Jacobs Solutions Inc. · NYSE:J

Jacobs Solutions — Jacobs — Technical Presentation (May 2020)

56 slides from Jacobs Solutions's technical presentation, May 12, 2020

  1. Slide 1: PFAS Considerations in the Water Sector

    In the kNOW Webinar PFAS Considerations in the Water Sector May 12, 2020

  2. Slide 2: Welcome & Introductions

    Welcome & Introductions Why this issue is Important  Peter Nicol, Jacobs Global Vice President, Global Director for Water PFAS in Our Water Cycle  Megan Plumlee, PhD, PE, Director of Research for the Orange County Water District  Scott Grieco, PhD, PE, Jacobs Global Technology Leader | Drinking W

  3. Slide 3: Uses

    Uses  Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) − Airports / Airlines − Railroads − Fire Departments − Oil & Gas  Manufacturing − Metals, Plating − Automotive − Chemicals − Pulp & Paper  Commercial − Car Wash Waxes − Electronics 3 ©Jacobs 2020

  4. Slide 4: Where are We Now? What's Next?

    Where are We Now? What’s Next? Drinking Reclaim / Wastewater Air Water Biosolids Reuse Discharge Emissions 4 ©Jacobs 2020

  5. Slide 5: PFAS in Our Water Cycle

    PFAS in Our Water Cycle Megan Plumlee, PhD, PE – Orange County Water District Scott Grieco, PhD, PE – Jacobs

  6. Slide 6: PFAS Experience in Orange County, California

    PFAS Experience in Orange County, California Megan Plumlee, PhD, PE – Orange County Water District May 12, 2020

  7. Slide 7: Megan Plumlee

    Megan Plumlee Director of Research, Orange County Water District Megan Plumlee is OCWD’s Director of R&D, where she oversees a team researchers that conducts applied research and technology evaluations. Her current work includes oversight of OCWD’s PFAS treatment study, which is testing options for

  8. Slide 8: Orange County Water District

    Orange County Water District  OCWD was formed in 1933 to − Manage the OC Groundwater Basin − Protect rights to Santa Ana River water  Provide groundwater − 19 municipal and special water districts − 2.5 million residents  Basin provides 77% of the water supply for north & central OC

  9. Slide 9: Santa Ana River (SAR)

    Santa Ana River (SAR)  SAR baseflow is dominated by Aug 2016 – Present Averages (ng/L) upstream tertiary wastewater PFOA: 20 discharges PFOS: 18 PFOA+PFOS: 38  Occurrence of PFAS in Min / Max (ng/L) PFOA: 10 / 40 conventionally treated, municipal PFOS: 10 / 28 wastewater is well-established in PFO

  10. Slide 10: Managed Aquifer Recharge Portfolio WY 2017-18

    Managed Aquifer Recharge Portfolio WY 2017-18 Total Recharge = 286,735 af (Local dry year) Incidental 9% 26,112 Santa Ana River af Base Flow 24% 69,232 af Groundwater 105,554 af 19,723 af Captured Storm Replenishment System GWRS) Flow 7% 37% 66,114 af Raw MWD Imported Water 23% 10 ©Jacobs 2020

  11. Slide 11: Extent of PFAS Impact in OCWD Service Area

    Extent of PFAS Impact in OCWD Service Area Current California DDW NL/RLs:  11 water retailers (i.e., Notification Levels: groundwater “Producers”) in the OCWD service area (up to PFOA = 5.1 ng/L 71 wells) impacted by 10 ppt PFOS = 6.5 ng/L PFOA Response Level Previous Response Level:  Up to ~ 1/3

  12. Slide 12: PFAS Treatment Study at OCWD

    PFAS Treatment Study at OCWD Objectives:  Evaluate / demonstrate performance of various products (GAC, IX, novel adsorbents) − Laboratory scale testing − Pilot scale testing  Use performance with unit cost to identify best value for different well water qualities (i.e., water retailers’ wells) 12

  13. Slide 13: Production Wells Undergoing Small-Scale Column Testing for PFAS

    Production Wells in Orange County Undergoing Small-Scale (Laboratory) Column Testing for PFAS (GAC) 13

  14. Slide 14: OCWD Pilot Program for GAC, IX, and Novel Adsorbents

    OCWD Pilot Program for GAC, IX, and Novel Adsorbents  Pilot adjacent to OCWD-owned non-potable well in Anaheim that supplies the water  PFAS in well: − 14 - 23 ng/L PFOA − 19 - 27 ng/L PFOS 14 ©Jacobs 2020

  15. Slide 15: OCWD Pilot Program for GAC, IX, and Novel Adsorbents

    OCWD Pilot Program for GAC, IX, and Novel Adsorbents Installed pre-fab building to house pilot 8 GAC (10-min EBCT) + 4 IX (2-min EBCT) + 2 novel adsorbents 15

  16. Slide 16: Also in Progress – OCWD Pre-Design Planning Study

    Also in Progress – OCWD Pre-Design Planning Study  Pre-design near complete for 10 cities / retailers  Goal: bring treatment online within 1 to 3 years 16 ©Jacobs 2020

  17. Slide 17: PFAS in Our Water Cycle

    PFAS in Our Water Cycle Scott Grieco, PhD, PE – Jacobs

  18. Slide 18: Why are PFAS in Drinking Water?

    Why are PFAS in Drinking Water? Possible Sources:  Fire training area released AFFF to the ground  Industrial Release  Wastewater reclamation - planned and defacto reuse  Leaching from Biosolids or Beneficial Reuse Solids with PFAS 18 ©Jacobs 2020

  19. Slide 19: Lack of Consistent International Value for PFAS in Drinking Water

    Lack of Consistent International Value for PFAS in Drinking Water PFOA PFOS PFHxS PFNA PFBA PFBS PFHxA PFPeA PFHpA PFOSA PFDA 6:2FTS 8:2FTS US 70 70 AUS 560 70 70 CAN 200 600 600 20 30000 15000 200 200 200 200 200 DEN 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 GER 100 100 100 60 10000 6000

  20. Slide 20: PFAS - Regulated Inconsistently Across the US & Canada

    PFAS - Regulated Inconsistently Across the US & Canada 20 ©Jacobs 2020

  21. Slide 21: Conventional Water Treatment Processes that Reduce PFAS

    Conventional Water Treatment Processes that Reduce PFAS  Air Stripping / Air Sparging (VOC removal) − Target PFAS not volatile − Ft-OH / other precursors show volatility  Chemical coagulation/precipitation − Water turbidity removal − Softening  Filtration/Membranes − Macro/microfiltration − Rever

  22. Slide 22: Partial PFAS Removal with Coagulation / Flocculation

    Partial PFAS Removal with Coagulation / Flocculation  Conventional commodity coagulants  Specialty coagulants − Limited application / In development 22 ©Jacobs 2020

  23. Slide 23: PFAS Removal with RO & NF

    PFAS Removal with RO & NF  RO is effective for removal − For long and short-chain PFAS  Concerns − Expense − Managing liquid concentrates − Pretreatment (MF/UF) − Membrane removal function of molecular weight & chargé  Areas of development − Effectiveness of precursor removal (RO & NF) − Lower pr

  24. Slide 24: Adsorbents Most Common for PFAS Removal

    Adsorbents Most Common for PFAS Removal  Activated carbon − Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) − Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)  Ion Exchange − Single Use − Regenerable  Surface-modified adsorbents Not commercially applied (yet!)  Engineered adsorbents  Biochar  Zeolites 24 ©Jacobs 2020

  25. Slide 25: Ongoing Efforts in Adsorption Testing

    Ongoing Efforts in Adsorption Testing  Isotherm Testing − Quick batch testing to assess feasibility − Can estimate total adsorbent usage rate  Rapid Small-Scale Column Tests (RSSCT) − ONLY applicable for size-reducable media − Simulates full-scale performance in short period of time − Small diamet

  26. Slide 26: Application-Specific Testing for Adsorption is Required

    Application-Specific Testing for Adsorption is Required TOC: 1.8 mg/L TOC: 1.6 mg/L DOC: 0.85 mg/L DOC: 1.6 mg/L UVA: 0.008 abs/cm UVA: 0.03 abs/cm Carbon A Carbon B Carbon C Carbon D Carbon E 26 ©Jacobs 2020

  27. Slide 27: Quick Fix: Batch Adsorbent Applications For Surface Water Plants?

    Quick Fix: Batch Adsorbent Applications For Surface Water Plants?  Adsorbent added to flocculation / coagulation  Removal with Filtration or Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) Concentration PFOA+PFOS (ng/L) Concentration PFOA (ng/L) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 time (hr) time (hr) PAC 20 mg/L

  28. Slide 28: Why are PFAS in Wastewater?

    Why are PFAS in Wastewater?  Industry discharge  Landfill leachate  In potable water source (pass though household to sewer)  Released from households 28 ©Jacobs 2020

  29. Slide 29: PFAS Within Wastewater Facilities is Highly Variable

    PFAS Within Wastewater Facilities is Highly Variable Plant Location PFHxA PFHpA PFOA PFHxS PFOS Total Influent 59 13 206 24 134 444 A Effluent 60 13 200 28 240 560 Influent 9.7 2.2 3.1 6.6 12 35 B Effluent 31 3.7 14 48 22 120  Measured PFAS pass through WWTP with limited/no reduction  Precursors d

  30. Slide 30: PFAS Removal in Membrane-based Reuse: PFAS in the Reject

    PFAS Removal in Membrane-based Reuse: PFAS in the Reject  PFAS are soluble compounds  No removal anticipated or provided by MF and UF  Removal a function of: − Membrane characteristics − Molecule/compound characteristics − Water/solute matrix Secondary/ Reverse Environmental Tertiary Microfiltrat

  31. Slide 31: Non-membrane Advanced Wastewater Treatment

    Non-membrane Advanced Wastewater Treatment  Indirect potable reuse program − 120 MGD of secondary effluent − Injection into the Potomac Aquifer System  Full-scale facilities planned between 2022 and 2030  Project drivers  System is protective of the final adsorption step for PFAS removal − Oppor

  32. Slide 32: Right Now vs Future: Treatment for PFAS

    Right Now vs Future: Treatment for PFAS Category Roughing / Pretreatment Transfer Destructive GAC / PAC Effective & Practiced none Ion Exchange none Reverse Osmosis (RO) Maturing & Chemical Coagulation Specialty Adsorbents none Demonstrated Electrocoagulation Electro-oxidation Developing none Biocha

  33. Slide 33: The Future of Biosolids and Managing PFAS

    The Future of Biosolids and Managing PFAS Jeff Prevatt, PhD, Deputy Director of Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Dept Todd O. Williams, PE, BCEE, Jacobs Global Technology Leader | Residuals Resource Recovery

  34. Slide 34: Jeff Prevatt

    Jeff Prevatt Deputy Director of Treatment, Research & Innovation Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Mr. Prevatt attended the Pretreatment Concerns University of Arizona receiving a BS in microbiology and a  Point source control has demonstrated to be effective but locating potential source

  35. Slide 35: The Future of Biosolids and Managing PFAS

    The Future of Biosolids and Managing PFAS Todd O. Williams, PE, BCEE, Jacobs Global Technology Leader | Residuals Resource Recovery

  36. Slide 36: PFAS in Biosolids – Why should we care?

    PFAS in Biosolids – Why should we care?  Land application makes up 60% of the global  Problems with landfills is forcing even more biosolids biosolids market to land application  In the US, half of the 7.2 M dry tons per year of  What are the concerns? WWTP biosolids are land applied. ‐ Surface

  37. Slide 37: How do sources of PFAS impact WWTPs and biosolids?

    How do sources of PFAS impact WWTPs and biosolids? ©Jacobs 2020

  38. Slide 38: PFAS Source Impacts – the big three

    PFAS Source Impacts – the big three  Industrial ‐ Platers, coatings, AFFF Impacts to treatment  Landfill leachates plants are a function of mass loading  Residential/Commercial 38 ©Jacobs 2020

  39. Slide 39: Are there regulations related to PFAS in biosolids?

    Are there regulations related to PFAS in biosolids? ©Jacobs 2020

  40. Slide 40: US EPA Biosolids PFAS Rule-Making Progress

    US EPA Biosolids PFAS Rule-Making Progress  Focus is on PFOS and PFOA where there is the most data  PFAS in Biosolids Action Plan Developed − Problem Formulation by 12/2020  Screening and Risk Assessment of Emerging Chemicals of concern in 2021 ‐ If there are constituent limits…the 503 rule will

  41. Slide 41: Soil / Biosolids Values are Being Developed for Protection of Groundwater

    Soil / Biosolids Values are Being Developed for Protection of Groundwater µg/Kg (ppb) Entity PFOA PFOS PFBS US EPA (Soil Screening Level) 0.017 0.038 13 State values * 0.6 – 350 0.22 - 25 53 – 910 Maine (Biosolids Specific Screening) 2.5 5.2 1900 * Current states: AK, MI, NE, NC, TX. Enforceable val

  42. Slide 42: States are Approaching Standards Independently

    States are Approaching Standards Independently  California − PFAS investigation plan (March 6, 2019) − Orders to wastewater treatment plants (by spring 2020) − Orders to biosolids applications (no timeline)  Maine − WWTPs need to test for the PFAS in biosolids used as fertilizer  Michigan − Lever

  43. Slide 43: Michigan's Approach to Managing PFAS in Biosolids

    Michigan’s Approach to Managing PFAS in Biosolids  Required sampling and testing for PFOS and PFOA of effluent at WWTPs with IPP’s in 2018 – Tier 1 – WWTP effluent < 12 ppt PFOS ‐ No action needed − Tier 2 – WWTP effluent 12-50 ppt PFOS ‐ Work towards source control and monitor effluent quarterly −

  44. Slide 44: Michigan Statewide Study of Biosolids in 2018

    Michigan Statewide Study of Biosolids in 2018 44 Source: EGLE presentation at Michigan WEA Biosolids Conference March 2019 ©Jacobs 2020

  45. Slide 45: Example of Biosolids Land Application Analyses in Michigan

    Example of Biosolids Land Application Analyses in Michigan WWTP Concentrations Total dt Average dt Weighted Use Surface Ratio (Total Soil Groundwater Applied /Acre Water dt/Site Acres) Efflluent Biosolids 2-5 3-90 176-400 2-10 6-23 ND-9 N/A ND - 5 169-2,000 1,060-2,100 39-1,422 1-4 4-28 1-145 ND - 1

  46. Slide 46: Example of Biosolids Land Application Analyses in Michigan

    Example of Biosolids Land Application Analyses in Michigan  PFAS concentrations > 1000 µg/Kg, ng/g, ppb  PFAS concentrations > 200 and < 1000 µg/Kg, ng/g, ppb  PFAS concentrations > 100 and < 200 µg/Kg, ng/g, ppb  PFAS concentrations > 20 and < 100 µg/Kg, ng/g, ppb  PFAS concentrations < 20 µg/

  47. Slide 47: How can PFAS in biosolids be treated?

    How can PFAS in biosolids be treated?

  48. Slide 48: PFAA concentrations in biosolids have dropped

    PFAA concentrations in biosolids have dropped as PFOS and PFOA were phased out of production in the US (one dried biosolids case study) 200 ∑ Short chains Concentration of PFAAs (µg/kg) ∑ Long chains 150 ∑ PFAAs 100 50 0 2014 2016 2018 Year

  49. Slide 49: Impact of thermal drying, blending, and hydrolysis treatment

    Impact of thermal drying, blending with bulking agent, and chemical/thermal hydrolysis treatment (not THP) Rotary Drying at 480⁰C to 650⁰C 53%  20% sludge/80% Low temperature wood blend prior (70⁰C) alkaline to composting hydrolysis (Lystek) 72%  No impact 49 ©Jacobs 2020

  50. Slide 50: Dilution Upon Land Application Has Effect - Vermont Example

    Dilution Upon Land Application Has Effect - Vermont Example (NEBRA) Resumption of distribution/land application Compost bendng for topsoil manufacturing Manufactured Compost Loam Topsoil % solids 79% 85% 84.2% denisity (per cubuc yard) 809 2400 Using soil background PFAS concentration from VT DEC st

  51. Slide 51: Biochar from Bioforcetech Corp.

    Biochar from Bioforcetech Corp.  One set of samples 2019  Pyrolysis at 1100⁰F (600⁰C) PFOA =89.1 & All ND PFOS = 26.3 @ 2ppb  We know soil sampling needs to be above 1000⁰C for destruction of PFAS ©Jacobs 2020 51

  52. Slide 52: Summary Thoughts…

    Summary Thoughts… Implications to biosolids land application  PFOS and PFOA are decreasing  EPA is working through risk analysis process  Some states may begin issuing guidance recommendations on land application of biosolids based on concentration levels  Most data on PFAS impact in field studi

  53. Slide 53: Biosolids PFAS Management Summary Thoughts…

    Biosolids PFAS Management Summary Thoughts…  Follow studies with actual data  Follow regulation development  Update your biosolids management plan  Develop flexible biosolids programs that can be modified as regulations and/or public demand require  Consider testing your solids to understand PF

  54. Slide 54: Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers Or send to: lori.irvine@Jacobs.com

  55. Slide 55: Thank You!

    Thank You!

  56. Slide 56: Copyright Notice

    Copyright Notice Important The material in this presentation has been prepared by Jacobs®. ©2020 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. This presentation is protected by U.S. and International copyright laws. Reproduction and redistribution without written permission is prohibited. Jacob

Jacobs — Technical Presentation (May 2020) on 6ix