Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

South Coast towns plan to continue their efforts to remove “forever chemicals” — linked to certain cancers, decreased fertility and other health issues — from public water supplies, despite the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to roll back some drinking water regulations. 

According to its May 14 announcement, the EPA intends to “rescind” and “reconsider” regulations for four out of six previously regulated PFAS chemicals. The EPA also announced its plans to extend the compliance deadline for these regulations from 2029 to 2031.

New Bedford won’t be affected by these changes, because the city’s current PFAS levels in its public drinking water are below the EPA’s current regulation limits. 

Jamie Ponte, commissioner for the New Bedford Department of Public Infrastructure, said New Bedford was in “good shape” for PFAS regulations. 

The new requirements are not expected to have any further impact on Westport or Dartmouth, two towns that The Light reported would be addressing PFAS contamination in January. 

Dartmouth determined there was no need for additional infrastructure to address PFAS contamination. An “extensive PFAS sampling program” found little to no contamination above federal levels.

Westport is already addressing PFAS contamination by adding new infrastructure to its water systems. 

The Onset Water Department, a public water system that The Light reported on as needing to address PFAS in January, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. It covers the village of Onset and parts of East Wareham. 

Seven public water systems in Bristol County have PFAS results within the past five years exceeding the newly proposed EPA standards. So the potential compliance deadline extension may alleviate pressure on towns, such as Seekonk, Rehoboth and Dighton. These towns were already facing expensive upgrades to add new filtration systems and infrastructure in response to federal regulations announced last April. 

According to data from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Berkley Community School and Freetown Elementary School, whose water systems are municipally owned, also tested for PFAS levels exceeding the new EPA standards. 

Public health officials, scientists and local water departments agree that while limits to the harmful chemicals help, they will continue to plague water supplies unless they are removed at their source. 

“The better way of regulating PFAS would be to make sure it isn’t even coming into our environment because that’s really where we’re getting caught,” said Jennifer Pederson, executive director of the Massachusetts Water Works Association.

Fairhaven, Fall River, Acushnet, Berkley, Mattapoisett, Rehoboth, Somerset, Swansea and Marion also already have low PFAS levels that meet national standards for public drinking water.

What does PFAS mean?

PFAS — an acronym for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — are a group of thousands of man-made chemicals widely used in consumer and industrial products, including non-stick cookware, mascara, food packaging, water and stain resistant materials and fire-fighting gear and foam. These chemicals have been called “forever chemicals” due to their strong chemical bonds that take a long time to break down. 

The chemicals can accumulate in the human body and cause negative health effects. These effects include fertility issues, heightened cholesterol, changes in immune systems, increased risk of some cancers, liver damage, developmental changes for children and fetuses, and increased risk of thyroid disease and asthma. 

Drinking contaminated water is a main area of exposure to the chemicals. Manufacturing activities or use of products containing PFAS are other ways the harmful chemicals enter the environment and can cause people to be exposed. Apart from drinking water, PFAS can also be found in soil, groundwater, food and air.

How the EPA and Massachusetts limit PFAS

The new drinking water standards are a step back from the Biden administration’s regulations, issued last April, that placed Maximum Contaminant Levels, or maximum limits, on six PFAS chemicals. 

The Trump administration’s EPA will continue to monitor two kinds of PFAS — PFOS and PFOA — at a limit of 4.0 parts per trillion. It will no longer require states to meet compliance for the other previously regulated four — PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (also known as GenX) and a Hazard Index mixture of the three aforementioned chemicals plus PFBS. 

Additionally, the EPA said it intends to extend the compliance deadline for these regulations from 2029 to 2031. This rule would be finalized in spring 2026 if it is carried out.  

In the press release, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the organization is working to uphold EPA’s national standards to protect Americans from PFOA and PFOS, but wanted to provide “common-sense flexibility” by giving states more time to meet testing requirements. 

“This will support water systems across the country, including small systems in rural communities, as they work to address these contaminants,” Zeldin said in the release. “EPA will also continue to use its regulatory and enforcement tools to hold polluters accountable.”

Regardless of the federal levels instated, all public water systems in Massachusetts are required to meet the state’s PFAS limits enacted by MassDEP in 2020. 

Massachusetts requires that PFAS drinking water levels not exceed 20 parts per trillion for a combination of all six regulated PFAS chemicals. This combination can include any percentage of these chemicals as long as the total sum is less than 20 parts per trillion. 

The two remaining federally regulated PFAS — PFOA and PFOS — cannot exceed 4 parts per trillion. This federal limit is more stringent than the current Massachusetts limit for these two chemicals. 

Laurel Schaider, a senior scientist at the Silent Spring Institute, said because of these state regulations, the imposed federal limits are “less substantial” in Massachusetts, since state public water systems have had to test for PFAS regularly since 2020. 

“We had an earlier look into the areas where the levels were elevated in drinking water, and then water supplies did have to start taking steps to meet that new standard,” Schaider said. “Massachusetts residents were better protected than in states that didn’t have those kinds of standards.”

Schaider said another area of concern for PFAS are private wells, which are not regulated by the government. While most towns in the South Coast provide their residents with drinking water in some capacity, some towns have residents who rely on private wells. 

“Public water supplies [in Massachusetts] have had to test for and take action on PFAS,” Schaider said. “There’s a lot more scrutiny and accountability for protecting water quality for public water supplies.” 

She said that while some rural areas have “excellent water quality” due to fewer pollution sources, surprises can go undetected without state-required testing for private wells. 

Westport 

Westport, which underwent an extensive $4 million process to extend its public water system this past year, does not see any direct impacts at the moment with the new regulations, said Jim Hartnett, Westport town administrator. 

The new water line is 80% complete, Hartnett said, and remaining water work is estimated to be completed by the end of July. Final street paving will be completed in late fall. As of now, there are no other preparations. 

Harnett said Westport received federal funding due to private commercial wells with PFAS or other contaminants exceeding federal levels.

The project extends public water lines on Route 6 from Gifford Road to Washington Street, Gifford Road from Route 6 to Osborn Street and Osborn from Gifford Road to Route 6, according to Hartnett. The extended line will provide water to both residential properties and private commercial wells and the Alice A. Macomber School.

The Westport Harbor Water Association is another privately-owned water system in the area The Light reported as undergoing changes in January. Our Lady of Grace, Lees Market, Westport Village Commons shopping center and the Coaksett Commons strip are other areas that tested for PFAS levels exceeding standards, according to The Light’s previous article.

Data from MassDEP lists Westport Plaza, Lees Supermarket and Maynard State LLC as privately-owned water systems that have been out of compliance but that are working towards solutions to meet regulations.

Mark S. Ferreira, the owner of Westport Village Commons, said he hires an outside contractor for water testing. He has not heard anything from MassDEP about any changes he might need to make to the Commons water system regarding new regulations. Ferreira said the majority of the water used by the Commons is for cooking food or washing dishes — not as drinking water.

If the Commons does have to make any changes to meet new federal standards, he said the extended compliance deadline would help if these changes are “a lot of money.”

Dartmouth 

Dartmouth serves a population of 24,630 residents with 9,547 water service connections, although some of the town uses private wells, said Antonio Neves, acting superintendent of the water department. 

After evaluating Dartmouth’s water supply and finding “very little to no PFAS issues,” the town has no plans to address PFAS contamination at the moment, but set aside $250,000 “just in case” they need to use it. 

The most recent consumer confidence report shows only one PFAS detection above the MCL level, Neves said.

Dighton

Dighton Water District, which supplies water for about 2,000 customers, is evaluating the measures it will take in regards to the new compliance levels. Most of the town’s water comes from public wells owned by the district, said Ernest Bacon, water superintendent. 

Bacon said changing PFAS levels in the water make it difficult to tell when the town’s water district will be in compliance and when it won’t be. 

“We could have a high PFAS level right now or in six months or we could have nothing,” Bacon said. “It depends on the shifts in the water.”

The district considered past solutions that included buying a well from Somerset that is on Dighton land, an idea that was abandoned due to finding PFAS in the well, and applying for federal grants. 

Bacon said the 2031 deadline would give Dighton more time to meet the federal standards. 

The water district is looking at purchasing water from the City of Brockton, which is considering purchasing Aquaria, a water purification company based in Dighton. If this sale goes through, the Dighton Water District might connect a water distribution line to Brockton’s feed.

But many of Dighton’s options are expensive.

“With only 2,000 customers, it’s difficult to do any infrastructure when we’re looking at six to ten million dollars,” Bacon said. 

Bacon said the town is eligible for federal grants. He hopes the federal government offers grants to smaller districts and municipalities before bigger towns.

Rehoboth

Rehoboth does not have a water department and relies mainly on private wells for their water supplies. However, some of the town’s public buildings are going through remediation measures to meet PFAS regulations.

Residents with private drinking wells need to hire testing facilities and plumbers themselves if they want to test for PFAS and then bear the remediation costs if they install filtration systems. 

Residents are not required by the state or federal government to test their private water supplies.

The town hired a consultant engineer to work with MassDEP to design a filtration system and testing for PFAS, said Susan Pimental, interim director of finance and compliance. So far, Rehoboth has spent over $700,000 to remediate PFAS and will most likely end up spending more. Costs include cleaning filtration tanks and continual testing.

The town installed one filtration system over six months ago and is working to install two others that are projected to be completed in the next six months, Pimental said.

Because the majority of the town relies on private water wells, Rehoboth does not qualify for government funding. 

Seekonk

The Seekonk Water District began a PFAS preparedness study in 2024, in collaboration with their engineers and a private company, on its water quality and how best to treat any existing PFAS chemicals, Superintendent Rob Bernardo said. One removal method the town is considering is the use of activated carbon, a widely used remedy for PFAS chemicals.

Bernardo said the Seekonk Water District is eligible for the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities federal grant. The water district also plans to submit an application for the 2026 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, a low-interest loan program through MassDEP.

The potential extended EPA deadline from 2029 to 2031 would benefit Seekonk and other areas not equipped with the systems needed for PFAS treatment, Bernardo said.

“Two years would come in handy for Seekonk,” he said. “It’s hard to imagine how this won’t help other systems as well.” 

Swansea

PFAS is at the forefront of priorities in Swansea, which gets its water from nine active wells that go through four separate treatment plants, said Jeff Sutherland, superintendent of the Swansea Water District. While PFAS are not currently above the federal limits in Swansea, Sutherland said he is concerned for the future, due to past sample results that are close to the limits.

“As far as going into immediate noncompliance, we are fine,” Sutherland said. “But I am concerned because we are right in between that level.”

Swansea is building a water treatment plant to remove manganese and iron from the town’s water. Sutherland said the building was designed to allocate sufficient space for PFAS treatment as well.

The water department, which serves 90% to 95% of the public water supply, according to Sutherland, hopes to fund any potential treatment through the State Revolving Fund from MassDEP. Additionally, the department is currently undergoing litigation with companies regarding PFAS exposure. 

The litigation would be “helpful” if the town receives money for PFAS treatment from these companies, but it won’t solve all financial problems that emerge, Sutherland said.

Wareham

The Wareham Fire District Water Department, which is responsible for 75% of Wareham’s water supply, does not have any plans for changes in its public water systems because all federal and state PFAS compliance levels are met, said Superintendent Andrew Cunningham. 

The Onset Water Department, which is separate from the Wareham Fire District Water Department, was looking to drill a new well to meet the federal standards put in place in April 2024 by the Biden administration, according to The Light’s previous article. The department did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The Southeastern Massachusetts Resource Recovery Facility, a thermomechanical treatment facility, listed plans to install PFAS treatment for its wells in The Light’s previous article. The treatment system has since been purchased. So installation will most likely begin in late 2025 once MassDEP approves the permitting, according to the Reworld SEMASS team. 

The new federal regulations and potential compliance deadline change will not have an effect on these plans. 

“The project will continue to move forward regardless of any Federal delay,” the team wrote. 

What next?

Communities across the country will wait to see if the EPA’s intended proposal to extend the compliance deadline will pass. Massachusetts towns and districts will still be required to meet state compliance limits for PFAS chemicals in the meantime. 

Erica Kyzmir-McKeon, a senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation, said the EPA’s changes could potentially be considered unlawful under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Act has a provision in place that “prevents the EPA from making standards less protective,” she said. 

She added the best solution to the issues posed by PFAS is regulating the chemicals as an entire class. 

“Instead of regulating these individual PFAS chemicals, you would be regulating the entire class of PFAS chemicals,” she said. “It’s definitely possible. There just obviously has been a lot of resistance and pushback from industries.”

Massachusetts Sen. Julian Cyr and Rep. Kate Hogan presented a bill this session to ban the use of PFAS in consumer products and to allow the state Department of Health to limit PFAS use in additional products over time and support research for safer PFAS alternatives. 

The bill, titled “An Act to Protect Public Health from PFAS,” calls for a “PFAS Remediation Trust Fund” to prioritize communities vulnerable to environmental injustice, create outreach and education programs, and mitigate impacts of PFAS contamination.

If this bill is passed, it would create more guidelines for PFAS exposure in Massachusetts from the manufacturing level and could provide communities with additional funds to remediate PFAS. 

“There’s a reason they’re called forever chemicals. They persist in our environment for thousands of years. They’re in our bloodstream for decades,” Kyzmir-McKeon said. “The government is claiming that they want to make America healthy again, [but] they’re rolling back these regulations and exposing people to these really terrible, harmful chemicals.”

Crystal Yormick, a journalism student at Boston University, is a summer intern at The New Bedford Light. She can be reached at cyormick@newbedfordlight.org.