Council Meeting (PFAS Work Session)

VILLAGE COUNCIL Stephen H. Krehbiel — Mayor Richard J. Hidy — Vice Mayor Andrew A. Byer Jeffrey G. Gibson Elizabeth C. Isphording Shayne O Manning Pat Stern Paul C. Riordan — Clerk/Comptroller Scott D. Phillips — City Solicitor Dina C. Minneci — City Manager PFAS WORK SESSION PACKET May 20, 2024 5:00 p.m. Madeira & Indian Hill Joint Fire District Meeting Room 6475 Drake Road, Cinti, OH 45243 Council Work Session Agenda May 20, 2024 5:00 p.m. Madeira & Indian Hill Joint Fire District Meeting Room - 6475 Drake Road 1. Pledge of allegiance 2. Call to order & roll call 3. PFAS Work Session a. Overview of United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations issued April 10, 2024 i. PFAS Maximum Contaminant Levels for six compounds in this family of chemicals are now set and will be mandated by 2029 ii. The compound out of these six, of greatest concern for the Village is PFOS. The Village’s current sampling has shown PFOS in excess of the set 2029 regulation of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) iii. All water systems with a level higher than 4 ppt are required to install treatment systems to reduce levels or find another water source with levels below this limit 1. Indian Hill’s Water System current level is 12-14 ppt iv. Water Systems must complete initial monitoring requirements by 2027 v. New system must be fully operational by 2029 vi. Three proven and readily available options – Anion exchange, reverse osmosis and Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) vii. Study determined GAC system most efficient & effective for Indian Hill viii. $23 million estimate for initial construction ix. Website update **Please refer to attached EPA Fact Sheet and EPA Questions & Answers b. Implementation Timeline – Cindy Klopfenstein (attachment) i. Review attached timeline 1. Planning and Design – apply for funding as reimbursement (provides more time to meet 2029 deadline) 2. Construction – apply for funding prior to commencement c. Overview of informational meetings i. Warren County hosted PFAS Update with Federal and Ohio EPA representatives – Ron Freson ii. City of Loveland – Cindy Klopfenstein iii. Aqua Ohio – Dina Minneci  Agenda iv. Greater Cincinnati Water Works (GCWW) – Ron Freson v. Milford – awaiting response vi. Staff attendance at several webinars with more upcoming d. Financial overview/Impact on customers – Scott Gully (attachment) i. Most conservative -- any funding received or Village sources used would reduce customer impact ii. Issue 30-year bond for $23 million at estimated 4.47% interest rate iii. Flat fee based on tap size iv. Water accounts not billed per Ordinance/contract – Stepping Stones, Little Red Schoolhouse, Indian Hill Historical Society, Village Facilities & Parks v. Reviewing logistics on proper billing mechanism e. Funding i. $1 billion assigned to PFAS through federal infrastructure bill – Ohio receiving $82 million 1. Scarce funding - Dayton is $250 million and Cincinnati is $100 million alone ii. Ohio EPA mandating regionalization study to apply for funding – more stringent than USEPA regulations iii. EPA options – Cindy Klopfenstein 1. USEPA low interest loans (WIFIA) for min. $5M project size, max. 49% funding 2. OEPA (State) revolving loans (SRF or WSRLA) iv. $13 billion settlement from Dupont/3M - Ron Freson v. Meeting with Rep. Baker to determine additional statewide funding f. Options i. Continue as is and build GAC facility ii. Purchase water but maintain system iii. Complete regionalization (attachment) 1. Review effects 2. Experience of Warren County, Butler County and Western Water – Ron Freson 4. Adjournment  FACT SHEET PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation Introduction Safe drinking water is fundamental to healthy people and thriving communities. President Biden believes that all people in the United States should have access to clean, safe drinking water. Since the beginning of the Biden- Harris Administration, EPA has been delivering on the promise to protect communities from the harmful effects of toxic substances, including carcinogens. PFAS are a series of man-made chemical compounds that persist in the environment for long periods of time. They are often called “forever chemicals.” For decades PFAS chemicals have been used in industry and consumer products such as nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, and stain resistant furniture. These chemicals have been important for certain industries and uses. And the latest science shows that these chemicals are harmful to our health. PFAS exposure over a long period of time can cause cancer and other serious illnesses that decrease quality of life or result in death. PFAS exposure during critical life stages such as pregnancy or early childhood can also result in adverse health impacts. EPA’s responsibility through the Safe Drinking Water Act is to protect people’s drinking water, and the Biden-Harris Administration is taking action to protect public health by establishing nationwide, legally enforceable drinking water limits for several well-researched PFAS chemicals and reduce PFAS exposure for approximately 100 million Americans served by public drinking water systems. The Rule As the lead federal agency responsible for protecting America’s drinking water, EPA is using the best available science on PFAS to set national standards. PFAS can often be found together in water and in varying combinations as mixtures. Decades of research shows mixtures of different chemicals can have additive health effects, even if the individual chemicals are each present at lower levels. In this final rule, EPA is setting limits for five individual PFAS: PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA (known as GenX Chemicals). And EPA is also setting a Hazard Index level for two or more of four PFAS as a mixture: PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA, and PFBS. Chemical Maximum Contaminant Level Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Goal (MCLG) PFOA 0 4.0 ppt PFOS 0 4.0 ppt PFNA 10 ppt 10 ppt PFHxS 10 ppt 10 ppt HFPO-DA (GenX chemicals) 10 ppt 10 ppt Mixture of two or more: Hazard Index of 1 Hazard Index of 1 PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA, and PFBS Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals. Page 1 of 3  Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into considera�on. MCLs are enforceable standards. ppt: parts per trillion Hazard Index (HI): The Hazard Index is a long-established approach that EPA regularly uses to understand health risk from a chemical mixture (i.e., exposure to mul�ple chemicals). The HI is made up of a sum of frac�ons. Each frac�on compares the level of each PFAS measured in the water to the health-based water concentra�on. This new rule will significantly reduce the level of PFAS in drinking water across the United States. Many states have worked to monitor for and reduce PFAS exposure in drinking water through state-specific regulations. This rule builds on these efforts by incorporating the latest science and establishing a nationwide, long-term health- protective level for these specific PFAS in drinking water. Communities and states will need to determine whether PFAS is in their drinking water and take actions such as notifying consumers and reducing the levels of PFAS, as needed. Water systems must take action to reduce the levels of these PFAS in drinking water if the level of PFAS in their drinking water exceeds regulatory standards. Regulated public water systems have three years to complete their initial monitoring for these chemicals. Systems must include their results in their Annual Water Quality reports to customers. Systems that detect PFAS above the new standards will have five years to implement solutions that reduce PFAS in their drinking water. Water systems must also notify the public if levels of regulated PFAS exceed these new standards. Impacts and Costs of the Rule People will live longer, healthier lives because of this action, and the benefits justify the costs. Once implemented, these limits will reduce tens of thousands of PFAS-attributable illnesses or deaths. EPA estimates that once implemented, this regulation will reduce PFAS exposure for approximately 100 million Americans served by public drinking water systems. EPA considered all available information and analyses for costs and benefits, quantifiable and non-quantifiable, of this rule and determined that the benefits justify the costs. Fewer people will get cancer or liver disease, pregnant women will have reduced risks, and more and children and infants will be stronger and grow healthier. EPA calculated measurable health benefits based on fewer cancers, lower incidents of heart attacks and strokes, and reduced birth complications. These benefits are estimated to be approximately $1.5 billion per year, and include avoided costs of medical bills, income lost to illness, and death. Additionally, EPA could not quantify all the health benefits, including developmental, cardiovascular, liver, immune, endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, musculoskeletal, and carcinogenic effects, and therefore the benefit estimates are likely greater than $1.5 billion. Compliance with this rule is estimated to cost approximately $1.5 billion annually. The Biden-Harris Administration has dedicated $9 billion through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help communities impacted by PFAS pollution in drinking water. In addition, another $12 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding is available to communities to make general drinking water improvements, including addressing PFAS chemicals. Estimated costs include water system monitoring, communicating with customers, and – if necessary – installing treatment technologies. Implementation and Funding The rule is achievable and implementable. Drinking water utilities will be able to implement these new requirements as control technologies exist and are in use today. Water treatment technologies exist to remove PFAS from drinking water including granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange systems. EPA’s Page 2 of 3 final rule does not dictate how water systems remove these contaminants. The rule is flexible, allowing systems to determine the best solutions for their community. Public water systems can choose from multiple proven treatment options. In some cases, systems can close contaminated wells or obtain a new uncontaminated source of drinking water. There is unprecedented funding for drinking water systems impacted by PFAS and other emerging contaminants to provide safe water to communities. We know that PFAS pollution can have a disproportionate impact on small, disadvantaged, and rural communities, and there is federal funding available specifically for these water systems. With today’s announcement of the rule, EPA is also announcing nearly $1 billion for states and territories, through the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program, which can be used for initial testing and treatment at both public water systems and to help owners of private wells address PFAS contamination. The nearly $1 billion announced today is part of the dedicated $9 billion of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funding for communities with drinking water impacted by PFAS and other emerging contaminants. An additional $12 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding is available to communities to make general drinking water improvements, including addressing PFAS pollution. This funding is available through EPA programs that are part of President Biden’s Justice40 Initiative, which set the goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution. EPA’s free Water Technical Assistance program (WaterTA) is ensuring that disadvantaged communities can access federal funding. Too many communities across America face challenges providing safe drinking water services to their residents, and WaterTA supports communities to identify water challenges; develop plans; build technical, managerial, and financial capacity; and develop application materials to access water infrastructure funding. EPA collaborates with state, Tribes, territories, community partners, and other key stakeholders to implement WaterTA efforts and the end result is more communities with applications for federal funding, quality water infrastructure, and reliable water services. Learn more here. Additional Resources Learn more about water infrastructure funding opportunities by visiting EPA’s water infrastructure page. If you are concerned about PFAS in drinking water, there are key actions you can take. People who are concerned about PFAS in their drinking water should first contact their drinking water utility to find out more about their drinking water, including what contaminants may be present, if the utility is monitoring for PFAS, what the levels are, and to see whether any actions are being taken. If you remain concerned after talking to your utility, then consider using or installing in-home water treatment (e.g., filters) that is certified to lower the levels of PFAS in your water and/or contact your health care provider as well as your state or local health department. You can find more information about water filters that help reduce PFAS here. If you get your water from a home drinking water well, then EPA recommends you conduct regular testing. If PFAS are found, you can take steps to lower the levels of PFAS. For more visit: EPA’s website here. Page 3 of 3  Q&A Questions & Answers: PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation What are PFAS? PFAS are a category of chemicals that can cause serious health problems if you are exposed to them over a long period of time, or at certain critical life stages like pregnancy and early childhood. Some of the most harmful PFAS have been largely phased out due to health and environmental concerns. But there are thousands of PFAS, and they are still found in use. PFAS tend to break down extremely slowly in the environment and can build up in people, animals, and the environment over time. What is the new rule? With this rule, EPA is establishing legally enforceable levels for six PFAS known to occur individually and/or as mixtures in drinking water. EPA will regulate five PFAS as individually. They are PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA. EPA will regulate four PFAS as a mixture: PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS. PFAS can often be found together and in varying combinations as mixtures. Decades of research show mixtures of different chemicals can have additive health effects, even if the individual chemicals are each present at lower levels. With this rule, EPA has set limits for these chemicals individually and/or as mixtures. Why is EPA taking this step now? We rely on safe drinking water from the moment we wake up and make a cup of coffee to when we brush our teeth at night. Every person should have access to safe drinking water. That’s why EPA is acting now to protect people’s drinking water from certain PFAS. The science is clear: exposure to these six PFAS is linked to significant health risks. EPA is following the process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act for regulating drinking water contaminants. Regulating PFAS in drinking water is a significant way EPA protects the health of hundreds of millions of people and is a cornerstone of EPA’s approach to protect people and the environment from PFAS. What does this mean for public drinking water systems? Public water systems will have three years to complete the initial monitoring requirements. They must inform the public of the level of PFAS measured in their drinking water and they must implement solutions to reduce PFAS in their drinking water to levels below the standards within five years. There are readily available solutions on the market now – GAC, ion-exchange, reverse-osmosis – and research is underway on more technologies for everything from treatment to residual management and destruction and EPA is working to assure the most promising technologies will continue to mature and be available. What is the impact of this rule for drinking water consumers? This action will reduce exposure to PFAS for approximately 100 million Americans, saving thousands of lives and preventing tens of thousands of serious illnesses, including certain cancers and liver and heart impacts in adults, and immune and developmental impacts to infants and children. Water systems that currently exceed the drinking water standard will have to switch to uncontaminated source Page 1 of 7 waters or install treatment to assure their water complies with EPA’s PFAS standard. This will improve the quality and safety of drinking water, but it may result in increased drinking water costs for consumers. What will implementation of this rule cost, and what are its quantifiable benefits? EPA considered all available information and analyses for costs and benefits, quantifiable and non-quantifiable, of this rule and determined that the benefits justify the costs. The health benefits include fewer cancers, lower incidents of heart attacks and strokes, and reduced birth complications; when monetized, these quantifiable benefits alone exceed $1.5 billion per year. Additionally, EPA could not quantify all the health benefits, including developmental, cardiovascular, liver, immune, endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, musculoskeletal, and carcinogenic effects, and therefore the benefit estimates are likely greater than $1.5 billion per year. EPA estimates the costs for public water systems to implement this regulation are approximately $1.5 billion per year. These costs include water system monitoring, communicating with customers, and if necessary, installing and maintaining treatment technologies or obtaining new or additional sources of water. How many utilities does EPA estimate will be impacted by this proposal? There are over 66,000 public water systems that are subject to the PFAS drinking water rule. Most of these systems will primarily have to conduct monitoring to confirm that they do not have PFAS at levels exceeding the regulatory standards. EPA estimates that between about 6% and 10% of the 66,000 public drinking water systems subject to this rule may have to take action to reduce PFAS to meet these new standards. The Safe Drinking Water Act (under which this rule was developed) generally provides a three-year timeframe for compliance with new rules. Because of the additional time required for capital improvements for systems to comply with the PFAS MCLs, the EPA is exercising its authority under the Safe Drinking Water and is extending the typical three-year timeline for compliance to five years. Systems must comply with the other requirements, such as notifications, starting the three-years after the rule is final. How will water systems pay for it? Are federal resources available to help? Protecting people’s drinking water from PFAS will mean that some water systems with higher levels of these regulated PFAS will need to take actions to reduce PFAS in their drinking water. This could mean installing and maintaining treatment technologies to remove PFAS or finding uncontaminated sources of water. To find resources to make these investments, water systems and local officials will need to consider all available funding options, including federal grant and loan dollars, other capital sources, and in some cases by raising rates paid by customers. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $9 billion specifically to invest in communities with drinking water impacted by PFAS and other emerging contaminants. This includes more than $5 billion in grant funding specifically for small or disadvantaged communities, which may be disproportionately impacted by PFAS pollution. EPA's free Water Technical Assistance (WaterTA) services support communities to identify water challenges, develop plans, build capacity, and develop application materials to access water infrastructure funding https://www.epa.gov/water-infrastructure/water-technical-assistance-waterta. States and communities can further leverage an additional nearly $12 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRF) dedicated to making drinking water safer, and billions more through funds that Congress provides annually to fund DWSRF loans. Page 2 of 7 EPA is also taking additional actions under its PFAS Strategic Roadmap to hold polluters accountable for their actions and help pay for cleanups, and to reduce the amount of PFAS pollution entering the environment in the first place, so that local communities do not have to bear the burden. As public water systems determine the best way to tackle the investments they may need, EPA will continue to work with states, Tribes, communities, and other partners to help them make the long-term investments needed to make our nation’s drinking water safe from PFAS. Can I drink my water? EPA estimates that between about 6% and 10% of the 66,000 public drinking water systems subject to this rule may have to take action to reduce PFAS to meet these new standards. That’s why EPA recommends contacting your local water utility to find out more about your drinking water, including what contaminants may be present, if they are monitoring for PFAS, what the levels are, and to see whether any actions are being taken. The standards in this rule are set to reduce PFAS to the lowest levels that are feasible for effective implementation. If you are concerned about the level of PFAS in your drinking water, consider installing in- home water treatment (e.g., filters) that are certified to lower the levels of PFAS in your water. For more information: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/water-filter-fact-sheet.pdf. Should I stop breastfeeding my infant? EPA encourages women and people who are currently pregnant, nursing, or bottle feeding an infant with formula to consult with their physician regarding concerns related to breastfeeding and potential exposure to chemicals such as PFOA, PFOS, GenX chemicals, and PFBS. For more information about PFAS and breastfeeding, visit the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Does bathing/showering with my tap water present a health risk? Studies have shown that only a small amount of PFAS can get into your body through skin. Hence, neither bathing nor showering are likely to be primary routes of PFOA, PFOS, GenX chemicals, or PFBS exposure. Can I boil PFAS out of my water? No. These chemicals cannot be removed by heating or boiling water. Should I drink bottled water? Deciding whether to buy and drink bottled water is a personal choice. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food, including bottled water. The FDA has not established standards for any PFAS in bottled water at this time, but now that EPA has finalized these standards, FDA is required under Section 410 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to evaluate what PFAS standards are appropriate for bottled water. FDA has analyzed for PFAS in bottled water (carbonated and non-carbonated) through a targeted survey (2016) and through the FDA’s Total Diet Study samples. Results from the studies did not detect PFAS in any sample. The FDA is currently conducting an additional targeted survey for PFAS in bottled water and results will be posted on the FDA’s website when complete. If you have questions about bottled water, please contact the FDA at: 1-888- INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332). Page 3 of 7 Individuals who are concerned about PFAS in their water may wish to consider in-home water treatment filters that are certified to lower PFAS levels in water. Learn more about these filters: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/water-filter-fact-sheet.pdf. How much of my exposure to PFAS is through drinking water? PFAS in drinking water can be a significant portion a person’s total PFAS exposure in places where there is PFAS drinking water contamination. Exactly how much of a person’s exposure comes from drinking water depends on a range of variables, including the levels of PFAS present in their drinking water, as well as other environmental factors like proximity to industrial sites that may release PFAS into the air or soil. The types of products people use in their daily lives that may contain PFAS, include nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, and certain water- or sweat-resistant cosmetics. Some people may also have higher levels of exposure through their work, like fire- fighters who may use fire-fighting foam that contains PFAS. All of these factors make it difficult to determine exactly how much of a person’s exposure comes through any single source. People can be exposed to many different PFAS at the same time, which can magnify these health risks. Reducing your exposure to PFAS lowers your risk for these health problems. Should I use a filter to reduce levels of PFAS in my water? The more you reduce your exposure to PFAS, the more you reduce your risk. Many water pitcher filters and other home-based water filters are able to reduce the levels of PFAS in drinking water. If you decide to use a filter, look for ones that are certified to reduce PFAS. Be aware that current filters on the market will not yet be certified to reduce PFAS to the new EPA standard, but the added filtration they provide can help reduce your exposure. For more information: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/water-filter-fact- sheet.pdf. How were the enforceable limits for PFAS set? The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to set goals, known as Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, or MCLGs, based only on health data and the potential impacts to public. MCLGs are not regulatory levels and are not enforceable. EPA then sets the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level, or MCL, as the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. The MCLs, which are used for compliance determination, are set at specific concentrations that laboratories nationwide can measure with high certainty. Also, PFAS can often be found together and in varying combinations as mixtures. Decades of research shows mixtures of different chemicals can have additive health effects, even if the individual chemicals are each present at lower levels. With this rule, EPA has set limits for these chemicals individually and as mixtures. For more information about the Hazard Index, see our fact sheet here. My state has had a PFAS regulation for a few years, but it’s higher than EPA’s new standard. Why is EPA’s standard different? Over the last several years, states like Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and many others have been setting limits, working with water systems to conduct monitoring, and helping water systems to take necessary steps to come into compliance with the state regulations. Page 4 of 7 EPA is taking a signature step to protect public health by establishing nationwide limits for several PFAS known to occur individually and/or as a mixture in drinking water. This rule is informed by the work of states and considers feedback from state regulators on effective implementation. It also is the result of reviewing extensive research and science on how PFAS affects public health, engaging with the water sector, and considering 120,000 comments on the proposed rule from a wide variety of stakeholders. Over the next two years, states will have to adopt requirements and apply for approval (known as primacy) to oversee implementation of these regulations. States must ensure that their regulations are no less stringent than the regulations promulgated by the EPA. EPA will provide guidance to support states, territories, and Tribes on applying for primacy. More information on primacy responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act can be found at here. What should I do if I am concerned about PFAS in my drinking water? If you are concerned about PFAS in your drinking water, EPA recommends contacting your local water utility to find out more about your drinking water, including what contaminants may be present, if they are monitoring for PFAS, what the levels are, and to see whether any actions are being taken. Some public drinking water systems may not have this information at this time. If you choose to test your water yourself, it is important to use a state-certified laboratory using EPA-developed testing methods. You can also contact your state environmental protection agency or health department and your local water utility to find out what actions they recommend. If you remain concerned about PFAS in your drinking water, you may consider installing in-home water treatment (e.g., filters) that are certified to lower the levels of PFAS in your water. Learn about certified in-home water treatment filters. What if I am concerned about PFAS and I use my own well? The quality and safety of drinking water from wells that service fewer than 25 persons, such as most household wells, are not regulated by the Federal Government under the Safe Drinking Water Act nor by many state governments and laws. To ensure that safe drinking water is provided to their households, EPA recommends that you test your household well annually for total coliform bacteria, nitrates, total dissolved solids, and pH levels. If you choose to test your water yourself, it is important to use a state-certified laboratory using EPA- developed testing methods. You can also: Contact your state environmental or health agency for detailed advice or to obtain a list of state-certified laboratories using EPA-developed testing methods in drinking water. The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Management System website may also be helpful in finding a laboratory to test for PFAS. • If you remain concerned about the level of PFAS in your drinking water: o Contact your state environmental protection agency or health department and your local water utility to find out what actions they recommend. o If possible, consider using an alternate water source for drinking, preparing food, cooking, brushing teeth, preparing baby formula, and any other activity when your family might swallow water. o Consider installing an in-home water treatment (e.g., filters) that are certified to lower the levels of PFAS in your water. Learn about certified in-home water treatment filters. What is EPA doing to help household well owners? Page 5 of 7 Private well owners are responsible for assuring safe drinking water for their households. The quality and safety of drinking water from private domestic wells are not regulated by the federal government under the Safe Drinking Water Act nor by most state governments and laws. With this announcement of the rule, EPA is also announcing nearly $1 billion for states and territories, through the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities (EC-SDC) Grant Program, which can be used for initial testing and treatment at both public water systems and to help owners of household wells address PFAS contamination Learn more using link 3 below. EPA is updating the EC-SDC and the Small, Underserved, and Disadvantaged Communities (SUDC) grant programs (see links 2&3 below) so that states can further assist household well owners to address drinking water contaminants. In addition, EPA is providing training and technical assistance (T&TA, link 1) to owners and managers of private drinking water wells and the technical assistance providers that serve private well owners and/or are charged with protecting public health. Under this grant, the TA provider can provide test kits to test for emerging contaminants, such as PFAS, and provide follow-up technical assistance to household well owners who receive results indicating contamination. For more on these grants visit: 1. Training and technical assistance 2. Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program 3. Small, Underserved, or Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program What does a part per trillion look like? How much is that? Parts per trillion is a unit of measure. It is a very tiny amount. For example, one part per trillion in time, is the equivalent of one second out of nearly 32,000 years. What’s a Hazard Index? How much PFAS are in the water with an Index of 1? The Hazard Index is a long-established approach that the EPA regularly uses, for example in the Superfund program, to understand health risk from exposure to chemical mixtures. The EPA’s Hazard Index Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) applies to any mixture containing two or more of PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX Chemicals. The Hazard Index is made up of a sum of fractions. Each fraction compares the level of each PFAS measured in the water to the highest level below which there is no risk of health effects. For more on how to calculate the Hazard Index, see: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/pfas-npdwr_fact-sheet_hazard- index_4.8.24.pdf. If systems have five years to comply with the rule, what should I do until then if I’m concerned about PFAS in my water? EPA understands that the PFAS final rule will require some public water systems to make significant investments and that it will take time for them to plan and construct the treatment systems or take other actions they need to comply. That’s why the rule allows systems the flexibility and time to determine the best solutions for their community. EPA also understands that people may be concerned about the PFAS in their drinking water today. If you are Page 6 of 7 concerned about PFAS in your drinking water, EPA recommends contacting your local water utility. Your utility can tell you more about your drinking water, including what contaminants may be present, if they are monitoring for PFAS, what the levels are, and to see whether any actions are being taken. Some public drinking water systems may not have this information at this time. If you choose to test your water yourself, it is important to use a state-certified laboratory using EPA-developed testing methods. You can also contact your state environmental protection agency or health department and your local water utility to find out what actions they recommend. If you remain concerned about PFAS in your drinking water, you may consider installing in-home water treatment (e.g., filters) that are certified to lower the levels of PFAS in your water. For more information: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/water-filter-fact-sheet.pdf. Page 7 of 7 PFAS Updates as of 5/9/2024 (Village Website) On April 10, 2024 the USEPA released regulations for several PFAS compounds in drinking water, with mandatory compliance by 2029. Among the compounds included was PFOS, which has been detected in the drinking water supplied by Indian Hill Water Works at a level above the upcoming regulation. The regulation will mandate compliance at a level of less than 4 parts per trillion (ppt) in the finished drinking water, Indian Hill Water Works currently reflects a level around 14 ppt. Parts per trillion is a unit of measure. One (1) ppt would be represented by a single drop of water in 18 million gallons of water. That is one drop of water in roughly 20 Olympic sized swimming pools. Another way to look at it is in terms of time, one part per trillion is the equivalent of one second out of nearly 32,000 years. The Village has contracted with an engineering firm ahead of this regulation release to propose the best solution to this problem. It was determined that Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) was the best approach for PFOS removal after also exploring Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis. The upfront cost for the infrastructure to treat the Village’s daily maximum capacity of 6 million gallons of drinking water with GAC is significant. The Village is currently evaluating ways to potentially fund this solution and what that will ultimately look like to you, our customer. Ohio EPA funding and other possible sources exist that may help offset some of the financial burden. Supplying a safe, affordable water is extremely important to the Village. With this set deadline we will need to move swiftly and effectively to determine the best solution moving forward. Questions or concern on this matter can be directed to Ron Freson, Chief Plant Operator, at 513-831-3885 ext. 4466. For more information on PFAS please visit pfas.ohio.gov PFAS Solution Funding - initial concept & estimates Parameters * Amount Borrowed $23 Million Term 30 Years Bond Payment $1,415,000.00 Estimate All-In True Interest Cost 4.47% Estimate Service Tap Size # of Accounts Proposed Fee Quarterly Proposed Fee Monthly Quarterly Revenue 5/8 3513 $15.00 $5.00 $52,695.00 3/4 181 $17.50 $5.83 $3,167.50 ** 1 1303 $20.00 $6.67 $26,060.00 1 1/2 411 $22.50 $7.50 $9,247.50 2 215 $25.00 $8.33 $5,375.00 3 19 $27.50 $9.17 $522.50 4 11 $30.00 $10.00 $330.00 6 0 $32.50 $10.83 $0.00 *** 8 1 $35.00 $11.67 $35.00 Total $389,730.00 Annual Projected Reveue $1,558,920.00 Bond Payment $1,415,000.00 Surplus $143,920.00 * Based on bond projections and GAC facility estimates as of 5/20/2024 ** Note 3/4" accounts will continue to drop as homes are torn down, we service them but don't sell them anymore. New homes would either go down to a 5/8" or up to a 1". *** Added in case we get any 6" users, would keep $2.50 steps uniform as meter sizes increase.  CONSIDERATIONS OF WATER REGIONALIZATION • Diversification of water sources provides additional safety and reliability in the event of pollution or reduced supply availability (i.e. GCWW closed water intakes from the Ohio River and relied on water storage while the chemical flume passed from chemical spills in East Palestine in 2023). Multiple wells and/or sources, and emergency interconnections with other water providers are ideal to supplement a source of water. Indian Hill has nine wells and an existing emergency interconnection with GCWW currently. If the Village pursued regionalization instead of PFAS treatment, the Village’s wells & water treatment plant (WTP) would be inoperable & GCWW would be the Village’s only source for water. • More than one interconnection would need to be installed to GCWW’s system to sufficiently serve the community. Interconnection is not anticipated to be as costly as PFAS treatment, but the vaults needed for interconnection are still large and costly. They require not only a meter, but likely also pressure reducing valves. Due to conflicts with other utilities present in the Right-of- Way, easements or additional Right-of-Way may be required to have sufficient space for the interconnection vault. • Past usage of the GCWW emergency interconnection led to changed pressure in portions of the distribution system as well as reversed flow direction in some water mains. This resulted in the Village experiencing multiple water main breaks (particularly at night when GCWW’s water storage tanks were full and the system was at the highest pressure fluctuation) and brown water issues. Brown water issues would dissipate over time with consistent use of GCWW’s interconnection. Depending on the difference in the hydraulic grade line (or amount of pressure) in both the Village’s and GCWW’s water mains on each side, an increase in water main replacements and break repairs (particularly overnight with repair crews working overtime) may be expected. Water loss occurring through main breaks is water still flowing through the meter at a GCWW interconnection that the Village would be billed for. • The Village has an existing contract with GCWW for the bulk purchase of water through the emergency interconnection. With the addition of more interconnections and a switch from emergency to on-going water demand, the contract would need to be replaced or revised. During the contract revision process, there may be negotiation between the turn-over of the distribution system to being GCWW’s ownership and maintenance responsibility, or whether it should remain Village-owned. Some of the considerations between these options include: • If GCWW takes ownership of the water lines, GCWW would require the Village’s hydraulic model of the system, water usage and billing history, data about the age and material for the distribution and storage system, and water main break records. This is expected to result in a list of required upfront infrastructure improvements and a timeline for completion prior to GCWW taking over ownership and maintenance. • If the Village were to switch to GCWW for its water supply but retain ownership of its distribution system, the Village would need to include with the GCWW water expense a maintenance surcharge for leak repairs and infrastructure replacement projects. • If GCWW was responsible for O&M of the distribution system, they would decide when and how to replace water mains, oversee the construction, and because the majority of water mains are located in the public Right-of-Way, they would cause road and traffic impacts. • Water main repair crews also must evaluate and prioritize their leak repairs as there is often not enough man-power or resources to address them as soon as they surface. With the larger size of GCWW’s service area compared to the Village’s, it is likely that GCWW will not be as responsive and timely to repair water main breaks.  • GCWW will be investing Village water customer’s funds toward infrastructure improvement plans outside the Village. The projects may also be skewed by other political priorities similar to streetscape and neighborhood revitalization components being part of MSDGC’s sanitary sewer projects’ scope. • The Village would lose control of determining water rates and billing cycles as GCWW would dictate these. Other communities that have switched to GCWW as their water supply have seen a low rate on an initial contract, with rate increases thereafter. There may be unforeseen fees in the future. GCWW is similarly facing increased expenses for PFAS treatment at the Bolton WTP. They estimate the cost of their WTP improvements to be $100M. • If the Village abandons its wells and closes the WTP, it would be increasingly challenging to ever be in the position to reopen them in the future. Even assuming the Village maintains ownership and maintenance of the distribution system, the initial well and WTP start-up with deferred improvement costs would be excessive. It is time-intensive and difficult to obtain OEPA permits and properly license staff to be able to operate the facility. Also, if GCWW were under a consent decree or orders by EPA, the Village would not be permitted by EPA to part until the decree / orders were lifted (MSDGC vs City of Loveland case study). • The Village’s wells and WTP have remaining useful life and value that would be sacrificed if the Village chooses to use GCWW instead of this existing infrastructure. The resale value of the transferable components is not expected to match the existing value of the full current system. • Large governing boards can make decision-making a challenge, injecting political priorities that are sometimes at odds with effective utility management. The Village as a small percentage of water usage / customer base, may be out-weighed in local representation and advocacy. • While economies of scale are possible for CIP savings, complex municipal procurement and payment practices can build inefficiency and additional expense into utility operations. Some contractors have noted giving reduced rate if we can pay invoices within a week as opposed to a month. • The Village provides a high level of service and transparency to its residents and water customers. GCWW would be less accountable to customers of the Village’s water system than their own water customers. There may even be emergency events when they close the water interconnection off to supply their base customers first. • The Village would be subject to applicable Cincinnati rules and regulations. As a historical example, Cincinnati required annexations in exchange for providing water which led to the Village taking ownership of the water system in 1949.