PFAS and Small Systems: The Part Nobody Talks About
By Noelle DeStefano, National PFAS Sector Lead
I keep having the same conversation with owners of small systems: schools, small community systems, places running a thousand gallons a day, sometimes less.
They get a PFAS result, it triggers a requirement for a corrective action plan, and almost immediately the discussion turns to what kind of treatment system they’re supposed to install.
A lot of these systems have no extra staff, no engineering bench, and no budget sitting around waiting for a surprise like this.
So when operators hear “install GAC” or “look at ion exchange,” the reaction is panic.
Because even if the treatment system works, that does not mean it’s realistic or feasible for them to build it, run it, and maintain it. That is the part that gets glossed over.
People often assume that once you have a PFAS exceedance, the path forward is obvious. It’s not. It’s messy, and it depends heavily on the system.
Stay ready with The PFAS Wire: From Lab Bench to Legislation
Regular insights on PFAS requirements and testing implications delivered straight to your inbox.
That’s where I start.
The first question I usually ask is whether the result is representative and consistent. Not every detection tells the same story.
Then it’s the source. Is this coming from somewhere that can be addressed, or is it just in the background?
Then scale. Does it even make sense to design a centralized treatment system for how this water is used?
Sometimes the answer is treatment, but sometimes it’s not. Sometimes it’s operational changes or point-of-use treatment. Sometimes it’s an interim step to reduce exposure while the system figures out funding or a longer-term fix. In some cases, even something as simple as providing bottled drinking water gets dismissed as optics, which leaves the system in the same place it started: required to act but not given a realistic path to get there.
There is no clean, one-size answer, even though that is often how it gets presented.
And that is where a lot of these systems get stuck. They are being told to solve a problem with money, staff, and infrastructure they do not have. At the same time, they are expected to move quickly and get it right.
A corrective action plan should not just be a list of technologies. It should be something the system can actually build, run, and maintain in the long run.
Because the question I hear over and over is not “what is the best treatment?” It’s “what can we actually do?”
Before you go...
If you are interested in in articles like these, I recommend subscribing to my newsletter, The PFAS Wire: From Lab Bench to Legislation.
It's my way of delivering insights like these straight to your inbox, at the most, once a month.
Established in 2019, Metiri Group has focused on using full-service environmental laboratories to deliver testing services to inform the decisions that improve the lives of people and the planet.
In addition to its analytical capabilities, Metiri Group aims to deliver exceptional value to a range of clients, from industrial and corporate clients, municipal water systems, environmental consultants and engineers, and local, state and federal government. Metiri Group continues to strive to be the first choice for environmental analytical laboratory services.
