Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List - Draft; Notice of Availability

The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) supports the EPA's inclusion of PFAS and microplastics on the Draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6). They advocate for a science-based approach that prioritizes the development of standardized testing methodologies, clear definitions, and collaborative research with the Department of Health and Human Services.

An individual commenter argues that microplastics are severe environmental contaminants that should be added to the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List. They emphasize the pervasive nature of microplastics in the food chain and human bodies, advocating for a reduction in plastic manufacturing and disposal.

The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) supports the inclusion of various contaminants, including PFAS, microplastics, and pharmaceuticals, on the Draft Contaminant Candidate List 6. They advocate for a science-based, transparent regulatory process and request specific actions regarding research, analytical methods, and resource allocation for state agencies.

Oceana, an environmental advocacy organization, supports the inclusion of microplastics on the Contaminant Candidate List but argues that the action is insufficient. They urge the EPA and HHS to take more aggressive regulatory actions, including upstream plastic reduction, regulating preproduction plastic pellets, and banning specific toxic plastic polymers and single-use foodware.

Seaman Paper, a Massachusetts-based paper manufacturing company, supports the EPA's decision to include microplastics as a chemical group on the draft Contaminant Candidate List 6. The company urges the EPA to prioritize research and regulatory action on microplastics while providing a peer-reviewed study on the interactive effects of nanoplastics and PFAS.

The American Coatings Association (ACA) opposes the proposed listing of microplastics as a candidate contaminant in the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 6. They argue that microplastics are not a discreet chemical or physical substance, lack a clear "health-based" definition, and currently lack reliable, large-scale detection technologies.

Waterkeepers Chesapeake, a nonprofit coalition of sixteen Waterkeeper programs, supports the inclusion of PFAS and microplastics on the Draft Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 6. However, they argue that the EPA must move beyond mere recognition to establish enforceable national primary drinking water regulations and strengthen existing protections against these contaminants.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) supports the EPA's draft Contaminant Candidate List 6, noting its value in identifying research priorities for emerging contaminants. However, the agency urges the EPA to prioritize clarity and feasibility, specifically requesting more research on microplastics and more specific criteria for identifying pharmaceuticals to ensure the list is scientifically actionable.

The Consumer Brands Association supports the EPA's proposal to include microplastics on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 6 (CCL6) as a precautionary step for research. However, the organization emphasizes that the listing is premature for regulatory action and urges the EPA to focus on establishing standardized definitions, analytical methods, and robust scientific evidence regarding health impacts before pursuing any regulations.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) opposes the inclusion of overly broad group listings for microplastics and pharmaceuticals on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 6. They argue that these categories lack clear limiting principles and request that the EPA instead focus on specific, scientifically validated substances and methods to avoid regulatory uncertainty and public confusion.