O,K, and I are the first letters in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. But it’s also the first thought that comes with the realization that my utility will have to address PFAS in the very near future. Using lessons from the heartland of the US, this presentation will provide a blueprint for the steps undertaken for 3 case studies for successful PFAS management. So that O, K, and I can be followed with “got this.” How do I select the best technology? To define the design criteria, cost, and benefits of PFAS treatment technologies, modeling, benchtop, or pilot testing approaches may be used. Regulatory requirements, such as piloting requirements, may drive the approach used. Design needs, testing goals, budget, and time constraints are also deciding factors. How do I afford it and meet the schedule? Complying with the PFAS MCL may be the most expensive rulemaking USEPA has ever made. Grant funding may be available via emerging contaminant funds. Collaborative delivery can shorten the construction schedule. Pre-purchasing long lead items or performing piloting during design also saves schedule. What are others doing? Case Studies in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana Ohio – Wilmington, Ohio maintains two sources for its 4 MGD WTP. The main source (lake) has low PFAS levels but limited capacity. The other source (reservoir) has PFAS exceeding the MCLs. Samples were collected upstream and downstream of the reservoir to quantify PFAS. Bench testing ruled out PAC as a cost-effective solution due to required dosage. Pilot testing was performed with GAC, ion exchange, and bentonite-based media. The pilot data was input into Phaster, a proprietary breakthrough modeling program developed using over 600 data sets, to estimate breakthrough and media replacement intervals. The combined piloting and modeling approach allowed for a shortened pilot interval and accurate estimate for breakthrough times and costs for full scale. This approach was reviewed and approved by state regulators prior to the newly released PFAS piloting guidance. Kentucky – Hazen is working with Louisville Water to characterize PFAS accumulation in residuals and identify impacts of PFAS-impacted residuals on disposal. This work highlights one of the first investigations in the country into PFAS accumulation in residuals, which included sampling of residuals to determine BMPs for PFAS-impacted residuals. Sediment was sampled for PFAS concentrations partitioned onto the solids and analyzed for PFAS leaching to determine future potential hazardous classifications. Indiana – Indiana does not require pilot testing to permit PFAS treatment. Hazen provided treatment technology alternatives evaluations for six Indiana-American Water (INAW) facilities using Phaster to select GAC for PFAS treatment. AW has an agreement with a manufacturer to purchase GAC vessels and media at favorable pricing. This allows INAW to maintain consistency and treatment efficiency across plants and creates design efficiency.