Utilities brace for stricter federal standards on PFAS compounds in drinking water
Far more “forever chemicals” are present in New Jersey drinking water systems than are currently regulated by the state and some utilities would not meet new health standards the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed for them, according to new federal data.
In mid-August, the EPA released the first tranche of results from a new round of national testing for the toxic chemicals in water systems. In New Jersey, it found 28 utilities detected some of the 29 chemicals that EPA was testing for, some at levels that would not comply with rigorous new federal health limits if they are finalized.
Although the utilities mostly met the state’s health-based requirements for two of the PFAS chemicals — PFOA and PFOS — they would have exceeded much stricter levels proposed by the EPA for those chemicals, which are among the most common and well-studied of the PFAS class.
At Park Ridge Water Department, for example, EPA testing this spring found PFOA at 9.8 parts per trillion (ppt) in one system. Although that complies with New Jersey’s limit of 14 ppt, it would not meet the proposed federal requirement of 4 ppt if that is adopted, as expected, later this year or early in 2024.
At New Jersey American Water, the state’s biggest investor-owned water company, the EPA found PFOS at 6.3 ppt in the company’s Washington-Oxford system, well within the state standard of 13 ppt but outside the 4 ppt level that the EPA plans to require.
And in one system operated by Ridgewood Water, a municipally owned utility, PFOA was found at 29.8 ppt, a level that exceeded both the state standard and the one proposed by the EPA.
Rich Calbi, director of operations at Ridgewood Water, declined to comment on the new data, but noted that the utility is trying to recoup the costs of complying with state PFAS regulations by suing PFAS manufacturers including 3M.
EPA’s ‘maximum contamination limit’
Commissioner Shawn LaTourette of the state Department of Environmental Protection warned in June that more than 70 public water systems do not meet New Jersey’s required health limits for the three state-regulated PFAS chemicals, and that number is likely to rise into the “hundreds” when the EPA finalizes its much stricter health limits on PFAS in drinking water.
In March, EPA published its plans to require a “maximum contaminant limit” on six PFAS chemicals including PFOA and PFOS. The action addressed a long-standing lack of PFAS regulation at the federal level, which led New Jersey and some other states to protect public health by setting their own standards. Those levels are now expected to be superseded by the EPA rules, whenever they become effective.
The new requirements would mean utilities would have to install a higher standard of filtration on their water supplies, resulting in higher costs that could be passed on to ratepayers.
PFAS, synthetic chemicals that are resistant to heat and stains, have been used in a wide range of products since the 1940s, including fire-fighting foam and non-stick cookware. They are linked with an array of serious health problems including some cancers, developmental issues in young children, reduced vaccine response and elevated cholesterol. They are known as forever chemicals because they don’t break down in the environment, and accumulate in the human body. Scientists say the chemicals are present in the bloodstream of virtually every American.
The new requirements would mean utilities would have to install a higher standard of filtration on their water supplies, resulting in higher costs that could be passed on to ratepayers.
New Jersey American Water said it is studying how it would comply with the new federal standards. “As we examine our facilities against the EPA’s proposed national standards for PFAS, we are analyzing where investments will need to be made, in both our ground water and surface water treatment plants,” the company said in a statement.
Finding new sources of contamination
The new test results show both a broader and deeper assessment of PFAS contamination in New Jersey than has been undertaken by the DEP so far, said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the environmental nonprofit Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and a longtime campaigner for tighter public-health standards for PFAS.
By testing water systems for 29 PFAS chemicals, plus lithium, rather than just the three that New Jersey regulates, and by sampling to a much lower level than it did in earlier rounds, the EPA is looking harder at the problem, and is discovering new sources of contamination, Carluccio said.
“We can clearly see that New Jersey’s PFAS contamination problem is as big and even bigger than everyone has thought,” she said.
In addition to the well-known and increasingly regulated PFAS chemicals, the new testing also found other kinds of PFAS which may turn out to be just as toxic, Carluccio said.
“Just because we don’t have much information about a compound doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous,” she said. “Just look at the ones we do regulate — not long ago PFOA and PFOS were not considered dangerous either and now EPA is saying even a trace level of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water is too dangerous to tolerate.”
The new tests are part of the fifth round of a federal process called the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), which aims to test water systems of all sizes over the next three years. So far, it has only tested 7% of the total. In a sign of how much more rigorous current testing is than previous rounds, samples are sought at one-fifth of the detection level used previously.
But in its own PFAS testing, New Jersey has also used a low detection limit, and in 2016 found PFOA in more than 10% of public water systems, or some five times higher than the 1.9% rate seen nationally.
‘To protect people from these highly toxic compounds, water suppliers should voluntarily install treatment technologies or replace water supplies if there is any trace of PFAS in the tap water they deliver.’ — Tracy Carluccio, Delaware Riverkeeper Network
DEP spokesman Larry Hajna said it’s not helpful to compare state and federal testing because the EPA regime tests for many more chemicals.
“The purpose of UCMR5 is to provide EPA and other interested parties with data on the occurrence of these chemicals to improve EPA’s understanding of the frequency of their occurrence in the nation’s drinking water and at what levels,” Hajna said. “It is much too early to draw any conclusions or attempt to make any comparisons.”
In early August, the DEP’s PFAS regulations were strongly defended by the state’s Superior Court, which rejected a claim by the New Jersey Business and Industry Association and other business groups that the agency had been “arbitrary and capricious” in regulating the chemicals.
Meanwhile, Carluccio predicted the DEP would respond to the expected new federal standards by lowering its current maximum contaminant limits on the three regulated compounds, and perhaps by regulating more of them.
In advance of any change in state or federal regulations, water companies should voluntarily ensure their water is PFAS-free, she said.
“To protect people from these highly toxic compounds, water suppliers should voluntarily install treatment technologies or replace water supplies if there is any trace of PFAS in the tap water they deliver,” Carluccio said. “This will protect public health and also be a sound investment by water suppliers because the requirement for compete removal is going to come.”
Source: NJ Spotlight News