A significant portion of the discussion focused on the “fif” regulation related to PFAS levels. It was revealed that well number five exceeded the new regulation threshold for PFAS, prompting an examination of sampling procedures. Previously, water samples from different wells were blended for testing. However, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) suggested a shift toward separate testing for wells five and two, as well as one and four, due to the failed sample from well five. The DEP emphasized the importance of focusing on running averages rather than individual sample results. This regulatory shift necessitates a reevaluation of the water district’s testing protocols to ensure compliance and maintain water quality standards.

In addition to PFAS regulation, the board also considered the logistical challenges associated with fire hydrant operations. The discussion was spurred by a recent incident on Pleasant Street. There was a proposal for a water department representative to be present at hydrant operations. This suggestion highlighted a perceived gap in current practices, with the potential to prevent disturbances in the water system during fire responses.

The conversation also touched on the need for enhanced training and education for fire department personnel regarding hydrant use. There was broad agreement that better understanding and coordination between the fire department and water district could mitigate risks to the water infrastructure, especially given the age of the pipes. The idea of after-action reports was floated.

Financial implications of emergency responses were another topic of concern. The board discussed the costs associated with fire department call-outs, particularly during weekends. Suggestions were made to improve education within the fire department to potentially reduce these expenses. It was noted that even minor operational cost savings could accumulate over time, emphasizing the financial prudence of such measures.

The meeting also addressed the Massachusetts DEP’s evolving regulations, particularly the anticipated lowering of acceptable contaminant levels to four parts per trillion. This change could impose new compliance requirements on the water district, though specifics and timelines from the DEP remain unclear. These evolving standards necessitate proactive planning and adaptation from the board to align with state directives.

Another operational discussion involved the potential installation of pressure relief valves for new fire connections to manage water surges. While these valves could prevent damage, they would impose additional costs on property owners. This raised concerns about fairness and the financial burden on the community.

The board also considered the ongoing concerns related to hard water and its impact on the treatment process. Hard water can interfere with filtration and treatment efficacy, complicating compliance with contaminant regulations. While initial tests offered some promise, regulatory requirements have delayed full implementation of treatment plans. The economic implications of disposing of contaminated byproducts were also noted.