DEP Masks Health Effects, People Exposed, And Risk Levels For Pollutants
Waivers For Monitoring For Synthetic Chemicals Raises Red Flags
No Mention of Over 500 Unregulated Chemicals Known To Contaminate NJ Drinking Water
No Mention of Pollution Threats To Source Water
Contrary to the spin, Lead remains a serious problem, including at schools and day care centers
The Murphy DEP recently released the annual compliance report required under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The DEP Report documents violations of federal and State drinking water regulations and standards (read the full Report here).
The DEP Report paints an exceedingly rosy, but incomplete and misleading picture of the quality of NJ drinking water and the health risks posed to consumers of that water. This is done in two ways: by omission of relevant information and by selective presentation and aggregation of data. There are no citations to the relevant science and other DEP documents or links provided to relevant sources.
Despite these omissions, perhaps the key finding that is presented in the Report was about violations of new drinking water standards (known as MCL’s, for “maximum contaminant levels”), for “forever chemicals” PFAS. Violations have more than tripled over the last 2 years and continue to increase:
For 2021 the number of MCL violations was three times what has been incurred in previous years. This was due to the newly implemented State SDWA requirements for three (3) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In 2022, the number of MCL violations continued to increase due to PFAS substances, as shown in Figure 3B. Of the 494 MCL violations incurred in 2022, 393 of them were for one of the PFAS chemicals.
Those violations will continue to increase when US EPA’s proposed new lower (more stringent) federal standards are adopted next year.
The DEP Report does not quantify the number of NJ residents that are drinking water that exceeds “safe” levels and threatens public health for these toxic chemicals. The DEP Report also does not mention the health effects posed by these chemicals or the risks of diseases. Those are huge omissions.
At the very end of the Report (page 43), here is how DEP – in the passive voice – vaguely describes these health risks. Note that child care centers are included (many schools are not mentioned) and yet the individual water systems in violation and the location of these systems was not provided:
These compounds have been detected in drinking water supplies in New Jersey and pose serious health threats to consumers. PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA accumulate in the human body, and exposure to low concentrations of the contaminants in drinking water increases concentrations in human blood serum that persist for many years after exposure ends. Table 17 lists the MCLs that have been established for these compounds.
In 2022, a total of 1,143 public water systems were required to monitor for PFAS chemicals, including 13 transient and non-public water systems that are child care center centers. Of these, 12% incurred a violation. Table 18 provides details for all PFAS violations incurred, Figure 24 shows the overall percentage of public water systems that incurred PFAS violations, and Figure 25 shows the percentage of each type of violation incurred. Further details concerning each type of violation are provided in Sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2.
If providing basic toxicology and risk information was perceived to be too complex or beyond the scope of this Report, DEP should have provided citations and links to the science and health related information. Omission of this information is a highly misleading practice.
Doing the math (12% of 1,143), 137 drinking water systems violate these health based standards. There is no data on whether these are large or small systems or the number of people exposed.
The reader must plow all the way to the end of the Report to Appendix C on page 70 to find the names of the drinking water systems that violate standards (over 30 pages!). The identity of schools and day care centers are buried even further in Appendix D (another 40+ pages!). Readers should go directly there to find out if your local water system is in violation.
As I’ve been arguing, these troubling data strongly support the need for an alternative “treatment based approach” which mandates available treatment technology to remove these chemicals, hundreds of them unregulated.
But these are just a small part of the important omissions in the DEP Report.
Important Omissions Downplay Risks
1. Health Effects, Exposed Population, And Level of Risk
Revealingly, the DEP Report mentions the word “cancer” exactly once (on page 38). The term is limited to naturally occurring radiological contaminants like radon and uranium.
The DEP does not use the term “cancer” to describe the heath effects of or the scientific and regulatory basis for setting MCL’s for chemicals.
As I previously explained, the DEP limits the term “cancer” to naturally occurring contaminants, because rocks don’t have lawyers and lobbyists, like the chemical industry does, see:
Note how in reporting violations of radiological MCL’s, the DEP does not report critically important information, including: the name and location of the public water supply system; the number of people exposed; the levels detected; or the aggregate or individual cancer risks posed to people drinking that water. This is a pervasive omission throughout the Report. Note also that DEP is not seeking enforcement for these ongoing and uncorrected violations:
3.7.2 RADIOLOGICAL RULE: MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL VIOLATIONS
In 2022, NJDEP issued 13 MCL violations for combined radium, gross alpha and combined uranium at six (6) public water systems. As of May 5, 2023, none of these systems have met the MCL and returned to compliance. The Division is working with these systems to assist them in returning to compliance.
2. NJ Law more stringent than federal law – basis for adopting MCL’s – status of delayed recommended MCLs
The DEP Report fails to even mention that the NJ State law directs DEP to set drinking water MCL’s that are more stringent that the US EPA under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The NJ State law sets a more stringent risk level of 1 in a million individual cancer risk, while US EPA under federal law allows up to a 100 times weaker risk range of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 risk. The NJ State law also does not allow consideration of costs in setting MCL’s or the extent of the population exposed. The federal law allows EPA to consider costs and the extent of the population exposed.
The DEP Report does not mention any of these key differences in federal and State law. It does not define what “safe for human consumption” means. And it vaguely describes the NJ law as “a process for setting drinking water standards.“
The DEP Report also fails to provide information regarding the status of over a dozen MCL’s recommended by the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute and DEP’s failure to adopt them, see:
Hence, the DEP Report ignores science, downplays health risks, and misleads readers.
Here is how the DEP describes the basis of how MCL’s are set by US EPA and NJ DEP – and as I note below, this leaves out critical information and not just about cancer risks:
2.3.1. MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS (MCL)
The USEPA set MCLs at the national level. An MCL is the allowable limit of a contaminant in drinking water to ensure it is safe for human consumption. MCLs ensure that drinking water does not pose either a short-term or long-term health risk. New Jersey has adopted all the federal MCLs. In addition to the national standards, the 1984 amendments to the New Jersey SDWA established New Jersey’s Drinking Water Quality Institute, along with a process for setting drinking water standards. The Drinking Water Quality Institute is responsible for developing MCLs or standards for hazardous contaminants in drinking water and for recommending those standards as well as recommendations for the implementation of the drinking water quality program to the Commissioner of the NJDEP. Additionally, the Drinking Water Quality Institute has the authority to select additional contaminants to regulate, if needed. Both the Federal SDWA and the New Jersey SDWA require that any standards adopted by the NJDEP be equal to or more stringent than federal standards.
3. Synthetic Organic Chemical Waivers
As is usual, DEP buried the bad news at the end of the Report.
Only after wading through 40 pages do we learn that DEP issued waivers for toxic synthetic organic chemicals. These include highly toxic chemical pesticides and herbicides. (see Table 15)
And in revealing the issuance of these waivers, DEP also highlighted a key omission of the DEP Source Water Assessment Reports that reveal the vulnerability and susceptibility to pollutants for all NJ drinking water systems:
Synthetic Organic Compound Sampling Waivers are based on the use of the synthetic organic compounds in New Jersey and/or the susceptibility of the water sources to contamination. In accordance with criteria established in New Jersey’s USEPA-approved synthetic organic compound waiver program the majority of the water systems subject to the synthetic organic compound monitoring requirements were considered participants in the waiver program and were not required to monitor during 2022 while evaluation of vulnerability and screening sampling were underway. Only 20 water systems were required to monitor for one or more SOCs during 2022 based on prior detections or vulnerability.
DEP states that “evaluation of vulnerability and screening sampling [are] underway”.
Yet DEP conducted Source Water Assessments – which specifically include vulnerability and susceptibility analysis – almost 20 years ago, see:
The DEP and the drinking water systems know about these threats and knew long ago. There is no excuse for delays in mandating compliance and the basis for the waivers is dubious, at best.
Only 20 water systems were required to monitor for synthetic organic chemicals in the Garden State (a significant agricultural use of chemicals) – a State that pioneered the electronics (PCB’s) and chemical and pharmaceutical industries and has thousands of toxic hazardous waste sites and air and water pollution discharges of these chemicals?
How can that be?
4. Over 500 Unregulated Chemical Contaminants Ignored
The DEP Report also fails to mention the fact that there are hundreds of unregulated chemicals with no MCL’s present in NJ drinking water – for details on that set of problems, see:
5. Unexpected High Compliance With Volatile Organic MCL’s
Finally, I found these data, showing just 4 violation of MCL’s for volatile organic chemicals, almost too good to be true, given NJ’s extensive number of toxic waste sites and other contaminated sites (including gas stations, dry cleaners, “brownfields”, et al) and former and current petro-chemical industries.
Those industrial chemical contaminated site is why, the DEP Report notes (p. 37):
In New Jersey, 153 systems have treatment installed for volatile organic compound removal.
That means that at least 153 water systems were polluted by volatile organic chemicals. If 153 systems have been required to install treatment to remove VOC’s, that shows that NJ has an extensive problem. SO are we to believe that DEP has discovered virtually all of the toxic contamination and drinking water systems are accurately monitoring such that just 4 violations occurred, statewide?
3.6.1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS: MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL VIOLATIONS
In 2022, the NJDEP issued four (4) MCL violations for exceeding the State limit for tetrachloroethylene at two (2) public water systems. These systems did not exceed the federal limit (5 μg/l) for this compound. As of May 5, 2023, one system has returned to compliance. Four (4) additional MCL violations were issued to one (1) public water system, two (2) of which exceeded the State limit for benzene, and two (2) exceeded the federal limit for benzene (5 μg/l). As of May 5, 2023, this system has not met the State or federal MCL limit and remains out of compliance. All the remaining volatile organic compound MCLs were met in 2022.
Just 4 violations? For hundreds of systems? Really?
For comparison, of the just 20 water systems that are required to monitor for synthetic organic chemicals, there were 13 MCL violations and 144 monitoring violations, for a total of 157 violations (at just 20 systems)
What is the source of this data and does DEP independently sample and rigorously conduct QA/QC of this data?
6. Lead remains a huge problem, including at schools and day care centers
The DEP and the NJ media constantly report good news and progress on addressing the lead issue. But the facts are deeply troubling.
The DEP Report found that 25% of systems violate lead standards:
In 2022 a total of 1,228 public water systems were required to comply with the Lead and Copper Rule, including an additional eight (8) transient noncommunity water systems and two (2) non-public systems that are child care centers. Of these systems, 25% incurred a violation under the Lead and Copper Rule.
Wow.
Who will ask these questions?
Who will tell the people?