Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pfas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vero Beach staff recommend PFAS pilot study after tests show PFOS above drinking-water level
Summary
Utility staff reported PFOS readings above the applicable EPA limit and outlined treatment options — granular activated carbon, ion exchange and reverse osmosis — recommending a roughly $250,000 pilot to test operating costs and effectiveness before construction. Financing options discussed include SRF loans.
Rob Bolton, a utility staff member, told the Vero Beach Utility Commission the city’s recent PFAS testing shows PFOS concentrations above the applicable maximum contaminant level and PFOA approaching the limit, and recommended a pilot study to evaluate treatment approaches.
Bolton delivered a technical briefing and said the city previously tested proactively and has taken the highest‑contaminated well (referred to in the presentation as “C3”) offline. “PFOA, we are you know, if you if you read through this report, we’re bumping up against the MCL, but we’re kind of below it. PFOS, we are above the MCL,” Bolton said, summarizing the results and why treatment is necessary.
The report Bolton presented compares three main technologies: granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange and reverse osmosis (RO). Bolton provided preliminary capital cost estimates from the draft: about $14 million for a GAC system, roughly $16 million for ion exchange and approximately $28 million for converting entirely to RO. He said the consultant will rework some of the cost assumptions and recommended a pilot to measure operating costs and removal performance under local conditions.
Bolton described the pilot as a scientifically controlled test that would run pilot vessels through both treatment trains to see which removes targeted PFAS reliably and to estimate ongoing operating costs. “The first step will be to do a pilot project to look at the operational cost,” he said, adding the pilot had a testing budget about $250,000 and would likely be extended a month or two to gather more data.
Commission members pressed on operational tradeoffs and water loss. One commissioner asked about RO reject rates and whether that would worsen water supply tightness; Bolton said RO reject is typically on the order of 15% in the city’s experience and that multi‑stage RO can reach higher recovery but costs more in power. He also discussed using deeper (Artesian/Bridal) wells to avoid PFAS and the tradeoffs of salinity and treatment cost.
On funding, Bolton said the city would pursue State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans and other low‑interest programs and that SRF rates can be “like 1%.” He said the city opted out of a prior class action settlement in order to preserve the ability to pursue manufacturers directly but indicated most class‑action settlements were oriented to testing and related costs rather than direct construction funding.
Bolton said next steps are to run the pilot, model alternatives (including blending strategies and potential reuse of existing lime‑softening infrastructure), and return to the commission with a short, focused recommendation. No formal policy vote or commitment to a construction contract was taken; Bolton said staff would bring financing and design recommendations back to the commission.
What’s next: staff will begin the pilot study and follow up with modeled operating costs and financing scenarios before recommending capital work to the city council.
