Regulations

New Jersey’s PFAS Regulations

New Jersey is a national leader in PFAS regulation. It was the first state to set enforceable drinking water limits (MCLs) for PFAS. In 2018, NJ became the first state to establish an enforceable drinking water standard for a PFAS chemical when it set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)for PFNA. MCLs for PFOA and PFOS followed in 2020.

New Jersey Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFAS

*A Maximum Contaminant Level is the highest allowable concentration of a contaminant in drinking water. Water utilities must treat water to stay below these limits and notify the public if they are exceeded.

PFAS Regulations: New Jersey vs EPA

On April 10, 2024, EPA finalized a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) establishing legally enforceable MCLs, for six PFAS in drinking water. However, Public water systems have five years (by 2029) to implement solutions that reduce these PFAS under EPA regulation.

*Under EPA regulation:

• Public water systems must monitor for these PFAS and have three years to complete initial monitoring (by 2027), followed by ongoing compliance monitoring. Water systems must also provide the public with information on the levels of these PFAS in their drinking water beginning in 2027.
• Public water systems have five years (by 2029) to implement solutions that reduce these PFAS if monitoring shows that drinking water levels exceed these MCLs.
• Beginning in five years (2029), public water systems that have PFAS in drinking water which violates one or more of these MCLs must take action to reduce levels of these PFAS in their drinking water and must provide notification to the public of the violation.

Related Regulations

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Under TSCA, the EPA has broad authority to issue regulations designed to gather health/safety and exposure information on, require testing of, and control exposure to chemical substances and mixtures. Depending on the outcome of its review and determination, under TSCA the EPA may take actions on a new PFAS or significant new PFAS use, ranging from imposing restrictions or limitations (e.g., use restrictions, production volume cap, limitation on releases to water, etc.) to an outright prohibition on manufacture to ensure that the substance does not present an unreasonable risk.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

SDWA requires the EPA to publish a list of contaminants known or anticipated to occur in public water systems which may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (the Contaminant Candidate List). The EPA included PFOA and PFOS on the fourth Contaminant Candidate List (USEPA 2018c). The EPA collected data for six PFAS in the UCMR: PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, PFHxS, and perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA). Furthermore, pursuant to section 1431(a) of the SDWA, the EPA has authority to take actions the Agency deems necessary to protect public health when a contaminant, whether regulated or not, is present in or likely to enter a public water system or an underground source of drinking water, and “may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons.”

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund, provides the federal government with authority to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, and, if they may present an imminent and substantial endangerment, pollutants and contaminants. the EPA has initiated the regulatory development process to designate PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA “hazardous substances”, which would extend CERCLA order and cost recovery authorities to address communities affected by PFOA and PFOS contamination.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

EPCRA created the TRI Program. The TRI Program’s mission is to provide the public with information about TRI chemicals, including releases, other waste management (e.g., recycling), and pollution prevention from TRI-reporting facilities. The information submitted by facilities is compiled in the Toxics Release Inventory. Currently, no PFAS chemicals are included on the list of chemicals required to report to TRI; however, the EPA is considering whether to add PFAS chemicals.

Federal vs. New Jersey Policy: What’s the Difference?

New Jersey’s leadership reflects its long history of industrial PFAS use and early discovery of contamination.

Major PFAS Lawsuits in New Jersey

New Jersey has been at the forefront of national PFAS litigation. Since 2018, the NJ Attorney General has filed 20+ lawsuits to hold chemical companies accountable. Key cases include:

DuPont / Chemours / Corteva

Accused of decades-long PFAS pollution at multiple NJ sites

2023 & 2025 settlements totaling hundreds of millions

Funds used for cleanup, water treatment, and natural resource recovery

3M Corporations Lawsuits

Sued for PFAS contamination linked to firefighting foam

Multiple affected communities near military bases and airports

Ridgewood Water lawsuit

Local water system sued chemical manufacturers for contamination of municipal wells

Pompton Lakes case

Long-standing pollution involving DuPont and related companies