I recently sat down with Margaret McCarthy, Drinking Water Infrastructure Practice Leader at Weston & Sampson, to explore how water providers are responding to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) contamination.
Our conversation highlights Sharon, Massachusetts’ new water treatment facility, a project supported by more than $30 million in state and federal funding and expected to come online in early 2027, and what it can teach other communities facing similar challenges.
What impact is PFAS contamination having on water service providers across Massachusetts and beyond?
PFAS standards have tightened over time. EPA issued a lifetime health advisory in 2016 (around 70 parts per trillion), and in 2024 finalized drinking water regulations that set limits as low as 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS.
In the years between, many states set their own limits—Massachusetts adopted an MCL of 20 parts per trillion for six PFAS compounds in 2020, and New Hampshire regulates four compounds—so many New England utilities began planning in the early 2020s. EPA estimates 6–10% of US utilities may need PFAS treatment under the 2024 rule, and utilities with PFAS detections are generally moving forward despite remaining regulatory uncertainties.
What are utilities doing to remediate PFAS, and where does a new treatment facility fit?
There is no single solution. Some utilities pursue new sources of supply, consider regional approaches, or adjust operations, while many move toward building treatment facilities specifically designed to remove PFAS.
Today, the most common treatment approaches used for PFAS include granular activated carbon, ion exchange, and membrane filtration. In New England, many utilities are further along because state requirements arrived earlier, and there is a longer track record with technologies like GAC and ion exchange.
What regulatory and legal hurdles had to be addressed to get the Sharon project moving?
A major driver was assembling funding and meeting the conditions tied to it. Sharon secured $2.7 million in ARPA funding, $25 million in state revolving funding, and an additional $3.4 million in EPA grants and settlement funds to help cover costs.
Those funds came with requirements, including “Buy America Act” provisions for major goods and timing constraints on when ARPA dollars had to be spent. Sharon advanced early project phases to meet those deadlines and also implemented temporary treatment to address PFAS concerns quickly.
What are the most important lessons for municipalities facing similar PFAS challenges?
Technically, water quality matters and pilot testing is critical. Some communities do well with granular activated carbon alone, while others need a combination approach, and you cannot reliably choose the right process without understanding local water chemistry.
Beyond treatment selection, strong public communication and collaboration help maintain trust during planning and construction. Acting early also improves a community’s ability to plan, design, and compete for state and federal funding.
How does the lack of precedent in Massachusetts affect the remediation approach?
PFAS treatment is changing quickly, driven by changes in testing protocols, advancements in available treatment technologies, regulatory developments, and operational learning—all of which are encouraging designers to build in flexibility. Sharon’s design allows for different media options and leaves room to modify the treatment process as requirements and best practices evolve.
Pilot testing remains the foundation for selecting what works for a specific water source, and the industry is also watching ongoing research and development on emerging materials and methods that may expand options over time.
What did the pilot program involve?
Sharon had a practical, real-world demonstration because the town installed temporary ion exchange treatment relatively quickly, which showed performance at full scale and helped keep water available at full capacity.
In parallel, the pilot study used small columns to test different media types and configurations, including combinations with chemical treatment, to identify the most efficient operating approach. Media selection ultimately reflected what performed best in that pilot work.
If your organization is navigating PFAS regulations, funding, or implementation of treatment, Nixon Peabody can help evaluate options and manage the legal and regulatory path to delivery.