Washington, DC — Despite calling it a “historic action,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) addition of microplastics to the official “Contaminant Candidate List” under the Safe Drinking Water Act is largely meaningless, according to an analysis by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Not one of the more than 200 chemicals EPA has placed on the list since 1998 are currently regulated.

EPA issued its first Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) in 1998, and since then, there have been 209 unique chemicals or chemical groups listed for potential regulation by mandating maximum limits of these chemicals in drinking water. This April, EPA added microplastics to the 6^th version of the CCL.

A PEER analysis of all CCLs since the program’s inception indicates that final regulatory action to limit the chemicals’ presence in drinking water is elusive, at best. Of the 209 listings, only two forms of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have led to final drinking water regulations. Yet, limits on these two PFAS (PFOA and PFOS) will not go into effect until 2031. Thus, the number of CCL-based regulations currently in effect is actually zero.

“Even a cursory examination reveals that EPA’s action on microplastics is an empty gesture,” stated PEER Science Policy Director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with EPA, noting that EPA’s announcement called microplastics “one of the most urgent and growing public health challenges facing Americans.” “The record proves that EPA’s Contaminant Candidate List is a regulatory road to nowhere.”

A further indication of the vapid nature of EPA’s microplastics stance is its failure to also include microplastics on its Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), which requires public water systems across the country to monitor emerging contaminants in drinking water. Thus, EPA is not even keeping track of how much or which types of microplastics are in America’s drinking water sources.

Notably, inclusion in the UCMR is little more likely to lead to regulation than CCL inclusion. Of the 122 chemicals on that list since 1999, only 31 have received a final regulatory determination, and 30 of those 31 determinations were negative (meaning no regulations were required).

“The fact that EPA is not even monitoring for the presence of microplastics in drinking water highlights what a cynical farce its regulatory posture is,” added Bennett, pointing to EPA’s decision to fire one of its analysts for being so bold as to recommend that microplastics should be monitored in the first commercial aquacultural operation in federal waters. “Unfortunately, microplastics are yet another public health challenge where EPA is MIA – Missing in Action.”

###

Read PEER report on the Safe Drinking Water Act’s CCL 

See EPA’s florid announcement adding microplastics to CCL

Look at outrage over EPA’s decision not to monitor microplastics in drinking water

Examine EPA’s extreme phobia of regulating microplastics

Read NRDC’s fact sheet on how microplastics harm our health and environment

PEER protects public employees who protect our environment, natural resources, and public health. We support current and former environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values across federal, state, local, and tribal governments.