Jump to
Case Study 1
Hanford Cleanup | Nov. 8, 2021

Jump to
Case Study 4
Sellafield | Nov. 11, 2021

Jump to
Case Study 5
PFAS | Nov. 12, 2021

Kate Amrhein, Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL)

Bio: Amrhein is a physical scientist for DOE-RL in the Soil and Groundwater division. She has worked at the Hanford Site for over 6 years. Amrhein is the project lead for the 200 West Pump and Treat, the 200-UP-1 and 200-ZP-1 Groundwater Operable Units, and the DV-1 Deep Vadose Zone Operable Unit. Amrhein earned a bachelor’s degree in geology from Grand Valley State University in Allendale, MI, and a master’s degree in geology from Kansas State University in Manhattan, KS.

Emerald Laija, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Facility Restoration and Reuse Office

Greg Ruskauff, INTERA

Matt Tonkin, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.

Bio: Tonkin, senior hydrogeologist and president of S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., manages or advises on a wide variety of environmental projects. He specializes in data synthesis and modeling to support groundwater, surface water, and soil, studies on behalf of public, private, and legal, clients. This includes planning data acquisition efforts, collaborating with subject matter experts, and presenting to stakeholders. He received his PhD on the topic of calibration and uncertainty analysis and has instructed on these and other topics. He has supported prime contractors and the DOE at the Hanford Site since 2006.

Co-author: Mashrur Chowdhury is a senior staff hydrogeologist at S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. Mashrur’s primary experience is with Superfund sites – he provides expertise in the synthesis and interpretation of hydrogeologic data, and in the application of various groundwater modeling analyses in support of regulatory hydrogeological assessments and remediation studies. Mashrur completed his graduate degree in civil engineering with a specialization in water resources engineering.

Naomi Jaschke, DOE-RL

Sarah Springer, CPCCo

Mark Byrnes, CPCCo

Bio: Lentijo is an advisor at CSN working with the chairman´s cabinet. Prior to this, from 2012 to 2020, Lentijo served as the deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security, and director of IAEA's Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology.

Lentijo started his career in the fields of nuclear technologies and nuclear and radiation safety in 1982. He joined CSN in 1984, where he served as general director for Radiation Protection between 2003 and 2012, and before that as deputy director general for Emergencies and Physical Protection and deputy director general for Public and Environment Radiation Protection.

Lentijo holds a master’s degree in industrial engineering, specializing in energy techniques, from the Polytechnic University of Madrid, Spain, 1982. In 2017, he was awarded “Industrial Engineer of the Year” by the Official College of Industrial Engineers of Madrid, and the Spanish Nuclear Society awarded him with the prize “Carlos Sanchez del Río” in recognition to his contribution to the peaceful uses of the nuclear energy.

Bio: Until he retired in July 2020, Ozawa was responsible for environmental restoration of the land within Fukushima Prefecture that was contaminated by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in March 2011. Ozawa has firsthand knowledge of the remediation methods that have been applied in the communities affected by the nuclear accident. Now with Miyagi University, Ozawa’s interests include reconstruction following the nuclear disaster, revitalization and tourism of disaster areas, risk communication, and regional environmental policy. He is also engaged in reconstruction and revitalization of Tohoku region of Japan. 

Abstract: Decontamination has been pursued in Fukushima since the nuclear accident that occurred there in March 2011. Pursuant to the Act on Special Measures Concerning the Handling of Environmental Pollution by Radioactive Materials Discharged by the Nuclear Power Station Accident Associated with the Tohoku District – Off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake That Occurred on 11 March 2011, enacted in August of that year, the Ministry of the Environment has conducted decontamination in 11 municipalities located in the areas under evacuation order. 

The Japanese government and a lot of the municipalities finished decontamination of the target municipalities by the end of FY2016, except in difficult-to-return zones.

“Did you drink the local water and eat the local rice?” “Is decontamination really effective?” “Have you really not been affected by the radiation?” These are some of the questions that local leaders, doctors, educators, and other stakeholders often expect children from Fukushima to encounter when they grow up to become students and professionals and meet people in Sendai, Tokyo, Osaka, and other places outside Fukushima Prefecture. 

They believe that these children need special educational support to help them answer these questions about radiation and the situation in Fukushima. Although some children from Fukushima may be resilient enough to adequately explain the local conditions and talk about radiation, some children might be discouraged from eating local rice and drinking local water. It seems odd for host communities to ask children who have had to move away from their home prefectures to explain about Fukushima. Instead, the host communities should learn more about decontamination work and radiation so that they can offer vital support to these young new members of the community. 

Yoshinori Momose, Japan Ministry of Environment

Bio: Government official, Ministry of Environment Japan, since 2008. In charge of launching decontamination immediately after the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. Currently, the section chief in charge of recycling soil removed by decontamination in Fukushima. 

Co-author: Akihiro Kuwamura, Japan Ministry of Environment

Abstract: Due to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (March 2011), radioactive materials released into the atmosphere adhered to soil over a wide area. Therefore, we have tried to reduce the additional exposure dose by removing them by decontamination. In Fukushima Prefecture, a large amount of soil and waste containing radioactive materials (about 14 million m3, except them from the restricted area) was generated due to these decontaminations and stored in temporary storage sites. In order to accelerate the reconstruction of the prefecture, we decided to establish an interim storage facility (ISF, area of about 16 km2) in Fukushima Prefecture and manage and store them safely and intensively until final disposal. The ISF’s storage period is set within 30 years and after volume reduction treatment and recycling. For the rest of the removed soil and waste, it was decided to terminate the final disposal outside Fukushima Prefecture by 2045. It is estimated that soil with a relatively low radioactivity concentration (8,000 Bq / kg or less) accounts for about three-quarters, about which we announced the "basic concept" for realizing use of soil in public projects under appropriate management on the premise of ensuring safety in 2016. Currently, using this basic concept as a guideline, we are confirming the safety of recycling of soil through demonstration projects in Minamisoma City and Iitate Village. From the results obtained so far in these demonstration projects, there was no significant increase in the air dose rate from the start of the project, and all the radioactive cesium in the seepage water that passed through the embankment was below the lower limit of detection. In addition, in the demonstration project of Iitate Village, we have performed experiments of edible crops in agricultural land developed with recycled soil, and confirmed the growth condition of crop and safety of recycling of soil. As of March 2021, the measurement result of the radioactivity concentration of radioactive cesium in food crops is much lower than the standard value of 100 Bq / kg for the radioactivity concentration of general foods.

Sang Don Lee, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Bio: Sang Don Lee is the principal associate national program director for Homeland Security Research Program at EPA's Office of Research and Development. He has 17 years of experience at EPA in environmental remediation and consequence management. His expertise includes material engineering, aerosol science, and environmental science, and much of his research at the EPA has focused on the remediation of chemical, biological and radiological agents in the environment. He has supported the Japanese government in its offsite remediation efforts following the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident as an environmental remediation expert since 2012.

Abstract: March 11, 2021, marked the 10-year anniversary of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan which was caused by an initial earthquake and subsequent tsunami. This was the most significant accident at a nuclear power plant since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident resulted in radioactive contamination over a wide area and environmental remediation was necessary to protect public health. The scale of contamination was unprecedented in Japan and their efforts to effectively remediate the contaminated environment have identified many valuable lessons. This presentation covers how Japan conducted remediation of the off-site contaminated environment focusing on their preparation and implementation. Throughout Japan’s remediation efforts, several challenges have been identified and this presentation will share experiences and lessons that will greatly benefit decision makers and responders who have to prepare for wide area environmental remediation to respond to and recover from radiological contamination events.

Ryoko Ando, Ethos in Fukushima

Bio: After the Fukushima accident in 2011, Ando established Ethos in Fukushima, an organization with residents conducting radiological protection activities, and also has been involved with the International Commission on Radiological Protection and Fukushima Dialogue since 2012. Since 2019, she has also established NPO Fukushima Dialogue.

Abstract: In the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, risk communication on various scales was carried out in Fukushima Prefecture by the government, local authorities, research institutions, academic societies, individual researchers and volunteer groups. I would like to take the example of risk communication on the decontamination work and examine how the residents perceived. Decontamination work was ordered to private contractors as "public works," in much the same way as civil engineering construction work. The residents' expectations of the decontamination work were very high, but their impressions afterward were both satisfied and dissatisfied. The main reason for this was the lack of adequate risk communication with the residents by the authorities. The level of satisfaction with decontamination might have been very different if there had been an opportunity to share the decision-making process with the residents at the planning and implementation stages. 

Horst Monken-Fernandes, IAEA

Bio: Horst Monken-Fernandes is an environmental remediation specialist working for IAEA's Decommissioning and Environmental Remediation section. He has been the coordinator of two IAEA missions in Japan in 2011 and 2013 aimed at reviewing and providing advice to the Japanese government on the remediation of offsite areas affected by the Fukushima accident. He was also head of the four IAEA Ministry of the Environment expert meetings to follow up the remediation works in Japan and is the scientific secretary in charge of the IAEA Technical Documents to compile information and lessons learned over 10 years of remediation activities in Japan. Before joining IAEA, Monken-Fernandes was a researcher at the Institute of Radiation Protection and Dosimetry of the Brazilian Nuclear Energy Commission. He is a chemical engineer by training and holds a Ph.D. in environmental geochemistry.

Abstract: Environmental remediation (ER) is a very complex activity that embraces a diverse range of disciplines from different backgrounds. Technical and scientific information coming from each one of these disciplines needs to be integrated in a framework to support a decision-making process that will determine, among other things, the strategy to be used, remediation solutions to be adopted, and, above all, the residual levels of contamination that will be related to the so-called reference levels (taken as “the level of dose, risk or activity concentration above which it is not appropriate to plan to allow exposures to occur and below which optimization of protection and safety would continue to be implemented”). Reference levels in existing exposure situations can be taken in the range of 1 – 20 mSv/y. It can be very hard though to have affected communities accept values above 1 mSv/y, which is the dose limit applied to “planned exposure situations” e.g., in the licensing of a nuclear facilities. It could also be argued that individuals affected by a contamination situation would have the right to demand that the contaminated environment is restored to background conditions (i.e., those conditions prevailing before the contamination takes place). However, this objective, if at all feasible, would imply, in the scope of large-scale remediation works, incommensurable expenditures and potentially the generation of large amounts of wastes.

With these considerations in mind, the big challenge to be dealt with in the scope of environmental remediation is to have in place an integrated and functional engagement of policy makers, regulatory authorities, industry, and the public in the decision-making process. Integrating members of the public into decision-making concerning ER, particularly concerning desired end states, is extremely complex. Limited technical knowledge and understanding of science leading, for example, to risk perception based predominantly on emotion and fear will be an issue. The relationship between dose and probability of effect can be divided in three main areas: i) an area where effects are biologically plausible (i.e., effects are inferred); ii) an area where establishment of effects will be constrained by statistical limitations (collective attribution) and iii) and an area related to high doses where effects are clinically observable (individual attribution). It happens that in ER-related situations, doses typically fall in the zone where effects can be termed as biologically plausible i.e., the lack of evidence will be an issue. However, some will propose that “the lack of scientific proof of causality is not proof that such causality does not exist.” Moreover, it can be admitted that “it is natural for people to think about the worst might happen rather than what is scientifically likely to happen.” That brings us to the conclusion that “we cannot get close to solving issues of science and technology based only on the premise that scientific knowledge is the truth.” That is the same to say that in decision-making process, science informs the decision but is not the only (and possibly not even the main) driver. So far, we are restricting ourselves to discuss uncertainties related to dose x effect nexus, and not delving into the uncertainties associated with mathematical models used to support decision-making in the scope of ER.

A first step to deal with this situation is to develop national policy, strategies, and means of dialogue for remediation of legacy and post-accident sites containing residual radioactivity. This should be done prior to any radiological or nuclear accident or incident occurring. This would include dialogue with stakeholders, discussion of scientific evidence leading to the development of reasonable reference levels for existing exposure situation such as in the aftermath of an emergency phase. In order to avoid inaction in individual countries due to fear of stigmatization by raising the possibility of accidents, international guidance and recommendations should be developed for all countries to adopt. That was one of the outcomes of the International Conference organized by the IAEA in Madrid in 2016. 

Bio: Johnson, a chemical engineer by training (master's - Washington State University, 1999; bachelor's - University of Washington, 1992), has been involved with environmental restoration and remediation technology research and development at PNNL since 1992. He has designed and implemented ex situ and in situ bioremediation systems for treatment of hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents, is an author of the RT3D reactive transport code, is an author of guidance for performance and end state evaluation of pump-and-treat and soil vapor extraction, and has developed remediation decision support software like SVEET and SOCRATES for the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Deborah Barr, DOE

Bio: Deborah Barr is a program manager in DOE’s Office of Legacy Management (LM) office, based in Westminster, Colorado. She has program responsibilities for LM’s Applied Studies & Technology program, as well as functioning as the LM liaison to the combined LM/Environmental Management Network of National Laboratories for Environmental Management and Stewardship.

Mark Kautsky, DOE-LM

Bio: Mark is a program manager at DOE-LM. In addition to his programmatic responsibilities, he is the project manager for the UMTRCA disposal site at Shiprock, New Mexico.

Joni Tallbull, Navajo Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Department (NAMLRD)

Pete Schillig and Pete Lemke, RSI EnTech

Brian Looney, Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL)

Co-author(s): Mark Rigali, Sandia National Laboratories; Ken Williams, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Bio: Looney is a research environmental engineer at SRNL and adjunct professor at Clemson University. For the past 39 years, he has coordinated applied research and the development & deployment for environmental characterization and clean-up methods. His work focuses on subsurface access techniques, remediation methods, and characterization tools, including horizontal drilling, bioremediation, and tracer testing. Currently, Looney supports technical activities related to attenuation-based remedies and he serves as a senior technical advisor supporting the DOE EM program.

Phil Hallington, Sellafield Ltd

Bio: Hallington has over 45 years experience in the nuclear industry. During this time, he has constructed, commissioned and operated fuel storage, reprocessing and waste management facilities. He has 30 years experience in a wide range of senior management roles within the company. 

In the mid 1990s, having completed the commissioning of the Thorp reprocessing plant; Hallington joined the Diplomatic Service as Atomic Energy counsellor in the British Embassy in Tokyo. Upon returning to Sellafield. Hallington has held a number of posts covering technical, regulatory and transition areas of the business, including devising and delivering the stress test activities across Sellafield Post-Fukushima.

More recently as head of Policy, Hallington has overseen the successful transition of management approach from parent body contractor to wholly-owned subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. He has extensive experience of stakeholder engagement and dialogue across government and NGOs and has led IAEA reviews to Chernobyl on two occasions. Current accountabilities include leadership of the Sellafield response to the recurrence of leakage to ground from the original Magnox Swarf Storage Silo.

John Heneghan, Sellafield Ltd.

James Graham, UK National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL)

Bio: Graham is a geoscientist with a PhD in geochemistry and 20 years’ industrial experience in land quality and geological disposal. Graham’s career has covered land quality issues on UK Nuclear license sites across the entire fuel cycle including reactor research; fuel production; enrichment; reactor; reprocessing; and low-level waste disposal. 

As well as legacy land quality issues, Graham has significant experience in assessing potential future leaks to ground including significant work on the UK’s highest hazard waste storage facilities. Graham has technically led NNL’s support in this area for the past 15 years. This role has incorporated a diverse number of activities including desk, laboratory and field-based evaluation of contaminant migration processes; leak detection and mitigation technologies, waste and site characterization, groundwater flow and contaminant transport modelling, conceptual model development and risk assessment.

Andrew Kraft, Environmental Protection Ageny (EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment

Bio: Kraft is a senior science advisor in the Chemical and Pollutant Assessment Division of EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). He is the team lead for the five IRIS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) assessments of PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA. A neurotoxicologist by training, Kraft received his bachelor's from Lehigh University and PhD from University of Wisconsin-Madison before completing a postdoctoral fellowship in the Neurotoxicology Group at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.

Abstract: As part of EPA’s effort to address widespread environmental PFAS contamination and ubiquitous human exposure, EPA-ORD is developing various human health assessment products to characterize the evidence on the potential human health effects of these substances. Specifically, toxicity assessments for the individual PFAS, PFBS, PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFDA, and PFNA, are being developed to inform EPA risk management decisions. These assessments analyze the available research on these substances to draw conclusions on the potential for exposure to cause various health effects and to characterize the levels of exposure at which these effects are not expected to occur. In addition, as part of the broader effort to address the more than 8000 PFAS that have been identified, ORD is developing systematic evidence maps (SEMs) to complement the PFAS tiered toxicity testing being conducted by EPA’s Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, CCTE (https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/pfas-chemical-lists-and-tiered-testing-methods-descriptions). The SEMs use robust and reproducible methods to collect and display snapshots of the currently available data on PFAS. When used together with the screening-level toxicity data being generated by CCTE, these SEMs can help identify data gaps and sources of toxicity information to inform EPA decisions to group and prioritize the thousands of PFAS that exist. Disclaimer: these views are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of EPA.

Rob Seifert, DOE, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Subsurface Closure

Bio: Seifert is the director of the Office of Subsurface Closure in DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM). He has served in the EM program for nearly 29 years. Starting in 1993 at DOE's Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Seifert has held a number of technical and management positions as both a contractor and DOE federal employee. Seifert joined the DOE headquarters team in 2014 as the director of the Office of Regulatory Compliance. Seifert has degrees in chemistry and biology from Murray State University.

Abstract: PFAS are a class of chemicals that have been manufactured and used since the 1940s. PFAS are known for their strength, durability, heat resistance, and stability. However, recent evidence indicates that human exposure to certain PFAS may lead to adverse health effects. DEO-EM is seeking to understand past and present practices regarding PFAS and potential presence across the DOE-EM Complex. In late 2020 and early 2021, DOE conducted a survey of EM sites to initially assess potential historical uses of PFAS. This session will present the status of the survey and some next steps toward gaining a better understanding of PFAS usages at EM sites.

Melissa Harclerode, CDM Smith

Bio: Harclerode is a principal sustainability scientist with 16 years at CDM Smith serving as project technical lead for various site remediation projects, including emerging contaminants such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). At CDM Smith, she has helped propel the work of environmental remediation specialists into the future, with innovative stakeholder engagement techniques and an overall commitment to the social and economic impacts of environmental remediation. She provides technical support and modeling on environmental footprint analysis, life cycle assessment, community impact evaluations, risk communication, public outreach planning, and development of sustainable best management practices.

Abstract: Public outreach of PFAS assessment and management activities is challenged by a variety of factors, including the evolving state of the science and regulatory standards, understanding of fate, transport and exposure risks, and identification of community concerns and needs. Development of an adaptive risk communication and outreach strategy informed by community assessment and a community-specific PFAS “cycle” can help practitioners address these risk communication challenges head on. Community assessment of demographics and environmental justice data alongside review of social and news media provide a snapshot of community conditions while also identifying community-specific intersections between political or socioeconomic issues and community contamination. This assessment provides the foundation for a communication program that incorporates multi-stakeholder values and community demographics. Simultaneous development of a PFAS “cycle” within the community, including potential sources, receivers/waste haulers, environmental media, and exposure/receptor pathways, informs outreach strategy development. A PFAS communication program will be presented.

Richard "Hunter" Anderson, U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC)

Bio: Anderson is an environmental scientist at AFCEC in San Antonio, Texas. He provides technical expertise to AFCEC’s Environmental Restoration Program in the areas of emerging contaminants, environmental engineering, environmental toxicology, and quantitative data analyses. Anderson also represents AFCEC to the Defense Department’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program in the area of environmental restoration.

Abstract: The U.S. Air Force is currently undertaking massive field campaigns to characterize the environmental distribution of PFAS, particularly at aqueous film-forming foam impacted sites where historic point-source discharges occurred at the ground surface. This effort is underway despite 1) evolving toxicology and associated regulatory toxicity values and criteria, 2) limited commercial soil and waste disposition/treatment options, and 3) a general lack of understanding with respect to the full risk and transport potential in impacted soil and groundwater. Therefore, adaptive policies and practices are critical to progressive response actions. This presentation will illustrate AFCEC’s response actions to date and highlight key issues that require immediate resolution for efficient programmatic progression through the regulatory process.

Edwin F. Barth, EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response

Bio: Barth is a senior environmental engineer with over 40 years of contaminated site remediation experience. He serves on the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation National Remedy Review Board. Barth has authored several journal articles and technical documents involving immobilization technologies. Barth has provided technical assistance to the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office as well as international military sites.

Abstract: PFAS sites may require some form of a containment technology such as in-situ immobilization. A bench-scale study involving granular activated carbon (GAC), an activated carbon-clay blend, modified clay, biochar, and an iron (Fe)-amended biochar were evaluated as a potential sorbent for use in an in-situ stabilization/solidification (immobilization) process. In addition to sorbent addition, physical solidification of the contaminated soil was achieved by adding cement as a binding agent. Results from the initial sorption experiments indicated that GAC was slightly more successful than the other sorbents in sorption performance for a 3,000 µg/L solution containing a mixture of the six selected PFAS analytes (500 µg/L concentration each of shorter- and longer-chain alkyl acids), and was the only sorbent further evaluated in the study. While the GAC, activated carbon-clay blend, and modified clay sorbents showed similar sorption performance for the longer chain analytes tested, both the activated carbon-clay blend and modified clay, exhibited slightly less sorptive capacity than GAC for the shorter-chain alkyl acids. Immobilization effectiveness was evaluated by soil leachability testing using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 1312, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) on the samples collected from two PFAS-contaminated sites. For the majority of the PFAS soil analytes, the addition of GAC sorbent (chemical stabilization) substantially reduced the leachability of PFAS compounds from the contaminated soil samples, and the addition of cement as a physical binding agent (solidification) further decreased leachability for a few of the PFAS compounds. Overall immobilization of PFAS analytes that were detectable in the leachate from two PFAS contaminated soils ranged from 87.1% to 99.9%. 

Mohamed Ateia Ibrahim, EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response

Bio: Ibrahim works as an environmental engineer and group leader at the Center for Environmental Solutions & Emergency Response (CESER) within the office of research and development of the EPA. His research at EPA targets the removal of micropollutants (mostly PFAS) and the assessment of various separation and destruction technologies from lab-scale to Superfund sites. Specifically, he has focused on the assessment of conventional methods (e.g., GAC, IX resins), the development of new materials and/or composites to adsorb/degrade micropollutants (e.g., PFAS, DBPs, PPCPs, illicit drugs), and the mobility of new classes of contaminants in the environment (e.g., microplastics). Moha has a multidisciplinary research background with hands-on experience in environmental engineering, materials chemistry, and agricultural engineering. He has initiated and led over a dozen research collaborations with researchers across the world to target micropollutants in a practical way and published more than 45 peer-reviewed articles covering these topics.

Abstract: Separating PFAS from water and ultimately degrading them into products that lack carbon-fluorine bonds will be important for decontaminating our water resources. Yet conventional treatment methods have critical deficiencies, such as low affinity toward short-chain PFAS, and are impacted by background organic and inorganic constituents. The recent advancements in the development of PFAS-selective adsorbents now offer the possibility of short- and long-chain PFAS treatment using regenerable sorbents such as cyclodextrin polymers and amine-functionalized materials. However, currently available data the treatment of PFAS-impacted waters will necessitate a treatment train approach. Such tandem-mode setups would consist of a separation step (e.g., adsorption or nanofiltration) followed by a destruction process applied to the adsorbents, retentate, and/or regeneration solutions. This talk will cover some of the emerging technologies that show promise to solve some of these challenges.

Tamzen W. Macbeth, CDM Smith: State of the Science - Destructive PFAS Technology Application for Water Treatment

Bio: Macbeth is senior vice president and remediation practice leader for CDM Smith with over 20 years of experience in contaminant treatment technologies. Her work leverages her interdisciplinary academic and research background in microbiology and engineering to advance remediation technologies. She has served as principal investigator, manager and/or technical lead and advisor for government, private and international PFAS-contaminated sites undergoing characterization, design, and remediation at the laboratory-scale, pilot-scale and full-scale.

Abstract: PFAS are widespread in the environment due to their extensive use in thousands of industrial, commercial, and household products impacting surface and groundwater sources of drinking water across the Unites States, which must be treated to low part per trillion water treatment criteria. Treatment of PFAS is challenging due to the stability and persistence of the carbon to fluorine (C-F) bond. Currently, water treatment systems rely on processes that only separate PFAS from the water stream, such as granular activated carbon or reverse osmosis (RO). These separation technologies leave PFAS concentrates or spent media, which then require careful management as PFAS can potentially be rereleased into the environment. From a risk and life-cycle perspective, destructive technologies are desired to remove these harmful chemicals entirely, but current technologies are energy intensive and impractical for treating on a scale necessary for many water treatment plants. This presentation will highlight advances from bench to pilot systems of PFAS destructive technologies including their applications, limitations and development status as well as feasible treatment trains which rely on separating and concentrating PFAS from dilute water streams, with concentrates subject to destructive treatment.