Overview
Title
Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for Contaminants on the Fifth Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA is deciding if certain things in drinking water are safe or not, and they want people to tell them what they think before they decide for sure.
Summary AI
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is evaluating whether to regulate certain unregulated drinking water contaminants listed on the fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5). In this publication, it provides preliminary determinations not to regulate nine specific contaminants, as they do not appear to occur in public water systems at levels of public health concern. For five additional contaminants, the EPA is continuing its evaluation and hasn't reached a decision yet. The EPA is requesting public comments on its preliminary findings and analysis before finalizing its regulatory determinations.
Abstract
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determine whether to regulate at least five unregulated contaminants every five years. The decision to regulate or not to regulate a contaminant is known as a regulatory determination. In most cases, the contaminants chosen for regulatory determination are selected from the most recent Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), which the SDWA requires the EPA to publish every five years. This document presents the preliminary regulatory determinations and supporting rationale for contaminants listed on the EPA's fifth CCL (CCL 5). Since the fourth round of regulatory determinations was published in March 2021, the EPA has made determinations to regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including individual determinations for three PFAS: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid and its ammonium salt (HFPO-DA, also known as GenX or GenX chemicals); and mixtures including two or more of these three PFAS and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS). In April 2024, the agency issued a final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation that includes these four PFAS as well as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). In this Federal Register Notice (FRN), the EPA is making preliminary determinations not to regulate nine additional contaminants from CCL 5: 2-aminotoluene, cylindrospermopsin, ethoprop, microcystins, molybdenum, permethrin, profenofos, tebuconazole and tribufos. The EPA requests public comment on these preliminary determinations and other aspects of this FRN. The EPA also presents updates on additional contaminants from CCL 5, as well as on some of those that have been considered in previous rounds of regulatory determinations and for which the EPA has not yet made a regulatory determination. The agency is also presenting and requesting comment on the process and analyses used for this round of regulatory determinations (i.e., RD 5), the supporting information, and the rationale used to make these preliminary decisions.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) addresses the preliminary regulatory determinations for drinking water contaminants on its fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5). As mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the EPA periodically evaluates both regulated and unregulated contaminants to determine whether new regulations are warranted. In this publication, the focus is on nine specific contaminants, for which the EPA has made a preliminary decision not to regulate, alongside five additional contaminants that are still under evaluation.
Summary of the Document
The EPA’s preliminary determinations indicate that the nine contaminants considered do not frequently appear in public water systems at levels significant enough to pose public health risks. Therefore, the EPA has chosen not to regulate them at this time. Meanwhile, the agency continues to gather data and conduct analyses on the remaining five contaminants before reaching a conclusion. The EPA is inviting public comments on these preliminary findings, asking for additional data and feedback on its decision-making process.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A primary concern with the document is its complexity and length, which may make it difficult for the average reader to decipher the essential points and regulatory implications. The usage of technical jargon and legal terms without sufficient layperson explanations could lead to misunderstandings among non-specialists. The document also frequently references multiple technical reports and previous regulations, demanding significant effort from readers to fully comprehend the regulatory context.
Another issue lies in the described processes for making regulatory decisions, which could be perceived as overly bureaucratic and slow. This perception might raise concerns about possible delays in taking action on contaminants that could impact public health. Additionally, the document does not clearly define or provide quantitative measures for what constitutes a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction," potentially leading to ambiguities in its decision-making justification.
While the document stresses that preliminary determinations impose no immediate requirements, this could inadvertently downplay the urgency or significance of addressing certain contaminants. Furthermore, although there is an invitation for public comment, the document lacks transparency regarding how this public feedback will be used in shaping final decisions.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this document represents a cautious step in the regulation of drinking water contaminants. The EPA aims to ensure that only contaminants posing a tangible risk are regulated, thus avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens. However, public concern may arise due to the perceived slow pace of assessments and the complexities involved in the regulatory process.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly involved with water quality, such as municipal water systems and public health organizations, this document outlines the much-anticipated decisions on the regulation of certain contaminants. From their perspective, the decisions made by the EPA could either alleviate or increase responsibilities depending on whether new regulations are deemed necessary.
For industries using or producing these chemicals, a decision not to regulate may relieve them of additional compliance costs. However, this may raise concerns from environmental advocacy groups seeking stringent protection standards who may view this as a missed opportunity for improving public health safeguards.
In conclusion, while the EPA’s meticulous approach is geared towards informed and balanced decision-making, the document highlights the challenges of translating complex, technical information into accessible public policy decisions. The call for public engagement and comments remains a crucial aspect of this regulatory process, ensuring that multiple perspectives are considered before finalizing any determinations.
Issues
• The document is extremely lengthy and dense, which may make it difficult for the general public to understand the key points and regulatory implications.
• There is a use of complex scientific and legal terminology without sufficient explanation for a general audience, potentially leading to misunderstanding among non-experts.
• The document includes numerous references to other documents and legal regulations, which may require significant effort and expertise to cross-reference and understand fully.
• The process described for making regulatory determinations seems comprehensive but may be perceived as overly bureaucratic or slow, potentially delaying action on contaminants that could impact public health.
• The document does not clearly explain what 'meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction' means or how it is quantitatively assessed, which may lead to ambiguity in understanding the decision-making process.
• The use of acronyms (e.g., EPA, SDWA, HRL) is frequent, and although they are defined, their overuse can still make the text heavy and less readable.
• The document repeatedly emphasizes that preliminary determinations 'do not impose any requirements,' which might seem to downplay the importance or urgency of addressing certain contaminants.
• There is extensive reliance on technical reports and data from various monitoring programs, but the document does not succinctly state how these data directly influence decision-making without sifting through numerous technical details.
• The description of the legal processes involved (such as the statutory requirements for issuing regulations) can be confusing for readers not familiar with environmental law.
• The document requests public comment but does not clearly outline how public feedback will be integrated into final decisions, which can make the process seem less transparent.