Five years ago, New Jersey was a leader in the battle against so-called forever chemicals in drinking water. It imposed first-in-the-nation limits on one particularly prevalent danger, and followed that with tough rules on two other substances.

Now the state’s nation-leading efforts against these PFAS chemicals are being upstaged by new federal proposals that would set even stricter limits on two of those chemicals, leaving New Jersey, like other states, playing catch-up.

A day after the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection released a statement that indicated hundreds of utilities will be out of compliance with the new rules being proposed.

“Initial analysis of initial New Jersey PFOA and PFOS sampling data shows that under EPA’s proposed rule, a significant number of New Jersey water systems would exceed the proposed MCLs (maximum contaminant limits),” the DEP said in a statement.

As of Tuesday, 95 New Jersey water systems have incurred at least one violation of the current state health limits for PFAS, the DEP said. Under the new rules, it estimated that “three to four times” as many utilities would exceed the proposed health limits for those two chemicals.

The proposed federal limit of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for the two chemicals is more than 60% stricter than New Jersey’s existing requirements. Still, experts said the state’s current limits have been beneficial and helped prevent the public from being exposed to hazardous levels of the chemicals.

PFAS — going nowhere fast

PFAS chemicals have been used in many consumer products including nonstick cookware and flame-retardant fabrics since the 1940s, and are now linked to illnesses including some cancers, developmental problems in young children and high cholesterol. They do not biodegrade — earning the moniker “forever chemicals” — so can be found in the environment long after they were originally used.

“New Jersey and other states that have already adopted MCLs are in better shape than those that haven’t,” said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of Delaware Riverkeeper Network, an environmental group that has long campaigned for tighter PFAS regulation throughout the Delaware River Basin.

“New Jersey has already required treatment for communities that show PFOA, PFOS and PFNA concentrations that are above the state MCLs. So the treatment systems are already in and operating,” she said.

‘We have to carry through on our commitment in New Jersey to protect people from the harmful health effects of PFAS chemicals — period.’ —  Tracy Carluccio, Delaware Riverkeeper Network

Utilities that exceed the federal level for the chemicals will have to install new filters to comply, and that will add to costs but they will be worth the price of protecting public health, Carluccio said.

“What is the value of protecting the health of people, what are the costs that are pushed on people who develop conditions or disease linked with these toxic compounds? What is the value of a baby being born without developmental defects linked to these toxic compounds?” she asked. “We have to carry through on our commitment in New Jersey to protect people from the harmful health effects of PFAS chemicals — period.”

EPA’s criteria

New Jersey is one of 21 states that have proposed or adopted limits on PFAS, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Andy Kricun, the former head of Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, said New Jersey’s regulatory limits already protect public health and that the new federal limits would offer an additional level of protection.

“It’s not like a light switch that’s either on or off, but more like a continuum of risk,” said Kricun, who now heads Moonshot Missions, a nonprofit that helps underserved communities improve water infrastructure. “What EPA is saying is that the New Jersey level is protective to a certain level, they feel that it does not reduce the health risk enough.”

The EPA said its proposed new regulatory level was chosen because the agency is required to identify a level as close as feasible to a “maximum contaminant level goal” which in the case of likely carcinogens such as PFOA and PFOS is zero. The agency identified 4 ppt after considering utilities’ ability to measure and treat for the substance, as well as the costs and benefits of complying with that level.