In early May, the Harvard Board of Health received a report of a water quality test on a private well with levels of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) more than 20 times the state’s maximum contaminant level. The well is located in the area of Warren Avenue where it intersects with the beginning of Tahanto Trail. Tests conducted by the Nashoba Associated Boards of Health confirmed the high levels.
The state’s maximum contaminant level for PFAS in public drinking water supplies is 20 parts per trillion for the sum of six substances—PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFHpA, and PFDA, referred to by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection as PFAS6. According to Nashoba Associated Boards of Health Director Jim Garreffi, the initial homeowner’s test result showed a PFAS6 level of 483 parts per trillion. Garreffi said the results of his organization’s test showed an even higher number, 533 parts per trillion.
The well is also far above the Environmental Protection Agency’s public drinking water maximum contaminant level of 4 ppt for each of two specific substances, PFOA and PFOS. Garreffi told the Press the NABH tests on the private well showed a PFOA level of 237 ppt; the PFOS level was 106 ppt. When the EPA’s maximum PFAS levels were set in 2024, it considered 4 ppt to be the lowest level that can be reliably detected for those two substances. But it also set a “health-based, nonenforceable” maximum contaminant level goal of zero for both substances, which it said was based on “the latest science showing that there is no level of exposure to these contaminants without risk of health impacts, including certain cancers.”
Neighbors notified
According to Harvard’s Board of Health Chair Libby Levison, MassDEP is required to conduct an “Imminent Hazard” evaluation for private wells with PFAS6 levels higher than 90 ppt. Levison said that process includes notifying homeowners with private wells within 1,000 feet of the initial well. NABH sent a letter to those homeowners on May 14, and MassDEP will be contacting the residents to arrange testing on their well water.
Levison told the Press that homeowners who received the letter should answer any phone calls they receive from the Worcester DEP office and added that she hopes they will all agree to have their well water tested. “The only way they can determine the extent of the contamination is to test the wells in the neighborhood and follow the data. Not only will each resident learn about their water, but they’ll help protect others in town,” Levison said.
The resident with the PFAS-contaminated well will receive bottled water from MassDEP, and Garreffi said the agency will likely facilitate the installation of a whole-house water treatment system for that resident. If test results on the wells of any neighboring homes exceed 90 ppt, those homeowners will receive the same assistance from MassDEP. Garreffi also said he believes MassDEP will investigate the source of the contamination; MassDEP did not respond to the Press’ requests for comments as of press time.
The location of the private well is only about a half-mile from the two Pond Road wells that supply Harvard’s town water. Those wells have been tested regularly for PFAS6 since 2020, and have never exceeded 20 ppt. When the project to connect the town to the Devens water supply—which is treated for PFAS—is complete, the Pond Road wells will be used only for backup.
The Board of Health posted a memorandum informing the public of the test results on the private well on its website. In it, the board reminds residents that MassDEP “recommends that residents in sensitive subgroups, including pregnant women, nursing mothers, and infants, not consume water when PFAS6 levels are above 20 parts per trillion in drinking water.” Water quality tests are not required on private wells until a property is sold, but the board recommends testing private well water at least every five years.
For more information pertaining to this story, go to www.harvard-ma.gov/board-health. Under “News & Announcements,” click on “Board of Health statement regarding a private well water quality test with PFAS results over 90 parts per trillion.” General water quality and PFAS testing information is also available on the Board of Health webpage under “Water Quality.”
EPA proposes rollbacks
Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency established the first federal maximum contaminant levels for PFAS in public drinking water supplies. The maximum levels for PFOA and PFOS, two of the most widely used PFAS, were set to four parts per trillion each. Three other substances, PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA (otherwise known as GenX chemicals) were set to 10 ppt each.
In addition, the agency set limits on mixtures that contained two or more of those three substances or another substance, PFBS. The new regulation included various timelines for monitoring and compliance, with a deadline of 2029 for public water supplies to implement solutions to reduce levels of PFAS that exceeded the maximum.
However, on May 14, the EPA announced a proposal to extend the deadline for PFOA and PFOS compliance to 2031, as well as a proposal to rescind and reconsider the regulations for the other four substances. The proposed changes will be issued this fall and the agency intends to finalize them in the spring of 2026.
According to a press release, the changes are being proposed to address challenges from “public water systems, members of Congress, and other stakeholders.” The agency also plans to create a framework for exemptions and to roll out a program called the PFAS Outreach Initiative, or PFAS OUT, to support rural and small communities that are struggling to comply with the new regulations.
Meanwhile, the state is still operating with its original PFAS maximum contaminant level, which was established in 2020. The EPA’s 2024 regulations included a requirement that states adopt maximum levels at least as stringent by the end of 2026. The state was planning to propose amendments to its regulations to meet that deadline, including the addition of maximum levels for GenX and PFBS, which are not currently regulated by the state. But now that the EPA is planning modifications to its PFAS regulations by next spring, it is unclear how states are expected to proceed.
—JE
