Speaker 1 (00:01):
Check one, two. Check one, two. Check one, two. Check one, two. Check, check, check, check, one, two, one, two.
Barry Shadrix (00:02):
Ladies and gentlemen, if you could take your seats, the program will begin shortly. Please get seated. Thank you.
Audience (00:36):
[inaudible 00:21:01].
Jess Kramer (26:37):
Thank you. Appreciate it. Good afternoon everyone and welcome. We're excited to have you with us today. My name is Jess Kramer. I'm the assistant administrator for the Office of Water here at EPA and I am thrilled this year joining us on this exciting day for the agency. Under Administrator Zeldin and Secretary Kennedy's leadership, EPA, HHS are committed to making America healthy again. To help achieve this goal, we are going to highlight a comprehensive strategy today to address PFAS and water. Today's event with feature a round table discussion with companies that offer technologies to capture and destroy PFAS.
(27:08)
We'll make new funding announcements and we will also announce two proposed rules that are going out for public comment. These rules will update drinking water requirements for several PFAS. The message today is that EPA is delivering real solutions to reduce PFAS exposure for Americans. Today's announcement combined with the agency's recently announced PFAS out strategy and a forthcoming proposed rule to address PFAS before it is discharged to our waterways make that clear. Without further delay, I'm thrilled to introduce EPA's administrator, Mr. Lee Zeldin.
Lee Zeldin (27:44):
Well, I want to start off by taking a moment to thank everyone for being here today, to of course, Secretary Kennedy and our distinguished panelists for an important conversation to discuss PFAS and the agencies and admin's robust efforts to be able to combat it. I want to thank the water professionals, the state local officials and the community leaders who are here in this room as well. PFAS is not something many Americans had even heard of about 10 years ago, but so much has since changed. I had my first opportunity to get involved in a pretty big way combating PFAS [inaudible 00:28:34] led to Congress in 2014. Secretary Kennedy well knows from all of his involvement in New York on water issues, PFAS was a very big issue in the first congressional district of New York.
(28:50)
We had progressed the airport. We had an issue with [inaudible 00:28:58] national lab. There were areas where firefighting was done all over the east end of Long Island. So we had to get involved very quickly joining the PFAS Task Force, both the PFAS Action Act, but very quickly once I got to that position, I realized just how much of a big issue and urgent issue this is for my district, but also coming to Congress and speaking to members of the House and Senate on both sides of the house, how big of an issue this was all across the country. In another perspective as somebody who was spending the remainder of my time in the military in the reserve, I was learning about all of the military installations across the country with massive cleanup costs related to PFAS, viewing those issues from that standpoint after switching over to becoming a reservist in the [inaudible 00:29:57].
(29:57)
The science on the two most studied PFAS, PFOA and PFOS has never been cleared. They were linked to serious health effects. They persist in the environment, they build up in the human body and addressing that is not optional. It is essential to making America healthy again. So the question is not whether to act on PFAS, it's how?
(30:22)
We were answering it the right way by following the law, following the science, tackling PFAS not just at the tap, but all across its full life cycle and backing it up with real investment and real support. Let me start with what the EPA is already delivering. We are accelerating the development of technologies to destroy PFAS, not just move it from one place to another. To keep pace with this fast moving field, in April we announced that we moved our PFAS destruction and disposal guidance from a three-year updated cycle to an annual updated cycle. We'll now update it every single year because the technology is moving that fast and we are tracking what actually works. That allows EPA to continually assess the real world effectiveness of what's available and emerging technologies to put the best performing options in front of the water systems that need it.
(31:23)
We are advancing proven separation technologies that pull PFAS out of water, such as granular activated carbon, ion exchange resins, and high pressure membranes like reverse osmosis alongside classic destruction technologies that are understudied such as super critical water oxidation, electrochemical oxidation, hydrothermal alkaline treatment, non-thermal plasma, and hydro;psos and gasification of PFAS weighted residuals. EPA has helped put treatment systems in the ground including four full scale treatment sites in Southern California that are protecting now more than 9,000 homes. All these initiatives teach us something new and brings the cost down for the next community. Behind all of it is a research program that does not stop. During a recent trip that I took to Raleigh, North Carolina had the opportunity to visit Research Triangle Park. This is laboratories where EPAs and amazing scientists right now, while we are here, are very actively engaged in very important research to be able to combat PFAS across this country.
(32:34)
At regional labs all across the country, you will find great work that is going on right now, dedicated EPA professionals. Our scientists are building better tools to detect these chemicals, methods that can now find dozens of PFAS compounds and everything from groundwater to fish tissue while studying the thousands of PFAS. The Trump EPA working with Secretary Kennedy and HHS is advancing a PFAS strategy that's built to last. Our efforts are backed up with serious resources. Today we're announcing nearly $1 billion in grant funding for small and disadvantaged communities. That brings the total available under that program to five billion over five years. On top of that, roughly $4 billion is available through the drinking water state revolving funds and six and a half billion in low investment financing through WIFIA. This is a lot of money. For our PFAS out initiative, we are directly engaging thousands of drinking water systems that we know have PFOA and PFOS challenges.
(33:44)
Small rural and disadvantaged communities are not going to be left behind. We have pulled together a team from across this entire agency, top scientists and policy leaders from every office that touches this issue to coordinate the work and move faster with our assistant administrator from the Office of Water, Jess Kramer serving as the agency's PFAS lead. On February 6th of this year, Trump EPA published a detailed list of the extensive record our agency had done in just the first year. The testing, funding, of course, the research and support to communities. It's all there in one place available in EPA's newsroom for anyone to read. We're also going after PFAS as a source for effluent limitations on industrial structures. We also believe that those who placed PFAS in the environment should be the ones responsible for legacy cleanup costs, not passive receivers and not the public.
(34:45)
Decades old laws like CERCLA and RCRA were built without PFAS in mind and that's a challenge that right now is in front of the Congress is updating these laws with everything that we now know is related to PFAS. That's why it's important for Congress to act to protect past receivers to make sure liability falls where it belongs, not on the families paying the water bill. That brings me to regulations themselves. Now there are two ways to act on PFAS. We can do it the way the last administration did where a regulation would be rushed out the door. Certain steps were skipped as the law had required and the water systems were giving deadlines that many of them have communicated to us that they're going to have trouble meeting and we left the rule open to be struck down in court. That approach makes for a good press release and doesn't make for cleaner water or we can do it the right way.
(35:48)
We're going to follow the law, follow the science, give order system standards they can actually build their compliance programs around. As I mentioned earlier, tackle PFAS not just at the tap, but across its whole life cycle. Then we have to back up the real investment and real support. First, we are holding the federal drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS. The science on these two chemicals is some of the strongest of any drinking water contaminant we regulate. Those levels are staying. Second, we are proposing an opt-in extension for water systems that need more time to comply and that does not mean a blanket delay. The 2029 deadline still applies. For systems that affirmatively request additional time and that meet the criteria we will set out in the final rule, they can potentially receive up to two additional years until 2031 to get their treatment in place.
(36:55)
Systems that don't opt in will stay on the original timeline. This is about being realistic. Technologies are still being developed. Congress is considering what to do about the passive procedure situation and costs hopefully will be reduced substantially over the coming years. A deadline you cannot physically meet is not a public health protection. It's a set-up for litigation delay, unintended consequences and hardship.
(37:25)
Third, as previously announced, we are proposing to rescind and restart the regulation for four other PFAS. PFHxS, PFNA, Gen X chemicals and PFBS as part of a hazard event. And it's not because they don't matter. They might warrant strict standards, possibly even stricter than what was previously regulated. But because the previous administration didn't follow the procedural and substantive step-by-step requirements of the same Drinking Water Act when regulating them, that rule has been extremely vulnerable legally and already subject to ongoing litigation. If the court throws it out later, we can lose years.
(38:12)
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires a sequential approach to regulation where the agency must first propose to regulate a particular drinking water contaminant and then seek public comment on whether the idea of a regulation is appropriate. Only after the public has had the opportunity to comment on that proposal. And when the EPA has then finalized that determination to regulate, may the EPA then publish a proposed rule regarding a new regulation of that contaminant.
(38:48)
Instead of abiding by that process set out the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Biden EPA combined steps simultaneously, which isn't permitted, denying the public a chance to weigh in on the threshold question for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and the index PFAS prior to locking in the new standard. So we're going to do this again and we're going to do it right and this could result in stronger requirements and they will be built on a record that will hold. Not for nothing, it's also important to point out that technologies that are developed to meet an FCL and PFOA and PFOS can also incidentally and very consequentially be treating other forms of PFAS in the process. And I'm looking forward to today's conversation to be able to talk about that point as well.
(39:43)
Now I'll close with this, every American deserves to know that the water coming out of their tap is safe and the EPA is going to deliver on that by following the law, following the science and giving water systems the time, tools and support they need to actually get the job done.
(40:01)
I'm looking forward to speaking today with everyone here about the ways we can address PFAS, control future generations have safe drinking water, land and air. And it's my great honor at this time to introduce somebody who has been a pioneer as it relates to PFAS, a passionate advocate for safe drinking water. Somebody as a New Yorker, I've seen firsthand how strongly his contributions have resulted in better water quality throughout the state. He has been a great leader to Make America Healthy Again coalition and movement. It's an honor to serve with him and we're grateful to have him here with us today, Secretary Robert Kennedy Junior.
Secretary Robert Kennedy JJunior (40:50):
Thanks to everyone for joining us today. [inaudible 00:41:03] reflects a major step forward in the Trump administration's effort to make America healthy again by confronting environmental exposures that are contributing to chronic disease across the country. More than 95% of Americans now have PFAS chemicals in their blood or in their drinks and remains one of the primary sources of exposure. Studies show PFAS exposure damages the liver and kidneys. It weakens immune function and increases risk for cancer, diabetes, pregnancy complications and developmental harms. This issue is personal for millions of American families and it has been personal for me for a long time. For decades, communities were exposed to these chemicals without transparency or accountability. Years ago beginning in 2001, I worked with families in Ohio and West Virginia whose drinking water had been-
Secretary Robert Kennedy JJunior (42:00):
... Ohio and West Virginia whose drinking water had been contaminated by PFAS contaminants released into their communities. That case helped expose the scale of this problem nationally and resulted in a $671 million settlement for affected residents. Mark Ruffalo later made a movie of that lawsuit called Dark Waters and it was one of the vehicles by which the PFAS problem became known to the American people. And I've worked also in many other PFAS cases as the president of the Waterkeeper Alliance. We had a big PFAS case on the Tennessee River, Alabama. All over the country and many of those are the milestone cases that really brought PFAS the attention to the American public.
(42:53)
I feel very fortunate that one of the great other champions at PFAS in this country is somebody I'm serving with in the cabinet, who is Lee Zeldin. When he was Congressman from the Eastern and Long Island had three major PFAS contaminant dump zones in his district. And he spent a lot of time and attention championing the cleanup of those. And then when he came into Congress in 2014, he joined the PFAS Task Force, and he was one of the few Republicans who supported the PFAS legislation that began this process. I've read a couple of articles in the corporate media that suggests that EPA is trying to roll back PFAS regulations. It's not true. I've met repeatedly with Lee and his staff and they're completely committed at ending exposures in a way that's legal and practical.
(43:58)
As Lee pointed out, the Biden administration passed a rule very hastily in which they ignored a Clean Water Act mandate for a public comment period. I brought many, many administrative procedure acts and Clean Water Act cases, hundreds of them literally, and I can tell you that that was a fatal flaw. This regulation from the Biden administration would not stand a court challenge and the court challenge has already been filed. And what we're doing today is shaving years from a process where that regulation would get thrown out and we would have to start again. And we're doing it in a way that maintains the Clean Water Act levels, the maximum contaminant in safe drinking water levels, the maximum contaminant levels and gives maximum production as quickly as possible to the American public.
(44:57)
And one of the really exciting things that's happened since Administrator Zeldin and I came in 16 months ago, there's been an explosion in technology where we're removing PFAS and destroying it, that will make it much more affordable for these little water districts that are already besieged by cost, and many of them are near bankruptcy. And I'm looking very forward to hearing the comments from some of these companies today that have developed some of these technologies that Lee and I get besieged probably weekly with people who want to showcase new technologies for removing PFAS. I'm very encouraged. Plus we have a president who's completely committed to removing PFAS, understanding it, understanding the exposures and to eliminating those exposures from the American public, and has made greater financial commitment to understanding PFAS and removing it than any president in history.
(46:07)
At HHS, our responsibility is to better understand what these chemicals are doing to human health and how we can reduce exposures and move forward. NIH and our other federal health agencies are currently supporting more than 40 research groups studying how PFAS exposure affects children's development, pregnancy outcomes, immune function, metabolic health, fertility, liver toxicity, and chronic disease risk. Researchers are studying how PFAS exposures during pregnancy may affect birth outcomes and childhood development. Other NIH supported work is examining links between PFAS exposures and immune system suppression, inflammation, liver injury, and metabolic disorders like obesity and diabetes. Emerging research is also exploring how PFAS may alter the gut microbiome and contribute to chronic disease.
(47:12)
Last month, HHS launched STOMP, Systematic Targeting of Microplastics, a first of its kind federal initiative focused on improving how the government measures and studies microplastics and nanoplastics from the human body. We are extending research into the environmental drivers of chronic disease with transparency and accountability and gold standard science. At the same time, the EPA is taking important action to reduce PFAS exposures before they reach the American public. Today's announcement includes nearly a billion dollars in new funding to help states and communities address PFAS contamination and drinking water. EPA is also proposing two rules that strengthen drinking water protections while giving communities workable and legally durable past compliance. Public health protections only work if communities can implement them and if the courts uphold them, otherwise, communities are left with uncertainty instead of solutions.
(48:22)
The EPA and HHS are addressing PFAS at every stage from contamination exposure to treatment, monitoring and long-term research. Americans want honest science, accountability and policies that improve health outcomes and protect future generations., This is exactly what we are working to deliver. I also want to say Administrator Zeldin, I've lived through a lot of EPA administrators and Administrator Zeldin has been more willing to sit down and meet and have civil congenial meetings with the environmental community as much as any administration that I've seen in my lifetime. I'm very grateful to him for that. And I look forward to hearing from today's experts about the next generation of PFAS treatment, the destruction of technologies that will help us reduce exposures, protect public health, and deliver long-term lasting solutions to the American public.
Jess Kramer (49:38):
Thank you Administrator Zeldin and Secretary Kennedy. What I want to start with the panel discussion today is a brief overview from each of you. I want to introduce you and if you could give just a high level, quick summary of the technology that your company has, so that we can set a baseline of the different kinds of technologies that we have at the table today. So I'm going to start with Dave Ross, Executive Vice President of Veolia North America.
Dave Ross (50:05):
Thanks, Jess. I appreciate that. Hey, so Dave Ross, I'm with Veolia in North America. We're the world's largest environmental services company. And we touch PFAS, I think the administrator used the phrase lifecycle, at every step in the life cycle, whether or not it's destroying AFFF on used stocks to we got 30 plus drinking water systems up and running and another 50 in planning, so we'll be treating water for over a million customers throughout the country, to treating industrial wastewater or wastewater, biosolids is a major issue for us, all the way to we're a very large waste management company. And so we'll take... And that's the technology I'm going to focus on because we have quite a bit. In fact, I think we may have tested every company on the stage at some point in our process. We work with all the startup companies and the mature companies on the best treatment that we can possibly get. We've really pivoted pretty significantly at the backend. There's a lot of concern about how do you get rid of PFAS in it through incineration. There's been a lot of concern about what goes up the stack. And so using EPA's new revised guidance, and thank you for committing to doing that every single year, that's huge for the industry. We've used EPA's guidance and the Department of War's guidance to make sure that we can destroy up to six log removals, so 99.999% destruction of PFAS compounds. So as the companies up here take it out of the water column or the waste column or our technology does, there are lots of different ways to destroy it, but we do have a backend disposal where we can incinerate it safely through our network. And so for the really difficult to treat waste, that's where we've focused a lot of our effort and innovation.
Jess Kramer (51:51):
Excellent. Thanks Dave. Next I want to go to Michelle Bellanca, CEO of Claros Technologies.
Michelle Bellanca (51:58):
Good afternoon, I'm Michelle Bellanca, CEO of Claros Technologies. What I'd like to focus on in terms of what we do, is really education and awareness and changing the narrative on PFAS destruction. When we talk about destruction, are we talking about total defluorination of PFAS? Are we talking about capture absorption? Are we talking about concentration? I worked at 3M for 24 years. I'm very familiar with these chemicals. And when I left 3M, my passion was really around how do you go after the destruction part of this problem? So there's two pieces that you've got in the environment right now. You've got the legacy that exists that needs to be cleaned up, right? You've also got the perpetuation of using these materials in many cases for essential applications, right? And how do you keep them out of in the pipe in the environment? And this is where we're focused at Claros.
(52:52)
So we do what's called total destruction, defluorination. There's 15,000 PFAS species that are out there. You heard Administrator Zeldin talk about we're focused on a couple today. But the key at Claros is we do very high speed destruction, number one. We do it at scale and at stores, meaning we're right in those facilities, we're in those industrials, we're in the groundwater, we can go to the municipal site, and we're destroying the PFAS across the long and the short and the ultra short. So to Administrator Zeldin's point, we're not just focusing on what today we are looking at regulating, we're focused on for the same economics at high speed for these essential applications in these different areas, groundwater, waste water, industrial water with these big users and makers? How do we provide the public safety for the same economics? The total destruction across the long the short and the ultra short PFAS with technologies that go into existing infrastructure today and cost pennies per gallon from an affordability standpoint? Because this is how you're going to start to make a difference.
(54:02)
You've got to clean up the legacy piece, we do that as well, but if you can take high flow destruction with total defluorination, meaning you're not left with ultra short PFAS at the end, you've destroyed the long, the short and the ultra short economically for public safety and health, then you can use these materials essentially. You can keep them out of end of pipe across all of these PFAS, and you can also go after the legacy business as well. What we've done to date is that we've had temporary solutions, but that's really moving the liability from the water to waste. But to be fair, we haven't had solutions like we're talking about on the stage today with emerging technologies until the last couple of years. These chemicals were called forever, because they are really difficult to destroy. It's one of the toughest manmade bonds. And so what we do at Claros is at the source, at high flows, at economics that are affordable, we take the forever out of forever chemicals.
Jess Kramer (55:03):
Thanks, Michelle. Next I want to move to Frank Cassou, Founder and CEO of Cyclopure.
Frank Cassou (55:10):
Thanks, Jess. I'm Frank at Cyclopure. We developed DEXSORB, a novel absorbent to remove PFAS, it's selective for PFAS. We're an innovative technology. So the company's been around since 2016 and to start and scale a new technology to enter the water industry and get adoption, it takes a lot of development and a lot of support. And we've had a lot of support from the government. If you look at my bio, we have been supported along the way by NSF, NIHS, EPA, and the Department of War as well. And so all of that funding has helped us become a mature technology that is now being commercially deployed across the U.S.
(55:54)
As Administrator Zeldin highlighted, it's important to remove PFAS out of the water cycle. So distribution is obviously a critical point so that it's not being consumed by households and residents. But at the same time, you want to be removing it from discharges so it's not going back into the water cycle from industrial activities, leachate. And then you want to tap the storage, which is groundwater remediation as well. So being selective, we're able to work in each of those environmental matrices, so we can work at the drinking water level, we can work at industrial. The industrial side is an economic side as much as it's a health side because we work with semiconductor companies, obviously there's a huge amount of that that is going on these days with the advancement of AI. We work with the automobile industry and metal plating. We work with landfill leachate. We work with pulp and paper. So pretty much any industry that you see that is now facing the challenge of removing PFAS and the extra costs needs to have an efficient technology to do that. So we're working in that sector as well.
(56:59)
Another space that is challenging is households that are on well water. So roughly 15% of the U.S. population is on well water and not covered by municipal drinking, and so that is an area where we're working with states to test water. We use our technology for water testing. We also deliver point of view systems that can be used there. So it's really important that people that are on well can have access to tools to determine whether they have PFAS in their water and then a solution to do that because they're not on municipal systems.
(57:33)
And in terms of cost, I think that one of the biggest challenges, as Administrator Zeldin highlighted, is cost. Because PFAS is a tax now that is on industry, it's on drinking water, plants and so how do they do that? They can do it from settlements from litigation, they can do it from rate increases, they can also do it from government funding, but it's a cost. And so with our technology, DEXSORB, we're selective so you need less of it at implementation, you need less infrastructure. At the end and the backend, and this is how we work, with both Claros and Veolia we can desorb the PFAS, reuse the media, but we also isolate and capture the PFAS concentrate, and then we take that to folks like Claros or Veolia for destruction.
(58:23)
So that's a huge... If you think about a project that we're working with in New Jersey, it's 500 metric tons of media. Well, when you get to change out, you've got 500 metric tons of media that has PFAS in it. So what we can do is to desorb that PFAS, concentrate it and then take it to a destruction vendor. That's extremely important in reducing the costs. So if we can reduce the costs, we're also reducing that funding cap that people are looking to do through government funding or class action settlements.
Jess Kramer (58:57):
Excellent. Thank you. Matt Meersseman, CEO of Desotec, USA.
Matt Meersseman (59:04):
Awesome, thank you, Jessica. So yes, Matt is my name. I'm a CEO for Desotec, an organization that was founded in 1990 overseas, headquarters in Belgium, globally, active in U.S. for about three years now. We're a company that provides mobile filtration systems for PFAS removal in air and water streams. Essentially, that means that we use products to capture PFAS at the source, bring it to central locations and destroy it. So as some of us has said already that it is forever no more. Our role in the public health in the U.S. is to allow industrial sites where the PFAS is heavily concentrated to allow municipalities who need to get drinking water to their communities and to allow remediation sites to cope with PFAS and to cope with it rapidly, and by rapidly, I mean in a matter of days. We deploy immediately available systems that capture these contaminants and have technology in-house to destroy it fully.
(01:00:03)
What sets us apart in that realm is essentially bridging that gap, because we know that the problem is present throughout the entirety of the U.S. We know it's going to require a lot of capital funding for which the gratitude to Administrator Zeldin of opening up that checkbook, so to say. Simultaneously all these projects are going to take a long time. Infrastructure as a lead time, you can only do so many projects at any given point in time, which is a gap which we bridge with Desotec by supplying readily available mobile systems out to both industrial sites as well as municipalities to capture and destroy. Since again, infrastructure takes time, it takes years to build, but the need for purification and removal of PFAS has no time to wait. So we're very happy to be here today on the panel.
Jess Kramer (01:00:56):
Excellent. Thanks so much Matt. And last but not least, Barry Shadrix, Global Director and GM for Water and Remediation CETCO.
Barry Shadrix (01:01:00):
Thank you, Jess. So CETCO, CETCO is a subsidiary of Minerals Technologies Company, a New York based company focused on water remediation solutions that protect communities from harmful contaminants. We've been doing environmental remediation for decades for legacy contamination on large Superfund sites like the Gowanus Canal and the Great Lakes area of concern. For PFAS, we're looking at the PFAS landscape holistically. Our technology is versatile in the way that it can be deployed. Upstream, we're working with defense and industrial clients to utilize our technology in situ, to capture the PFAS in the ground, to prevent the ground water and surface water from migrating to other sites and sensitive water receptors.
(01:01:55)
This strategy reduces the amount of PFAS, reaching those sensitive receptors, and thus the utilities will see less PFAS in their source water. For municipalities, our goal is to provide our technologies to capture PFAS for potable water, allowing utilities to meet their compliance goals and protect human health. The way our product is designed with high surface area, fast kinetics and on a mineral base substrate is among the lowest cost of ownership products on the market. It allows for lower capital installations and very high capacities, so the change out frequencies of the media is far less than other media on the market.
Jess Kramer (01:02:42):
Excellent. Thanks so much.
Barry Shadrix (01:02:43):
Okay.
Jess Kramer (01:02:43):
So we've got about 15 minutes that we can do an open dialogue round table, but I'm going to go ahead and kick us off with question, unless Mr. Administrator, Mr. Secretary you have any questions to start? Otherwise, I'm going to dive right in. I'd like to talk a little bit about the trajectory of affordability. One of the things that the Administrator and the Secretary talked about in their opening remarks was concerns related-
Jess Kramer (01:03:00):
Sharon and the secretary talked about in their opening remarks was concerns related to affordability when it comes to compliance with regulation. I know a couple of you, Michelle, especially spoke a little bit about cost. Talk to me a little bit more about the biggest challenges with affordability for these types of technologies and how do we combat those challenges with affordability?
(01:03:21)
And we can start right at Michelle, if you want to start or... Oh, sorry.
Frank Cassou (01:03:27):
Sure. I think up until the point the process of capture and then disposal, destruction, it's kind of been non-integrated. The transfer of PFAS waste to the destruction vendors has been quite costly. So, I think if you can have technologies like ours that can concentrate the waste stream and integrated with destruction vendor, you're going to have a much more efficient process all the way through the treatment.
Jess Kramer (01:03:57):
That's great. Thanks, Frank. I saw Barry. He dove at the microphone, and then Michelle, we'll come back to you.
Barry Shadrix (01:04:04):
Yeah, no, that's probably the number one question that we get from clients is what is this going to cost and will it reliably meet our compliance goals? And the answer is yes, it will meet the compliance goals because we've seen that over and over, removing the compounds.
(01:04:22)
The question is how long will it remove the compounds? And that's one of the things when we were developing this product is to develop a high- capacity media where we could extend change out for these as long as four and five times of the media, and that would impact the lower cost of ownership.
(01:04:41)
Another key piece is connects, right? So how long does the water need to be in contact with the absorptive media to transfer out of the water phase onto the media? And when we look at that, we needed something that was going to act fast.
(01:04:56)
Some media need 10 to 20 minutes of contact time. When you translate that into capital equipment, that's some large equipment. Our media can remove the PFAS out of water and as small as two minutes and that will lend itself to much smaller capital footprint equipment. That's great.
Jess Kramer (01:05:14):
Thank you. Michelle?
Michelle Bellanca (01:05:16):
Thank you. I think it's about matchmaking, right? At the end of the day, know your place and be really honest about where you fit because the environment and the industry are going to require multiple tools in the toolbox to effectively remediate PFAS on a global basis, much less here in the United States. There's all sorts of technologies. Know your place and where you really work well.
(01:05:41)
So for example, at Claros, we do permanent PFAS destruction in line, in water, at the source, right? So if we with our large PFAS makers, we've gone public with Daikin. They're one of the largest in the world. We're commercially installing at their facility. They're running hundreds of gallons a minute. If we can most effectively meet the customer's needs by taking out all of the PFAS without an interim step, do it, right? Because it's the most economical.
(01:06:10)
That option didn't exist at a commercial scale a year ago, so know better, do better.
(01:06:15)
But there are other applications like Frank is talking about where it makes complete sense to concentrate up first, and then do destruction.
(01:06:23)
And in that application, that is the best fit and it's the most economical. Where I think sometimes I see in the industry we get into trouble, we try to be what we're not, right? And we try and go after everything. And the more awareness that we have leads to education and it leads to better informed decision making so that as policy makers are looking at this, they know the accurate information and they can determine what the right solutions are because you will need multiple tools in the toolbox to address the PFAS remediation challenge that we have and they are here today. They weren't a year ago, five years ago.
(01:07:01)
I would also say that it depends on if you can economically, today, destroy permanently all of the PFAS, the long, the short and the ultra short for the same economics that you can destroy PFOA and PFOS for some of the long chain, then do it. And that should also be part of the equation when you look at the return on investment from not just the short term, but the long term public health standpoint. That's the economics at the end of the day that matters the most.
Jess Kramer (01:07:29):
That's great. If I can, unless anybody else wants to dive at their microphone, I want to pivot off of something that Michelle said. She talked about matchmaking, and I think one of the biggest challenges in the water sector is the diversity of the workforce.
(01:07:44)
You have a completely different workforce for your very small and rural communities than you do for your very large municipalities. As the folks who are developing these technologies, how do you account for that diversity in the workforce? And how do you, as you're going through this matchmaking process, how do you ensure that you are tailoring, you are lining that community up with technology that's going to set them up for success, not operations and maintenance failures down the road.
(01:08:12)
Dave?
Dave Ross (01:08:13):
That's a challenging one. In fact, I was happy a month ago when you announced the water workforce initiative because it is so absolutely critical. We're seeing workforce challenges, we run drinking water, waste water and as the new technology, whether or not it's driven by regulations on this building or the technology is accelerating as our workforce is aging, also the skills gap is accelerating as well.
(01:08:39)
And so it's a higher technology. Every one of these technologies on up on the stage is relatively sophisticated to operate. And so you need to be looking at workforce pipeline. The financial incentive and help for rural America is absolutely critical, because the skillset there to be able to run a system... We've got a lot of systems that we run that are a couple thousand people and we're installing PFAS. There's not an operator in that local community who can do it.
(01:09:09)
And so thinking about the workforce side and the skills gap, that's why we have launched free workforce training in the water, wastewater sector for anyone who wants to take it because we hope they come more [inaudible 01:09:22], but the water sector needs it, and we need people who understand the technology because the technology is accelerating as fast as our needs are.
Jess Kramer (01:09:31):
Matt? Sorry, Frank, I'll get you next.
Matt Meersseman (01:09:38):
It's crucial, I see this with every single panelist today that the PFAS problem as we face it cannot be solved by a product. All the companies that are here today, including of course ourselves with Desotec, we see PFAS as a question that can only be answered the solution. And the solution means that as a technology provider, yes, you have whether this [inaudible 01:10:03] activated carbon, whether it's osmosis, whether it's resins, you have a product, but you need to be able to bring it to industrials, to communities, municipalities, combined and easy to use.
(01:10:15)
Dave, as you were saying as well, it can't have too many bells and whistles. It has to be easy to operate and mostly, since you're targeting PFAS at the source, if it's brought somewhere else, you also need to have a tailored solution.
(01:10:28)
So that has been one thing which has been essential throughout the journey of Desotec, but throughout the journey of many of us here that yes, we look at PFAS as a problem in order to bring it to the market, it has to be a whole full-fledged solution where you can provide one certainty, because of course operators, they see guarantees, they have to be sure if they have put capital in, if they have operational expenses, that it's going to be worth it. That's a certainty you have to provide and of course simplicity. The easier is to explain, easier is to say, "I'm going to bring a vessel in," you're going to hook up and the PFAS is going to be gone. We take it back and we destroy it. Simplicity here is king to the equation.
Jess Kramer (01:11:06):
That's great. Thanks Matt, that makes a lot of sense.
(01:11:09)
Frank, I'm going to turn to you.
Frank Cassou (01:11:12):
So I think it's a little different between water treatment and disruption. So water treatment for EVAS is pretty straightforward. It's like traditional methods packed infiltration or gravity and so we go into communities across the country whether we're in Nikiski Alaska, Muscle Shoals, Pascack Valley, New Jersey, the workforce is actually increasing sophisticated because we're just saying, "Hey, here's the vessel. We're putting in a different media type and basically you just got to monitor it and then when the media is saturated, we take it, replace it and then we concentrate it, regenerate it and send it off."
(01:11:51)
I've been pleasantly surprised across the country that the engineering firms that are supporting local small communities and people that are working in the plants are extremely proud of the work they do and are very well-trained, actually.
(01:12:06)
So like I say, we've got something that's in a remote part of Alaska where it's serving 85 residents.
(01:12:17)
I think maybe it's a little different in destruction where it's a little more complicated than our side, but it's traditional stuff, we're just dropping in a replacement.
Jess Kramer (01:12:28):
Mr. Administrator?
Lee Zeldin (01:12:30):
I guess just picking up on the Alaska point, I was in Fort Richardson last June there was a company with a prototype zero for their company. They were given a contract from the military base to clean up 6,000 tons of contaminated soil of PFAS.
(01:12:50)
Fort Richardson has the challenge of, and Alaska has the challenge of sending their contaminated soil out of state to the lower 48 with a lot of cost. And as they were implementing prototype zero and cleaning up the 6,000 tons of contaminated soil, they learned so much for their next version of the prototype that's going to allow them to scale up and they were getting increasing confidence that they could get a 600,000 ton contract and it's economical for them to scale up. It would be more economical for Alaska, or Fort Richardson, to be able to clean it up on the spot as opposed to sending it to the lower 48.
(01:13:37)
And I'm wondering if any of you have any thoughts or perspective of any state or local municipality or entity that has this responsibility, this burden as a passive receiver of cleaning up PFAS, where you see that they are either currently or on the verge of spending very inefficiently and you have advice, really, for states and local governments and water systems and more on what they could be doing better to save tax dollars.
Jess Kramer (01:14:14):
Barry's up.
Barry Shadrix (01:14:15):
Yeah on that comment I would just mention we're doing a lot of piloting around large surface water plants I think early on, most of our piloting was around groundwater, but in surface water those large volumes of water that need to be treated is quite, quite extensive.
(01:14:37)
And the thoughts of building a post-polish plant just for PFAS can be very capital intensive, so we're seeing a lot of piloting going on now where utilities are looking at using our technology and a primary filtration methodology to remove TSS and solids as well as PFAS, and implementing that into existing infrastructure, and I think that's something that should absolutely be vetted out before large capital spends are being deployed into secondary capital treatment plans.
Jess Kramer (01:15:17):
Makes a lot of sense. Dave?
Dave Ross (01:15:20):
I would encourage the administrator to take a look at some of the states that are struggling with the biosolid space. There are a few states that have worked on application BAM Maine and a few others and some legislation that's being introduced in New York you'll see like having to do interstate shipment of what used to be handled locally.
(01:15:41)
So you're introducing costs, transportation costs and disposal costs, and so trying to come up with innovation in the biosolid space that preserves the ability to use the beneficial nutrients in the biosolid but also protect against the harm from emerging contaminants like PFAS. That's a delicate policy balance and I think some federal leadership in the state spaces will be helpful because you have a lot of communities, particularly New England, who are struggling with this issue right now and so I think some additional enhanced guidance in that space.
(01:16:13)
I also think more innovation. Innovation grant funding particularly in that biosolid space, you know that some of it's just getting the energy costs work down to make it more affordable. So I think the federal government has a very significant role to play whether or not it's innovation grants or Department of Energy has a great innovation program.
(01:16:33)
I think that's a focus that can be accelerated in the future.
Jess Kramer (01:16:33):
Michelle?
Michelle Bellanca (01:16:38):
I was going to add to that I think once again it does come back to awareness and education even for these water municipalities. I'll take Minnesota for example, which is where we're based at Claros. Minnesota's ground zero for the PFAS challenge that we've got. They're one of the two original inventors of these materials, and the amount of contamination and remediation within Minnesota is massive, right?
(01:17:02)
And we're in their backyard as the solution at ground zero, and even within Minnesota what I'm astounded at and we're just starting to break it, the tip of the iceberg is there, is cutting through the noise that these municipalities face because they're being barraged with all of these different types of solutions that supposedly work and these people have jobs to do without assessing all of this information and they have incomplete information at their fingertips.
(01:17:29)
So if you and I are in your position and you're running a water municipality and you've got people calling on you, how do you tell what information is legit, correct, scalable, economically affordable? What works?
(01:17:42)
One of the best pieces of advice I would say is look at can we develop a blanket educational memorandum that real time basis goes out to these municipalities across the United States, of what is best available technology today, so that we help them do their work, right?
(01:18:03)
And then they have the ability with the education and awareness to make informed decisions. But we just lived this in Minnesota last week where we're in their backyard, right? Daikin's gone public, we're at scale, we're commercial, economical, high flow, permanent destruction, everything a municipality could want and they were really nervous.
(01:18:26)
Number one, they weren't aware of us, an engineering firm brought us to them and we're in Minnesota.
(01:18:32)
And then number two, when they brought us, they had all sorts of questions because they just didn't have the right available data in front of them, and so I think it still does also start with education and awareness.
Jess Kramer (01:18:45):
I hate to shut down such an amazing conversation, but I do know that the secretary has a hard out here and so 30 seconds or less.
Speaker 2 (01:18:54):
30 seconds.
Frank Cassou (01:18:55):
30 seconds. Okay so related to this, there's best available technologies currently in the PA framework refers to GAC IXR and reverse osmosis, so kind of bat, that drives us a little bit BAT [inaudible 01:19:13] so a lot of times we encounter municipality that says we're only going to go with BAT even though we've got validated operational systems we do run into incidences where somebody says, "We can't afford any risks so we're just going to go with BAT."
(01:19:32)
We are working through it obviously more systems being installed, the more validation we get ITRC is helping us get elevated in their new reports. So just somehow if there could be some reevaluation of BAT for the new technologies that are working or out in the field.
Jess Kramer (01:19:53):
That's a very valid point. I see our amazing staffs of water here in the front row are writing feverishly. So I just want to say thank you to all of our panelists.
(01:20:00)
Thank you Mr. Administrator, thank you Mr. Secretary for joining us today. I look forward to working all with all of you moving forward and appreciate all of you joining us today.
Speaker 2 (01:20:05):
[inaudible 01:21:11]