We're kicking off this initiative with the finding that actually got a few of us looking closely at Hanson's water in the first place: manganese levels in the Crystal Spring Well Field's own reported testing have been climbing, from a 162–257 parts-per-billion (ppb) range in the 2024 Consumer Confidence Report to 407 ppb in a November 2025 sample and 549 ppb this past May — roughly eleven times EPA's secondary (aesthetic) guideline of 50 ppb.
To be clear about what this is and isn't: manganese is not a manufactured contaminant, and EPA doesn't regulate it with an enforceable health-based limit the way it does PFAS or lead. It's a naturally occurring mineral, and Hanson's own wells sit in an aquifer that MassDEP's 2003 Source Water Assessment rated as highly vulnerable — no confining clay layer means the wells are more exposed to whatever is happening at ground level, mineral content included. Manganese mostly means taste, odor, and staining concerns rather than a violation. But EPA does flag a separate, higher short-term threshold (1,000 ppb) and a specific caution about infant formula preparation above 300 ppb, and Hanson's most recent reading is approaching that range. That's worth knowing plainly, not glossing over.
See the full sampling history and sourcing on our Water data page.
Long before there was a federal PFAS rule, there was a Massachusetts one. In October 2020, MassDEP finalized an enforceable drinking water standard — a Maximum Contaminant Level, or MCL — of 20 parts per trillion for the combined total of six PFAS compounds, a grouping the state calls "PFAS6": PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, PFHpA, and PFDA.
At the time, this made Massachusetts one of a small number of states with any enforceable PFAS standard at all. For Hanson specifically, this is good news to report plainly: the combined total of PFAS6-family compounds detected in the town's water — drawing mostly from Hanson's own wells, with a couple of specific compounds attributed to the Brockton backup connection — comes to roughly 7 parts per trillion, well under the state's 20 ppt threshold.
Source: Mass.gov — Massachusetts PFAS Drinking Water Standard (MCL).
Until April 2024, there was no federal limit on PFAS in drinking water at all — only the Massachusetts state standard set in 2020. That changed when EPA finalized its National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for PFAS: the first time PFAS compounds have been individually, enforceably regulated at the federal level.
The rule set limits of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) each for PFOA and PFOS, 10 ppt each for three additional compounds (PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA), and a combined "Hazard Index" limit for mixtures of those plus PFBS. Water systems nationwide were given until 2027 to complete initial monitoring and until 2029 to come into full compliance.
For Hanson, this rule doesn't change much in practice: the town's PFOA (2.58 ppt) and PFOS (2.47 ppt) readings already sit comfortably below the new 4 ppt limits, and the same is true for PFHxS and PFNA against their 10 ppt limits. Unlike some neighboring systems where this rule turned an existing number into a looming compliance question, Hanson's numbers give it room to spare.
Source: Federal Register — PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.
We said we wouldn't manufacture a PFAS scare here, and the data backs that up. Every PFAS compound detected in Hanson's water — PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA — tests below its applicable federal individual limit, and the combined PFAS6 total is roughly a third of the Massachusetts standard. Two of those compounds (PFNA and PFDA) are specifically attributed to the Brockton backup interconnection rather than Hanson's own Crystal Spring wells.
That's a genuinely different story than towns where PFAS has turned up above legal limits. If Hanson's water has a headline issue, it's manganese and mineral content tied to the aquifer, not PFAS — and we think it's just as important to say that plainly as it would be to flag a real problem.
See the full compound-by-compound breakdown on our Water data page.
On May 18, 2026, EPA announced two proposals that affect the federal PFAS rule described above. The first would let water systems request a two-year extension — from 2029 to 2031 — to comply with the enforceable limits for PFOA and PFOS. The second would rescind the individual limits for three other PFAS compounds (PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA/GenX) and the combined "Hazard Index" limit for mixtures of those plus PFBS, on the grounds that EPA says the prior administration didn't follow required Safe Drinking Water Act procedure in setting them.
What doesn't change: the 4 ppt limits for PFOA and PFOS individually are not part of either rescission proposal. For Hanson, none of this changes much either way — the town's readings are already well under every limit being discussed, extended deadline or not.
EPA held a virtual public hearing on July 7, 2026, and the public comment docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2025-1742) remained open through July 20, 2026. Nothing here is final; treat the 2024 rule as the current baseline until EPA actually finalizes a change.
See the full regulatory timeline for how this fits with the 2020 state standard and the 2024 federal rule.
System-wide data only tells part of the story — service lines, home plumbing, and private wells can all change what actually comes out of your tap.
Request a free water test