New Jersey dives into PFOA water guidance

New Jersey's new PFOA guidance is the toughest yet for drinking water.

Environmental Science & Technology, Rebecca Renner
Published April 10, 2007

New Jersey officials have issued the most stringent preliminary health-based guidance yet on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) levels in drinking water in the U.S. The guidance, a first step in regulating PFOA, was issued as a benchmark so that water companies can judge whether the low levels of perfluorinated chemicals in their drinking water are safe for humans. New Jersey is the latest state to issue advice on PFOA in drinking water; the guidance follows action in two other states where past chemical industry operations have led to PFOA contamination of drinking water. PFOA is unregulated in the U.S. Last year, the U.S. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) classified PFOA as a likely human carcinogen, but EPA's risk assessment process, a precursor to any regulatory action, is likely to take years to complete, according to the agency. "States are running with this because the EPA process is too slow," says Kristan Markey with Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization. "This is the latest in what will be an ongoing process of research and regulation of this ubiquitous toxin," says Boston University environmental health scientist Richard Clapp, who praised New Jersey's recommendation. Early indications are that, in addition to cancer, PFOA may be associated with birth defects and abnormal blood lipids, he notes. However, the low levels that are ubiquitous in the U.S. population have not been clearly linked to any adverse effects. PFOA, also known as C8, is a processing aid used in manufacturing fluoropolymers that have a wide variety of applications, including nonstick cookware. The chemical can also be a byproduct of manufacturing fluorotelomers, which are used on grease-resistant food wraps and stain-resistant textiles. Granular activated carbon can remove perfluorochemicals from drinking water. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) made its recommendation of 0.04 parts per billion (ppb) at the request of the Pennsgrove Water Supply Company, according to the state's guidance document. PFOA and other perfluorocarboxylates have been detected with elevated levels in the system's drinking water near DuPont's massive Chambers Works chemical plant. The water pollution surfacing today in West Virginia is thought to come mainly from legacy operations. DuPont and other companies that use or make PFOA have agreed with EPA to voluntarily reduce its use. A November 2006 consent agreement between officials with DuPont and EPA slashed the drinking-water action level for PFOA from 150 to 0.50 ppb in West Virginia. Under the agreement, DuPont has offered bottled water or water treatment for public or private water users living near its Washington Works plant if the PFOA level exceeds the action level. Just last month, Minnesota officials halved their state's recommended safe level for PFOA in drinking water from 1 to 0.5 ppb. PFOA and other perfluorochemicals have turned up in public and private drinking-water wells in communities east of St. Paul. According to 3M officials, the sources are landfilled industrial wastes from a 3M manufacturing plant. The company has already voluntarily paid several million dollars to install carbon treatment at the local water utility and to connect affected private wells to the water system. NJDEP risk assessors used the SAB scientific review as the starting point for determining a preliminary guidance level for lifetime exposure, according to NJDEP toxicologist Gloria Post. One of the studies examined by the SAB, a 2-year rat study, found health effects at even the lowest blood PFOA levels. The assessors converted the rat blood levels to those in humans. After applying standard uncertainty factors, they used the results of a 2006 study of West Virginia residents with high PFOA levels to relate levels in human blood to levels in drinking water (J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2006, 48, 7597