Residents press Temple Terrace for interim PFAS fixes, urge settlement filings and regional price comparisons

Residents attending the Temple Terrace town hall on May 26 pressed elected officials for quicker interim protection from PFAS while the city evaluates a long-term plant renewal.

"The DuPont 3M settlement fund phase two, the deadline for submitting is July 1st," resident Daria Navon told the panel, urging the city to file baseline results and claim forms to preserve eligibility for potential settlement funds.

Multiple residents asked the council to pursue short-term mitigation. CHA consultant Mr. Talton described ready-to-deploy granular activated carbon (GAC) vessels as an interim option that could be installed in 3–6 months and estimated at roughly $3 million per year in operating and media costs. "These tanks can be repurposed for the treatment process itself," Talton said, noting that GAC has a recurring media cost and different disposal/regeneration pathways than ion‑exchange media.

Residents also questioned whether connecting to a neighboring utility would be cheaper overall. Councilmember Kravitz and others asked staff to seek firm, itemized price proposals from the City of Tampa and Hillsborough County; councilmembers asked for a component-by-component cost grid to permit true apples-to-apples comparison that includes capital, transmission, pumping, and long-term wholesale rates as well as debt service. Eric Stinson asked whether the city could rely on another utility’s deep injection well for concentrate disposal; staff said no suitable shared well is close enough and that permitting and construction for a deep well commonly takes 2–3 years.

Health concerns colored several comments. Tara McDonough, a pediatric nurse, described intergenerational consequences of PFAS exposure and urged urgency: "You are passing it down through all of that," she said. Other residents asked whether the city’s current PFAS levels are known to cause adverse health effects; consultants reiterated that EPA has issued the new standard based on its review of risks but defer to health agencies for clinical guidance.

Council direction: Council members asked staff to return with (1) detailed cost breakdowns for each option; (2) firm quotes or no‑bid responses from regional utilities; and (3) proposals for interim mitigation that could be deployed quickly to reduce PFAS exposure while the larger plan proceeds. Councilmembers signaled they prefer to avoid relying on an EPA extension alone and want measures that will demonstrably lower exposures for residents within months if possible.

The meeting closed with staff pledging to post materials and continue budget workshops this summer, and with the council saying it will pursue detailed comparative pricing and potential interim deployments.