Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Well Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gardner City Board of Health reviews Massachusetts model private-well regulations; discusses adding PFAS testing
Summary
Health department staff introduced state model private-well rules and proposed updating local regulations to add PFAS testing, clearer definitions, and revised setback distances; board asked staff to draft tracked changes for review.
The Gardner City Board of Health began a discussion about adopting parts of Massachusetts' model private-well regulations and whether to update local rules to include PFAS testing, clearer definitions, and modified setback distances.
Micah, a Health Department staff member, presented the state model and said the model would “include testing for certain PFAS substances, with how we've seen it popping up in towns around the area. I think it would definitely be a good idea to add that.” Micah noted the model also emphasizes licensed well drillers, submission of drilling logs, and clearer definitions distinguishing private potable wells from educational wells.
Board members compared Gardner City's current requirements — which list a range of secondary parameters such as turbidity, alkalinity, calcium, color, odor, sulfate and total dissolved solids — with the state model, which omits a list of aesthetic parameters but adds PFAS and recommends that boards require wells meet state primary and secondary drinking water standards and guidelines. The board discussed whether to keep Gardner's broader parameter list for consumer information while using state primary standards as the basis for issuing water-supply certificates.
Members also discussed setback distances: the state model suggests a 100-foot setback from dry wells or certain collection features; Gardner's existing rule includes a 10-foot setback from buildings, which the board proposed to retain. Micah said he would draft a tracked-changes version of the regulations comparing the current local rules with the state model for the board to review at a subsequent meeting.
No formal vote was taken; the board directed staff to prepare a draft revision and to mark changes so members can compare language line by line before voting.
