Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the PFAS topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tequesta staff report PFAS detections; village hires Kimley‑Horn for master plan to evaluate treatment options
Summary
Village water staff reported PFAS detections in surficial wells, said finished‑water PFOA measured about 3.4 ng/L (near the cited 4 ng/L limit), and described a roughly $120,000 Kimley‑Horn master plan to analyze treatment options and funding pathways.
Allison, stormwater/water utility staff, gave a detailed briefing on PFAS in the village’s water system and the steps the utility is taking to evaluate treatment options.
She said PFAS compounds were detected in the surficial aquifer sampled at village wells but not in the deeper Florida aquifer that supplies the reverse‑osmosis (RO) trains. "PFOA concentration in our finished water is about 3.4 nanograms per liter. The limit is four," Allison said, adding that some other PFAS analytes may exceed future regulatory limits and that staff are treating numbers with caution when communicating. The village has resampled all wells to produce data needed to seek settlement reimbursements; Allison said those results were being prioritized for submittal to meet a Dec. 31 invoicing deadline for potential settlement funds.
Master plan and next steps: Allison reported the village issued a purchase order to consultant Kimley‑Horn for approximately $120,000 to develop a PFAS treatment master plan. The firm’s scope includes data collection, evaluation of treatment options (ion exchange, membrane/RO options and management of treatment residuals), and a cost‑benefit analysis; Allison said the expected timeline for the master plan is about six to eight months and that staff are fast‑tracking data collection.
Operational tradeoffs and permitting considerations: Allison explained key tradeoffs: converting to full RO would eliminate surficial aquifer input but require additional wells and post‑treatment stabilization to avoid corrosive water; ion‑exchange resins and RO reject streams produce concentrated waste that require disposal permitting or deep injection options. She said funding sources could include SRF loans, settlement funds (3M, DuPont, BASF referenced in the meeting), and targeted capital budgeting, but that grant availability is limited and eligibility formulas consider median household income.
Public information and timing: staff committed to sharing well resampling results with the committee and to prepare a digestible summary for committee/council review; the finished‑water annual report (Consumer Confidence Water Quality Report) remains a required public disclosure and will include finished‑water analytes once finalized.
What was not decided: the committee did not adopt any binding capital commitment at the meeting; the master plan is a study to inform later decisions about treatment selection, funding and potential infrastructure investments.
The committee requested regular updates as the master plan proceeds and asked staff to summarize test results for committee distribution.
