DEQ-CFW_00024686

New Jersey recently has proceeded toru|emakingtoset astate-specific IVI[Lfor perUuorononanoicacid
and 1,2,3'trich|oropropane. The Public Water Supply Section has been asked to review their materials
for relevance to the state's interest in regulating emerging contaminants in drinking water.
New Jersey has a Safe Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) to assist with standard setting. According
totheir m/ebshe:
1984 amendments to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act (Act)at N.IS.A.58:12A'20,
established New Jersey'sDrinking Water Quality Institute (DWQ1) as well as the drinking
water standard setting process. The DNQIisresponsible for developing Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCL) or standards for hazardous contaminants /n 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 N.J. Department of Environmental
Protection (AUY}6P).
dThe institute shall make recommendations for the implementation ofthe Drinking Water Quality
Program bythe dopmrtmc�..These recommendations shall consist. of:
(1) The development of a list. of contaminants for which testing shall be required;
(2)The development ofmaximum contaminant levels;
(3) The development of appropriate testing techniques to measure maximum contaminant levels;
(4)The development oftesting frequencies,
(5) The review of all activities undertaken pursuant to the "Safe Drinking Water Act" and any
amendments orsupplements thereto.
c.The Drinking Water Quality Institute shall have the authority to call to its assistance and avail itself
of the services of the employees of any State, county or municipal department, board, commission or
agency that may horequired and made available for such purposes.
The following subcommittees of the DWQI were established to address the main considerations for
development of MCLs:
l. The Health Effect Subcommittee is responsible for recommending health -based levels for the
contaminants listed in the Act [NJ SDWA] and for developing an additional list of contaminants
based on occurrence in N] drinking waters. The statutory goals for these are:
a. For carcinogenic contaminants — establish a standard which would not, within the limits
of medical, scientific, and technological feasibility, permit cancer in more than one in
one million persons ingesting the contaminant over a lifetime.
b. For noncarcinogens — establish a standard which would not result in any adverse
physiological effects following ingestion within the limits of practicability and feasibility.
I. The Testing Subcommittee is responsible for developing appropriate analytical methods to
measure levels as close to the health -based levels as possible and for developing appropriate
monitoring frequencies.

3. The Treatment Subcommittee is responsible for evaluating best available treatment
technologies for removal ofthe hazardous contaminants from drinking water, aswell asoverall
program review.
The DVV[Utakes the health -based level recommended bythe Health Effects Subcommittee asthe
starting point for setting an MCL. If necessary, it raises the value until the lowest level of the
contaminant can be both measured analytically and achieved with treatment. There isnocost-benefit
analysis, or other consideration of cost in setting the standard that the DVVLl| recommends to the N]
Department. The rulemaking package for PFNA and 1,2,3-TCP did contain a simple fiscal analysis of the
cost impact for monitoring and for installation oftreatment. Nucalculation ufbenefit was provided and
no stated decision that the overall fiscal impact or oost'benefitvvas acceptable. The standard is selected
onthe pure scientific analysis.
|nreview ofthe rule -making package, happears that the reference materials for the committees' review
were available and not created through a state process. The health effects subcommittee conducted a
literature search and solicited technical input from stakeholders and the public regarding health effects.
Occurrence data was already available from prior analyses, including the U[MR, and was only used to
help support the overall need for aregulation. The testing subcommittee identified (but did not
develop) acceptable analytical methods, and they developed a practical quantitation level. The
treatment subcommittee researched treatment options, reviewing relevant literature aswell as case
studies. This is very different from an emerging contaminant, such as Gen X, for which the types of
studies that all three subcommittees relied upon for their decision -making are not available. New Jersey
let EPA conclude its regulation development process through the LJCMR before making the MCL
recommendation.
Social impact — The department suggests an overall positive social impact to the public due to greater
public health protection and to the water supply industry because they want to provide the highest
quality water possible.
Economic impact — The department suggests that costs tocomply with 8D\NArules are part ofthe cost
ofdoing business, towhich public water systems are accustomed. Costs are correctly stated tobe
passed down to consumers, however, there is no analysis to show what the cost increase to consumers
from small water systems will be, either for the increased monitoring costs orfor the installation,
operation, and maintenance ofatreatment system. Monitoring costs for awater system with one entry
point are projected tube$ZUOOper year while onquarterly monitoring. Point -of -entry (at-home)
treatment systems are estimated between $2000to $3500 dollars. No costs for wastewater treatment
or disposal, orfor operation and maintenance of the treatment systems are given. Therefore, testing
and treatment for a small 25-person mobile home park needing treatment (assuming the small, point -
of -entry treatment system would be big enough) would run an estimated $160 $JZ0per household
year. Costs for higher level operators, O&M, and waste disposal are not included.

Strengths:
1. Aseparate technical body, and issue -specific subcommittees, evaluates health effects, analytical
capabilities, and treatment methods inrecommending anK8CLtothe NUDEP. The appropriate
technical aspects are considered. State staff likely serve asthe staff tothe DVVQ|performing the
actual analyses.
2. The approach relies on the availability ofpublished literature for the technical review,
streamlining the overall MCL development process considerably.
3. The MCL is very health -protective.
Weaknesses:
1. The MCL is set as close to the negligible health -effect level as analytical and treatment methods
allow, without considering affordability. The fiscal impact onthe regulated community and the
cost of water service does not appear to be considered, other than providing an estimated
statement of cost in the rule materials.
Z. The approach is not effective for contaminants without a good body of published literature. The
need to develop a sufficient body research to set health effect levels, analytical methods, or
appropriate treatment technologies in house or by contract does not appear to be considered.