Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tampa Bay Water reviews PFAS test results, treatability studies and regional water‑quality recommendations
Summary
Staff updated the board on PFAS sampling and benchtop treatability work; draft regional water‑quality study update will be circulated to member utilities for comment and a joint technical work session is planned.
Get email alerts on the Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tampa Bay Water staff told the board the agency continues regional PFAS monitoring and has completed benchtop treatability tests to inform treatment choices if the EPA’s new PFAS drinking‑water limits require upgrades.
"EPA finalized the new drinking water regulations for PFAS last year and compliance is required about 4 years from now," Steve Fleischacker said in the water‑quality presentation. Quarterly and monthly sampling at regional delivery points has identified a small number of sites at or slightly above the new EPA limit of 4 parts per trillion for PFOS; wet weather appeared to raise values at some sampling locations.
Consultant bench testing last November evaluated technologies the EPA recognizes as effective — granular activated carbon, fixed‑bed ion exchange, and suspended ion exchange — and those results informed an update to the regional water quality study. Staff said the draft study update has been supplied to member utilities; Tampa Bay Water will collect technical comments next month and then hold a joint work session so utilities can align on recommended PFAS and total organic carbon (TOC) treatment concepts, cost estimates and implementation priorities.
Fleischacker said treatment selection depends on source water chemistry; for example, waters with hydrogen sulfide may point to an ozone plus granular activated carbon approach, while ion‑exchange systems are favorable where hydrogen sulfide is not present. For very large surface water plants, suspended ion exchange is typically more suitable than fixed‑bed systems because of throughput scale.
No board action was requested; staff said they will return when members’ technical comments are compiled and any relevant EPA rule changes are known.

