
Daniel T. McKillop
Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
Date: August 13, 2020

Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.com
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has adopted new drinking water standards that set strict limits on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). The maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are 14 parts per trillion for PFOA and 13 parts per trillion for PFOS.
The NJDEP’s new regulations also add the chemicals to New Jersey’s list of hazardous substances and set these levels as Ground Water Quality Standards for the purposes of site remediation activities and regulated discharges to groundwater. Accordingly, sites undergoing remediation must now determine whether PFOA and PFOS have been discharged at the site and have impacted ground water. If so, remediation activities must meet the standards established in the Rule.
“Safe drinking water is a top priority for the Murphy Administration,” NJDEP Commissioner Catherine R. McCabe said in a press statement. “With the adoption of these standards, New Jersey continues to lead the nation in protecting public health and the environment from these chemicals, which have been detected at varying levels across the state. New Jersey’s water systems have worked voluntarily and productively with us over the years, taking steps to protect the public when these chemicals have been detected. By adopting formal standards, we are putting in place a clear regulatory framework that will ensure consistency in monitoring, public notification and treatment across the state.”
PFOA and PFOS are part of a larger class of substances referred to as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The substances are known as “forever chemicals” because it takes so long for them to break down. The chemicals, which were formerly used in non-stick products, firefighting foam, and food packaging, have also been linked to a number of health conditions, including cancer and low birth weight.
As discussed in greater detail in a prior article, U.S. manufacturers have largely stopped using PFAS in favor of shorter-chain replacements, which are generally less bioaccumulative and potentially less toxic. However, prior discharges have resulted in very high levels of the chemicals in many public and private water systems, including those in New Jersey.
In the absence of federal drinking water standards for PFAS, states like New Jersey have taken action to fill the void. In 2018, the NJDEP was the first in the country to establish an MCL for another PFAS, perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA). Last year, the NJDEP issued a Directive ordering several companies to pay for the investigation and remediation of PFAS-contamination.
The NJDEP’s rule enactment makes changes to the Discharge of Petroleum and Other Hazardous Substance rules (N.J.A.C. 7:1E), Ground Water Quality Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:9C), Private Well Testing Act rules (N.J.A.C. 7:9E), Safe Drinking Water Act rules (N.J.A.C. 7:10), and New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System rules (N.J.A.C. 7:14A). Specific rule amendments include the following:
The NJDEP’s new rules took effect on June 1, 2020. Accordingly, the newly adopted ground water quality standards/ground water remediation standards for PFOA and PFOS should be considered when addressing ground water remediation projects in New Jersey. For compliance assistance in this rapidly developing area, we encourage entities to contact a member of the Scarinci Hollenbeck Environmental Law Group.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!