Chromium-6 In New Jersey's Water: What Is The Real Risk?

Editor's note: Our story on Chromium-6 in New Jersey drinking water was one of the most widely-read stories published recently on Patch sites in New Jersey. Many of you reached out with concerns and questions regarding Chromium-6 levels and how much is safe. We are posting this story as a follow-up.

A new study published Tuesday by the Environmental Working Group says at least 138 New Jersey communities have the cancer-causing toxin Chromium-6 in their drinking water. Chromium-6 was made famous in the 2000 Julia Roberts movie "Erin Brockovich," and experts say it can cause cancer, reproductive problems and liver damage.

Chromium is typically found in rocks, animals, plants, soil and volcanic dust and gases, according to the National Toxicology Program, and it comes in several forms. Chromium-6, which is rare in nature, is typically the product of industrial byproduct and pollution.

But what is the true risk of the levels of Chromium-6 in the local drinking water and what are our leaders doing about it?

Although none of the water provided by local agencies exceeds the U.S. Environmental Protection's maximum of 100 parts per billion of total chromium, some argue that standard is too high.

The Environmental Working Group study highlighted providers that have sites with water that has tested above 0.02 parts per billion, a level that California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment set as a public health goal in 2011.

Many environmentalists, including the Environmental Working Group, say even trace amounts are harmful to public health. The nonprofit organization, in its study, said that if left untreated, the current levels of Chromium-6 in tap water would cause more than 12,000 excess cases of cancer by the end of the century.

However, others contend the California public health goal is exceedingly strict. And since it's only a goal, it is not enforceable. The actual legal cap in California is 10 parts per billion.

At California's public health goal level of chromium-6, "one out of 1 million people is likely to get cancer after drinking that water for 70 years," The Verge reported.

Larry Hajna, a spokesman for the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, said while the state abides by the EPA's standard of 100 parts per billion, there have been past attempts at assessing the merits of tightening the standards in New Jersey.

In 2010, a state advisory group called the Drinking Water Quality Institute recommended that New Jersey should set a public health goal of 0.07 parts per billion. The decision to set lower limits in New Jersey has stalled, according to government officials and environmentalists.

Hajna acknowledged the most recent effort to raise the Chromium-6 standard in New Jersey was six years ago. The effort fell apart after the Drinking Water Quality Institute, which is comprised of scientists, utility officials and citizen experts, lost some of its members, Hajna said.

"It never got back to being brought up," he told Patch. "It never got far along in the process."

The group didn't meet again until 2014. But by then, the Drinking Water Quality Institute had to address contamination issues that appeared more pressing, Hajna said. For instance, the institute had to tackle the presence of perfluorinated compounds [PFC] — carcinogens often found in cookware and food packaging —in water because there was a greater risk of exposure, Hajna said.

Local environmentalists say the state is dragging its feet on addressing Chromium-6 in the drinking water.

"It's a big deal," said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. "The failure to move forward on a standard means people are drinking chromium at a level they shouldn't be."

Hajna said changing standards always takes time, and careful assessment. But he denied that any political pressure was applied to delay the process — a claim made by the Environmental Working Group in its report.

Hajna assured that the state is always working hard to protect the public's best interests, and change isn't always made overnight. "It's a somewhat lumbering process, but it works for us," he said.

At the same time, Hajna didn't dispute environmentalists' claims that any level of Chromium-6 is bad. Tittel cited some studies that said the compound is dangerous even if it's breathed in.

"That's what the scientists have to figure out," Hajna said.

Craig Mains of the National Environmental Services Center said the state's delay shows how government "takes a long time" to make the decisions that need to be made — even if they involve a potential health threat.

John Marin, an EPA spokesman, couldn't recall when his agency last changed its standards. But he said the EPA is actively working on the development of a Chromium-6 assessment that will include a "comprehensive evaluation of potential health effects."

The EPA expects that the draft assessment will be released for public comment in 2017.

CNN this week noted reports indicating that breathing in airborne Chromium-6 particles can cause lung cancer, and that the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set strict limits for airborne Chromium-6 in the workplace.

And while Mains and Tittel both agree that eliminating Chromium-6 from water is not immediately realistic, Mains said New Jersey and the EPA should work to reduce the carcinogen's presence to a level that's as low as possible.

"[The EWG] report may give them a little bit more urgency," Mains said. "It just seems like there's been a lot of things in the past where it's taken decades to change the rules. It's quite possible to speed the EPA up a bit."

Read more: At Least 138 N.J. Towns Have Drinking Water Toxin Made Famous By Erin Brockovich: Study

With reporting by Kara Seymour

Patch file photo