Federal and state regulations currently
set a maximum contaminant level (MCL)
for arsenic in drinking water of 10
ug/L (micrograms per liter, or parts
per billion), effective in 2006. This
directive initiates a more protective
standard under New Jersey law.
New Jersey's landmark safe drinking
water law mandates that the Department
set an MCL for arsenic, a carcinogen,
to achieve a risk level of one in one
million excess cancer risk over a lifetime
of exposure. The statute precludes consideration
of cost in meeting this level of protection,
but does acknowledge that this level
of protection may not be technically
feasible for all contaminants. The current
standard set by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), which is mirrored
in current state regulations, does not
meet the level of protection prescribed
by New Jersey law. This is attributable
to EPA's consideration of cost in setting
the federal standard, which is not permitted
under New Jersey law and which included
costs of treatment in States where the
costs of reducing arsenic levels are
far greater than in New Jersey. The
federal standard was proposed and adopted
prior to a 2001 revision to a study
by the National Research Council [NRC]
presenting data and analysis suggesting
that the health risks of arsenic in
drinking water may justify a more protective
standard. (Note: the 2002 NJ proposal
considered the new NRC data).
Taking these factors into account,
the Drinking Water Quality Institute
(DWQI) has recommended an arsenic MCL
for New Jersey of 3 ug/L. The DWQI concluded
that New Jersey's statutory risk goal
cannot be reached by currently available
technology, but that an MCL for arsenic
of 3 ug/L would bring the risk level
as close to the prescribed standard
as current technology allows.
While I generally agree with the DWQI's
analysis, I do not agree with the Institute's
ultimate recommendation. The DWQI acknowledged
that two of the treatment technologies
that are recommended for arsenic removal
are unlikely to be used in New Jersey
because of the stringency of our state's
discharge criteria for waste water.
I am hesitant to require that water
suppliers provide treatment using the
remaining two technologies recommended
by the DWQI because of the lack of historical
performance data from water suppliers
in New Jersey performing field testing.
A case in point is the fact that the
New Jersey Corporation for Advanced
Technology has only verified one technology
for arsenic removal and its verification
is at a level of 5ug/l.
Based on this concern as to the availability
of reliable removal technology, I am
directing the Water Supply Administration
to develop a proposed regulation for
publication in the New Jersey Register
to establish an MCL for arsenic in drinking
water of 5 ug/L. I issue this directive
acknowledging that doing so will make
New Jersey's standard for drinking water
protections of arsenic the most stringent
in the country, both as compared to
other states and as compared to the
federal level of 10 ug/l. The proposed
regulation should be available for publication
in a register this fall.
