Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Treatment Pfas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deerfield Beach pivots to evaluate nanofiltration to meet PFAS rules; staff to amend consultant scope
Summary
Facing state PFAS removal requirements, the commission authorized staff to change Jacobs Engineering's design scope to evaluate an indoor nanofiltration plant rather than an outdoor ion-exchange facility; staff said nanofiltration better addresses PFAS and other emerging contaminants and may lower long-term costs.
The Deerfield Beach City Commission on June 3 authorized staff to amend the scope of work with Jacobs Engineering to evaluate a nanofiltration treatment plant instead of the previously studied ion-exchange approach for upgrades at the Goolsby water treatment property.
Eric Power, director of plan development services and interim director for environmental services, explained the decision follows state directives to remove PFAS, a class of so-called forever chemicals. The state's compliance date was moved from 2029 to 2031, but Power said construction and commissioning for large treatment projects require several years, so the city must make technology decisions now. "We think now is the right time to pivot and make this choice," Power said.
Power said nanofiltration can remove PFAS and also address future contaminant concerns such as microplastics and pharmaceuticals. He described advantages: the nanofiltration approach would be housed indoors in an enclosed building on the existing water-plant footprint; city operators are already trained on similar systems; operating materials would be similar and may lower operations complexity and costs. He noted one tradeoff is a water recovery or "rejection" rate that produces waste brine requiring disposal.
Commissioners discussed funding and timing. Vice Mayor Preston asked whether the utility fund would bear the cost and how residents would be informed; Power said funding would come from the utility fund and that the staff would provide public information once options and schedules are clearer. Commissioner Mary Hudak asked whether any newer technology should be considered; staff replied that modern nanofiltration is the prevailing approach for PFAS removal.
Members of the public asked procedural and maintenance questions. Katie Freitag and Dan Herz asked for total project costs and cited past cost overruns on other projects; staff said final capital figures are pending and will be presented in future capital project reports. Joe Cummings and Michael Estrada urged timely implementation and suggested considering alternate treatments where appropriate. Gwen Clark Reed asked whether the work would require a bond or referendum; staff said those financing decisions will be determined after cost estimates are complete; the immediate vote modifies the consultant's scope, not the budget.
The motion to amend Jacobs Engineering's scope to evaluate nanofiltration rather than ion exchange was made by Commissioner Mary Hudak, seconded by Commissioner John Plaut, and passed unanimously. Staff will return with cost estimates and a capital project schedule for future commission action.
