PFAS in the drinking water of City of Bayonne: 4.2 ng/L, 8.4x our 0.5 ng/L benchmark

Last PFAS check: · Source: EPA UCMR 5

PFAS in drinking water

8.4× above our health benchmark

Amount found in the water 4.2 ng/L 0.0042 µg/L · the 4 most harmful PFAS (PFAS-4)
Our health benchmark 0.5 ng/L

0.5 ng/L is our benchmark, not an official limit. It uses the same EFSA method as the Swedish, Danish and Dutch limits, with stricter safety choices. It's meant as a yearly average. The comparison above uses the latest check.

checked on October 5, 2023

Sampled on October 5, 2023 at Representative Intertie (Wanaque North Consecutive Connection), the system's only sampled entry point. Samples are taken at the entry point to the distribution system, not at your tap.

More about this result

Substances below the detection limit count as 0, so the real total may be higher.

One of these four, PFOA, is classified as causing cancer in humans by the WHO's cancer research agency (IARC).

More PFAS than in 77% of the water systems we track

UCMR 5 measures 29 PFAS one by one and publishes no EU-style total; this page shows the PFAS-4 sum and each compound.

29 PFAS (see each substance)
PFAS substance Value
PFOA 4.2 ng/L
PFOS below the 4 ng/L reporting limit
PFHxS below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
PFNA below the 4 ng/L reporting limit
HFPO-DA below the 5 ng/L reporting limit
PFBS below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
11Cl-PF3OUdS below the 5 ng/L reporting limit
4:2 FTS below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
6:2 FTS below the 5 ng/L reporting limit
8:2 FTS below the 5 ng/L reporting limit
9Cl-PF3ONS below the 2 ng/L reporting limit
ADONA below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
NEtFOSAA below the 5 ng/L reporting limit
NFDHA below the 20 ng/L reporting limit
NMeFOSAA below the 6 ng/L reporting limit
PFBA below the 5 ng/L reporting limit
PFDA below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
PFDoA below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
PFEESA below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
PFHpA below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
PFHpS below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
PFHxA below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
PFMBA below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
PFMPA below the 4 ng/L reporting limit
PFPeA below the 3 ng/L reporting limit
PFPeS below the 4 ng/L reporting limit
PFTA below the 8 ng/L reporting limit
PFTrDA below the 7 ng/L reporting limit
PFUnA below the 2 ng/L reporting limit

Above our health benchmark. You can compare filter types below.

Federal MCL, PFOA and PFOS (each)
4.0 ng/L PFOA above it at the headline sample; applies from April 2029
Latest UCMR 5 sample
October 5, 2023 entry-point sample, not your tap
EPA system ID (PWSID)
NJ0901001
Details and sources

At City of Bayonne (New Jersey), the four most closely watched PFAS (PFAS-4) add up to at least 4.2 ng/L (0.0042 µg/L), the other compounds being below the 3 to 4 ng/L reporting limit in the latest UCMR 5 entry-point sample on October 5, 2023 at Representative Intertie (Wanaque North Consecutive Connection). That is 8.4 times the 0.5 ng/L health benchmark used by pfasnearme. PFOA 4.2 ng/L and PFOS below the 4 ng/L reporting limit, PFOA above the 4.0 ng/L federal MCL for PFOA and PFOS that systems must meet from April 2029. Across 4 UCMR 5 sampling events since January 30, 2023, the PFAS-4 sum reached up to 4.6 ng/L and was below the reporting limits at other times. No clear trend emerges. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) occurrence data, final dataset (August 2026), public domain.

EPA system ID (PWSID): NJ0901001Population served: 63,000 Latest UCMR 5 sample: October 5, 2023 Data updated on

PFAS over time in City of Bayonne

4 UCMR 5 sampling events since January 30, 2023, as published by EPA.

0.5 ng/L4.6 ng/L0January 30, 2023October 5, 2023
PFAS-4 sum per sampling event in ng/L. Dashed line: pfasnearme's 0.5 ng/L benchmark. Hollow dots: no compound quantified.
DatePFAS-4
4.2 ng/L
4.3 ng/L
< 15 ng/L
4.6 ng/L

A value preceded by "<" means no PFAS-4 compound was quantified, the figure being the sum of the four UCMR 5 reporting limits. Sums with a compound below the 3 to 4 ng/L reporting limit are lower bounds. How to read a PFAS result

Compliance status

UCMR 5 results do not indicate compliance or noncompliance with the PFAS drinking water standards. UCMR 5 is a national monitoring survey; the system's compliance record and its annual Consumer Confidence Report come from the state agency and EPA's SDWIS.

See all 2 test results
What was tested Value Limit Status
PFAS Hazard Index (US EPA) < 1.2 (index; nothing quantified) MCL (from April 2029): 1 not computable
Lithium · UCMR 5, for reference below the 9 µg/L reporting limit no MCL for reference

Frequently asked questions

Is the tap water in City of Bayonne safe to drink?

In the latest UCMR 5 entry-point sample on October 5, 2023, the four most closely watched PFAS added up to at least 4.2 ng/L, 8.4 times the 0.5 ng/L health benchmark pfasnearme uses. PFOA was above the 4.0 ng/L federal MCL that systems must meet from April 2029. EPA set the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for PFOA and PFOS at zero because there is no level without risk. UCMR 5 results do not indicate compliance or noncompliance with the PFAS drinking water standards, and this site reports published measurements without judging health risk. This is not medical advice. If you are concerned, talk to your water system or your doctor.

What is UCMR 5 and why do the results say "below the reporting limit"?

The Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) had every large US water system and a sample of small ones test 29 PFAS and lithium between 2023 and 2025, at each entry point to the distribution system. EPA set minimum reporting levels of 3 to 4 ng/L for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS and reports nothing below them. A result "below the 3 to 4 ng/L reporting limit" therefore means the lab could not quantify the compound, not that it is absent, and it is never shown here as zero.

What do the 0.5 ng/L benchmark and the 4.0 ng/L MCL mean, and why are both shown?

0.5 ng/L for the PFAS-4 sum (PFOA + PFOS + PFNA + PFHxS) is the health benchmark pfasnearme applies on every page, in Europe and the United States, built from the European Food Safety Authority's tolerable intake with stricter safety choices. 4.0 ng/L is the enforceable federal maximum contaminant level for PFOA and for PFOS individually under EPA's PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), the US legal limit. Any PFAS-4 compound quantified under UCMR 5 (at or above 3 to 4 ng/L) is above the benchmark, so the benchmark tells you whether anything was found and the MCL tells you whether the system would have to act. EPA set the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for PFOA and PFOS at zero because there is no level without risk.

When does the 4.0 ng/L MCL apply, and could it change?

EPA published the PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) on April 26, 2024. Systems must finish initial monitoring by April 26, 2027, tell customers about PFAS in their 2027 Consumer Confidence Reports, and comply with the PFOA and PFOS MCLs from April 26, 2029. Two proposals published on May 20, 2026 are not final: one would let systems in states where EPA holds primacy extend PFOA and PFOS compliance to April 26, 2031; the other would rescind the PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA MCLs and the Hazard Index while keeping PFOA and PFOS. The rule is also before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (American Water Works Association v. EPA, argued 2026-09-18 before Judges Millett, Pillard and Wilkins; no decision). Regulation data retrieved September 19, 2026.

Does New Jersey have its own PFAS limits?

Yes. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Bureau of Safe Drinking Water enforces MCLs under N.J.A.C. 7:10: PFNA 13 ng/L (since September 4, 2018); PFOA 14 ng/L (since June 1, 2020); PFOS 13 ng/L (since June 1, 2020). The federal PFOA and PFOS MCLs (4.0 ng/L) are stricter than every state MCL, so the federal line is about severity and the state line is about what is enforceable today. In this UCMR 5 sample, no compound was above a New Jersey MCL. State monitoring: quarterly compliance monitoring since 2021.

Is this the water that comes out of my tap in City of Bayonne?

Only if City of Bayonne (PWSID NJ0901001) is your water system: check your water bill or your ZIP code page on this site, or the Hudson County page. Samples are taken at the entry point to the distribution system, not at your tap. The system may have changed sources or installed treatment since this sample. PFAS treatment reported to EPA: no PFAS treatment reported (NMT). The system's own Consumer Confidence Report, published every year, states what it measures today.

What can I do about PFAS in my water?

Ask City of Bayonne for its latest PFAS results and its plan for the 2029 MCLs, read its Consumer Confidence Report (EPA's CCR finder, PWSID NJ0901001), and if you want to lower PFAS at home, use a filter certified to NSF/ANSI 53 or 58 for PFOA and PFOS (reverse osmosis and activated carbon block filters; see the filter comparison linked on this page). Boiling water does not remove PFAS.

Are PFAS levels rising in City of Bayonne's water?

No clear trend across the 4 UCMR 5 sampling events since January 30, 2023: the PFAS-4 sum ranged from 4.2 ng/L to 4.6 ng/L. pfasnearme reports a trend only from a change of at least 25 % and 1 ng/L.

Where does this data come from?

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5), final dataset August 2026, retrieved 2026-09-19. Public domain. Results are entry-point samples and do not indicate compliance with drinking water standards. System registry from EPA SDWIS/ECHO (2026Q2 edition); service areas from EPA ORD (model code MIT); geography from the U.S. Census Bureau. pfasnearme retrieved the data on September 19, 2026.

Water systems in the same county

Other community water systems in Hudson County covered by this site, largest first.

Nearby water systems

The community water systems closest to City of Bayonne covered by this site, by service-area center.

Data source

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) occurrence data, final dataset (August 2026)
https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule
License
Public domain (U.S. federal government work, 17 U.S.C. § 105)
Retrieved
September 19, 2026
Entry points and samples
Representative Intertie (Wanaque North Consecutive Connection)
UCMR 5 sample window
January 30, 2023 to October 5, 2023; 1 entry point, 6 sampling events
Source water
surface water; community water system (large, over 10,000 people)
PFAS treatment reported to EPA
no PFAS treatment reported (NMT). The system may have changed sources or installed treatment since this sample.
Consumer Confidence Report
Search EPA's CCR finder for PWSID NJ0901001 to read the system's own annual report
Regulation data (MCLs, dates) retrieved
September 19, 2026

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5), final dataset August 2026, retrieved 2026-09-19. Public domain. Results are entry-point samples and do not indicate compliance with drinking water standards.

System registry from EPA SDWIS/ECHO (2026Q2 edition); service areas from EPA ORD (model code MIT); geography from the U.S. Census Bureau.

UCMR 5 results do not indicate compliance or noncompliance with the PFAS drinking water standards. Samples are taken at the entry point to the distribution system, not at the tap; the system may have changed sources or installed treatment since. Treatment reported to EPA for PFAS: no PFAS treatment (NMT). 1 entry point sampled, 6 sampling events between 2023-01-30 and 2023-10-05. The page's PFAS values come from the newest sample at Representative Intertie (Wanaque North Consecutive Connection) (91001/CC001001). Non-detects are shown as "<" followed by EPA's minimum reporting level (3 to 20 ng/L); PFAS-4 sums quantified compounds only, so it is a lower bound when a compound was not detected. Registry (name, population, counties, ZIPs) from EPA SDWIS/ECHO; service-area centroid from EPA ORD.

This site is a data project, not an official source. If in doubt, check with your water supplier or local authority.