Water suppliers are concerned that the cost to remediate so-called “forever chemicals” could be millions of dollars.
This story was originally published in The New Bedford Light, a publication partner of Ocean State Stories.
WESTPORT — This past spring, the Environmental Protection Agency announced new national drinking water standards to limit “forever chemicals” linked to birth defects and cancers.
In 2025, nine public water systems in Westport, Dartmouth, and parts of Wareham will be looking into addressing PFAS contamination in their water. Testing shows levels of those chemicals — which can be found in myriad products like nonstick pans and mascara — may be above the new EPA standards.
Water suppliers say the new regulations are strict, and ratepayers should know solutions may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars — or millions in some cases.
Westport faces the South Coast’s biggest challenge from PFAS. Contamination is widespread there, but because the town lacks a large public water system, it will be hard to find a common solution.
State environmental regulators do not expect New Bedford to be affected by the EPA regulations.
Many Massachusetts health and environmental authorities support these new regulations. They say the drinking water rules will protect millions of people nationwide from harmful exposure.
“We are going to have to address the contamination that’s already out there,” said Laurel Schaider, a senior scientist at the Newton-based Silent Spring Institute.
But water suppliers are concerned that the cost to remediate PFAS will excessively burden ratepayers. Roughly 190 public water systems across the state have tested for levels of PFAS contamination above EPA limits at least once in the last few years. They may have to invest in treatment.
“It needs to be a shared expense,” said Jen Pederson, the executive director of the Massachusetts Water Works Association.
Few South Coast public water systems have alarming levels of PFAS. State environmental regulators do not expect New Bedford, Fall River, Acushnet, Fairhaven, Mattapoisett, or Marion to be affected by the EPA regulations. Samples from their water systems have not shown PFAS contamination at levels above national standards.
Potentially-affected water suppliers are evaluating the severity of their PFAS contamination. Others are extending neighboring public water systems to affected homes and businesses. Still others are looking to drill new wells, and put in treatment systems.
They say the government must provide more funding, technical assistance, and time for them to meet these PFAS standards.
“We want instant gratification,” said David Candeias, superintendent of the Onset Water Department, which covers parts of Wareham. “But these are not instantly solved problems. We should be clear-headed, and take our time to develop the best tactics.”
Massachusetts established a drinking water standard for a blend of six PFAS chemicals of 20 parts per trillion in 2020. The state will bring its PFAS standard in line with the EPA’s by April 2026.
The EPA has set a drinking water standard of 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS. It set a limit of 10 parts per trillion for PFNA, PFHxS, and “Gen X” PFAS chemicals. It set another limit for blends of these PFAS.
It will require public water systems to comply by 2029.
What is PFAS?
Industry has used PFAS to make consumer goods since the 1950s. They are found in products like nonstick cookware, raincoats, firefighting foams and mascara.
PFAS — or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — spread through the environment from sources like industrial facilities and landfills. They enter the human body through food, airborne particles, drinking water, and by using products made with them. PFAS are linked to immune-system dysfunction, liver disease and pregnancy complications.
There are thousands of PFAS, which are composed of strong chemical bonds and take a long time to break down. So when they get in the body, they accumulate. While exposure does not present immediate health risks, adverse health outcomes become more likely to occur as more PFAS enter the body.
For decades, industry knew PFAS could harm human health. But manufacturers were “not forthcoming” about these health effects, Schaider of the Silent Spring Institute said. Regulators and public health researchers started studying them in the last couple of decades.
PFAS have been detected in blood samples and drinking water supplies worldwide.
Westport: Digging new wells, bringing in public water
PFAS contamination in drinking water is a common issue in Westport, but finding a single solution will be hard.
Unlike other South Coast communities, Westport lacks a large public water system. Residents get water from private wells and small public water suppliers.
Many private wells and small water systems in north Westport have PFAS levels above the EPA’s thresholds, said Bob Daylor, vice chair of the Westport Planning Board. Some have PFAS levels above state thresholds.
So Westport officials got a $4 million grant to extend Fall River’s water system into north Westport in a loop down Route 6. That water system does not have PFAS levels exceeding EPA limits. Work started in November and should be done by January.
The town will connect homeowners to the water lines on a voluntary basis. It will also connect the Alice A. Macomber Primary School, and two small water systems — Westport Plaza and Maynard State, LLC — that have seen water samples with PFAS levels above state standards.
There is likely PFAS contamination in wells throughout town, Daylor said. Westport will work to extend the water lines as they can.
Some Westport water suppliers are looking to drill new wells to comply with the national PFAS rules.
The Westport Harbor Water Association in south Westport has seen one of its two supply wells test positive for levels of PFOS above EPA limits in 2021 and 2022.
The affected well is only used in the summer, said a member of the utility’s board, Tom Gebhard. It gets blended with water from the second well, which has lower levels of PFAS. The blended water meets Massachusetts’ PFAS drinking water standard, and should meet the new EPA standards.
Because of the EPA’s new regulations, the utility will discontinue use of the contaminated well, and drill a new one inland. The utility is currently in the permitting process for the new well.
The PFAS-contaminated well is near the ocean, and has been sucking in saltwater as sea levels rise. Drilling another well will address both problems, Gebhard said. It will run hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ratepayers will cover it.
Elsewhere in Westport, Our Lady of Grace, a Roman Catholic church, received a $150,000 state grant to put in a PFAS treatment system. Lee’s Market in Westport plans to install treatment in its wells, according to MassDEP, after samples showed PFAS levels above state limits. The Westport Village Commons shopping center and the Coaksett Commons strip mall have seen PFAS levels in samples from their water systems that exceed EPA standards, state data shows. They haven’t disclosed remediation plans.
Wareham: Onset village must drill a new well
Most of Wareham likely won’t be affected by the EPA’s drinking water regulations for PFAS, but the Onset Water Department, which covers the village of Onset and parts of East Wareham, may be.
Raw water from the Onset Water Department’s oldest supply well tested for PFOS levels above EPA standards in 2022. That utility is looking to drill a new well.
None of the utility’s five wells have exceeded the state’s PFAS drinking water standards in the last two years, said Candeias, the Onset Water Department’s superintendent. Four wells have not shown any PFAS since testing started in 2021.
Water from the old well gets blended with water from other wells before entering the distribution system. That brings it into compliance with state drinking water regulations. However, it is unclear if that blended water meets the new national standards. If it doesn’t, Candeias said, the utility will address it.
Prior to the EPA regulation, Candeias planned to get the new well done in the next seven or so years, to manage the burden on his ratepayers. Now, he is working to find grant funding to get the project going as quickly as possible.
The utility should have a basic design and cost estimate in the next two years. It will likely cost a few million dollars. In the meantime, the utility will throttle flow from the old well to see if its water can meet the new EPA PFAS limits without spending a ton of money. If not, the utility will take that well out of service and operate on four wells until the new one can be put into service.
If the utility gets the necessary $2 million to start test drilling, a new well could be online in a few years.
Candeias said people should not be panicking over PFAS contamination. He said society shouldn’t rush into treatment that’s going to cost us a ton of money, and may not deliver the best results.
Elsewhere in Wareham, a landfill, the Southeastern Massachusetts Resource Recovery Facility, will install PFAS treatment for its wells that serve employees and visitors in 2025, said a spokesperson for Reworld Waste, which owns the landfill.
Samples of the landfill’s water tested for PFAS levels above state limits a couple years ago. The landfill company has since put the wells under a Do Not Drink order, and has been providing bottled water.
Dartmouth evaluating PFAS problem
The Town of Dartmouth’s water tested for PFOA levels above EPA thresholds once, in 2023, state data shows. No samples have exceeded state thresholds.
Dartmouth is currently conducting an extensive PFAS sampling program, and has hired a consultant to help analyze the results. After the evaluation, the town will look at the cost of necessary upgrades.
The town does not have levels of PFAS in its drinking water that exceed existing standards or guidelines, said Rob Almy, chairman of Dartmouth’s Board of Public Works. So it may not receive grant funding. If treatment is necessary, ratepayers may need to pay for it on their own.
EPA sets drinking water standards
In April, the EPA finalized drinking water standards for PFAS chemicals for the first time.
Schaider is “encouraged” by the EPA’s PFAS regulations.
When the EPA develops new drinking water regulations, it uses extensive scientific evidence to set health-based exposure thresholds, and conducts a cost-benefit analysis, Schaider said. The agency issued health advisories for PFOA and PFOS last year showing there was essentially no safe level of exposure.
So while these PFAS limits may seem strict, Schaider said, “From that perspective, it doesn’t seem too low. … We want to take a proactive and a precautionary approach to protect everyone.”
That approach means Massachusetts utilities showing levels of PFAS contamination above EPA standards may need to invest big in treatment, or in finding new water supplies.
Ratepayers and communities are currently bearing the cost, said Pederson of the state’s water works association. That concerns water suppliers because they were not responsible for the contamination.
While some consider the EPA’s drinking water limits reasonable, Pederson said she has concerns that the EPA set its limits for PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion — which is what testing laboratories can reliably detect right now.
Pederson said the government should invest in efficient treatments and technologies to destroy PFAS, to alleviate the cost burden. Affected ratepayers should be prepared to pay for treatment.
The EPA and Massachusetts have made millions of dollars in grants available for PFAS remediation. Class action lawsuits against PFAS manufacturers are ongoing.
Yet both pots of funding represent a fraction of the existing need that Massachusetts water suppliers face, said Pederson.
Gebhard said he hopes to see more low-cost financing options available for remediation. Candeias wants to see more grant dollars and technical support.
Schaider of Silent Spring Institute said polluters must pay more for PFAS remediation, and that policymakers must find ways to get PFAS out of the manufacturing cycle.
She hopes society can learn from PFAS, and use persistent chemicals “with caution” in the future.
Email Adam Goldstein at agoldstein@newbedfordlight.org.
