Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality Pfas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Millis Board of Health defers irrigation-well PFAS rule after expert testimony; staff to refine draft for June 2
Summary
After expert testimony on PFAS exposure, the Millis Board of Health agreed to postpone finalizing irrigation-well language in its updated well regulations and to collect more data and clearer wording before voting. A state researcher urged basing any irrigation standard on risk analysis rather than an arbitrary higher limit.
Millis 'Millis Board of Health members agreed on May 21 to delay final approval of irrigation-well provisions in updated well regulations after extended discussion and outside expert testimony on PFAS risks.
The meeting focused on draft language that would explicitly bring irrigation wells and their distribution systems under the board's permitting and testing authority. Ethan Maskeb, an interim staff member in the health department, urged changing permissive wording in the draft from "wells may be tested" to "wells shall be tested" and recommended treating irrigation systems as part of the regulated distribution system.
"I would change that first sentence from 'may be tested' to 'shall be tested,'" Maskeb told the board, arguing the change would make clear whether testing is mandatory or advisory.
The numeric threshold for regulating PFAS in irrigation water proved the central dispute. The draft showed two different numbers: 20 parts per trillion (ppt) for drinking water (the stated Massachusetts PFAS-6 sum standard) and a proposed 50 ppt threshold for irrigation. Board members pressed for the scientific basis of any level that would be adopted and whether aerosolized spray or downstream groundwater recharge made separate irrigation limits appropriate.
Wendy Heiger Bernays, who identified herself as a professor emerita at Boston University School of Public Health and chief of research in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's Office of Research and Standards, joined remotely and explained the state's approach. "In Massachusetts, there are six PFAS chemicals that are regulated ... the sum of the six PFAS is 20 nanograms per liter or parts per trillion," she said, describing how drinking-water standards are derived to protect the most susceptible populations.
Bernays also cautioned that irrigation-related exposure pathways (inhalation of aerosols, deposition to soil and plant uptake, and recharge to groundwater) complicate the picture and recommended risk analyses and peer-review for complex sites. She warned that adopting an arbitrary, higher number without a defendable technical basis could be vulnerable to challenge.
Given the outstanding drafting questions and requests for clearer language about when rules apply (for example, to new wells, to point-of-sale, or to retroactive testing), the board voted to move the irrigation-specific portion of the regulations to its next meeting on June 2, 2025, asking staff to obtain more data, tighten wording in the draft on the record, and invite additional technical assistance.
The board also discussed related implementation issues raised by other towns, including using municipal hookups as an option, state legislation creating low-cost loan programs for treatment, and the possibility of phased compliance timelines. Board members said they prefer defensible, data-driven thresholds and noted that regulations may be revised again as new science emerges.
The delay preserves time for staff to consult DEP guidance, collect comparative municipal language, and prepare recommended text for the June meeting. The board did not adopt a final numeric standard on May 21.
The board is scheduled to take up the irrigation-well regulation item on June 2. The meeting record shows the board intends to publish refined draft language and to seek additional expert and departmental input before any binding vote.
