030

20

E x h i b i t 1 0 : B a s e C a s e C A P E X + O P E X b y T e c h n o l o g y , 2 0 2 0 - 2 0 3 0

In the near term, GAC is likely to dominate the market for PFAS treatment systems based on current procurement trends, while stronger regulations will drive take up of RO longer-term (31% CAGR).


A n a l y s i s



Section 3: U.S. Biosolids Market and Business Models

21

In this section:

• Wastewater Treatment Stream Produces Saleable Byproducts

• Sewage Sludge Production across the U.S.

• Biosolids Market Opportunity Dependent on Beneficial Use across the U.S.

• Studies and Risks on PFAS in Biosolids

• Rising Landfill Tipping Fees Drive Biosolids Market across the U.S.

• Biosolid Incineration Facilities and Equipment on the Decline

• Biosolid Commercial Costs and Value Comparison

• Outsourced vs. In-House Biosolids Management Strategies

• Sludge Production and Disposal Use and Costs: PFAS Risks Back to TOC



Wastewater Treatment Stream Produces Saleable Byproducts Wastewater treatment by-products that currently serve as alternative revenue streams, notably biosolids, are at risk to PFAS. This will potentially disrupt biosolid land applications for fertilizer and soil amendments.

22

E x h i b i t 1 1 : W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t P r o c e s s e s a n d P o t e n t i a l B y - p r o d u c t s

Screening Primary Settling Tanks

Activated Sludge Process

Final Settling Tanks Disinfection

Sludge Processing

Biosolids

Biogas / Energy Capture

Reclaimed Water

Wastewater Treatment Processes Wastewater Treatment Byproducts

Excess Organic Waste Processing

Capacity




Sewage Sludge Production across the US

• Sewage sludge represents the solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment work.

• Sewage sludge production is spread across the U.S., largely based on population distribution and higher wastewater treatment plant flow volumes.

• Biosolids represent the material produced after sludge has been treated for beneficial use or disposal. This regime stems from the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) 1993 Biosolids Rule (503), which requires the removal of various pathogens, disease carrying vectors, and other substances to qualify for Class A EQ (exceptional quality) and Class B designations. Class A EQ are the highest quality biosolids, and defined as those that have met and exceeded all Class A designation rules on pathogen and metals limits and vector attraction reduction (VAR) metrics.

• The cost of disposal is impacted by volume, dewatering, and type of disposal, landfill, reuse for fertilizer, etc.

Annually, wastewater treatment plants in the U.S. produce approximately 14.3 million wet tons of sewage sludge that are treated to EPA standards for beneficial use or disposal.

23

Over 1 Million Wet Tons 300,000-999,999 Wet Tons 150,000-299,999 Wet Tons 50,000-149,999 Wet Tons Less than 49,999 Wet Tons

E x h i b i t 1 2 : S e w a g e S l u d g e P r o d u c t i o n b y S t a t e

A n a l y s i s

Source: Journal of Environmental Management (Seiple, Coleman, and Skaggs), North East Biosolids and Residuals Association, Bluefield Research



Biosolids Market Opportunity Dependent on Beneficial Use across the U.S.

Other 6%

Disposal 45%

Agriculture 37% Sales

<1%

Reclamation 1%

Class A EQ Distribution

11%

Sales 49%

Nearly 50% of produced biosolids in the U.S. are put to beneficial use being land applied as either soil amendment on agricultural lands or as fertilizer.

24

Note: Disposal includes landfilling (28%), surface disposal units (2%), and incineration (15%) Source: North East Biosolids and Residuals Association, Bluefield Research

E x h i b i t 1 3 : B i o s o l i d s U s e & D i s p o s a l M e c h a n i s m s

• Of the 49% of biosolids that are land applied, 36% are used on agricultural land. This includes Class A and Class B biosolids. The EPA estimates that biosolids are used on less than 1% of the nation’s agricultural land.

• The 6% of biosolids that are neither disposed of nor put to beneficial use are stored and then disposed of through a beneficial use later.

• Accounting for 11% of biosolids, Class A EQ are deemed the highest quality, and can be sold to consumers as compost or fertilizer.

• Disposal options are limited at sites located far from agricultural land as costs of trucking the biosolids increase with distance.

• Landfill tipping fees also impact the disposal mechanism of choice, as plants may opt for incineration as an alternative to land applying or landfilling depending on cost.

A n a l y s i s



Studies and Risks on PFAS in Biosolids

• CWA 503 requires the EPA to review biosolids regulations at least every two years. As of late 2018, 352 unregulated pollutants have been identified as requiring further research to understand health effects, PFAS among them. Nine regulated substances exist under CWA Rule 503.

• According to the EPA, about 50% of all biosolids are being recycled to land. These biosolids are used on less than 1% of the nation’s agricultural land.

• In some states, including Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, biosolids sold or donated for land applications have tested for PFAS concentrations in the 10,000s of ppt, raising concerns and calls for additional study of the effects of PFAS uptake in crops and animal feed as well as calls to halt the practice altogether.

• EPA studies have shown plant uptake of PFAS into plants in contaminated soils in tomatoes and lettuce, and in June 2018 the FDA revealed studies on 16 PFAS contaminants in various foods, showing elevated levels of PFOS in fish, milk, pineapple, and sweet potato.

In the past few years state and federal tests have shown elevated levels of PFAS in biosolids and agricultural products derived from the grounds where they were applied, calling into question the safety and extent to which PFAS contaminated biosolids should be used.

25

State Regulations

Vermont

A 2018 study in Vermont that sampled soils in 66 locations statewide found both PFOA and PFOS at greater than 50% of sample frequency, with PFOA concentrations ranging from 52 ppt to 4,900 ppt and PFOS from 110 ppt to 9,700 ppt. An earlier study in 2011 found PFOS in six municipal bio-solid applied soils.

Maine

In March 2019, Maine Governor Janet Mills issued a temporary moratorium of sludge for land application due to detection of PFOS, PFOA, and PFBS in locally produced milk. The following two months, Maine wastewater treatment plants scrambled to meet a testing deadline for land applications, as well as a submission of exceedances over 2,500 ppt PFOS, 5,200 ppt PFOA, and 1,900,000 ppt PFBS in biosolids in order to receive additional permitting for land application.

A n a l y s i s

Source: Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Maine Department of Agriculture, Northeast Biosolids and Residuals Association, Bluefield Research



Rising Landfill Tipping Fees Drive Biosolids Market across the U.S.

• Following behind the Pacific’s 2019 average tipping fee of US$73 per ton is the Northeast with average tipping fees of US$67 per ton.

• High cost regions have the greatest incentive to reduce the volume of produced biosolids or to avoid landfill disposal fees by finding alternative end uses for wastewater sludge.

• While more pronounced in some regions, the national average rose 15% from 2016 to 2019 signaling higher disposal costs nationwide.

• As solid waste streams decline, the amount of biosolids waste that landfills can accept must also decline in order to main the stability of the landfill. Decreased capacity drives up costs.

The cost of biosolids disposal is driven in part by local landfill tipping fees which rose by a national average of 15% from 2016 to 2019 due to overall increases in demand and decreases in supply as well as costs related to transport.

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

US$

per

ton

2016 2017 2018 2019

Source: Waste 360, Bluefield Research

E x h i b i t 1 4 : Y e a r o v e r Y e a r T i p p i n g F e e s b y R e g i o n

A n a l y s i s



Biosolid Incineration Facilities and Equipment on the Decline

• Approximately 77% of incineration facilities (154) are located in nine states, with no major presence on the West Coast, meaning states with growing PFAS problems like California and Washington are unlikely to consider incineration as an option due to transport costs.

• Overall, biosolid incineration facilities, which number around 200 facilities nationally, have declined approximately 14% over the past 13 years.

• Michigan and New Jersey, two states that have notable PFAS incidences and an aggressive policy, have 24 and 19 incineration facilities, respectively. States in the Northeast are better located to consider incineration overall.

There are approximately 200 incineration facilities for biosolids in the United States, although the high level of heat required to fully destroy PFAS compounds (+1,000 Co) is not feasible at some facilities.

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Num

ber o

f Fac

ilitie

s

Source: North East Biosolids & Residuals Association, Bluefield Research

E x h i b i t 1 5 : N u m b e r o f I n c i n e r a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s b y S t a t e

A n a l y s i s



Biosolid Commercial Costs and Value Comparison

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

SoilAmendment

Fertilizer Combustion Gasification Compost

Cost of Production Biosolids Value Net Cost

• Utilities’ ability to recover the highest value from biosolids in fertilizer requires significant effort and resources in finding customers that believe in the product’s value.

• The overall market size for land application is between US$185 million and US$215 million annually. Growing concern over PFAS in land applications has the potential to diminish this product confidence.

• Gasification and combustion provide the lowest value of byproducts, largely because the volume of biosolids is so far reduced.

• If a utility is committed to disposal of biosolids byproducts, this volumetric reduction can significantly reduce disposal costs. However, increased energy and containment costs required to handle PFAS in biosolids would likely raise the per-unit cost of combustion and gasification.

28

Because both the lowest cost (soil amendment) and the highest value (fertilizer) uses for biosolids involve land application, the growing concern over PFAS contamination threatens to disrupt the biosolids industry and its main uses.

US$

/Dry

Ton

of B

ioso

lids

Source: CDM Smith, Bluefield Research

E x h i b i t 1 6 : E c o n o m i c s o f B i o s o l i d s A p p l i c a t i o n s

A n a l y s i s



Outsourced vs. In-House Biosolids Management Strategies Utilities can outsource some or all aspects of biosolids management through three distinct operating models.

29

• Some utilities opt to only take ownership of the quality of discharged effluents, outsourcing the management of all aspects of sludge treatment and biosolids management and disposal.

• These outsourced services can take the form of on- or off-site third party digestors for the treatment and dewatering of sewage sludge.

• Some utilities known to have tested for high PFAS levels have been blacklisted by these biosolids contractors concerned about future liability, constraining their biosolids options and raising management costs.

• Other utilities, typically large ones with greater in-house capabilities maintain control of biosolids treatment. These utilities maintain complete control of biosolid treatment and outsource disposal, contracting with trucking companies, landfills or resellers for biosolids disposal.

• More proactive utilities manage the sale of branded biosolids products in-house, requiring on staff expertise in branding, marketing, and customer service of a market-based product.

Wastewater utility owns and operates all biosolids processing facilities and is responsible for disposal of final biosolids produced. May contract with private waste haulers for trucking services.

Utility contracts with a third party to manage biosolids treatment and handling. Private firms may produce saleable byproducts or simply provide biosolids disposal solutions as local market conditions dictate. Public-private partnerships (PPP) contracts can facilitate the construction of a privately owned biosolids processing facility at the wastewater treatment plant site. The industry is concentrated, with the top 10 companies constituting the majority of revenue, with contracts typically made in a long-term (10-20) year structure. Key firms include Synagro, Lystek, McGill, Waste Management, Veolia, Casella Waste Systems, BCR Environmental, Burch Hydro, Mannco, which target different parts of the value chain, including collection and transport, composting, facility clean-out services, alkaline stabilization, dewatering, drying and palletization, regulatory compliance, land application, and product marketing.

Municipal utility manages in-house the marketing and sales of branded biosolids products to large-scale agricultural users, landscapers, or for sale of bagged products to private residents.

I n - h o u s e P r o c e s s i n g

O u t - S o u r c e d M a n a g e m e n t

I n - h o u s e S a l e o f B i o s o l i d s P r o j e c t s


A n a l y s i s



Sludge Production and Disposal Use and Costs: PFAS Risks

30

Use Type Application Wet Tons per Application

Average Application Cost (US$/wet ton)

Cost of Application (US$)

Total Cost of Use Type (US$)

Disposal Landfill 4,032,042 $62.50 $252,002,647

US$485,266,783

Surface Disposal 284,312 $62.50 $17,769,510

Incineration 2,154,945 $100.00 $215,494,526

Beneficial Use / Land Application

Agriculture 5,847,964 $17.50 $102,339,372

US$192,528,193 Class A EQ 1,694,804 $47.50 $80,503,191

Forestry 59,038 $45.00 $2,656,747

Reclamation 216,273 $32.50 $6,762,425

14,289,378 Total $677,794,876

• Incineration, already a costly method of management, due to increased energy needs to achieve PFAS compound destruction.

• The smaller number of facilities able to achieve this temperature would also require additional transportation costs for utilities or their third-party partners.

• Additional testing and monitoring regimes for PFAS would add to the per-unit costs of land applications if deemed necessary by states or municipalities experiencing high levels of contamination.

• Class A EQ biosolids represent 11.8% of costs and quantity used nationwide.

A n a l y s i s

If restrictions and additional testing for PFAS gain policy ground, the costs and availability of landfilling, incineration, or land application could be significantly impacted.

Source North East Biosolids & Residuals Association, Bluefield Research

E x h i b i t 1 7 : S l u d g e P r o d u c t i o n a n d D i s p o s a l C o s t s



Section 4: PFAS Treatment Technologies and Case Studies

31

In this section:

• Technology Summary

• PFAS Treatment: Established and Emerging Technologies

• Waste Handling and OPEX

• PFAS Concentration, Chain Length, and Removal Capabilities

• Technology Case Study: Ann Arbor, Michigan (GAC)

• Technology Case Study: Stratmoor Hills, Colorado (IX Resin)

• Technology Case Study: Brunswick, North Carolina (RO)

Back to TOC



• Granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange (IX) resin, and reverse osmosis (RO) are the three most recommended technologies for PFAS remediation currently, with GAC forecasted to be the dominant technology used for the foreseeable future, with IX resin and RO gaining share in the coming years.

• GAC already has a large installation base for other water treatment purposes, is well understood, and relatively inexpensive. PFAS will significantly affect bed contact lifetimes and O&M costs.

• IX resin offers the potential of reduced OPEX costs and footprint than GAC at a potentially higher CAPEX. RO, significantly more expensive than either adsorptive media, has the highest removal capabilities, and may be the best option for shorter-chain PFAS compounds depending on competing contaminants.

• Early stage research is testing destruction methods that are not yet commercially available. A few early stage companies are experimenting with extensions of the adsorptive media concepts above, such as dextrose-based media, and liquid activated carbon administered in situ to PFAS plumes in groundwater.

Technology Summary

32



PFAS Treatment: Established and Emerging Technologies

33

E x h i b i t 1 8 : P F A S T r e a t m e n t T e c h n o l o g y L a n d s c a p e

Note: * Advanced oxidation processes/Advanced reduction processes Source: Bluefield Research

Stag

e of

Dev

elop

men

t

Exp

erim

enta

l M

atur

e

Range of Viability Feasible Not Viable

AOP/ARP*

Incineration

In Situ Foam Fractionation

Flocculation/ Electrocoagulation

Fungal Enzymes

Photolysis

RO / NF

Sonolysis

Electrochemical Oxidation

Polymeric Adsorbents

Ozofractionation

GAC

Ion Exchange

Best Known Emerging Developmental Phase Adsorptive/Separation Destruction

A host of other technologies are in various stages of development and divide between adsorption (removal through surface attraction), and destruction.



• Reverse osmosis units and some regenerative resin systems create concentrated waste streams of PFAS laden brine. The costs and methods for disposal are highly specific to each individual location and local and state regulations. They include:

• Surface water discharge

• Evaporation pond

• Deep well injection

• Land application

• Sewer discharge

• The familiarity and availability of thermal destruction of GAC and resin makes waste handling less expensive and more uniform across locations than RO disposal.

Waste Handling and OPEX

34

A significant component and variable of PFAS remediation lifecycle costs are involved in disposal and/or reactivation of waste/media.

Treatment technology Waste Stream Key Issues Costs

Ion Exchange Resin

Single use resin is incinerated. Regenerable resin may require the disposal of brine

• Transport • Reactivation • Replenishment • Potential

Permitting • Landfilling

Similar to GAC incineration

Granular Activated Carbon

Spent GAC heated and reactivated at high temperature or landfilled if exhausted

• Transport • Reactivation • Replenishment • Landfilling

Incineration costs predictable and uniform across locations due to technology penetration

Reverse Osmosis Concentrated liquid waste stream

Transport, Disposal and containment of brine, possible hazardous waste permitting

Highly dependent on state and local regulations, which are partly based on geological conditions (i.e., near ocean)

E x h i b i t 1 9 : P F A S T r e a t m e n t T e c h n o l o g y W a s t e S t r e a m C o m p a r i s o n

A d d i t i o n a l D e t a i l s

Source: NJ Department of Environmental Quality, Water Research Foundation, CDM Smith, Brunswick, NC, Bluefield Research



• A pilot test of RO in the Cape Fear area of North Carolina found RO treated GenX to non-detect levels versus 7 ppt-12 ppt using filters.

• In a total sum of 45 PFAS compounds, another test showed a level of non-detect – 11 ppt was achieved by RO versus 423 ppt–892 ppt range for filters.

PFAS Concentration, Chain Length, and Removal Capabilities

35

Source: NJ Department of Environmental Quality, Water Research Foundation, CDM Smith, Brunswick, NC, Bluefield Research

Per volume unit of media, tests show that IX resin tends to capture a higher percentage of PFAS compounds than GAC as concentrations rise. They also show that RO displaying the highest capability of removing all known PFAS to date, long and short chain.

Treatment Technology Concentration Long Chain Short Chain

Ion Exchange Resin

Higher kinetics gives better potential for removing higher percentage of high concentrations

Tests have revealed >90% of long-chain PFAS, particularly PFOS, PFOA, PFNA

Can be more effective than GAC, though competing contaminants can reduce effectiveness quicker

Granular Activated Carbon

More effective at lower concentrations per unit volume of GAC than IX resin

Tests have revealed >90% of long-chain PFAS, particularly PFOS, PFOA, PFNA

Less effective on short chain compounds unless replaced frequently

Reverse Osmosis Suited for all concentrations

Over 95% removal rates of PFAS were found

95% removal rates of short-chain PFAS, including GenX, have been recorded

E x h i b i t 2 0 : P F A S T r e a t m e n t T e c h n o l o g y C o m p a r i s o n

A d d i t i o n a l D e t a i l s



Technology Case Study: Ann Arbor, Michigan (GAC)

36

The city of Ann Arbor, Michigan first sampled for PFAS compounds in 2014 with UCMR3. The city decided in 2017 after the EPA health advisory that PFAS contamination was a problem. Tribar Manufacturing, a producer of chrome plated auto parts in nearby Wixom, has been identified as a key course of the contamination. A former Daimler-Chrysler facility along the Huron River is another possible source. Ann Arbor has used GAC already in place for other treatment purposes. Its adjustments for PFAS included moving to a finer grain of GAC and to replace the carbon on a two-year cycle, rather than the five-year cycle it was previously using, raising GAC OPEX costs by about 2.8x. After reducing PFAS levels to as low as 2 ppt in April 2019, the city experienced an uptick in concentrations in the fall of 2019, raising questions about the possibility of additional PFAS sources and demonstrating how PFAS compounds break through GAC over time as adsorption abilities degrade, necessitating recharge.

• The city is seeking to hit an internally set target of 10 ppt combined PFOA/PFOS, sampling twice per month.

• The city required no new capex for additional GAC capacity but did receive a permit from the state of Michigan to remove sand filtration to move to a full GAC filter.

• The shift from Calgon Carbon F300 to F400 and a two-year rather than five-year contact bed cycle has raised the OPEX costs from US$160,000 per year to an estimated US$450,000 per year. This includes Calgon picking up, reactivating, and dropping off the carbon.

• The city applied for state revolving funds (SRF) with its PFAS project, but since SRF is typically focused on capex projects, all spending has been local.

• RO was briefly considered but not seen as a viable option with brine disposal issues and the large pre-filtration capacity that would be required for it.

A n n A r b o r , M i c h i g a n

Population Served 125,000

Cost US$911,000

OPEX / MGD US$32,150

Capacity 14 MGD

Filtration Train/Technologies

GAC

Vendors Calgon Carbon

Source: City of Ann Arbor, Calgon Carbon, Bluefield Research

B a c k g r o u n d

H i g h l i g h t s



Technology Case Study: Stratmoor Hills, Colorado (IX Resin)

37

• The system was implemented in 2017, currently

active only during summer months when district draws water from Widefield Aquifer. The system cost was paid for by customer rate increases

• The district would have preferred to use RO, but brine disposal was far too costly and logistically difficult for SHWD to address in the state of Colorado.

• They considered GAC as well, but co-contaminant issues of elevated nitrate and footprint of system favored IX resin as the ultimate decision. GAC would have required two 10’ diameter by 20’ high vessels. The four IX resin tanks are 4’ diameter x 8’ high.

• The resin is single use, with Evoqua to come replace when necessary. Since the district only connects to Widefield Aquifer for part of the year, the system sees only a few months of use per year during the summer, PFAS compounds have not broken through yet.

• The system is very simple with minimum O&M, mainly bead rinse during off season to prevent fouling from co-contaminants.


Capacity 0.5 MGD

Filtration Train/Technologies IX Resin

Vendors Evoqua

B a c k g r o u n d Stratmoor Hills is an unincorporated township in central Colorado near Colorado Springs. One of its drinking water sources is the Widefield Aquifer, a groundwater source that serves several communities in the region. Following the 2016 EPA policy shift to the 70 ppt health advisory, many communities in the area drawing from Widefield were informed for the first time that they had been ingesting PFAS contaminated water for decades. The Peterson Air Force Base, located about five miles northeast of Stratmoor Hills, and where aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) has been used for many years, is thought to be the main source of contamination. As a result of this information and public opinion, the Stratmoor Hills Water District (SHWD) voluntarily moved to implement a solution to address PFAS contamination in its service area.

S t r a t m o o r H i l l s , C o l o r a d o

H i g h l i g h t s

Source: Stratmoor Hills, CO, Evoqua



Technology Case Study: Brunswick, North Carolina (RO)

38

• North Carolina’s focus on smaller-chain PFAS compounds, particularly GenX, was a primary motivator in the recommendation for a reverse osmosis system in Brunswick.

• GAC and IX resin are shown to be less effective in removing short-chain PFAS compounds, requiring more frequent bed change-outs and significantly increasing yearly OPEX.

• The municipality’s primary goal is removing 90% of GenX and other PFAS compounds. Secondary goals are to remove other micropollutants such as 1,4-Dioxane and PPCPs, Chromium-6 and brominated compounds.

• RO system deemed to be the most cost effective to achieve the county’s goals. Brunswick’s coastal location and potential permitting for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge of RO brine into the Cape Fear river is a large factor in making RO an operational and cost feasibility.

B r u n s w i c k , N o r t h C a r o l i n a


Capex Cost US$36 million

Opex/MGD US$80,500

Capacity 36 MGD

Filtration Train/Technologies Reverse Osmosis

Source: Brunswick, North Carolina, CDM Smith

B a c k g r o u n d Located on the west bank of the Cape Fear River, Brunswick County is the southernmost county in North Carolina and also situated on the coast. An upstream Chemours (formerly DuPont) plant in Fayetteville, had dumped effluent contaminated with GenX, a short-chain compound used in Teflon manufacturing and originally intended to displace discontinued long-chain PFAS in production processes which has, nevertheless, been shown to have adverse human health effects. The plant had been producing GenX since 2009 and was ordered to construct a thermal oxidizer for GenX destruction by the state of North Carolina as a result of a law suit filed by Brunswick County and the Cape Fear Water Authority.

The county evaluated both GAC and IX resin solutions, but determined that, with its competing co-contaminants and larger water treatment goals and the diminished effectiveness of adsorption against short-chain PFAS compounds, that a full reverse osmosis system was the most cost effective system for its goals. The county has also been scheduled to upgrade its water treatment plant from 24 to 36 MGD capacity and expected to come online in 2021.

H i g h l i g h t s



Section 5: Company Profiles

39

In this section: • Drinking Water Technology Providers:

Portfolio Comparison • Cabot Carbon • Calgon Carbon • CycloPure • ECT2 • Evoqua Water Technologies • Purolite • Regenesis

• Biosolids Management and Service Providers: Portfolio Comparison

• BCR Environmental • Burch Hydro, Inc. • Casella Waste Systems • Lystek

• Mannco Wastewater & Soil Solutions

• McGill Environmental Systems • Synagro • Veolia • Waste Management

Back to TOC



Drinking Water Technology Providers: Portfolio Comparison

40

Larger, fully water-focused firms have PFAS remediation tools in both media and membrane filtration while other smaller upstarts are specializing in formulating resins and other types of media adsorption that more effectively target PFAS.

Company GAC IX Resin NF/RO Experimental Adsorptive Media In Situ Remediation

Calgon Carbon

Cabot Carbon

Purolite

Evoqua

ECT2

Koch Membranes

Toray

Danaher (Pall)

Wigen

Biwater

H2O Innovation

CycloPure

Regenesis

E x h i b i t 2 1 : P F A S T e c h n o l o g y P o r t f o l i o s o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e C o m p a n i e s

Source: Companies, Bluefield Research



Cabot Carbon

41

C o m p a n y O f f e r i n g D e t a i l

Parameter Detail

Technology GAC products based on lignite (HYDRODARCO 4000), bituminous coal, and coconut shell (NORIT 400/4000)

Life Cycle Cost Comparable to other GAC providers

System Footprint GAC is targeted at larger installations, IX smaller, emergency

Waste Handling/Cost Reactivation through high temperatures, incineration and landfilling for destruction. Company does not have domestic reactivation sites

Concentration of PFAS

All at frequent bed replenishment, but better suited to lower concentrations than IX resin or RO

Chain Length of PFAS Better suited to long chain removal

Co-existing Substances

GAC—TOCs, minerals/IX resin—competing ions: sulfate, nitrate, bicarbonate

Key Project References • Hoosick, NY

• Cabot Carbon’s GAC products are marketed as being resistant to the effects of remediation competition from TOC.

• Cabot Carbon is a large, global provider of specialty chemicals and performance materials founded in 1882. Purification solutions are one of its four major business segments.

• The company totaled US$3.33 billion in revenue for FY 2019.

• Cabot has seven locations that manufacture GAC and four reactivation facilities—these are located overseas in the Netherlands, the UK, and Italy.

Cabot Carbon is a specialty chemicals and materials company based in Boston, Massachusetts offering a range of carbon-based products with diverse applications such as inkjets, drilling fluids, aerogels, and others. The company was originally founded in 1882. In 2009 it increased its carbon producing capacity by acquiring two plants in China. In 2012, the company purchased Netherlands-based Norit NV, a major global producer of GAC, for US$1.1 billion, moving its overall strategic position more toward municipal and industrial water purification capabilities.

H i g h l i g h t s



Calgon Carbon

42

C o m p a n y O f f e r i n g D e t a i l

Parameter Detail

Technology

The company’s Filtrasorb product line is a bituminous, coal-based reagglomerated GAC targeted for PFAS removal purposes. Its IX resin line is marketed at the removal of perchlorate and nitrates in addition to GAC and is under the CALRES and ISEP lines

Life Cycle Cost Company’s equipment supply and reactivation sites across the country help to keep lifecycle costs lower and more uniform

System Footprint GAC is more effective at larger systems, IX better suited for smaller projects

Waste Handling/Cost Reactivation through high temperatures, incineration and landfilling for destruction

Concentration of PFAS All at frequent bed replenishment, but better suited to lower concentrations than IX resin or RO

Chain Length of PFAS GAC better suited for long chain, resin better suited to handle both

Co-existing substances

GAC—TOCs/, minerals/IX resin—competing ions: sulfate, nitrate, bicarbonate

Key Project References

• Ann Arbor, MI (GAC) • Widefield, CO (GAC) • Penns Grove, NJ (GAC) • Wilmington NC (GAC)

• Calgon Carbon leverages its presence as a leading activated carbon filtration player into the emerging PFAS market opportunity with its Filtrasorb product line.

• Calgon Carbon has 20 facilities across manufacturing, reactivation, and equipment employing over 1,400 people, and claims large-scale PFAS treatment projects in 14 U.S. states. Its largest GAC producing sites are located in Kentucky, Mississippi, and France.

• The world’s largest GAC producer, Calgon was acquired for US$1.3B in 2017 by Japanese chemical manufacturer Kuraray and recorded US$620MM in net sales in 2017.

• Its business model focuses on Media, Permanent and Temporary Emergency Equipment.

• Necessary contact time with PFAS compounds varies depending on targeted contaminants, but is typically higher than required by IX resin

• Though the company does supply IX resin for municipal purposes, its primary PFAS product is GAC.

Calgon Carbon is a manufacturer of water treatment technologies based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Founded in the early 1940s as the Pittsburgh Coke and Chemical Corporation, the company renamed as Pittsburgh Activated Carbon in the early 1960s, before it was acquired by the Calgon Corporation in 1965. It is one of the largest GAC producers in the world.

H i g h l i g h t s



CycloPure

43

• CycloPure received US$3.5 million in Series A funding and a US$1.5 million Small Business Innovation Research grant from the National Science Foundation, NIH, and DoD to support the commercialization of DEXSORB products.

• DEXSORB granules measure .78 nanometers—smaller than most GAC or resin particles with a potential for greater surface area. Though still in testing phase, preliminary results suggest it may have higher adsorption rates and selectivity advantages over GAC and IX resin.

• In June 2018, the Dutch water utility Waternet and enginering firm Witteveen+Bos announced a collaboration with CycloPure to test and commercialize the technology through tests at wastewater treatment plants in the Netherlands.

• In a Feb 2019 NIH Environmental Health Sciences “Superfund Research Program” the company reported a removal of PFOA and PFOS to 95% from a concentration of 500 ppt in 30 minutes. The company also showed high removal rates against a group of 20 short and long chain PFAS, including GenX.

Based in Encinitas, California CycloPure is an early stage company producing adsorptive media derived from dextrose, which the company hopes to position as a cheaper and more effective adsorptive material than GAC. CycloPure has participated in numerous studies testing its efficacy in PFAS removal vs. competing materials and shown some potential benefits, particularly in the area of competing contaminants. The company was founded in 2016.

C o m p a n y O f f e r i n g D e t a i l Parameter Detail

Technology DEXSORB—renewable cyclodextrins media derived from corn starch

Life Cycle Cost Potentially lower than either GAC or IX resin: cyclodextrin unit costs expected to be similar to GAC

System Footprint Potentially smaller than GAC and IX resin

Waste Handling/Cost Regeneration process involves flushing with a solvent (methanol), costs of incineration avoided. Usable life per unit of media expected to be longer

Concentration of PFAS Company claims the molecules’ size and affinity allow significantly faster kinetics and ability to eliminate high PFAS concentrations

Chain Length of PFAS Long and Short


TOCs, micropollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical residuals

Key Project References Technology in piloting phase in U.S. and Netherlands

H i g h l i g h t s



ECT2

44

• ECT2’s claims its IX resin product has up to 20x the capacity of GAC and smaller necessary space and media volume from other IX resins, as well as a proprietary on-site reactivation process to reduce lifecycle costs. ECT2 was acquired by California-based environmental services firm Montrose Environmental in September 2019.

• With a U.S. office in Portland, ME and another in New South Wales, Australia, ECT2 is a small company with approximately 20 employees.

• The company claims its IX resin technology has effectively treated 265+ million gallons of PFAS-contaminated water to below EPA drinking water standards, operating 24/7 and at 97% uptime.

• The company operates through design, build, and direct sales.

• The company provided an emergency plant to the town of Katherine, Australia last year (approximately 10,000 people) that treats approximately .265 MGD at a cost of US$2.8 million

ECT2 is a Portland, Maine-based supplier of water and air purification technologies founded in 2013. The company’s main PFAS remediation product, Sorbix IX resin, is positioned as a longer lasting, smaller footprint adsorption media than GAC with the added benefit of on-site regeneration capabilities. The company has a second office in Newcastle, Australia and several small municipal and industrial installations in that country.

C o m p a n y O f f e r i n g D e t a i l Parameter Detail

Technology The company’s Sorbix IX resin and surrounding infrastructure is a custom solution marketed specifically at PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane

Life Cycle Cost Company’s on-site resin regeneration program aimed at reducing long-term lifecycle costs

System Footprint Pre-configured IX resin system with on-site regeneration capabilities

Waste Handling/Cost Company’s on-site resin regeneration program aimed at reducing long-term lifecycle costs

Concentration of PFAS Designed to handle high concentrations

Chain Length of PFAS All known PFAS

Co-existing Substances TOCs, minerals, competing ions: sulfate, nitrate, bicarbonate


• Former Pease AFB, NH • Royal Australian AFB, Williamtown, NSW • Australian Army Aviation Centre Oakey • Katherine, Australia

H i g h l i g h t s



Evoqua Water Technologies

45

• Evoqua employs more than 4,000 people worldwide, with 167 locations across 9 countries, and 86 service branches serving 38,000 countries.

• Evoqua’s PFAS remediation product line includes both permanent and emergency GAC products as well as an IX resin line. The company has made several recent acquisitions in the water purity segment and placed a strong focus on emerging contaminants as part of its business.

• Emerging Contaminants are a business opportunity highlighted prominently in the company’s strategic vision, and represent growth areas, as the company’s Industrial Segment (under which PFAS remediation products are categorized) experienced a 13.2% increase in revenue—driven by power market and remediation project capital revenues.

• The company has made 12 acquisitions since April 2016, four of which target high-purity water technology, mobile treatment services, and additional market coverage. They include ProAct, Le Groupe IsH2OTop, PureWater, and Pacific Ozone. ProAct’s mobile coverage includes emergency pre-configured PFAS removal solutions for small water systems, and Pure Water’s media regeneration facilities add to Evoqua’s IX resin recharge capabilities.

Founded in 2014, Evoqua Water Technologies is a supplier of water and wastewater treatment products, systems, and services across industrial and municipal customers. The company is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and was formerly Siemens Water Technologies before private equity firm AEA Investors LP purchased a majority stake in 2014. It underwent an IPO in 2017. The company has a broad portfolio of treatment solutions spanning membrane filtration, adsorptive media, and disinfectant capabilities and supporting services.

H i g h l i g h t s C o m p a n y O f f e r i n g D e t a i l Parameter Detail

Technology The company’s GAC product—AquaCarb—comprises both bituminous and anthracite coal as well as coconut shell in varying mesh sizes. Its IX resin is made from a proprietary compound.

Life Cycle Cost IX resin typically lower due to capex and regeneration/disposal costs

System Footprint GAC is targeted at larger installations, IX smaller, emergency

Waste Handling/Cost Reactivation through high temperatures, incineration and landfilling for destruction

Concentration of PFAS Resin is better suited to higher concentrations than GAC

Chain Length of PFAS GAC better suited for long chain, resin better suited to handle both


GAC—TOCs, minerals/IX resin—competing ions: sulfate, nitrate, bicarbonate


• Stratmoor Hills, CO (Resin) • Kennebunk, ME (GAC) • Pownal, VT (Mobile/GAC)



Purolite

46

• Purolite’s PFAS targeted resins are designed for single use and subsequent incineration, which it markets as the most cost-effective solution for projects with limited space

• Company’s single use resin product formulated to have higher affinity for PFAS molecules, claiming longer bed life spans of two year to three years.

• Purolite is currently testing PFAS specialized resin in 15+ municipalities, worldwide.

Purolite is a privately held supplier of nine branded resin series for several industries including metals, food & beverage, the power sector, and potable & groundwater applications. Along with adsorption, these applications include catalysis, condensate polishing, metals removal & recovery, nanoparticle milling, and softening & demineralization. Founded in 1981, the company’s headquarters are in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. The company has 38 offices worldwide.


Technology Purofine single use polystyrene IX resin is designed with lead and lag vessels

Life Cycle Cost Lower than GAC due to more compact media size. Company claims its single use resin is up to half the lifecycle cost of GAC

System Footprint Small footprint and headspace

Waste Handling/Cost Single use resin trucked to incinerator at lower volumes than GAC

Concentration of PFAS Has tests ranging up to 1,200,000 ppt

Chain Length of PFAS Successful removal of long and short compounds


TOC, VOCs—TCE, PCE, CCI4, perchlorates, nitrates, sulfates, bicarbonates


• Horsham Township, PA • Warminster, PA



Regenesis

47

• The company positions PlumeStop as a long-term, single up-front cost to trap and immobilize localized PFAS plumes in groundwater space.

• The company typically contracts with EPCs and other firms to deliver products to the end user.

• One project reference claims immobilization periods of 100+ years.

• The Canadian project reference puts costs of 20 injection sites involving 365 kgs of product at a total cost of approximately US$55,000.

• The Southington, CT project claims US$400,000 annual savings in avoided O&M costs.

Based in San Clemente, California, Regenesis is a producer of specialty soil and groundwater projects with a focus on deploying in situ methods. The company’s PFAS-focused solution, PlumeStop, is a superfine liquid activated carbon intended to be injected into a contaminated groundwater area whereby the formula immobilizes PFAS plumes before they can advance toward drinking water facilities and other potential sources of human consumption. The in situ method of PFAS remediation is earlier stage than point solutions and less understood; primary benefits include its low cost, as injection is a singular occurrence—eliminating recurring O&M expenses. The company was founded in 1994.


Technology Liquid Activated Carbon—ultrafine (1-2 micrometers) carbon particles injected underground in liquid form

Life Cycle Cost Up-front capital cost to inject

System Footprint Maps to size of underground plumes

Waste Handling/Cost N/A

Concentration of PFAS Full range of concentrations

Chain Length of PFAS Tests have been focused on PFOA and PFOS to date


VOCs, TPH, PCBs


• Camp Grayling, MI • Southington, CT • Undisclosed industrial site, Central Canada



Biosolids Maintenance and Service Providers: Portfolio Comparison

48

Company Collection & Transport Composting

Facility Clean-Out Services

Alkaline Stabilization Dewatering Drying &

Pelletization Regulatory Compliance

Land Application Incineration Product

Marketing

Synagro

Veolia

Casella Waste Systems

Lystek

BCR Environmental

Burch Hydro

Waste Management

Mannco

McGill

E x h i b i t 2 2 : S e r v i c e O f f e r i n g s o f B i o s o l i d P r o v i d e r s

Many companies are smaller, privately held, and operate primarily regionally. Firms with turnkey services offer dewatering and pelletizing technologies making use of microwave and air convection for drying, disinfecting, and stabilizing biosolids into useable products.

Source: Companies, Bluefield Research



BCR Environmental

49

• The company markets its waste activated sludge treatment as CleanB, which is a process that involves sludge delivery, an injection of chlorine dioxide chemicals, a disinfection step, and dewatering to produce Class B treated biosolids, offering transportation and application management as well.

• The company’s Class A biosolid offering is Bio-Scru – an energy-efficient, automated, continuous drying of biosolids and production of Class A biosolids; it’s Class A EQ product and process is marketed as Neutralizer.

• The company has several contracts in the Southeast, particularly in Florida, where it is headquartered and where a large percentage of biosolid land applications take place. It is in the process of expanding its geographical footprint.

Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida BCR Environmental Corporation is a small, regional developer of water and wastewater treatment systems founded in 2011. The company offers design, build, monitoring, inspection, permitting, and maintenance services for customers across water and wastewater management assets. Its biosolids management technologies focus on simplifying and lowering the costs of disinfection and stabilization as well as mass reduction.

H i g h l i g h t s C o m p a n y O v e r v i e w Parameter Detail

Headquarters Jacksonville, Florida

Product/Service Offerings

Dewatering, palletization, dewatering, stabilization, land application/landfilling, incineration, composting, compliance, marketing

Revenue Unknown

Geographical Footprint Primarily regional – Southeast US



Burch Hydro, Inc.

50

• Burch Hydro’s patented BioWave process was among the first to use microwave processes to treat sludge to Class A standards and reduce sludge volume. It is used on municipal biosolids as well as industrial waste and is used in the making of fertilizers, compost, topsoil and other land applications as well as animal feed and biofuel.

• Within the municipal space, the company also offers recovered lime sludge from water as another land-applied treatment along with its biosolid services. The company also offers waste/byproduct management in industrial verticals like pulp & paper and food manufacturing as well as the incorporation of ash from certain industrial processes.

• The company’s BioWave unit is approximately US$800,000 with a capability of processing one dry ton per day. O&M costs are low due to the lack of moving parts. It is fully automated and is capable of drying biosolid materials with 85% moisture content down to 10% moisture content.

Founded in 1980 and headquartered in Fredericktown, Ohio, Burch Hydro is a privately held biosolid and sludge management services company serving municipal and industrial customers. The company offers a full-service suite of services across the biosolid management value chain, including custom program management, dewatering & stabilization, trucking, landfilling, permitting, compliance/reporting, and agronomic consulting. The company’s main capital equipment geared toward biosolids, BioWave, makes use of a patented microwave technology the company claims to be the first to use and is geared at minimizing operational footprint and lowering costs to treat biosolids.


Headquarters Fredericktown, Ohio


Dewatering, palletization, facility clean out, collection, pumping, transportation, stabilization, land application/landfilling, agronomic consulting, incineration, composting, regulatory compliance

Revenue Unknown




Casella Waste Systems

51

• The company composts 400,000 tons annually and owns or operates 37 solid waste collection operations, 43 transfer stations, 18 recycling facilities, eight solid waste Subtitle D landfills and one landfill permitted to accept C and D materials.

• The company had US$660 million in revenue for the year ended 2018. Organics and industrial operations accounted for 19% of revenue and solid waste operations, disposal, landfilling, gas-to-energy transfer services accounted for 74.5%.

• The company has typically grown by acquisition and acquired D&E Rubbish Removal, Inc., Bin Dump’n Trash, and TAM Inc., Complete Disposal Company, and United Material Management in 2018-2019 for approximately US$30 million.

• Strategically, the company is expanding landfill space in Vermont and New York, and, on average, has about 20 years of permitted and permittable capacity in its landfills.

• The company’s industrial and municipal collections services are typically structured in one year to five year agreements.

Founded in 1975, Casella Waste Systems is a regional, publicly traded solid waste services company based in Rutland, Vermont and with the bulk of its operations across Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. The company produces Class B biosolids through anaerobic digestion in its operations in Nashua, New Hampshire, which are sold under the name Casella Organics. Its Class A biosolids are sold under the name Earthlife. The company has approximately 2,300 employees.


Headquarters Rutland, Vermont


Dewatering, palletization, facility clean out, collection, transportation, dewatering, stabilization, land application/landfilling, incineration, composting, regulatory compliance

Revenue US$660 million

Geographical Footprint Primarily regional – Northeast US



Lystek

52

• The company typically operates with multi-year contracts and public-private-partnerships, where Lystek accepts municipal biosolids and owns/operates a facility for processing before distribution for customers.

• The company has eight plants in Canada and has two plants in the U.S., one in Minnesota, and one in California. Each facility has the capacity to process approximately 150,000 tons of biosolids per year.

• The company’s siting strategy for facilities takes careful account proximity to potential end users.

• Lystek has been able to acquire end users for its fertilizer by distributing it free of charge initially and then gradually raising prices as customers see benefit.

Headquartered in Ottawa, Canada is a biosolid and organic waste management company that focuses on providing thermal hydrolysis capabilities to municipal wastewater treatment facilities to transform waste streams into revenue producing products. The company’s products/services include LysteMize, a patented process for optimizing digester performance and reducing biosolid volumes, LysteGro, its branded biosolid fertilizer, and LysteCarb, an alternative source of carbon for BNR systems. The company was founded in 2000 and since 2011 has been part of Ottawa-based Tomlinson Group, a conglomerate of environmental, construction, and infrastructure services companies.


Headquarters Ottawa, Canada


Dewatering, palletization, facility clean out, collection, transportation, dewatering, stabilization, land application/landfilling, incineration, composting, marketing,

Revenue Unknown

Geographical Footprint US and Canada



Mannco Wastewater & Soil Solutions

53

• The company is the third-largest purchaser and reseller of Class A EQ biosolids in the US. In addition to its finished biosolid products, Mannco offers equipment for biosolids management, including its 8-Ton Modular Class A Biosolids Dryer.

• Top Choice Organic is composed of biosolids with 80%+ natural organic, moisture content of less than 10% and uniform granule between 2 mm and 4 mm. The company boasts sales of over 550,000 tons of thermal dried biosolids since its inception.

Mannco Wastewater & Soil Solutions is a privately held biosolids management company based in Conway, Arkansas specializing in the sale of Class A EQ biosolids and supplying modular solutions for biosolids drying. As one of the largest providers of Class A EQ products in the U.S., Mannco has engaged in significant internal and joint research activities with universities, participated in National Science Foundation and Water Environment Association engagements and has been active in lobbying the federal and state governments on the benefits of biosolid land applications. The company was founded in 1998.


Headquarters Conway, Arkansas


Dewatering, palletization, stabilization, regulatory compliance, marketing

Revenue Unknown




McGill Environmental Systems

54

• The company’s U.S. facilities are in Richmond, Virginia and North Hill, North Carolina. European facilities are in Cork and Waterford counties in Ireland. The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in New Hill, North Carolina.

• The company composts across Class A and B biosolids, alum and ferrous sludge, pharmaceutical residuals, wood and fiber, construction and demolition debris, and food waste. The company produces approximately 500,000 tons of compost per year in its facilities.

• The company also sells IP in the form of “package plants,” which are specific blueprints and instructions to meet environmental containment, throughput and feedstock requirements of the owner.

McGill Environmental Systems is a privately held manufacturer of composting products based in New Hill, North Carolina and founded in 1991. The company’s offerings include mobile dewatering solutions, biosolids transportation, organics recycling, and design-build-operate composting plants designed for +35,000 tons-per-year operations for both municipal and industrial customers. The company has a dual presence in the U.S. and Ireland.


Headquarters New Hill, North Carolina


Design, dewatering, palletization, facility clean out, collection, transportation, dewatering, stabilization, composting

Revenue Unknown

Geographical Footprint Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern US; Ireland



Synagro

55

• The company has more than 800 customers across 34 states and Washington, DC. In 1992, Synagro formed the organic product marketing group (OPMG). The company was held by the Carlyle Group from 2006 to 2011 and sold to Stockholm, Sweden-based EQT in 2012 for U$465 million.

• In 2006, OPMG marketed some 982,000 cubic yards of compost and 121,000 tons of pelletized biosolids, 39% of the total produced in the US.

• The company was purchased for US$772 million by the Carlyle Group, but in the ensuing financial crisis, as municipalities cut spending, Synagro’s revenue fell significantly. It was then sold to EQT after Bankruptcy filing in 2012 for US$465 million.

• The company operates three incineration facilities, 13 drying facilities, seven composting facilities, and nationwide rail transport.

• Synagro’s revenue fell sharply during the financial crisis of 2008 as municipalities slashed spending, prompting a bankruptcy filing in 2012 and subsequent sale to EQT.

Headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, Synagro is a biosolids and organic waste management and recycling provider serving customers across the U.S. Founded in 1986, the company offers a full range of biosolids management services across the value chain. It is the largest company of its type by footprint and number of customers in the U.S.


Headquarters Baltimore, Maryland


Dewatering, palletization, facility clean out, collection, transportation, dewatering, stabilization, land application/landfilling, incineration, composting, marketing, regulatory compliance

Revenue Approx. US$320 million

Geographical Footprint Broadly across the US



Veolia

56

• The company operates across more than 50 countries employing 171,500 people.

• The company’s biosolids product offerings include BioCon, a dual-belt convective air dryer for dewatering, as well as Deselec, an advanced electro-dewatering system designed to minimize disposal costs.

• VWT also markets its BioCon Energy Recovery System (ERS) dryer as being capable of destroying PFAS compounds.

• The company had a total of US$29.5 billion in revenue for the year ended 2019, 56% of which was in France and other European countries, 18% in its Global Businesses segment, and 26% in the rest of the world.

. Veolia is an international environmental services and utility company with three main business areas: energy services, water management, and waste management. The company is headquartered in Aubervilliers, France. The company was originally founded in 1853 as a water utility and since 1980 has diversified its activities into energy management, transportation services, and waste management. The U.S. based Veolia Water Technology / Kruger division of the company is located in Cary, North Carolina, and focuses on technology and engineering services to develop complete water treatment solutions, including biosolids and biogas production. Its biosolids management equipment is primarily focused on dewatering solutions for wastewater plant operators. The company manages over 2,600 wastewater plants serving more than 63 million people globally.


Headquarters Aubervilliers, France


Dewatering, palletization, facility clean out, collection, transportation, dewatering, stabilization, land application/landfilling, incineration, composting, regulatory compliance

Revenue US$29.5 billion

Geographical Footprint Global



Waste Management

57

• The company has approximately 45,000 employees and owns and operates 249 solid waste landfills, with five hazardous waste landfills, and one active hazardous underground injection facility.

• The company recorded US$15.4 billion in revenue for the year ended 2019, approximately two-thirds of which is within collection services, with another 24% in landfill operations.

• In the company’s 2019 10-K, under its regulatory section it recognizes PFAS regulations as both a potential factor in rising costs for its operations as well as a potential opportunity for additional business.

• Waste Management currently in final stages of approval for acquisition of Ponte Vedra, Florida-based firm Advanced Disposal Services 2019 for US$4.9 billion, in a move to expand its eastern US operating footprint.

Founded in 1968 and headquartered in Houston, Texas, Waste Management is a publicly traded solid waste services provider serving +21 million customers across residential, commercial, municipal, and industrial segments across the U.S. and Canada. The company’s biosolids operations are focused more toward the collection, transport, and landfill end of the value chain, and it owns and operates the largest network of solid waste landfills in North America.


Headquarters Houston, Texas


Design, dewatering, palletization, facility clean out, collection, transportation, dewatering, stabilization, composting

Revenue US$15.4 billion

Geographical Footprint Across US and Canada



Glossary of Acronyms

Acronym Definition CAPEX Capital Expenditure

CWA Clean Water Act

GAC Granular Activated Carbon

GenX Chemours trade name for Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA)

IX (Resin) Ion Exchange Resin

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

NF Nanofiltration

OPEX Operating Expenditure

PFAS Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

PFDA Perfluorodecanoic Acid

PFHpA Pefluoroheptanoic Acid

PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic Acid

PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid

PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid

PFNA Perfluorononanoic Acid

PPT Parts Per Trillion

RO Reverse Osmosis

TRI Toxic Release Inventory

UCMR3 EPA Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule

VAR Vector Attraction Reduction

58

Global companies across the value chain are developing strategies to capitalize on greenfield opportunities in water − new build, new business models, and private investment. Bluefield Research supports a growing roster of companies across key technology segments and industry verticals addressing risks and opportunities in the new water landscape. Companies are turning to Bluefield for in-depth, actionable intelligence into the water sector and the sector's impacts on key industries. The insights draw on primary research from the water, energy, power, mining, agriculture, financial sectors and their respective supply chains. Bluefield works with key decision makers at utilities, project development companies, independent water and power providers, EPC companies, technology suppliers, manufacturers, and investment firms, giving them tools to define and execute strategies.

NORTH AMERICA 192 South Street // Suite 550 Boston, MA 02111 T +1 617 910 2540 EUROPE Carrer de Sant Joan de la Salle 42 Edifici Technova, 2.12 08022 Barcelona, Spain T +34 93 681 4325 // +34 617 464 999 [email protected] www.bluefieldresearch.com

Contact Bluefield Research

U.S. & CANADA MUNICIPAL WATER INSIGHT SERVICE ADVANCING WATER STRATEGIES

mailto:[email protected]

Date post:	24-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

FOCUS REPORT...Addressable Market • PFAS Timeline: Potential Regulatory Trajectories • The 2030...

Documents