Share This Article
The Sudbury Water District has taken a “proactive approach” dealing with PFAS chemicals, budgeting about $10 million to install carbon filter systems at its Raymond Road and East Street water treatment facilities, Vincent J. Roy, executive director, noted at a public forum on PFAS contamination in Sudbury. Other speakers at the forum discussed pending legislation to ban PFAS chemicals in the state.
The forum, “Should I Be Worried? PFAS in Sudbury,” was sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Sudbury March 11. It is available on SudburyTV cable channels and on SudburyTV’s video on demand service. PFAS or “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances” is a class of chemicals often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment or in human bodies.
The Sudbury Water District (SWD) began testing for PFAS in late 2017 after contamination was found in the lake across from the fire-fighting academy in Stow. Fire-fighting foam contains PFAS. “We found some trace levels,” Roy said.
In 2020, the state Department of Environment Protection issued a maximum concentration limit for PFAS of 20 parts per trillion.
“We were under 20 parts per trillion, but over 10 parts per trillion, so we are required to test monthly,” he said. While SWD was required to test, it was not required to treat the water supply.
“We decided to take a proactive approach to funding treatment,” including a state grant of $111,169 for a feasibility study, Roy said.
The first treatment system—four large concrete vessels filled with carbon—will be finished in April at the Raymond Road treatment plant at a cost of about $2.7 million.
The District has just received bids for the second treatment system for the East Street location, and Roy said the estimates for that location are a bit higher, $4.5 million, because of additional supporting construction required. Once East Street is completed, two other seasonal wells will have to be addressed.
In addition to the state funding, SWD is included in litigation against the manufacturer of fire-fighting foam, and may be able to offset some treatment costs, depending on the outcome of that lawsuit, Roy said.
Some funding will also come from water rates, “but we don’t want to go over a 5 per cent increase a year,” he said, noting the District just put a 4.2 per cent increase into effect.
The steps the District has taken already have helped. “Test results are trending down, below 10 parts per trillion in the two major treatment facilities, and 15 to 18 parts per trillion in the other two. We now average about 10 parts per trillion.”
Asked about the use of filters on household water faucets, Roy suggested homeowners look at the information on the MassDEP website on such filters and on steps to take if they have a private well.
Deirdre Cummings, legislative director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG), and Carolyn Lee, legislative specialist dealing with natural resources legislation for the state League of Women Voters, advocated for a bill, H.2197/ S.1356, An Act to Protect Massachusetts Public Health from PFAS, which seeks to ban products containing PFAS in Massachusetts.
Lee noted the only way to reduce PFAS contamination over time “is to stop making more of them. When the tub is overflowing, you need to turn off the spigot.” She urged people to contact their state legislators in support of the bill.
Describing the legislative process as “challenging,” Cummings said a minimum goal is to phase out or ban as many PFAS-containing products as possible; prevent further contamination by limiting industrial discharge, requiring labelling and controlling disposal of sludge; and create a fund for remediation efforts.
PFAS contamination above the state maximum safe level, she noted, has been found in 171 public water systems.
All PFAS chemical have been found to be toxic, Lee said. “They bind to immune and endocrine sites in the body and accumulate, interfering with normal biochemistry. They resist degradation in the body, water, soils, everywhere.” Among the products containing PFAS are artificial turf, non-stick cookware, raincoats, microwave popcorn bags, fast-food packaging, and stain-resistant textiles.
The Sudbury Water District’s PFAS report is on its website.
Nancy Brumback is a freelance reporter; she was a member of the committee organizing this forum.