Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears PFAS reading in Well 10 and reviews options as nearby land is offered for sale
Summary
Village officials reported a slightly elevated PFAS reading in Well 10, said blending with Wells 6 and 7 should reduce levels, and raised concern about a 27-acre parcel upriver being offered for $30,000 per acre that could threaten the wellfield.
Gary Copeland, village manager and director of public safety, told the Village Council that Well 10’s PFAS test came back "a little high" but that blending the supply with Wells 6 and 7 — which tested at zero PFAS — should reduce concentrations when the well is placed into service.
Copeland said paperwork required by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency for Well 10 has been submitted and that Molly Conley of Warren County Soil and Water will provide a supporting letter because the well sits in a floodplain. "The PFAS report on the draws for Well 10 was a little high, but it will be reduced significantly when blended with Wells 6 & 7," Copeland said.
Copeland also raised a separate but related concern: landowner Dave O’Banion is offering 27 acres directly upriver of the Village’s wellfield for $30,000 per acre and is unwilling to divide the parcel. "I worry about what could be built there that could impact the wells," Copeland said, asking the Council to consider options to protect the source.
Council members asked staff to monitor PFAS levels as the well comes online. Mr. Zack Gallagher requested ongoing testing to confirm levels decline after blending; Copeland said the EPA had suggested that outcome and staff would continue monitoring.
When Councilmember Chris Colvin asked for a simple explanation of PFAS, Law Director Jeff Forbes responded: "PFAS stands for polyfluoroalkyl substances or 'forever chemicals,' manmade chemicals designed to be non-stick, waterproof, stain- and flame-resistant." Forbes added that if the Village were to acquire O’Banion’s land it would need to be annexed.
The discussion produced no formal action; Council members asked staff to gather additional information on the potential land purchase and funding options and to provide updated sampling data for Well 10 at a future meeting.
