Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pfas Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant warns Milford's finished water has PFOS exceedances; recommends granular activated carbon and timeline to meet 2031 deadline
Summary
AECOM reported finished-water PFOS detections above federally proposed limits and presented treatment options — granular activated carbon, ion exchange or membranes — with GAC recommended as the preferred, widely used approach; the consultant said design should begin by end of 2027 to meet an April 2031 compliance deadline.
A consultant hired by the city told Milford City Council the city's finished water has recorded PFOS concentrations above the federally regulated levels and that the water-treatment plant as currently configured cannot fully remove those compounds.
John Krinx of AECOM presented the firm's study and sampling history, saying finished-water hits in recent sampling ranged from roughly 10.3 down to about 5.3 (values quoted in the presentation). Krinx said drinking-water compliance for PFOA and PFOS is required by U.S. regulations by April 2031 and the city must take steps to meet those limits.
Krinx outlined three scalable treatment options for a drinking-water plant: granular activated carbon (GAC), anion-exchange (ion-exchange) systems, and membrane treatment (reverse osmosis, nanofiltration or electrodialysis). He provided preliminary cost estimates: a GAC installation in the existing plant footprint was on the order of $6 million in construction with annual operating costs largely driven by media replacement (roughly $75,000/year in Krinx's estimate); an ion-exchange option had a slightly lower capital cost (roughly $5.9 million) but somewhat higher operating expense in preliminary projections. Krinx said both are capable and that AECOM generally recommends GAC because it's widely implemented and easier to handle and dispose of than ion-exchange resin.
On schedule, Krinx said design work should begin by the end of 2027 to allow for piloting and design work so construction could start by fall 2029, assuming a 14—18 month construction window so the city could meet the 2031 compliance deadline. He described potential funding sources including EPA Water Infrastructure Financing (SRF) with principal forgiveness, the national settlement fund, emerging-contaminant grants in bipartisan infrastructure legislation, and state programs (Ohio Water Development Authority/Ohio Public Works Commission).
Council members asked whether the local Superfund site at Baker could be related; Krinx said he did not know the full Superfund history but agreed contaminants historically present at the site could include PFAS families. Staff and Krinx also discussed whether a GAC system could allow the city to remove the existing air stripper: Krinx said GAC could remove VOCs and potentially eliminate the need for the air stripper for compliance, but doing so would increase GAC loading and media replacement frequency or require oversizing the GAC system.
Krinx said the final study report will be issued to the city in the coming weeks and recommended council consider starting design and funding planning in the next year to meet regulatory timelines.
