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.

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.

Proposed 2026 MSGP: Is Your Facility Prepared for PFAS Stormwater Monitoring Requirements?

/in , ,

EPA’s proposed 2026 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity would require quarterly monitoring for PFAS—a significant expansion of federal stormwater compliance obligations that facilities should begin preparing for now.

The MSGP implements Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements across 29 industrial sectors.  EPA released the proposed permit in December 2024.  Once finalized, it will replace the current 2021 MSGP, which expires at the end of February 2026.

The MSGP applies only to areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority, including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, most US territories, much of Indian country, and certain federal facilities.  In a webinar, EPA estimated that 2,000 facilities will be directly affected.  However, because many states model their stormwater NPDES permits after EPA, the MSGP is likely to influence stormwater requirements nationwide.

PFAS Monitoring Requirements

Under the proposed 2026 MSGP, operators in 23 industrial sectors would be required to conduct quarterly indicator monitoring for 40 PFAS compounds for the duration of the permit.  The list includes PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS, and HFPO-DA (commonly known as “GenX”)—the six PFAS subject to EPA’s April 2024 national drinking water standards.

Testing must be performed using EPA Method 1633, which uses liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry to identify and quantify individual PFAS analytes.  Importantly, the proposed PFAS monitoring is “report-only” and does not include benchmark thresholds or require follow-up actions at this stage.

An EPA fact sheet states that the agency will use the data “to conduct an initial quantitative assessment of the levels of PFAS in industrial stormwater, further identify industrial activities with the potential to discharge PFAS in stormwater, and inform future consideration of potential PFAS benchmark monitoring for sectors with the potential to discharge PFAS.”

Other proposed monitoring updates include new or revised benchmark monitoring parameters for pH, total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and selected metals in specific industrial sectors.  EPA is also proposing a modified benchmark monitoring schedule, with quarterly monitoring required for the first three years of permit coverage or until twelve quarters of monitoring data are collected.

Timeline and Related Actions

EPA intends to issue the final 2026 MSGP before the 2021 MSGP expires on February 28, 2026.  Once the final permit is published, operators will need to submit new Notices of Intent (NOIs) for coverage under the new permit.

According to the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, EPA is also advancing several related PFAS initiatives under the CWA and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA):

  • PFAS Monitoring in NPDES Applications: EPA plans to propose a rule in November 2025 to update several NPDES application forms to include PFAS monitoring and reporting requirements.
  • Effluent Guidelines for PFAS Manufacturers: EPA expects to propose revisions to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards in January 2026, addressing PFAS discharges from facilities manufacturing PFAS.
  • Drinking Water Standards: EPA is also expected to delay compliance deadlines for its national drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, and to rescind requirements for the other four PFAS included in the 2024 rule.

The comment period on the proposed 2026 MGSP closed on May 19, 2025.  More on the proposal can be found on EPA’s website.

EPA PFAS Strategic Roadmap

/in , , , , , ,

EPA has compiled a roadmap outlining Key Actions to address the risks posed by PFAS.  The roadmap identifies key actions under TSCA and other statutes including the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and Superfund.

TSCA

The roadmap calls for EPA to “close the door” on abandoned PFAS; i.e., PFAS chemicals that are no longer produced.  Many of these substances have no restrictions under TSCA.  This leaves the door open for manufacturers to start producing the chemicals again.  The roadmap intends for EPA to designate all uses of these substances that are not current uses as Significant New Uses.  This will allow EPA to review and make determinations on the potential risks, and require safety measures, before allowing the manufacturing of those chemicals again.   The roadmap states that EPA plans to implement this action item during the summer of 2022.

There is an ongoing goal of completing toxicity assessments for two PFAS known as GenX chemicals.  EPA also has a goal to publish health advisories for GenX chemicals and PFBS in Spring 2022.

Other actions under TSCA include

  • Publish national PFAS testing strategy,
  • Review previous decisions on PFAS, and
  • Finalize new PFAS reporting under TSCA Section 8.

TRI

Another key action in the roadmap is for EPA to categorize PFAS on the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) as “Chemicals of Special Concern” and to remove the de minimis eligibility from supplier notification requirements for all Chemicals of Special Concern.  Adding PFAS to TRI has a projected completion goal of 2022.

CWA

The roadmap calls for restricting PFAS discharges from industrial sources through a multi-faceted Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) program.  EPA plans to undertake rulemaking to restrict PFAS discharges from organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers, metal finishing, and electroplating operations.  A proposed rule for plastics and synthetic fibers is expected in Summer 2023, and a rule for metal finishing and electroplating is expected in Summer 2024.  Other industries EPA is considering issuing PFAS ELGs for include electrical and electronic components, textile mills, and landfills.

SDWA

EPA has goal to establish a national primary drinking water regulation for PFOA and PFOS.  EPA regulates drinking water for over 90 contaminants but that does not include any for PFAS.  EPA expects to issue a proposed regulation in Fall 2022.  The agency has a statutory deadline of March 2023 to complete this action.

Superfund

EPA is developing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to designate PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances.  This would require facilities to report on PFOA and PFOS releases that meet or exceed set reportable quantities.  The proposed rulemaking will be available for public comment in Spring 2022.   EPA is also asking for public comment on designating additional PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA.

CAA

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants, which do not currently include PFAS.  EPA plans to identify sources of PFAS air emissions, concentration levels, and cost-effective mitigation technologies.

PFAS in California’s Water Supply

/in , ,

Testing of California’s public water supply wells reveals that 60 percent of them contain the “forever” chemicals, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). The concentrations of these substances were higher at airports than landfills and public supply wells.  One million parts per trillion were detected at airports, while landfills had 10,000 parts per trillion and public wells had 100 parts per trillion. EPA has established a health advisory level at 70 parts per trillion for the combined amounts of PFOA and PFOS.

The health advisories from EPA offer guidance for states and the federal government to meet standards that will avoid adverse health effects.  Studies of individuals exposed to PFASs show increases in hormonal issues, organ damage, and cancer. Nationally, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) allowed in drinking water for over 90 chemicals.  However, PFASs currently remain on EPA’s unregulated and non-enforceable list for SDWA MCLs.  EPA’s PFAS Action Plan shows that the Agency is still in the information gathering phase to determine the prevalence and full effects of the PFASs with regulation in the future.

Individual states have been putting their own regulation forward for PFASs.  For example, in September 2020 California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill No. 1044, which governs the tracking and recall of firefighting foam containing PFASs.

Senators introduce chemical spill and water protection bill after West Virginia leak.

/in ,

On Monday, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) introduced a bill to prevent future chemical spills like the one that recently contaminated the Elk River and the drinking water for 300,000 West Virginians. The Chemical Safety and Drinking Water Protection Act of 2014 (S. 1961), cosponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), provides a framework for overseeing chemical storage facilities and equipping states and public water companies to respond to spills and other emergencies. The bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) by adding a new Part G, “Protection of Surface Water from Contamination by Chemical Storage Facilities.”

According to a press release from Sen. Manchin’s office, the Act is premised on four key principles:

1. Requiring regular state inspections of above-ground chemical storage facilities,
2. Requiring industry to develop state-approved emergency response plans that meet at least minimum guidelines established in this bill, 
3. Allowing states to recoup costs incurred from responding to emergencies, and 
4. Ensuring drinking water systems have the tools and information to respond to emergencies.

The Act applies to chemical storage facilities for which the EPA or delegated state authority has determined “that a release of the chemical from the facility poses a risk of harm to a public water system.” It establishes state programs under SDWA to oversee and inspect the facilities, building on existing water protection plans. The bill sets federal minimum standards for chemical facilities regarding construction, leak detection and spill requirements, emergency response plans, and notification to EPA, state officials, and public water systems of stored chemicals. Inspections would be required on a regular basis, either every three of five years, depending on drinking water protection plans. The Act also ensures that EPA or the states can recover costs from facility owners and operators for emergency response activities.

The bill does not tackle the current framework’s deficit of health hazard information for the over 60,000 chemicals “grandfathered” in by the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – a gap which has received significant public criticism in the wake of the Elk River spill. There has been no indication whether the TSCA reform bills currently pending in the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee might be amended in response to the West Virginia spill.

The text of the legislation [PDF] and a one-page fact sheet [PDF] are available on Sen. Manchin’s website. The bill has been referred to the Senate EPW Committee; the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife has scheduled a hearing for February 4 entitled, “Examination of the Safety and Security of Drinking Water Supplies Following the Central West Virginia Drinking Water Crisis.”