Lawmakers Ask GAO to Review EPA’s Microplastics Research and Regulatory Efforts

/in ,

Following EPA’s decision not to list microplastics in the proposed Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6), two dozen Democratic lawmakers are asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the Agency’s efforts to assess human exposure to micro- and nanoplastics and their associated risks.

“Congress lacks a clear assessment of what the EPA has accomplished in its work on microplastics and what work remains necessary to support reliable monitoring, risk assessment and potential regulatory action,” the letter, dated September 28, 2026, states.

The letter cites EPA plans to evaluate and address microplastic pollution, including EPA’s Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) Strategic Research Action Plan for fiscal years 2023-2026 and its 2024 National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution. According to the letter, those initiatives outlined plans to assess the effects of microplastics on human health and aquatic life, develop government-wide definitions, and standardize methods for quantifying microplastics. However, the lawmakers note uncertainty over the extent to which EPA has achieved these objectives.

The letter also challenges EPA’s exclusion of microplastics from the proposed UCMR 6, which the Agency justified by the lack of a validated analytical method for quantifying microplastics. The lawmakers note that EPA reported two years ago that it was in the early stages of developing such a method.

“Notably, the EPA has not scientifically justified, or even stated, that microplastics are less of a public health threat than any of the 30 other contaminants they included on the draft UCMR,” which is required by law, it adds.

The letter is led by Reps. Janelle Bynum (D-OR), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), and Watson Coleman (D-NJ). Sen. Merkley (D-OR) is the only senator among the signatories.

Questions for GAO

The letter outlines three questions for GAO to investigate.

First, it asks what microplastic- and nanoplastic-related activities the EPA has undertaken since fiscal year 2023. The request covers research, analytical method development, monitoring, risk assessment, pollution prevention, development and evaluation of capture and removal technologies, grant programs, and regulatory and other policy activities.

Second, it asks the extent to which EPA implemented the microplastics-related goals, outputs, and actions identified in the SSWR plan and 2024 National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution. Specifically, the letter asks GAO to examine:

  • EPA’s progress towards developing government-wide definitions and validated, fit-for-purpose methods for collecting, extracting, identifying, quantifying, and characterizing microplastics and nanoplastics;
  • Research conducted or supported by EPA on the prevalence, sources, pathways, fate, and concentrations of microplastics and nanoplastics, and resulting findings;
  • EPA research on the toxicity of micro- and nanoplastics in human and aquatic life and resulting findings;
  • Methods, models, and tools developed or investigated by EPA to evaluate the effects of microplastics and nanoplastics on human health and aquatic resources and resulting findings;
  • EPA’s progress in developing testing, demonstrating, deploying, or funding management practices and technologies to prevent, capture, or remove microplastics and nanoplastics from the environment. This includes interventions to support these technologies and evaluations on the use of relevant water programs to address plastic pollution in waterways and oceans;
  • EPA’s implementation of policy and program opportunities identified in the national strategy, including evaluating the use of Clean Water Act (CWA) authorities and providing technical assistance to incorporate plastic pollution prevention, capture, and removal measures into relevant management plans.

Third, it asks what statutory, financial, workforce, technological, or infrastructure constraints affect EPA’s ability to advance its work of researching and regulating microplastics.

More information on EPA’s microplastics research can be found on EPA’s website.

Philip A. Moffat Quoted in Chemical Watch Article on Microplastics Regulation

/in ,

On October 15, 2026, Verdant Law attorney Philip A. Moffat was quoted in a Chemical Watch article titled “Microplastics Draw Increasing Scrutiny from US State Lawmakers and Regulators.”

The article examines recent state-level efforts to address microplastics in products, including legislation introduced in New Jersey and California’s listing of microplastics as a candidate chemical. Mr. Moffat discussed the implications of these developments and the potential for other states to adopt microplastics regulations.

He also addressed the challenges of regulating microplastics, including defining the term and addressing secondary microplastics—particles generated unintentionally through product use, wear, and degradation.

A PDF of the article is available here.

New Jersey Introduces “Protecting Against Microplastics Act”

/in

A New Jersey lawmaker has introduced legislation to prohibit the sale or distribution of certain products containing microplastics and require product labeling in the interim.

The “Protecting Against Microplastics Act,” Assembly Bill 5452, was introduced September 14, 2026. Importantly, the bill’s labeling requirements and prohibition would reach beyond products with intentionally added microplastics—they would also apply to products that have the potential to generate synthetic polymer microparticles or other secondary microplastics.

The labeling requirements would apply to four product categories: cleaning products, cosmetics, foodware, and potentially ingestible products. The sales prohibition would apply to the same products, except foodware.

The bill defines “microplastic” as “a material, five millimeters or less in diameter, composed of synthetic polymers and chemical additives, that has been added to a product over the course of the manufacturing or industrial process.”

“Potentially ingestible product” includes “any product which is edible, designed to be applied to the facial area, or capable of being swallowed or inhaled.” The bill lists chewing gum, tea bags, coffee grounds, talcum powder, and pet food as examples.

Phased Rollout

The bill’s requirements would take effect in three phases.

One year after enactment: Manufacturers of covered products sold in the state must disclose, on an exterior product label, the presence of intentionally added microplastics or the potential to generate secondary microplastics.

Two years after enactment: Manufacturers of products that contain intentionally added microplastics, or that could generate synthetic polymer microparticles or other secondary microplastics, must include the statement “This product contains microplastics” in both English and Spanish. The statement must appear on the product handle or on any surface that contacts food or beverages, and in online product listings. Manufacturers also could not claim a product is “free of microplastics” if microplastics were intentionally added.

The labeling requirement would not apply if microplastics are present only in electronic or internal components. It would also not apply to products that are too small to fit a two-square-inch label and have no exterior container, wrapper, or attached tag. A product that already carries a microplastics label under another state or federal law would be deemed compliant.

Three years after enactment: Selling, offering for sale, or distributing for sale any cleaning, cosmetic, or potentially ingestible product would be prohibited if it contains intentionally added microplastics or could generate synthetic polymer microparticles or other secondary microplastics. Technically unavoidable trace quantities would not trigger a violation.

Notably, the bill’s accompanying Statement describes only the second-year labeling requirement and does not mention the first-year disclosure, which overlaps with it.

Enforcement and Funding

The Division of Consumer Affairs could audit manufacturers and impose civil administrative penalties of $1,000 to $20,000 per violation, with each day of a continuing violation counted separately.

The bill appropriates $3 million: $2.5 million to the Department of Environmental Protection for a source reduction program and microplastics research and monitoring, and $500,000 to the Department of Law and Public Safety for enforcement.

What to Watch

The bill’s definition of microplastics resembles the one in California’s microplastics candidate chemicals listing, which covers plastics less than five millimeters in their longest dimension. By contrast, Rhode Island legislation introduced earlier this year used a definition closer to the European Union’s. That bill died in committee.

State-level microplastics regulation is still in its infancy, and it remains unclear which definition states will ultimately adopt.

The bill has been referred to the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee.

Update (October 18, 2026)

On October 15, 2026, companion bill S.B. 4836 was introduced in the New Jersey Senate.

Microplastics Regulation: EPA Declines to Act, California Moves Forward

/in , , , , ,

EPA and California took opposite approaches to microplastics regulation within weeks of each other.  On July 1, 2026, EPA proposed to omit microplastics from the Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6).  Two weeks earlier on June 18, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) finalized a regulation adding microplastics to the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Candidate Chemicals List.

What EPA Proposed

In the proposed UCMR 6, EPA proposed not to include microplastics despite a petition from the governors of seven states—New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Connecticut.  That petition matters because the Safe Drinking Water Act section 1445(a)(2)(B)(ii) directs that the administrator “shall include” a contaminant recommended by seven or more governors, unless listing it would prevent listing other contaminants of higher public health concern.

EPA’s basis for declining is analytical feasibility.  The agency states there is no validated EPA or consensus drinking water method with the necessary accuracy and precision to measure microplastics for UCMR 6, and that developing one before the statutory deadline of December 27, 2026, is not feasible.  EPA points out that the governors’ petition itself acknowledges the absence of such a method.  Because monitoring is the entire purpose of the UCMR, EPA argues, requiring systems to test for something no approved method can quantify would yield no usable data while displacing contaminants that can be measured.  Instead, EPA has placed microplastics on the draft Contaminant Candidate List 6 as a first step, and says it will keep evaluating existing consensus practices toward a future method.

It is worth watching whether EPA’s feasibility rationale squarely fits the statutory exception, which is written in terms of “higher public health concern” rather than measurability.  This is a proposed rule open for comment through August 31, 2026, so the final reasoning—and outcome—could change.

What California Did

DTSC’s action runs the other way.  The Office of Administrative Law approved the regulation on June 18, 2026, with an effective date of October 1, 2026; it amends Title 22 to add microplastics—defined as plastics under 5 millimeters in their longest dimension, whether intentionally manufactured or generated by the fragmentation of larger plastics—to the Candidate Chemicals List.  As discussed in a previous post, listing does not itself regulate anything; it is a predicate that lets DTSC evaluate products that contain or generate microplastics and potentially designate them priority products through a later rulemaking.  Listing requires only a hazard trait and consideration of adverse impacts, exposures, and information availability, not a validated quantification method.  As part of its research on microplastics, DTSC published a background document in November 2025 identifying products that could be designated as priority products.

According to DTSC’s Final Statement of Reasons, the agency declined to explicitly define “plastics” in the regulation “because ‘plastics’ has an ordinary English meaning.”  Manufacturers should be aware that DTSC considers biobased and biodegradable polymeric substances within its jurisdiction; DTSC states that

All microplastics, including biodegradable ones, exhibit at least one hazard trait under the Safer Consumer Products Regulations, namely the particle size and fiber dimension hazard trait. Therefore, it is appropriate for DTSC to designate the entire class of microplastics as a Candidate Chemical.

In response to comments that microplastics are more than one chemical and therefore cannot be added to the Candidate Chemicals List through a single rulemaking for a categorical definition, the agency asserted that “there is nothing in the statutes or regulatory history that even implies categorical identities are unauthorized,” noting that list already contains categorical listings, such as PFAS.

The statement of reasons adds that any subsequent priority products proposal for microplastics “will involve an evaluation of potential exposures and significant or widespread adverse impacts associated with those specific products, as well as a formal rulemaking process with opportunity for public input.”  A challenge to the rule is expected.

Rhode Island’s Microplastics Reduction Act Would Prohibit Sales by 2030

/in , ,

Rhode Island lawmakers have introduced legislation that would ban products containing intentionally added microplastics and require the development of statewide testing and strategy plans.

The Microplastics Reduction Act, SB 2534, would prohibit the sale or distribution of any product containing intentionally added synthetic polymer microparticles starting January 1, 2030.  The definitions of key terms used in the legislation, like “synthetic polymer microparticles,” largely mirror those used in the European Union (EU) Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulations for microplastics adopted in 2023.

Unlike the phased implementation under REACH, however, SB 2534’s prohibition applies to all covered products simultaneously.  Only products preempted from regulation by federal law are excluded from the bill, which was introduced February 13, 2026.

SB 2534 would also require the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) to develop two reports:

  1. A microplastics testing plan, identifying analytical methods consistent with the best available science by July 2029, which must specifically consider microplastics shed from vehicle tires; and
  2. A microplastics strategy plan, characterizing ambient microplastics concentrations, investigating microplastics sources, summarizing scientific research on microplastics reduction, and recommending policy changes by January 2030.
Definition of Microplastics

SB 2534 defines “synthetic polymer microparticles” as solid polymers that meet both of the following conditions:

  • Are contained in particles and constitute at least 1% by weight of those particles; or build a continuous surface coating on particles; and
  • At least 1% by weight of the particles fulfill either of the following conditions:
    • All dimensions of the particles are equal to or less than 5mm; or
    • The length of the particles is equal to or less than 15mm and the particle’s length is greater than three times its diameter.

Naturally occurring particles are excluded.  However, unlike REACH, SB 2534 does not provide exemptions for degradable, soluble, or non-carbon-containing plastic particles.

A synthetic polymer microparticle is considered “intentionally added” if it is added to confer a sought-after characteristic in mixtures in a concentration equal to or greater than 0.01% by weight.  SB 2534 defines “product” broadly to include items sold for personal, residential, commercial, or industrial use.

Microplastics regulation is also under consideration in California.  Regulators have proposed a simpler definition: plastics less than 5mm in their longest dimension, including materials intentionally manufactured at those dimensions and materials generated by the fragmentation of larger plastics.

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will weigh listing microplastics as a “candidate chemical” through April 2026, according to a timeline on its website.  DTSC previously solicited comment, through January 2026, on a technical document outlining the rationale for listing microplastics and identifying products that may contain them.

Governors Urge EPA to Add Microplastics to UCMR 6 Drinking Water Monitoring

/in , ,

Democratic governors from seven states have petitioned EPA to include microplastics in its upcoming Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 6 (UMCR 6), triggering a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandate for EPA to include microplastics in the rule unless the administrator determines it “would prevent the listing of other contaminants of a higher public health concern.”

In the petition, dated November 26, 2025, the governors argue that monitoring microplastics under UCMR 6 would establish a foundation for the future promulgation of drinking water standards.  “[T]he potential risks to public health posed by this contaminant, its expected prevalence, the need for a nationwide testing standard in order to better understand the foregoing, and the great public interest in this contaminant together warrant monitoring under the UCMR for future regulation under SDWA,” the petition states.

“[I]nformation on [microplastics’] prevalence, health impact, and public interest is ahead of other aspects of the scientific and policy state of play, especially consistent definitions and testing methodologies,” it adds.  “By including microplastics in UCMR 6, EPA can provide leadership to the scientific and regulatory community on consistent definitions and testing methodologies that lag behind.”

The petition identifies several potential public health concerns associated with microplastics, including their ability to act as vectors for toxic chemicals.  Other cited risks include cellular and tissue damage and potential developmental effects in children.

The petition also highlights the role of consumer products in the generation of microplastics.  It distinguishes between primary microplastics, which are intentionally manufactured for use in cosmetics and in plastic production processes, and secondary microplastics, which result from the degradation and wear of products such as textiles, tires, paints, fertilizers, mulch films, and food packaging.

Statutory Context

EPA issues the UMCR every five years to require public water systems to collect occurrence data for contaminants that are not yet subject to SDWA drinking water standards.  The most recent UMCR, promulgated in 2021, required monitoring for lithium and 29 PFAS.

Despite microplastics’ heterogeneity, the governors—representing New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Connecticut—argue that microplastics qualify as a “contaminant,” under SDWA, which broadly defines the term as “any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water.”

A petition from seven governors is sufficient to require EPA to include a contaminant in a UCMR unless the administrator determines that another contaminant presents a higher public health priority.  No more than 30 contaminants may be included in a single UCMR.

Additional information on UCMR 6 is available on EPA’s website.

DTSC Releases Microplastics Background Document Ahead of December Workshop

/in , , ,

This month, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released a public background document summarizing its research on products that contain or generate microplastics.  DTSC is requesting comment on the specific product categories evaluated in the document through January 16, 2026.  The department will also hold a virtual workshop to receive public input on December 11, 2025, at 9:30am PT.

Background

The background document and workshop are part of DTSC’s rulemaking to add microplastics to the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program candidate chemicals list.  As discussed previously, adding microplastics to the list would not itself create new regulatory requirements, but it would allow DTSC to pursue restrictions in specific products that contain or generate microplastics in the future.

According to DTSC, the background document is part of its “external engagement process, which helps us decide whether to conduct additional research or potentially list one or more products that contain or have the potential to generate microplastics as Priority Products.”  The department also notes that, based on its evaluation, it is “concerned about the potential for adverse impacts from exposure to microplastics in consumer products frequently used by the general public, workers, and children.”

Evaluated Product Categories

DTSC outlines preliminary screening results for the following product categories:

  • Artificial turf infill
  • Children’s toys that contain primary microplastics
  • Cleaning products
    • Intentionally added polymers in laundry and dishwashing detergents
    • Polymeric fragrance microcapsules in laundry detergents and fabric softeners
    • Water-soluble polymers in laundry and dishwashing detergents pods
  • Food contact articles
    • Plastic baby feeding bottles
    • Plastic beverage bottles and caps
    • Plastic cling wraps and films
    • Plastic wrappers for snacks and candy
    • Polystyrene foam foodware
    • Single-use plastic tea bags
  • Plastic film mulch used in agriculture
  • Single-use cigarette filters made of cellulose acetate
  • Water-based interior wall paints

For each evaluated product category, DTSC describes the type of microplastics present (primary/secondary), the potential for exposure, potential alternatives, and relevant US and international regulations.  An appendix lists additional evaluated product categories that may be considered for further research.

These categories fall under DTSC’s current work plan product category of products that contain or generate microplastics, discussed in a previous post.

Requested Information

The background document identifies a number of data gaps for which DTSC seeks public input.  For example, regarding water-based interior wall paints, DTSC requests information on whether manufacturers are developing non-plastic alternatives to primary microplastics, obstacles to replacing them, whether alternatives can provide comparable performance, and which types of paint could feasibly transition away from microplastics while still meeting performance requirements.

Interested parties can submit comments trough DTSC’s CalSAFER portal.  As noted above, comments will be accepted through January 16, 2026.

Update – December 4, 2025

DTSC has announced that written comments on the background document will now be accepted through 11:59pm PT on January 30, 2026.

California Governor Blocks Bill Targeting Microbeads and Glitter

/in ,

A California bill that sought to expand state restrictions on the use of small plastic particles known as microbeads in consumer products was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 11, 2025.

Beginning in 2029, AB 823 would have prohibited the sale of:

  • Personal care products containing plastic glitter.
  • Non-rinse-off personal care products that use microbeads as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish.
  • Cleaning products that use microbeads as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish.

Under the proposal, companies would have been permitted to sell their existing inventories of these products until 2030.

In his veto message, Newsom wrote:

“I support efforts to protect California’s waterways, ecosystems, and public health from the real and significant harms caused by the prevalence of microplastics in our environment.  However, I am not supportive of the approach this bill takes to ban specific ingredients, such as glitter, which may incidentally result in a prohibition on biodegradable or natural alternatives.”

Existing California law already prevents the sale of personal care products that use microbeads to exfoliate or cleanse in a rinse-off product, such as toothpaste.  Products containing less than one part per million by weight of plastic microbeads are exempt.

Two days after the veto, Newsom rejected a separate bill that would have expanded restrictions on the use of PFAS in many consumer products.  More on that can be found here.

California Proposes Listing Microplastics as an SCP Candidate Chemical

/in , , ,

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has proposed to designate microplastics as a “candidate chemical,” a move that could lead to future regulation of products that contain or generate microplastics under the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program.

Adding microplastics to the SCP candidate chemical list would not in itself create new regulatory requirements.  However, it would allow SCP to evaluate specific types of products containing microplastics for possible designation as a “priority product,” which could ultimately result in restrictions or other regulatory measures.

“Microplastics are pervasive, persistent, and increasingly linked to potential risks to human health, wildlife and the environment,”  DTSC stated in a June 20 press release.  “They have been found in nearly every corner of the planet, including oceans, soil, indoor air, and even on the highest mountain peaks.”

The press release also highlights the “economic burden” of microplastic pollution, noting that “healthcare costs linked to plastic-associated chemicals are projected to exceed $144 billion by 2025” in California.

A technical document accompanying the proposal defines microplastics as “plastics that are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in their longest dimension, inclusive of those materials that are intentionally manufactured at those dimensions or are generated by the fragmentation of larger particles.”

The document acknowledges the “structural heterogeneity and complexity of different plastic polymers,” but argues that microplastics still constitute a “chemical” under SCP’s governing regulations.

The proposal was foreshadowed by SCP’s most recent priority products work plan, released in 2024 and discussed in a previous blog post.  For the first time, the work plan identified products containing or generating microplastics as a consumer product category warranting evaluation for priority products.

Comments on the proposal will be accepted through August 4 via CalSAFER.

DTSC Finalizes SCP Priority Product Work Plan

/in , , ,

This October, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released the final version of the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Program’s Three-Year Priority Product Work Plan for 2024–2026.  The work plan identifies eight categories of consumer products that DTSC will evaluate to determine whether specific products within those categories should be designated as Priority Products—product-chemical combinations that may be subject to regulation.

Four categories remain largely unchanged from the 2021-2023 work plan:

  • Beauty, personal care, and hygiene products;
  • Cleaning products;
  • Building products and materials used in construction and renovation; and
  • Children’s products.

Two existing categories have been expanded:

  • Food packaging—expanded to include food contact articles; and
  • Motor vehicle tires—expanded to include motor vehicle parts, accessories, maintenance, and repair materials.

Finally, two new categories have been added:

  • Paints (previously included under building products); and
  • Products that contain or generate microplastics.

The work plan also touches on Senate Bill 502.  That 2022 California law expanded DTSC’s authority under the SCP Program, granting DTSC greater power to require product manufacturers to disclose product ingredients.  Importantly, the bill also established a process for DTSC to move directly to regulatory response for a Priority Product, bypassing an Alternatives Analysis.

A full list of Candidate Chemicals—substances that may lead to a product’s prioritization—is available on DTSC’s website.