Treating PFAS in Drinking Water in Hyannis, Massachusetts

HK: Well, the interesting part about Hyannis is that we have the Nantucket Sound shoreline where there are a lot of mansions. But as soon as you go inland, you have an environmental justice community where people don’t have a lot of money. The other aspect of Hyannis is that it’s a very commercial village. Actually, it’s more of a city than a village, but it’s still part of the Town of Barnstable as one of the seven villages.

SSI: When did you first learn about PFAS and what was your reaction?

HK: The first time I heard about PFAS was around 2010 when Silent Spring Institute did an emerging contaminant study on Cape Cod with the public drinking water supply systems. That was the first time I heard about it. The study showed not only PFAS in the water as an emerging contaminant, but it also showed a variety of other contaminants. I wasn’t that concerned at the time because the PFAS levels were only half of the federal health advisory levels, and so there was no reason for alarm.

The second time I heard about it was more concerning. That was during, or basically just after, the federally mandated UCMR 3 (Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, third cycle) testing that public water supply systems are required to do. That was around 2014, 2015. And that’s when we began to understand it better. We had to start talking to senior leadership, to MassDEP and Silent Spring, because they were the experts on what in those levels meant and what we could do about it.

SSI: Can you walk us though what you did to address PFAS? Were there any challenges balancing treatment upgrades while keeping the public water system running?

HK: We started having conversations internally with senior leadership. We talked to the people who were dealing with the fire training academy, because that’s where the highest levels were. And we started to develop plans to install activated carbon filtration systems on the two worst wells.

The first thing we did was blend the water, basically diluting and mixing water from different wells to lower PFAS concentrations. That worked for a little while, but it wasn’t a good long-term solution. At certain points, we had to give out bottled water and flush the distribution system. So, we gradually installed more and more activated carbon filtration systems. The biggest issue is always funding. We have different setups at different wells sites and treatment plants, because there isn’t one solution that works everywhere. 

We also constructed and installed interconnections with our neighboring water systems. They helped us out with delivering water we purchased from them, so we were able to meet summer demand.

SSI: That’s helpful background. Seems like activated carbon is the go-to for treatment. How did you pick activated carbon over other treatment options, and what do you do with the activated carbon after you’ve changed it out?

HK: We looked at activated carbon as the least expensive long-term option, especially when you look at the replenishment of the media. After a while, you get bleed through—the activated carbon doesn’t work anymore and then you have to replace it. The replacement costs for the other media were double that of activated carbon. For us, that was the way to go. Within activated carbon, you have a couple of different options. We tried coconut-based activated carbon, but that didn’t work for us. Here on the Cape, we have fairly low-pH water. It’s very acidic. But we found coal-based activated carbon worked best.

After the activated carbon is spent, we remove it and transport it by bulk tractor-trailer to a place south of Buffalo, New York. There, they reactivate it and keep it specially for us in a separate batch. The next time we need an exchange, they bring it back. The good thing is it’s a heck of a lot cheaper that way. The bad thing is that no matter what you do, you lose about 20 or 25 percent of it during the reactivation process. That means you have to add about 20 or 25 percent of virgin activated carbon to make up for the loss. An exchange like that costs about $20,000 and takes about four to six hours to do.

SSI: How long do the filters last? How many change outs are you doing each year?

HK: We have a total of 12 wells in Hyannis. They’re in three different clusters. Each well has two units, two vessels, a lead, and a lag. The raw water goes through the first filter, which cleans it all up. And then as a safety measure, it goes to a second filter. If there’s an issue with the first filter, we always have an extra one. We change the filters out roughly two to three times a year. So, you can see how costly it is to do this.

SSI: I wanted to pick up on that idea of cost. What are some of the treatment costs, and what’s been your experience financing treatment?

HK: You need one unit of filters per well. They’re about $300,000 to 400,000. Then you need to put buildings around them so that you can use them year round. That’s another $300,000 to 400,000. And then the installation with the cranes and large piping and equipment and power and SCADA controls, that’s roughly another $400,000. So, on average to treat for PFAS, you’re talking about $1.2 million per well. This was before COVID. Since then, prices have pretty much doubled. Today, you’re looking at about $2.5 million per well.

The other cost is the water sampling, not only for compliance with DEP standards, but also for the sampling we do every month—we call it process control— to make sure that our filtration systems work how they’re supposed to. We sample monthly at the well. We sample after the first vessel, which is the lead. We sample after the last vessel, which is the lag. And then we sample the plant tap, which is where the water goes out of the treatment plant and into the distribution system. MassDEP is only interested in the quarterly sampling of the plant tap because it wants to keep the public safe. But as a water supplier, we do a lot of sampling to control and monitor the treatment process itself. Each sample costs about $200. So you’re talking about $100,000 to 150,000 a year for just sampling.  

SSI: Other water districts might want to know how did you pay for that? Is that all from the customers?

HK: The Hyannis Water System is an enterprise account. So even though it’s owned by the municipality, the rates and fees support all our expenses. It’s full cost recovery. Most of the construction—pretty much all of it—happened via municipal bonds or via the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program here in Massachusetts. The ratepayers pay the principal interest on that. We did get some principal forgiveness. Because it’s an SRF program, we have low interest loans. We also got a couple of grants, but that’s pretty much it.

SSI: What are some of the other obstacles you faced in putting in place the treatment?

And, of course, most of these announcements came out in April or May. That didn’t give us a lot of time to get treatment systems in place for the summertime demand. So timing is always an issue.

What really helped me was that a lot of the consulting engineers and the personnel at MassDEP were very supportive and helpful in trying to get the construction of these facilities permitted in an expedited way. That was helpful.

SSI: How do you think regulatory uncertainty might affect other water districts?

HK: The writing is on the wall. I would say, even if a certain standard goes up or goes away, in another 5 or 10 years, it will come back. You’re going to have to treat no matter what you do. So, you might as well take care of it and be prepared.

SSI: That’s a good message.

HK: Not a fun message, but it is what it is. And long term, it will help your customer. You’ll get more support from customers when they know that their water system is taking care of things appropriately.

SSI: Do you have any tips for working with consulting groups or getting funding for construction? How do you find consultants and how would a water system go about finding the right consultants?

HK: There are different ways to find consultants. A lot of water utilities have an engineering firm on retainer on a long-term basis. The other way is via an RFP, or request for proposals, process. That’s what the Town of Barnstable does when it has too many projects. We are required to have a competitive process for bidding, for engineering consultant firms as well. We develop a scope of services for an RFP. Then it goes out to public bidding, and we pick the most qualified firm—not necessarily the cheapest firm, but the one with the best price and quality of proposal. Even though it’s kind of painful and takes a long time, it’s a good process and this is how you get a good consultant on board.

SSI: Have you noticed any other benefits in terms of water quality, having put all that activated carbon in place?

HK: Yes, definitely. Because we installed activated carbon filtration—especially at the beginning—on raw, groundwater wells, it also provides the added benefit of filtering out sediment, iron, and manganese. That does create a problem for operations because you get a pressure differential and if it’s more than 10 or 15 psi (pounds per square inch), you have to backwash. But, for the customer, it provides better water quality because you don’t have iron and sediment in the water. That’s a good thing. The other added benefit is that trace amounts of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), get filtered out as well. So overall water quality is definitely improved. And we’ve received positive feedback on that, especially from our commercial customers, laundromats, etc.

SSI: How did the community initially respond when they learned about PFAS and other emerging contaminants in the drinking water, and how has that response evolved over time?

HK: It’s actually surprising. I thought it would be worse than it was. We’ve been pretty open and straightforward. We informed senior leadership and the board and all our customers very early in the process. There was a lot of communication and press coverage, and because of that, we haven’t really had much pushback. People were concerned and had questions, but I think by us reaching out early and often, we had the support of the community. The other thing that has helped is that we revisit our rates every year and so we can closely manage the rate increases. That way, there’s less shock and we’re able to absorb a pretty aggressive capital project. People in Hyannis are concerned about drinking water, and that’s not a bad thing. Ongoing communication with the public about how we are keeping them and their water safe is paying off.

SSI: What are the key lessons you’ve learned?

HK: Nothing! I’m just kidding. I would say one of the biggest lessons learned is that you can’t deal with large problems or major issues on your own. It really requires a lot of communication and collaboration with not only regulators and consultants, but also with senior leadership and surrounding towns. And that definitely pays off in the long run. I would say, communicate openly and often, don’t try to hide anything. Be open and upfront and come up with a plan to address the issue. When you do that, you will get support most of the time from places you didn’t expect.